Mafia's Diamond Jubilee - Game 60

[House Reed]

[quote name='Lucy Cavendish College' post='1619358' date='Dec 14 2008, 18.09']That post reads to me innocent. I can see why it's suspicious however I highly doubt a FM wrote it.

Thank you :)[/quote]


so without even reading the thread, your sum up of the day so far is "meh"?

Either very lazy play, or evil and can't see where / how to start suspecting?

I still prefer what I already have going on, but yeah. I have a serious problem with this.

[House Payne]

[quote name='King's College' post='1619356' date='Dec 14 2008, 14.07']Sounded like whining to me, and if you were just making a statement, then you were just making a statement that we were all 100% aware of. Thank you for that. I could not have possibly figured out that some people playing this game could be laying false trails! Wow! What an idea!

Your posts have mostly consisted of, as people have said, nothing. When attacked for this (I agree with Emmanuel here that it's a pretty stupid reason to attack you for), you reacted by... not doing anything, really. And when defended, you start accusing your defender of being suspicious for defending you? Why so sensitive? Afraid your symp's being too obvious?[/quote]

You seem like a very hostile person. And a killer. Now I would think a killer would tone down his rehtoric and blend into the posting crowd, but maybe you are a reverser, thinking that your loud agressive style will make people think "there is no way it could be so obvious."

Until more evidence arises, [b]King's College[/b]

[House Dondarrion]

[quote name='Corpus Christi College' post='1619355' date='Dec 14 2008, 17.07']Kings:

Im not massively sure what a FM would gain from it. But then, a lot of the "suspicious" behaviour being picked up on im not sure what FM would gain. For example, Wolfsons picked up votes for his "fluff". But contentless spam is certainly a way to get noticed, and what does a FM gain if he adds nothing to the game, and is picked up on as a spammer.

It kinda looks to me a bit like a post designed to look like he's having serious content, while having little, since there is no need for such action at that time.

Other than that, im unsure, but it definetely struck me as odd.
Having said that, im not sure a killer would do it, but I really do have to go now(no cross-posts please?) but the only other suspicious thing I feel is the pile on Wolf thing, which I dont have time to look into, so votes staying atm.[/quote]
Look. Suspicious should be synonymous to "displaying FM-like behavior". Now FMs behave in all sorts of different ways, so pretty much anybody could be doing something FM-ish, as long as it's actually FM-ish. In my book, randomly deciding to compromise on a lynch waaaaaaaaay before time's up doesn't really fall under the category of FM-like behavior. It does fall into the category of really conspicuous and weird behavior, which may be symp-like if meant to distract from someone who's currently in danger (at that point, no one, though wasn't it Wolfson with the most votes?), but certainly not FM-like.

If you suspect Clare of posting "serious" content when he couldn't think of anything, that's a different story, but I daresay that'd be a weak case to make. :P

If I have time, I will look into the train on Wolfson for you. I doubt I will, but it will probably do us good.

[House Dayne]

[quote name='Emmanuel College' post='1619361' date='Dec 14 2008, 23.12']so without even reading the thread, your sum up of the day so far is "meh"?

Either very lazy play, or evil and can't see where / how to start suspecting?

I still prefer what I already have going on, but yeah. I have a serious problem with this.[/quote]

I find it absolutely amazing that you can take a post that I made which was a direct response to another post and call it my sum up of the day. I then find it amazing that you can take that post, which I clearly state a firm opinion and attribute it with "meh" which insinuates that I have no opinion.

Very impressive ability to take one's words and completely change them.

And yes, it's lazy play. It's early.

[House Stokeworth]

At the moment Kings is getting hostile over...nothing, really. I don't know why, but maybe he's trying to take suspicion away from himself.

So, for the moment I'm changing my vote to [b]Kings[/b].

