AGOT Mafia Game 72 - Adventures Beyond The Wall

[House Thorne]

I didn't advocate not voting - I wanted people to vote AND post tiers. You'll notice I did just that.

I meant that he was tearing into everything. Maybe I am exaggerating because I was one of his targets as soon as I poked my nose into the game, but instead of pulling out relevant quotes, he quotes everything in the post and makes a comment on it. He also repeated questions when I thought the answers were pretty clear. Granted, if he's digging or dissatisfied with the answer of course he should follow up. Some of the follow ups were more along the lines of repeating his assertion rather than explaining why he found the answer unsatisfactory.

I didn't actually say we should lynch inactives. I absolutely don't like them and they frustrate me, but to lynch someone just for being inactive - I'm probably not going to do that. I'd rather lynch someone for something a person said. I do applaud any effort to put pressure on the low posters. We all know that in reality, however, if a person is going to be a low poster, nothing we as a group will probably change that.

As for the symp clue, all I am going to say on that is if I get lynched for that I am going to throw a fit.

Firstly, fair enough. I read it as "tiers rather than votes". Tiers as well as votes is fine.

Secondly, you dislike inactives but won't lynch them? You like pressure on them but they are bad lynch choices? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here. I dislike this... It doesn't come off as genuine.

Thirdly, yeah. in and of itself it isn't a reason to lynch you. It is a very small point against you though, but if Quorgle ends up being lynched and flips guilty it'll become worth bearing in mind at least.

[House Baratheon]

Just posting to say I'm here. My internet's been dead all day and only just come back now. I'm going to try to catch up now, but I expect to be interrupted for several hours before I get everything read. I'll get into things properly when I get back.

[House Mooton]

Secondly, you dislike inactives but won't lynch them? You like pressure on them but they are bad lynch choices? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here. I dislike this... It doesn't come off as genuine.

Obviously I'm not explaining myself very clearly. It's the difference between ideals and reality. Ideally, pressuring people to post would work and if it didn't, we would all unanimously agree to vote that dastardly low-poster out of the game. In the real world of mafia, we don't attack them because they give us nothing to go on, or if they do say something bad, they don't come back to explain themselves and let us get to the bottom of it. We talk about getting rid of them, waste some time trying to pressure them to come back by posting things they won't see because they aren't participating, then go ahead and attack the high posters anyway.

I did (and DO) like that Grandison made an attempt because a) It might have worked - you never know, B) as Plumm (?) argued, we might be able to catch someone spamming it up to be safe, and c) because it generated conversation. My 'defense' of Dayne specifically is because I really want to see more from him before we vote him out (King kills him, whatever). As much as I don't like the low flyers, I dislike more that they are easy targets. Low flyers with one suspicious sounding post are even easier targets. (and yes, I now realize he posted twice instead of once) I'm not saying that Dayne's post is just fine - it obviously isn't - but I'm not ready to act on it without more input from him. If that input is a pattern of not posting or explaining, then I would move towards the 'lynch him' side. We learn very little from lynching someone who has offered no opinions on anything and we are a knowledge hungry bunch.

[House Velaryon]

Tarback - I didn't like your reaction and vote (impotent as it is) of Harclay. Harclay was obviously joking. Your response did not sound like a joke, and when prodded by Grandison about it you said we, "can't say yet, but should pressure him to make an opinion." Really? you can't say whether Harclay was joking or serious? I can.

Good for you.

TBH, I didn't really care if that post was serious or not. Both ways, it was a decent occasion to start discussion, in fact the only one I've seen at the moment.

For now, I support lynching Cerwin, for reasons slightly different than everybose else's. I saw nothing wrong with him defending Bracken, but defending Vyrwel is a different story. It looked very overexersizing and insincere. Just like that, being caught defending one played, he decided to make this a habit, to show that his connection with Bracken isn't special.

I don't suspect strongly anybody else, even Dayne: his post in question contained trivial things only, but, counting Bracken-Yarwick-Plumm discussion taken place at that time, I feel there was a need to voice that things.

[House Thorne]

Good for you.

TBH, I didn't really care if that post was serious or not. Both ways, it was a decent occasion to start discussion, in fact the only one I've seen at the moment.

