Mafia Game 64

[House Wythers]

Hehe...that would be fun...especially if a certain somebody had done the revealing.

[House Reed]

Swyft seems a more suspect to me though as I think they come off as a little opportunistic instead of merely being a loose cannon.

Haha, that somewhat came out of nowhere as an add on to the rest of the paragraph. What about my behavior makes you think I'd be one or the other? Or either really.

What I'm wondering about is why somebody would throw such a joke-reveal in.

Could be trying to derail us, not that we'd have much to be dreailed from at this stage of the game. No self-respecting symp should get the willies from a day one remark about a player defending another player. (Before you start accusing me of protecting my symp, look back and see that I was the accuser, not the accused)

If you fake-reveal, you should know that you run a pretty gigh risk of getting lynched, especially on day 1, once the withhunt gets going. Sometimes it's rather scary to look at, especially if you're at the receiving end.

If you just want to have some fun on day 1, sticking to making RP jokes is a little bit (not much though) safer.

So Bella: why? Suicidal or insane? :P

No offense but this seems like something you should be sending to the mods in a "thoughts" message (I hear they appreciate those). That is if you are innocent, of course. Not sure why you'd be concerned about someone calling you out for protecting your symp...if you think that is a real concern for you, then you probably aren't going to be identifying your symp this early. Actually, if you had, that would speak more to a lack of skill on the part of your symp I suppose.

As for why...who cares? You are trying to figure out if it is derailing us or not and by doing so you are keeping the discussion going. This whole post just rubs me wrong. Bracken.

[House Wythers]

No offense but this seems like something you should be sending to the mods in a "thoughts" message (I hear they appreciate those). That is if you are innocent, of course. Not sure why you'd be concerned about someone calling you out for protecting your symp...if you think that is a real concern for you, then you probably aren't going to be identifying your symp this early. Actually, if you had, that would speak more to a lack of skill on the part of your symp I suppose.

As for why...who cares? You are trying to figure out if it is derailing us or not and by doing so you are keeping the discussion going. This whole post just rubs me wrong. Bracken.

I am innocent. I post this. Where's the problem?

About being concerned about protecting people: it happens, invariably. If Bell's a symp, he's not very good at it, and Grandison's guilty, I guess. But I don't actually believe that myself much.

I do care why. Why don't you? What do you care about? Don't you think it would be bad to get derailed? What is bed about keeping a discussion going? You're just not making sense.

[House Clegane]

Who are we still waiting for? Ashemark, Sarsfield and Wythers?

I agree with Vyrwel in that I dn't see Belmore's "reveal" as something a guilty player would do. And i'm surprised people thought of it as anything but a joke. Also, if you do believe that Belmore's "reveal" was a distraction from something else, then Grandison seems to me to be the obvious choice, as Grandison was accumulating votes. But none of those votes seemed particularly serious or dangerous, so I don't see the motivation there either.

I don't like this post from Mallister:

Right. Confusio. Is the 'Bell' a liar, or have we no justification to call it so?

Five seems a hell of a lot. So I'm sceptical but it's too early to call, IMHO.

If it's a joke it seems to be backfiring!

Mallister is sceptical...but it's too early to call. Classic middle-of-the-road posting.

House Mallister

[House Dondarrion]

No, I think that people who think I was up to something evil are paranoids. ;)

Drox and Swyft sound like the typical paranoid innocent.

Which doesn't allow me to lynch them. :(

There's a fair difference between paranoid and paranoid innocent.

[House Reed]

I am innocent. I post this. Where's the problem?

About being concerned about protecting people: it happens, invariably. If Bell's a symp, he's not very good at it, and Grandison's guilty, I guess. But I don't actually believe that myself much.

I do care why. Why don't you? What do you care about? Don't you think it would be bad to get derailed? What is bed about keeping a discussion going? You're just not making sense.

Oh you ARE innocent? Oh my fault, I'm sorry...if only you had said so sooner.

...