[House Dondarrion]

[quote name='Girton College' post='1619362' date='Dec 14 2008, 17.14']You seem like a very hostile person. And a killer. Now I would think a killer would tone down his rehtoric and blend into the posting crowd, but maybe you are a reverser, thinking that your loud agressive style will make people think "there is no way it could be so obvious."

Until more evidence arises, [b]King's College[/b][/quote]
I want to think of something clever to say, but I think you're brilliance has dulled my sharp wit. Oh, the horror.

Good god, [i]what?[/i] If you don't like me, fine. If you think I'm being a jackass, say so. I probably won't do anything about it, but you're absolutely welcome to say so anyway. But if you think my playstyle possibly makes me an FM, you're going to have to explain to me how [i]everyone[/i] else's playstyle also does not possibly make them an FM.

eta: Yes, Wolfson. I am clearly trying to take suspicion away from myself because that one vote that was put on me five minutes ago was OH-SO-THREATENING one hour ago. Oh me dear heart, I don't think I can take the stress! I must be [i]even more[/i] hostile!

[House Reed]

[quote name='Lucy Cavendish College' post='1619367' date='Dec 14 2008, 18.16']I find it absolutely amazing that you can take a post that I made which was a direct response to another post and call it my sum up of the day. I then find it amazing that you can take that post, which I clearly state a firm opinion and attribute it with "meh" which insinuates that I have no opinion.

Very impressive ability to take one's words and completely change them.

And yes, it's lazy play. It's early.[/quote]


Your opinion was "Doesn't look guilty to me". Seeing as you'd already ignored pages of posts and accepted a single quoted post as "everything that happened", then went on to also call that "not suspicious", that pretty much sums you up at "meh" doesn't it?

If not, please enlighten me. What is your sum up so far, based on a second hand quotes post you didn't find suspicious?

[House Baratheon]

[quote name='Lucy Cavendish College' post='1619354' date='Dec 14 2008, 17.07']Absolutely. I'm not too bothered with what goes on very early game as 90% of the time it's meaningless. If it's important, people will continue to harp on it and I'll catch it as it goes. There is no need for me to spend the next hour or so rereading RP just to find one or two suspicious posts when it'll just come up again by someone else or I'll catch it in a reread of the person who is suspicious.

Worry not, I'll play my part.[/quote]

Its not all RP. There are at least 2-3 other important things that have been discussed. You want to just skip past those posts?

[quote name='Lucy']That post reads to me innocent. I can see why it's suspicious however I highly doubt a FM wrote it.[/quote]

You're willing to come to a definitive conclusion like that, without even knowing the context? Not going to bother to read the surrounding posts or the other arguments that have been made? Why even bother playing.

[House Stokeworth]

[quote name='King's College' post='1619373' date='Dec 14 2008, 18.19']eta: Yes, Wolfson. I am clearly trying to take suspicion away from myself because that one vote that was put on me five minutes ago was OH-SO-THREATENING one hour ago. Oh me dear heart, I don't think I can take the stress! I must be [i]even more[/i] hostile![/quote]


Sarcasm :thumbsup:

You have totally changed my mind.

[House Payne]

[quote name='King's College' post='1619373' date='Dec 14 2008, 14.19']I want to think of something clever to say, but I think you're brilliance has dulled my sharp wit. Oh, the horror.

Good god, [i]what?[/i] If you don't like me, fine. If you think I'm being a jackass, say so. I probably won't do anything about it, but you're absolutely welcome to say so anyway. But if you think my playstyle possibly makes me an FM, you're going to have to explain to me how [i]everyone[/i] else's playstyle also does not possibly make them an FM.

eta: Yes, Wolfson. I am clearly trying to take suspicion away from myself because that one vote that was put on me five minutes ago was OH-SO-THREATENING one hour ago. Oh me dear heart, I don't think I can take the stress! I must be [i]even more[/i] hostile![/quote]

Its an old formula. The biggest douche bag in the room is rarely the killer. Its the quiet character in the corner that no one suspects. But I do not believe that to be the case hear. Your are acting hostile, sarcastic, and insulting very early in the game with little reason. Why?

