Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

House Targaryen

Mafia Game 65.5: Twonnocent

Recommended Posts

*hugs game*

Unfortuantely i was available all morning *sigh*

Right now I'd change my vote to Waterman for repeating the mistakes made by the killers in the last game. (please not, this is not a very serious vote, but very little has happened since my last visit)

Doggett, I'd like to know what you think is a serious vote. You've put the 3rd vote on Waterman when we only need 6 to lynch. It looks pretty serious to me. Your attitude, to me at least, says you are looking for deniability later on in the game.

I also dislike posts like this:

So which vote do you like Thorne? If you had to chose between Waterman and Melcolm, who would you hang?
Since you had your vote on Waterman, then I put mine on Thorne, it appears as if you are asking for your master if he wanted you to keep it where it was or moved to me. I am leaving my vote on Thorne, and I will be keeping an eye on the relationship between you two, that's for sure.

I have nothing against a Waterman lynch, to be sure. I'll gladly hammer if if needed. But I think we can do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, how serious are you about your Waterman case? I would definitely like to see him post something that isn't an emoticon, but you sound very convinced.

What do you think Waterman's motivations for signalling to Wagstaff would be? Especially if you believe Waterman's the FM. Do you think two FM partners would blatantly RP together like that? Is it's a sign that Wagstaff is a symp? Those are your two explanations?

My original vote on Waterman was just because the heart bothered me - seemed like a good place to probe. I was having random thoughts that it could be signaling Wagstaff, but it seems too obvious - I still can't come up with a satisfying explanation.

I am seriously voting Waterman right now because Wagstaff made a suspicious vote defending him. I clarified what I thought their connection was because I've seen in past games people not making the connection that 'I find X's post suspicious, therefore I am voting Y' when Y is the more likely FM.

Doggett sounds as if he's leaving his options open so that depending on the situation, he can switch from a joke vote to a serious vote, just like...oh, just like what you did :) .

Let me comment on this, because what I did and what Doggett did are not even close. He voted, then apologized and left himself a huge way out. I voted, then solidified my vote with new evidence and am leaving little room as to how I feel. Huge difference.

I also want to point out that when you voted Doggett, it was for bandwaggoning. You never mentioned that you thought he was being wishy-washy until I brought that up, then you clarified. Good job covering your ass ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since you had your vote on Waterman, then I put mine on Thorne, it appears as if you are asking for your master if he wanted you to keep it where it was or moved to me. I am leaving my vote on Thorne, and I will be keeping an eye on the relationship between you two, that's for sure.

I asked Thorne a specific question because it didn't look like he was paying close attention to the game to miss that I voted Waterman. You had just voted for him so I thought it might be interested to see if he went for the OMGUS.

So you're ok with voting Waterman in theory - what about Wagstaff? Does no one else find it odd that he 'agreed with what Waterman had said so far'? (if you need a reminder it was 1)drooling over Wag's staff 2) claiming finder 3) I like hearts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, now, give Thorne a break... it is tough keeping up with all 35 posts, after all. He can't be expected to reread them all. Remember, evil doesn't like to work hard.

Hey, since when do we vote for someone because they actually don't read the posts? Tsk! :P

Surely it was a mean trick by Shawney to put the vote in another post. And I claim that he blinded me with his ugly avatar. What kind of tricolore is that? :ack:

Remove vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For now, I don't see any serious case, so I am leaving my vote on Spicer, who looks a bit overdefensive.

I'd also like some more explanation about this post. I didn't see anything that looked overly defensive from Spicer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you're ok with voting Waterman in theory - what about Wagstaff? Does no one else find it odd that he 'agreed with what Waterman had said so far'? (if you need a reminder it was 1)drooling over Wag's staff 2) claiming finder 3) I like hearts.

I care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My original vote on Waterman was just because the heart bothered me - seemed like a good place to probe. I was having random thoughts that it could be signaling Wagstaff, but it seems too obvious - I still can't come up with a satisfying explanation.

Why would Waterman try to signal Wagstaff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many reasons why Water would try to signal Wag, the question is - is it a signal at all? The pairing of the heart and the drooling made me think it might be. I'm not saying it definitely is. I think the more relevant interaction is Wagman's defense of Waterman.

Spicer - does saying you care mean you find it suspicious too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's also entirely possible that Waterman was trying to signal Wagstaff with his heart and admiration of his staff. I guess I'm not sure about the relationship here, unless Wag picked up on the Water signal. *scratches head* I just know I don't like it. Either one of them are high on my list.

ETA: I also dislike Dogget's vote on Waterman - mostly just the apologetic nature of it.

:o I know you have to stretch for a day one case but, really? Your convinced I'm a FM because of two stupid role play posts I made? And what kind of moron symp signals his master so conspicuosly anyway? Do I really have to defend myself from this?

*checks vote count*

-_-

Apperently I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:o I know you have to stretch for a day one case but, really? Your convinced I'm a FM because of two stupid role play posts I made?

You're behind the times - it was a place to start, but now it's all about Wagstaff's response. I know you can't defend against another's actions, but it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked Thorne my master a specific question because it didn't look like he was paying close attention to the game to miss that I voted Waterman. You had just voted for him so I thought it might be interested to see if he went for the OMGUS.
Fixed that for you. Seriously, an experinced player symping a newbie FM? Why do you care if he is paying attention to who you are voting for?

