Jump to content

Archived

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

House Targaryen

Mafia Game 65.5: Twonnocent

Recommended Posts

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.

Aren't we stretching a bit to far here? Even if there were symps, why would Shawney want to know who I want to vote for? At that point of the game?

That doesn't really make any sense, no?

So probably he just wanted to put some pressure on me. You're right though that it's a bit strange that he didn't....

*checks thread*

....that he didn't accompany his question with a vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

My original reason for voting Waterman has nothing to do with why I am voting him now. I really wish that it was someone else - anyone else - who had put that stupid heart in their post. I can see why people are putting thost two things together as a single case - even I was trying to tie them together at first because of the coincidence, but they are separate events. Separate. Events. My case is based on Wagstaff's response only at this point.

I can think of quite a few reasons for someone to signal someone else. But it doesn't mean they are on my team. You want me to say it? It could be an innocent signaling to another innocent on his team. In fact - let's lay it all out there, k? I know one other person on my team. I am assuming they don't know me, but know someone else who is also on my team but unknown to me. They could both be innocent, but still not be on my team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You on the otherhand you asked Thorne who you should vote for and have been defending him ever since.

A) that's your interpretation and B) show me the defense

How can my line be wishy washy?

It was in reference to 'Don't get me wrong, I'll hammer Waterman, but I think we can do better' That is leaving yourself an out - looks like a small defense of Waterman as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My original reason for voting Waterman has nothing to do with why I am voting him now. I really wish that it was someone else - anyone else - who had put that stupid heart in their post. I can see why people are putting thost two things together as a single case - even I was trying to tie them together at first because of the coincidence, but they are separate events. Separate. Events. My case is based on Wagstaff's response only at this point.

Yeah, I understand that. My point wasn't about your case, it was a reason why I suspected you.

I can think of quite a few reasons for someone to signal someone else. But it doesn't mean they are on my team. You want me to say it? It could be an innocent signaling to another innocent on his team. In fact - let's lay it all out there, k? I know one other person on my team. I am assuming they don't know me, but know someone else who is also on my team but unknown to me. They could both be innocent, but still not be on my team.

Okay. That pretty much answers my concerns. Though I still have to wonder why you'd attack anybody dropping a clue in this game. Even if they might not be on your team...just seems like a strange path to choose for your suspicion.

Hey, out of curiosity - people say you're defending Thorne. Is Thorne the person you know on your team? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So probably he just wanted to put some pressure on me. You're right though that it's a bit strange that he didn't....

*checks thread*

....that he didn't accompany his question with a vote.

Still pressuring Waterman with a vote, thanks. Pressure doesn't always have to be in the form of a vote.

And you never answered the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, out of curiosity - people say you're defending Thorne. Is Thorne the person you know on your team? :P

Like I'd answer that :P Good try though.

I'll give you a hint - Waterman isn't the one I know.

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.

And the 3rd vote on Jordayne wasn't serious? It wasn't and neither was mine. The few hours I had this morning the board was down. It was a quick post based on the things that occurred while I slept.

Now that I am here for a few hours (and likely won't be when day ends) I can make a serious vote. Might be the same, might not. Need to read everything first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My original reason for voting Waterman has nothing to do with why I am voting him now. I really wish that it was someone else - anyone else - who had put that stupid heart in their post. I can see why people are putting thost two things together as a single case - even I was trying to tie them together at first because of the coincidence, but they are separate events. Separate. Events. My case is based on Wagstaff's response only at this point.

I can think of quite a few reasons for someone to signal someone else. But it doesn't mean they are on my team. You want me to say it? It could be an innocent signaling to another innocent on his team. In fact - let's lay it all out there, k? I know one other person on my team. I am assuming they don't know me, but know someone else who is also on my team but unknown to me. They could both be innocent, but still not be on my team.

Wait - if you know someone and this person knows someone and so on - wouldn't that mean that we could eliminate the Spanish Inquisition with one blow?