I think you have a sound strategy. You are being openly hositle, daring to be lynched, and therefore nobody will lynch you.

[House Dayne]

[quote name='Emmanuel College' post='1619376' date='Dec 14 2008, 23.20']Your opinion was "Doesn't look guilty to me". Seeing as you'd already ignored pages of posts and accepted a single quoted post as "everything that happened", then went on to also call that "not suspicious", that pretty much sums you up at "meh" doesn't it?

If not, please enlighten me. What is your sum up so far, based on a second hand quotes post you didn't find suspicious?[/quote]

My opinions will come when I want to give them, not when you try to coerce me into rereading everything. I have no obligation to play to your timetable by my own. As I have time to reread and post, I will. Until then, you'll just have to live with my playstyle.

My opinion was that post looked innocent. If that's what is suspicious about Clare (and please, correct me if I'm wrong about that and there are other things suspicious about him), then I put him in the innocent category. If that is a problem, well, who cares?

You still don't understand. You're under the impression that it's incredibly important for me to go back and reread the last 7 pages. It's not. It's mostly RP with a few accusations thrown in like the Clare post. Those accusations will continue to gain traction and they will be reitterated. Then as time goes on, I'll start rereading the people that I find suspicious as well as the people that other's find suspicious. This will culminate with as much knowledge as I would have gained from reading those last 7 pages of crap. It's unnecessary.

I mean, lets take for example you for example. I read your posts and I see that you don't dislike Wolfson because he's active. That you don't like Clare because he tried to rush a lynch with the post that I posted an opinion about. You agree with Pembrooke when he points out that Christi put a serious vote on Clare then changed it 12 minutes later to put a joke vote on Girton. And then you defend Wolfson even more.

Look at that. I'm already filling in the blanks and I'm not doing it by twisting and adding words in order to make points.

[House Dayne]

[quote name='Pembroke College' post='1619378' date='Dec 14 2008, 23.21']Its not all RP. There are at least 2-3 other important things that have been discussed. You want to just skip past those posts?[/quote]

Yes. I'll get to them in due time.

[quote name='Pembroke']You're willing to come to a definitive conclusion like that, without even knowing the context? Not going to bother to read the surrounding posts or the other arguments that have been made? Why even bother playing.[/quote]

I know the context. Clare put a 4th vote on Hughes early in the day when 11 votes are needed to lynch. He did it by saying that since there is a CF, we should probably lynch. Then he said he's probably innocent but that he wants discussion (which he obviously wants by starting a lynch train).

Am I missing something else here in the context of that quote? It looks pretty straightforward to me.

[House Wythers]

OK I've just had a reread of the whole thread to this point.

I still think there is a lack of substance to a lot of the arguments, and I think that many of the major points have already been made by others.

The first suspicious thing I thought was Hughes' vote on Pembroke for low vote count. It seemed serious, but random. I don't think too much can be taken from it, and there wasn't much reaction. Still, marginally odd.

Then Clare's vote on Hughes, looking to accelerate the lynch process. This just looks silly. I think it is actually too foolish to be taken as evidence of guilt. However, Pembroke was the first to point out the poor vote, without voting for Clare, and Selwyn followed similarly. Corpus Christi did follow the same argument but with a vote. I don't like Pembroke and Selwyn's actions.

CC swapped to a joke vote to Girton afterwards, which was pointed out by Pembroke. He then changed back. I'd tend to think of this as legitimately accidental.

Selwyn's vote on Wolf also rung slightly strange to me.

However, the thing I feel seems most out of place to me so far is SSC's vote on Wolf. As far as I can tell it is serious, and seems to be based upon the fact that The Man Who was a killer in the previous game and Wolf has a similar early posting profile to TMW. The other points made were related to him about 'spidey senses' and Wolf's nonchalance towards the accusations. I feel that a lot of this is baseless. Wolf's lack of substance to this point just suggests that he/she is not focused on the game at the moment. If this doesn't change then he may be suspicious but not at this point.