So you're ok with voting Waterman in theory - what about Wagstaff? Does no one else find it odd that he 'agreed with what Waterman had said so far'? (if you need a reminder it was 1)drooling over Wag's staff 2) claiming finder 3) I like hearts.
Look, both Water and Wag can't be both FM and Symps. Unless I am confused (and I certainly could be) Waterman signaled first, making Wagstaff the FM... but why would Wag signal back? FM don't need to do that, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

However, all the votes are on Waterman, why? If we think they are a FM/Symp pair, shouldn't the vote be for Wagstaff? Right now the top choices for FM are Thorne and Wagstaff. I'd vote for them over you, Shawney, and Waterman. And I'd vote for any of the 4 of you, easily, for the lynch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doggett, I'd like to know what you think is a serious vote. You've put the 3rd vote on Waterman when we only need 6 to lynch. It looks pretty serious to me. Your attitude, to me at least, says you are looking for deniability later on in the game.

I also dislike posts like this:

Since you had your vote on Waterman, then I put mine on Thorne, it appears as if you are asking for your master if he wanted you to keep it where it was or moved to me. I am leaving my vote on Thorne, and I will be keeping an eye on the relationship between you two, that's for sure.

I have nothing against a Waterman lynch, to be sure. I'll gladly hammer if if needed. But I think we can do better.

If we can do better, who would you suggest? Your vote is on Thorne and you cast suspicion on Doggett and I. Care to make a full blown case on someone and back it with a vote?

Your last line is just as wishy-washy as you claim Doggett's to be, just a bit more cleverly hidden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, that last post by me was cross-posted.

har har - thanks for fixing my post. That's exactly what I meant to say, sorry I wasn't clear the first time. :rolleyes: It doesn't matter that he didn't know who I specifically was voting for, it matters that he wasn't paying attention.

I know that they can't both be signaling each other because one of them has to be a symp for signaling to make sense. I originally thought Water was signaling to Wag with the hearts and drool. After Waterman's post, I find it much more likely that Wag is defending Water, thus the vote on Waterman. I still don't find it impossible that it's the other way around, but it's much more likely in my mind that Waterman is the big bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. The deadline is 8 minutes before I normally wake up. That means I have to wake up earlier. Annoying.

I'll be up before the deadline. I'm going to bed now. I still see no reason to move my vote. Waterman came back, wrote some rhetorical questions, then went away again. It doesn't inspire confidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right now the top choices for FM are Thorne and Wagstaff.

I get ehy you think Thorne is FM and it is all based on me. Why do you think Wagstaff is the FM out of the him and Waterman? Because he 'signaled' first? Are you convinced it is a signal? Take out the supposed signal and tell me why Wagstaff is a likely FM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not impressed by the whole Waterman/Wagstaff issue. I don't think that the FM have symps.

I don't like the reasoning behind Dogget's vote for Waterman, but I also don't think it's a sign of guilt. Right now I also have some trouble to find someone I can vote for and a convincing reason that gives my vote the power that it needs. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm - what is up with that heart Waterman? My theory is that you are in fact part of the Faith Militant. The Red Faith that is. You're one of those people who worship under the sign of the fiery heart.

Well if you insist, vote Jord ...

Nah. I like the Waterman vote. Something about that heart is fishy, I just don't know what yet.

To be clear, I think Waterman is fm and you are a dirty partner/symp.

My original vote on Waterman was just because the heart bothered me - seemed like a good place to probe. I was having random thoughts that it could be signaling Wagstaff, but it seems too obvious - I still can't come up with a satisfying explanation.

I am seriously voting Waterman right now because Wagstaff made a suspicious vote defending him. I clarified what I thought their connection was because I've seen in past games people not making the connection that 'I find X's post suspicious, therefore I am voting Y' when Y is the more likely FM.

Shawney, you're reasoning doesn't convince me at all. Not even close.

In fact, it has done the opposite. If you really can't see any reason for one player to try to signal another player in this particular game, then I'm forced to rank you as my top suspect. Shawney

And I won't forget that Thorne was the first person to bring the issue up -

Is there a reason why there is a heart at the top of your post?

And that you're aparrantly a sliming lackey to Wagstaff?

You're on my list too, Thorne.

Also, I think a symp is pretty unlikely in this game. I think by far the most reasonable balance is 2 FM. If we have 2 FM + symp, then the mods messed up and made the evil team too strong. I guess 1 FM + symp is possible, but it would be a bit unstable, given that one lynch could end the game.

*hugs game*

Unfortuantely i was available all morning *sigh*

Right now I'd change my vote to Waterman for repeating the mistakes made by the killers in the last game. (please not, this is not a very serious vote, but very little has happened since my last visit)

What mistakes exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we can do better, who would you suggest? Your vote is on Thorne and you cast suspicion on Doggett and I. Care to make a full blown case on someone and back it with a vote?

Your last line is just as wishy-washy as you claim Doggett's to be, just a bit more cleverly hidden.

Again, I have to ask why you are defending Thorne so much?

As for making a full blown case, well, in my opinion the case on Thorne is better than the case on Waterman. I think it's better than a case on Wagstaff. Waterman may or may not have signaled to Wagstaff, and Wagstaff may or may not have signaled back.

You on the otherhand you asked Thorne who you should vote for and have been defending him ever since.

How can my line be wishy washy? There are 3 others I'd vote for before him:

1. Thorne

2. Wagstaff

3. Shawney

4. Waterman.

You like Waterman better why? In your theory, Waterman, the FM, randomly picked someone to fake symp, and it just happened to be his real symp? To me that just isn't very likely. Could it happen, yes.

*rereading Waterman/Wagstaff*

OK... I'll agree if you take out the original signal then Waterman comes off worse. But I can't help but figure it in. Sorry. That's me. But like I said, I'd vote for any of the four. But for now, my vote stays on Thorne.

eta: the word you, so it would make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×