Even if you are right - and I see no reason why you'd bring up that issue right now if you were evil, so I will trust you for now - you're probably the only one who is a symp. At least in your team. Would be nice if someone else could confirm your story by also revealing he's a symp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I'd answer that :P Good try though.

I'll give you a hint - Waterman isn't the one I know.

Tell me something I don't already know. :P

Anyway, you're no longer a suspect for me. remove vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's noteworthy. I'm curious what Wagstaff has to say.

My comment that I agreed with everything Waterman had said was slightly tongue in cheek. I thought the initial point made against him was not all that convincing. I do like hearts, though.

I tried to tickle Spicer because he was the only player who was actually there at the time.

Not much else, I'm afraid.

I'm not liking Shawney at all. I think his answers to Melcolm are pretty over-defensive and his posts seem the kind of nervous-anxious bad guys get at the beginning of a game.

I'm going to bed now. I'll try to get back briefly before the day ends, but I can't really make any promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait - if you know someone and this person knows someone and so on - wouldn't that mean that we could eliminate the Spanish Inquisition with one blow?

Even if you are right - and I see no reason why you'd bring up that issue right now if you were evil, so I will trust you for now - you're probably the only one who is a symp. At least in your team. Would be nice if someone else could confirm your story by also revealing he's a symp.

Are you saying you don't know anybody's name on your team?

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.

So you can't think of a satisfying explanation.

The heart made sense because it was a reply to a post about Wagstaff's...uh, staff. Of course, it could have also been an attempt at signalling, but I hate suspecting someone based on a potential RP symp clue.

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.

Do you mean when X is the most likely FM? Because otherwise, you're saying that Spicer is Wagstaff's master/partner/co-evil buddy.

Look. I don't believe that an FM partner would bother saving his partner (or his symp) from a case that's based on Waterman being the fourth player to claim the finder (and that was cribbed from Slick Mongoose in Game 65). At that point Waterman was in no real danger. I agree that "I like this case on Person Who Is Definitely Not My Partner, but I'm voting for someone else" is pretty suspicious, but considering the stakes involved, I don't think an FM partner gets all that many distancing points out of it. Call me naive, but maybe I just don't believe an evil player would be that blatant? You could be highlighting the Wagstaff-Waterman connection because it's Day One and we don't have anything better to go on, but your case seems forced, that's all.

Now, if Waterman pops up out of nowhere and does something scummy enough for me to want to lynch him, and his CF shows up as guilty...then I'll support your search for partners.

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.

You're right, it's not the same situation. Sorry. In your case, I guess it's more the evidence itself that didn't convince me.

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 ;)

True. I left the house in a rush and didn't really give a long explanation for my vote. I singled out Doggett and Wagstaff because I didn't like people bandwagoning instead of discussing things, but ended up casting my vote for Doggett because of this wishy-washy vibe his post gave me. But I'll admit it was more of a gut feeling, because sometimes you know something is off but you can't explain why right away. Your post articulated something that was bugging me in the back of my mind. Fair point that my second post made it sound as if I was trying to look smarter than I actually was. That wasn't my intention. Maybe I should have phrased my response to you differently (e.g.: "Now that you mention it..." instead of "That was what I was getting at.")

But how is agreeing with you covering my ass? It would have been covering my ass if you'd suspected me because of my bandwagoning vote, only for me to turn around and say, "No, really! I honestly, truly, do have better reasons for voting Doggett!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can think of quite a few reasons for someone to signal someone else. But it doesn't mean they are on my team. You want me to say it? It could be an innocent signaling to another innocent on his team. In fact - let's lay it all out there, k? I know one other person on my team. I am assuming they don't know me, but know someone else who is also on my team but unknown to me. They could both be innocent, but still not be on my team.

:dunce:

That's what I get for cross-posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am very very close to switching to Thorne right now.

And what about those who did ignore your claim so far? Do you really want to vote everyone who does not know someone who is in his team? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That last bit was just me being snarky because it looked like you were trying to put a spin on my actions. Not really merited, so I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×