AGoT Mafia 71 - Rebellion in Hell

[House Clegane]

I agree with your list (I'm just catching up). But why did you excuse Mastema and Mephisto?

Bath - I share your reaction to Azazel's Lev vote. However at the moment I would vote Leviathan over Azazel.

Azazel - the reason you gave for voting Leviathan make it sound like you're giving yourself a get-out clause in case Lev is lynched and turns up innocent. Or indeed as if you are voting while also weakening the case by pointing out alternative interpretations. Could you state your reason for voting Leviathan over anyone else more clearly, and say how confident you feel in your vote?

Sammael's posts have been giving me the heebie-jeebies, as Baphomat said:

Or possible distancing. Just seemed odd. Added to this I also found one of Sam's earlier posts incredibly jittery:

The ACCUSE sentence sounds like someone trying to put on a theatrical air and falling flat. The edit suggests he is typing faster than he thinks. This and the posts Bath quoted give the same impression of being under pressure to say something which sounds pushy but isn't, and putting on a voice he can't carry off.

Sammael needs a vote.

Actually, the edit was because I crossposted and thus felt the need to elucidate on what I said. I'm actually a very slow typist ;).

I'm at work and can't really post much at the minute, but in a few hours I'll have some time to talk all serious-like.

[House Targaryen]

It is day 1.

15 players remain: Asmodeus, Astaroth, Azalel, Baphomet, Beelzebub, Belial, Belphegor, Berith, Lady GaGa, Leviathan, Lucifer, Mammon, Mastema, Mephistopheles, Sammael.

8 votes are needed for a conviction or to go to night.

3 votes for Leviathan (Sammael, Beelzebub, Azalel)

2 votes for Lady GaGa (Asmodeus, Astaroth)

1 vote for Astaroth (Mastema)

1 vote for Azalel (Belphegor)

1 vote for Baphomet (Mammon)

1 vote for Beelzebub (Leviathan)

1 vote for Mastema (Belial)

1 vote for Mephistopheles (Baphomet)

1 vote for Sammael (Lucifer)

3 players have not voted: Berith, Lady GaGa, Mephistopheles.

Remember, players who send thoughts to Satan are those who will experience the least pain while dying.

[House Stokeworth]

Er, again? As if symps left clues in any previous time?

I'm almost positive that we had this conversation in a recent game and the someone said that symp clues used to be more common. If that's the case then it was before my time so I admit that I have no first hand knowledge of it. Regardless of which I think that if we insist dogmatically that symp clues will never happen then we'll actually make them viable. All of which is irrelevant to this game, or at least my contribution to it, as I'm not arguing that that there are symp clues here.

[House Velaryon]

Stalling = playing for time; making a post, to register presence, but holding off actually making any committing statements.

I know the meaning of the word; I just don't see how my post could be considered stalling. Was my statements really not committing enough?

[House Mooton]

Both contributed something while the others didn't. Remember we have to keep hierarchies here in hell, otherwise there's only chaos. ;)

Well obviously you didn't include them because you thought they'd contributed. But you haven't answered my question: why? In what way did Mastema and Mephisto contribute?

1) How likely is it that we lynch Leviathan?

What is your view on this?

2) How would my case make me look better if we'd indeed lynch Leviathan and he came up innocent?

Because you could say you didn't push him really hard and that you were open to considering other explanations of his posts, apart from him being evil godly.

Actually, the edit was because I crossposted and thus felt the need to elucidate on what I said. I'm actually a very slow typist ;).

I'm at work and can't really post much at the minute, but in a few hours I'll have some time to talk all serious-like.

I know why you added the edit. But it sounded flustered.

Will look forward to hearing more from you in a few hours then.

[Lady Gaga]

Beelzebub's explanation of his suspicions re me sound sincere, if they had been included in his initial statement he wouldn't have roused my suspicion as much.

Belial worries me a little. His take on Bapho's list is a contraction. He claims that the list is a poor idea for an inno because it creates a distraction for the FM

I agree with this. Bapho had to be aware that the list was going to draw attention, and I expect they'll resurface again before the game is over. Would an FM or SK create something that was so clearly asking to be analysed? I think it's less likely, though a symp might very well do it. If Bapho is innocent then I think that however amusing the list was ill-advised as it provides the scum with a ready distraction.