If Bel is a symp and his masters are say (randomly) Clegane and Sarsfield, then is he not doing his job by keeping focus on him or at least off of them at least? Granted, there was no need at this point. There certainly are worse things for a symp to do.

Are you concerned about protecting people...or concerned that it looks like you might be protecting someone? The latter, of course, makes you look worse and seems to be your concern.

I don't care why because I think he's innocent. I care about discussing topics that have a point. Trying to figure out why he did what he did will be a much more successful endeavor in SH rather than here. The "joke" did not really derail anything as nothing was going on. Continuing to discuss it and trying to make sense of nonsense seems like more of an attempt at derailing and keeping us from having productive conversations.

Mallister is sceptical...but it's too early to call. Classic middle-of-the-road posting.

House Mallister

This I like.

[House Payne]

Honestly, anyone who didn't see it as a joke obviously didn't stop to consider the implications of the claim. WJ has a fair handle on how to play mafia, so he isn't going to screw up by putting such an absurd finder into the game. And actually thinking before launching into posts on thread is kind of important. People will be trying to mislead you at some point. If you missed Belmore's obvious fake claim, I don't see how you'll spot those with some claim to subtlety.

I'm not that happy with the people who've decided that Belmore is actually suspicious based on this little exchange though. Jokes and ridiculous clowning around are, if anything, suggestive of innocence rather than guilt as FM typically worry more about how they appear and I think it's fair to say Belmore didn't make a serious attempt to mislead anyone. Drox is one of the people who probably needs to read the above paragraph again, but I'm not all that suspicious of them right now. Swyft seems a more suspect to me though as I think they come off as a little opportunistic instead of merely being a loose cannon.

(Also I'll need my memory refreshed on the definition of the Swann defense.)

I not sure that I like Vyrwel's helpfulness. Vyrwel is correct about Belmore, of course, but Belmore wasn't really in serious trouble, and the silliness of the reveal was so great that there is no way it would have lead to an actual lynch. I don't know why Vyrwel has to express this concern here.

The people who acted like they believed the reveal were either pretending or they are inexperienced with crazy roles. Maybe suggests that they have a complicated role themselves. I am surprised that Vyrwel explains these things, but then has to ask about the Swann defense. Also I am a little concerned when Vyrwel answers a question that Harclay directed to Bulwer. I think Vyrwel is trying too hard.

[House Mooton]

I don't like this post from Mallister:

Mallister is sceptical...but it's too early to call. Classic middle-of-the-road posting.

House Mallister

Too early to call Bell a liar cos I for one wasn't sure if it was a genuine reveal or a joke.

I'm sorry but that's hardly MOR.

[Magic Mirror]

Bulwer, What does this mean? I'm not quite sure what you were getting at.

I tried to tell Bellore I had understood his joke and appreciated it, as a joke. He made an absurd post, I answered with a post of same level of absurdeness.

In fact, I am quite shocked by trying to intepretate that story as a sigh on anybody's guilt.

[House Tully]

Haha, that somewhat came out of nowhere as an add on to the rest of the paragraph. What about my behavior makes you think I'd be one or the other? Or either really.

I think voting Belmore then was a move that might tempt an FM as it's pretty risk free in many ways. Bracken's vote was tongue in cheek, but you and Drox looked serious. Drox I feel is a loose cannon based on what they've done so far, but you don't look to be, hence I voted for you.

The Mallister post is probably better though.

[House Reed]

Too early to call Bell a liar cos I for one wasn't sure if it was a genuine reveal or a joke.

I'm sorry but that's hardly MOR.

You left yourself open to different options depending on what might be most advantageous or simply to not take a side because you couldn't or didn't want to pick. Try on wishy-washy and see if that fits better? Yeah? Ok, great, that's cleared up. :)

[House Wythers]

Swyft, can you remind me of your productive conversations please, I seem to have missed them.

If there's only one remotely interesting thing going on, that's what's going to be discussed. Everything else evolves from there.

[House Reed]

Swyft, can you remind me of your productive conversations please, I seem to have missed them.

If there's only one remotely interesting thing going on, that's what's going to be discussed. Everything else evolves from there.