Another weird thing I saw is that Wolf seems to be defending Clare quite a lot in terms of serious posts. I'm not sure quite what to make of this. I may update this once I reread the role list.

My vote at the moment goes to [b]SSC[/b]. I feel they have tried to orchestrate quite a bit. However, I think that they haven't actually provided the requisite substantiation.

[House Dondarrion]

[quote name='Girton College' post='1619381' date='Dec 14 2008, 17.31']Its an old formula. The biggest douche bag in the room is rarely the killer. Its the quiet character in the corner that no one suspects. But I do not believe that to be the case hear. Your are acting hostile, sarcastic, and insulting very early in the game with little reason. Why?

I think you have a sound strategy. You are being openly hositle, daring to be lynched, and therefore nobody will lynch you.[/quote]
Maybe because I enjoy being the biggest douchebag in the room.

In more seriousness, this is how I play. It's always been, and it always will be. Why do I need a reason to be hostile? Being hostile gets people to respond. It gets answers. It even gets some discussion. More importantly, it pushes us out of the mindless RP stage and into the more substantial part of the game. I find that being a jackass is effective, and I also find it fun.

[House Reed]

[quote name='Lucy Cavendish College' post='1619383' date='Dec 14 2008, 18.33']My opinions will come when I want to give them, not when you try to coerce me into rereading everything.[/quote]

I'm asking you to READ, not to RE-READ...

There's a huge fucking difference. You can play mafia without re-reading.

[House Targaryen]

Ok time for this mod to head to bed.

Pebs might be around later, but I wouldn't count on it.

That's the trouble with having two British mods.

If the vote count is wrong you'll have to sort it out yourself.

Enjoy!

[House Dondarrion]

[quote name='Emmanuel College' post='1619392' date='Dec 14 2008, 17.39']I'm asking you to READ, not to RE-READ...

There's a huge fucking difference. You can play mafia without re-reading.[/quote]
Give it a break.

If you think what Lucy's doing is suspicious, throw her a vote, then throw her a case. If you just don't approve of how she's playing the game, you've already made your point.

[House Dayne]

[quote name='Emmanuel College' post='1619392' date='Dec 14 2008, 23.39']I'm asking you to READ, not to RE-READ...

There's a huge fucking difference. You can play mafia without re-reading.[/quote]

You can also play mafia without reading. That doesn't mean you'll play it well.

Why does my playstyle have to mesh with yours? Why won't you let me play the way I want to play but instead harp on me to play the way you want me to play?

If you think I'm a FM, vote for me. Otherwise back off and let me play the way I play. It's getting old real fast.

[House Reed]

[quote name='King's College' post='1619394' date='Dec 14 2008, 18.41']Give it a break.

If you think what Lucy's doing is suspicious, throw her a vote, then throw her a case. If you just don't approve of how she's playing the game, you've already made your point.[/quote]


Her claiming i'm asking her to re-read is dishonest. I'm pointing out I asked her to read, not re-read.

So, I can either shut up about it or vote for her? We're only allowed to dislike one person, and even then, should vote and move on? We're not supposed to point out when people misrepresent things?
:rolleyes:

[House Payne]

[quote name='King's College' post='1619391' date='Dec 14 2008, 15.39']Maybe because I enjoy being the biggest douchebag in the room.

In more seriousness, this is how I play. It's always been, and it always will be. Why do I need a reason to be hostile? Being hostile gets people to respond. It gets answers. It even gets some discussion. More importantly, it pushes us out of the mindless RP stage and into the more substantial part of the game. I find that being a jackass is effective, and I also find it fun.[/quote]

Maybe.

[quote]I find that being a jackass is effective, and I also find it fun.[/quote]

This seems like an evil characteristic to me. Killing is also evil. Is that fun for you as well?

My vote stands: You are a killer. :smoking:

Until somebody else actually says something incriminating.