But earlier on he was actively encouraging it:

Alright Bapho, there are 15 people playing, so missing from your "list" are Leviathan, Lucifer and yourself. Lev hadn't posted at that point, and I don't expect you to rate yourself, but why has poor old Luci been expelled from listhood? He posted a good half hour before you updated.

He's worries that it is a distraction but keeps the topic alive himself more than once.

The post below is a little funky too, Belial claims that Mastema is turning his joke vote, serious at the start of his paragraph then calls him out for avoiding a serious vote in the same breath.:

It always bugs me when people decide that their joke vote is in exactly the right place and should now be considered serious especially when it's for a very weak reason. It feels like a soft way to vote someone and draw limited heat. If you consider a third vote in the joke phase to be super suspicious it would be nice if you laid out the case and brought attention to what was going on (I had to go back to work out what you were talking about). Seems like a lazy way to avoid casting a serious vote and making a stink to me. Mastema

Mastema's comment is not strong enough to warrant such a reaction, if there's any seriousness to it at all:

Baphomet is entirely too helpful (or wishing to appear so) to be an unnameable devourer of souls.

But I'm staying on Astartoth for obvious lynch-wagoning.

His concerns about Mastema could just as well apply to himself, he is making a big stink over very little. Looking at this and his interesting take on Bapho's list, he's top of my list atm.

Belial

[House Stokeworth]

1) How likely is it that we lynch Leviathan?

From the context I understood this to mean that you think lynching Lev is unlikely. Whereas:

3 votes for Leviathan (Sammael, Beelzebub, Azalel)

and the general feeling I get from people's discussion of Lev is that he would be quite a popular lynch at the moment. Have I misunderstood?

[Magic Mirror]

One of us is apparently confused, and I am self-confident enough to place my bets on you. Astartoth was referring to Levi's reaction to Asmodean. I was reffering to Levi's reaction to Beelze's vote.

That Levi's reaction to Beelzebub's vote was OMGUS had been pointed out by both Astaroth and Beelzebub himself before you cast your vote. Levi's reaction to Asmodeus is what prompted Beelzebub's vote, which in turn made Levi vote for him and Astaroth call him (bub) out for it. After Beelzebub explained his vote to Astaroth, the later admitted it made sense and agreed that Leviathan's OMGUS vote also made him look bad.

Stalling? What did you mean by this?

I was refering to this post:

Nobody yet. Ony four of us made serious posts, let's wait for the rest.

Basically you're somehow implying that you were participating in serious discussion (which is only barely true), and you're stalling for time regarding what (if anything) you find suspicious.

To me it sounded like you were waiting for a more solid bandwaggon to jump on while tiptoeing past the discussion. Taking a stance is fair enough, but if it's that laid back you shouldn't be surprised you're called out for it.

[Lady Gaga]

I'm going to bed soon. I'm going away overnight tomorrow and leaving first thing in the morning, the trip is in my honor so I won't be able to post much for a while. I'll try to be around for the lynch but I'm not sure if I'll be able to, I'll check in when I can.

[House Stokeworth]

Beelzebub's explanation of his suspicions re me sound sincere, if they had been included in his initial statement he wouldn't have roused my suspicion as much.

Belial worries me a little. His take on Bapho's list is a contraction. He claims that the list is a poor idea for an inno because it creates a distraction for the FM

But earlier on he was actively encouraging it:

He's worries that it is a distraction but keeps the topic alive himself more than once.

While I can see how you might think I'm encouraging it, it's not really true. I have posted two separate reactions to the list, my first one was "there are 12 people on the list, who is missing" and I made a post looking at that. Later the conversation turned to whether the list itself was suspicious and I started thinking about whether there is any reason why an FM, SK, or symp would be more likely to post that way and if so why. That was when I decided that if there was a nefarious motivation to the list then it was probably to distract. My only other post on the topic was a response to Bapho because I was quite surprised by what he said.