Right after you point out yours. Your ratio of words to emoticons seems to be rather weak.

We're moving on from the event itself to how people reacted to it (see: Mallister). Catch up. Please.

[House Wythers]

Yes sir Mr blue cock. :rolleyes:

[House Tully]

I think Vyrwel is trying too hard.

Yeah, probably. Not going to apologise for it, though, as I don't want to come back to 10 more pages of confusion about jokes and unclear reactions. I'm mostly trying to make sure my thoughts are on thread right now, because I'm unhappy with the thought process displayed by a few other players.

[House Reed]

Yes sir Mr blue cock. :rolleyes:

So uh, if you wanted to comment on something like Mallister's reaction that would be, uh, just fine.

[House Dayne]

We're moving on from the event itself to how people reacted to it (see: Mallister). Catch up. Please.

You've moved on from the event now, one page ago you were claiming that Belmore was going for a Swann defense and voting Belmore along with a bunch of other people. Apparently you're allowed to be suspicious of Belmore, but once you've decided he's in the clear, everyone else should follow you. I don't really like it that you leapt onto the back of a rolling band wagon and then equally quickly jumped off as soon as you saw it didn't have legs (you were still claiming that Belmore was suspicious even as you unvoted him). Now it feels like you're trying to distance yourself from every having suspected him.

For the record, I don't think what Belmore did was incredibly suspicious, but I think you're response to it is, Swyft.

Edit: punctuation.

[House Corbray]

Oh dear. Actual productive conversation has occurred since I was last here, and now I can only check in to say that I can't post for another few hours because of RL things that I can't avoid without breaking a law. :unsure:

I would like to say, however, that unless things have changed since I last played (which they probably have :unsure:) the Swann defense has never a particularly good predictor of innocence. Or guilt. So unlike Belmore, I'd hesitate to clear someone who was "clearly" new/crazy voting for me.

[House Redfort]

I have lynch protection? :smoking:

Oh and Belmore?

That we will see when that sun-shy shadow-hiding freak Sarsfield has been lynched today. Yeah, Pless-killing fouls stink scum, now you're in a funk, eh?

I don't care if you were joking, that's just too mean :cry:

[House Velaryon]

Who are we still waiting for? Ashemark, Sarsfield and Wythers?

I agree with Vyrwel in that I dn't see Belmore's "reveal" as something a guilty player would do. And i'm surprised people thought of it as anything but a joke. Also, if you do believe that Belmore's "reveal" was a distraction from something else, then Grandison seems to me to be the obvious choice, as Grandison was accumulating votes. But none of those votes seemed particularly serious or dangerous, so I don't see the motivation there either.

I don't like this post from Mallister:

Mallister is sceptical...but it's too early to call. Classic middle-of-the-road posting.

House Mallister

Just had a quick look at Grandison. If I'm not wrong he was at two votes which were not that serious. No need to defend him at this point. But as we're talking of Grandy, I must say that he rolled his eyes twice and left us for good. Where is he now?

ETA: THERE HE IS!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbsup:

What I'm wondering about is why somebody would throw such a joke-reveal in.

Could be trying to derail us, not that we'd have much to be dreailed from at this stage of the game. No self-respecting symp should get the willies from a day one remark about a player defending another player. (Before you start accusing me of protecting my symp, look back and see that I was the accuser, not the accused)

If you fake-reveal, you should know that you run a pretty gigh risk of getting lynched, especially on day 1, once the withhunt gets going. Sometimes it's rather scary to look at, especially if you're at the receiving end.

If you just want to have some fun on day 1, sticking to making RP jokes is a little bit (not much though) safer.

So Bella: why? Suicidal or insane? :P

Some people try to have some fun here. So my answer is:

FUN

And I didn't expect that anyone would buy that claim. Nor that we would discuss it for one page (although I should have known). That said I'd say it's of course possible that an FM would claim a clearly non-existant role to have some fun.

Oh, and of course I'm going to counterlcaim any symp out there. Mwhahaha!