The post below is a little funky too, Belial claims that Mastema is turning his joke vote, serious at the start of his paragraph then calls him out for avoiding a serious vote in the same breath.:

Mastema's comment is not strong enough to warrant such a reaction, if there's any seriousness to it at all:

No, my point is that turning a joke vote into a serious vote can be an underhanded way of avoiding having to make the serious vote. You joke vote someone which ruffles no feathers then later you mention that your vote is now serious. You might draw some flak if your logic is bad, but it's far less likely to be confrontational, especially the way Mastema did it. That's the whole case. I leave to others to decide if it's enough for a day one vote near the start of the serious stage.

His concerns about Mastema could just as well apply to himself, he is making a big stink over very little. Looking at this and his interesting take on Bapho's list, he's top of my list atm.

Belial

I'm pretty sure that I haven't turned a joke vote into a serious vote or failed to substantiate my vote (however lame you might think my reason). If you have a problem with my vote, fine, but I think it's a bit much to claim that I'm doing the same thing as Mastema.

[House Velaryon]

Basically you're somehow implying that you were participating in serious discussion (which is only barely true),

Indeed I was participating. You may think I wasn't contributing enough, but you can't deny I've made a serious post at the time. Since it definitely wasn't joke post.

To me it sounded like you were waiting for a more solid bandwaggon to jump on while tiptoeing past the discussion.

Toiptoeing? Do you imply I avoided giving opinions on any points available at the time? And how do you know that I would jump on a bandwagon instead of creating one? Even I don't.

Your suspicions look very artificial, and same goes for Levi's vote for Belial. I consider voting either of you two.

[House Wythers]

(Yet to read P7)

The only thing wrong with Bapho's list was that I didn't get a +4.

Honestly though, it's a list. An innocuous one at that. It's no different from the many RP posts other players (Azazel, mostly) were making early in the game. I'm more suspicious of those picking on it than anyone else... But a quick read shows perhaps only one person commented on it in a bad light, and actually, that happened to be a fair call out.

In most games, it seems like day one becomes a rush at the end, by nature, and that favors the killers. Anything we can do to avoid a meaningless vote or just picking off a random low poster hoping to catch a lurking FM, is in our best interest. Seems like we need still need some prodding.

I thought that some people were looking like they were ready to be constructive. Asmodeus, for example. there is always a little bit of overlap between RP and serious discussion, and sometimes it is hard to tell. I certainly may be misreading it. It is day one after all.

Definitely agree. I've always been an advocate of weeding out those who fly below the radar. It's easier to get away with saying nothing than saying something suspicious - and it's an ideal place for the FM to hide. Day One should, without something incredible happening, always help the innocents by focusing on the low posters.

Who aren't me.

I found this comment slightly odd, as you continued posting regularly after it for hours. Don't lose too much sleep!

I agree with Astartoth that moaning about contribution isn't really all that useful (also, it gets old).

I was having fun. As much as I tend to be competitive when I play games and try to win, having fun is what it's mainly about. Astartoth already pointed out why it doesn't really make much sense as an argument anyway. It kind of reminds me of the concerns that were being voiced over Ten Eyed Man last game.

I do agree with this, though. It's been a long time since I saw such a glaring symp clue (or any symp clue, for that matter), but Leviathan's reaction to being accused is slightly over the top.

As far as eye-brow raising contribution goes, I'd like to call out Sammael for these posts:

I thought it was strange how he called out/voted a low poster to post more (we don't seen much of those recently either, as people tend to consider it going-after-easy-targets suspicious), then took credit for his posting (the symp clue issue didn't ping in his radar, apparently), and then went straight back to RP without re-allocating his vote. Does seem slightly like attempting to surf day one.

On that note, I don't really like Mephistopheles either. He seems to be stalling while at the same time painting himself as a contributer he's currently not.

I think I'll cast a vote on... Mephistopheles who seems to be around.

Eh? Why have you run that on Sammael and then voetd Mephistopheles for "being around"? As long as you're around to change your vote, what's the real issue with who you vote for reasons other that what's on thread? Add to the fact that yoru summation of Sammael is that they could be surfing Day One, I fail to see why your vote makes sense?

Has anyone considered the possibility that we don't have a symp? Either we have 2 FM / 1 symp or 3 FM without a symp. First option would be ok for the innocents but puts the FM at an disadvantage. The second option would be ok for the FM but would make the innocents job very hard. I don't want to discuss this in detail, since a lot of the balancing depends on the roles (and we don't want to give the FM more infos than needed), but I wouldn't put all my money on a symp being part of this game. That's why I won't be impressed by any case that is based solely on symp clues.

Sounds like role fishing to me - testing the waters not only for who has a role, but also whether your two man team has a symp out there willing to put their neck on the line with a signal?

I've still got more to read, but I only have 25 minutes left before I go on stage. Make up is a bitch.

[House Velaryon]

Day One should, without something incredible happening, always help the innocents by focusing on the low posters.

Who aren't me.

You definitely are, if counting serious posts only.

And even if you weren't, why to bother pointing at this?

As long as you're

Is it a vote?

ETA: in fact you are one of five lowest posters even if counting RP.

[House Wythers]

Basically you're somehow implying that you were participating in serious discussion (which is only barely true), and you're stalling for time regarding what (if anything) you find suspicious.

To me it sounded like you were waiting for a more solid bandwaggon to jump on while tiptoeing past the discussion. Taking a stance is fair enough, but if it's that laid back you shouldn't be surprised you're called out for it.

Okay, that's a fair reason - but not the one you gave for making the vote. Wish you'd made that reason at the time!

[House Wythers]

You definitely are, if counting serious posts only.

And even if you weren't, why to bother pointing at this?

Is it a vote?

Don't be such a silly billy. You have to bold the name to make a vote. I was going for dramatic emphasis.

I also know I definitely am. Maybe I should have just quoted it and said :uhoh: to make you happy. But point is, I agree with the idea that low posters should come under scrutiny on Day 1 more than others. Yes, killers could be anywhere, but on D1, it's easiest to hide with less posts.

You shouldn't be so scared of agreeing with things, Meph. Just don't agree with everything. ;)

I'm on stage. Right now, with not enough time to work out who the hell is who in this glorious cesspit, I leave with no vote cast. Danger to the wind - I promise to attempt to be back in 4 hours or so for a check in.

[House Velaryon]

I also know I definitely am.

Now, after this post, yes. But you still haven't answered why did you need to mention this at all.

You shouldn't be so scared of agreeing with things, Meph. Just don't agree with everything. ;)

Ok, I agree with you that Bath's vote is suspicious. Alas, somehow it's almost only point on the thread I can agree with, for now (the other is that Levi was overdefensive).

By the way, I also disagree with suspicions on Azazel (he looks ok for me) and I disagree that we have three killers or two killers with a symp. I'd expect three killers and a symp. In two-sided games it would be slightly overpowered, but considering we have SK also, 2+1 or 3 look ridiculously underpowered and unstable. Just imagine a situation where FM kill his own symp and SK kills one of them. In three-sided, evil teams are always stronger than in two-sided.

[House Corbray]

Well obviously you didn't include them because you thought they'd contributed. But you haven't answered my question: why? In what way did Mastema and Mephisto contribute?

Mastema: here

Mephisto: here

Both posts are no RP and both relate to the game. That's why they're contribution. The Low Five had only RP posts or fluff.

What is your view on this?

I think that some players are less lynchable than Levi, but others are not. Depends on the quality of their posts mostly.

Now that Levi announces that he won't be here for the rest of the day he is even less likely to be lynched since we tend to focus on those who are present.

Mastema: here

Mephisto: here

[House Velaryon]

In fact, after I've remembered we are in three-sided, my suspicions on Bath's and Levi's votes significantly lowered. Both these votes don't fit Cerwyn Bible profile.

For now, I vote Lady Gaga, for unexplained talk about her posting level and for failing to vote her suspect.

[House Stokeworth]

For now, I vote Lady Gaga, for unexplained talk about her posting level...

I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding this. I think both the original context and her follow up post make it clear that she meant "vote off the low posters, other than me." It's kind of a joke and, in fact, an acknowledgment that her suggestion is somewhat hypocritical.

...and for failing to vote her suspect.

This I can agree with, however. After stating that on day one we should pressure the low posters the obvious thing to do would be to vote for one of them.

[House Connington]

Don't be such a silly billy. You have to bold the name to make a vote. I was going for dramatic emphasis.

you should probably avoid that. Just because you are a celebrity doesn't mean the rules don't apply to you:

2.3 - Bold Restrictions

The use of bold should be limited to voting. If you want to emphasize a players name or another word, you can underline the word or post using a different color