For now, I support lynching Cerwin, for reasons slightly different than everybose else's. I saw nothing wrong with him defending Bracken, but defending Vyrwel is a different story. It looked very overexersizing and insincere. Just like that, being caught defending one played, he decided to make this a habit, to show that his connection with Bracken isn't special.

I don't suspect strongly anybody else, even Dayne: his post in question contained trivial things only, but, counting Bracken-Yarwick-Plumm discussion taken place at that time, I feel there was a need to voice that things.

Quick question. Did you re-read me before placing that vote?

[House Targaryen]

I try to do a proper vote count shortly.

[House Thorne]

Would now, before the vote count is in, so in total ignorance, be a good time to state that I wholeheartedly support the notion of the king ignoring votes totally, and instead considering the top vote-getter to be CI for the day?

Come on, it kind of makes sense, right?

[House Dayne]

Bracken has had fairly strong interactions with Yarwick and also with Plumm. I think that exchanges with Yarwick seem genuine, the emotion seems real, however his exchanges with Plumm seem contrived (see below).

Complete and utter fluff. ::Sniffs:: Smells scummy.

Because you're doing such great work over there. Keep it up.

Was it necessary to do it at this time? Felt like just trying to get some text in there without really saying anything that needed to be said. If someone doesn't get it, let them fight themselves over it and look foolish. We'll lynch them down the road.

Why do you feel the need to do what Grandison tells you to do? Is he a CI? Did it seem like a worthwhile topic for you to discuss at this juncture?

Me, I'm going to go forward how I choose to and Grandison can either respect that or not. It is up to them.

Doing more than you and in less time.

He has shown some suspicion of Plumm and created distance, but never follows up on his concerns.

Seen below, he is answering a question by Yarwick to Plumm:

You are stifling the conversation by discussion something that is irrelevant to what is going on. It has not happened yet and probably won't happen. Maybe it will, I don't know and I don't care right now. I will sure as fuck care after it happens, but until then the discussion of Rule 2 can be safely tabled for the good of all good creatures.

So do you find Plumm to be scummy? If so, why? If not, who do you find scummy?

He is defending PLumm, answering an awkward question for him and deflecting from him at the same time, encouraging Yarwick to look elsewhere.

Both Yarwick and Plumm are fairly agressive players as is Bracken, so why has Plumm gotten off so lightly?

I would place Bracken and PLumm in my top tier atm. I haven't had time to look into Cerwyn/Bracken yet, but if Cerwyn has also been a Bracken man, then Bracken looks like a good candidate for lynching.

[House Targaryen]

Today's motto is:

You can play an aggressive game without being a jackass.

--------------------------

It is day 1.

13 players remain: Bracken, Cerwyn, Dayne, Grandison, Harclay, Kenning, Plumm, Qorgyle, Reyne, Swann, Tarbeck, Vyrwel, Yarwyck.

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

4 votes for Cerwyn ( Bracken, Yarwyck, Qorgyle, Tarbeck)

1 vote for Qorgyle ( Reyne)

8 players have not voted: Cerwyn, Dayne, Grandison, Harclay, Kenning, Plumm, Swann, Vyrwel.

vote counting utility

[House Connington]

Ouch! Evil thread spammers the lot of you! That was a pain to even browse through...

I'll try to go through those 4 pages of what seems to be over-enthusiastic strategy debate now.

[House Connington]

Okay...

I think we have a fair number of players which would be good day one lynches.

Bracken and Yarwyck's arguments make my head hurt. I don't really see either of them as likely guilty, though, and would not support the lynch of either.

I don't like Dayne at all. His first post was as bad as everyone seems to suggest, and his most recent attack on Bracken is quite ludicrous. Almost seems like he was coached to attack a strong player in order to look innocent or something.

I don't really like Reyne, I thought his first posts were non-commitant 'reasonable' stuff which were mostly latching on to points that other people had made before. That said, I find his point against Qorgyle a very good one. I'd probably favor a Qorgyle lynch right now.

I don't like Tarbeck either, a very low contributor that just comes in on the last second and jumps onto the lynch mob trying to sound like he's original and has his own motives while not really commenting on anything else.

I'm pretty neutral on Plumm.

Cerwyn has said stuff which I agree doesn't look so good, though he's such a non-contentious issue I have slight problems seeing him as guilty. Right now he's looking more scape-goatish than anything else. He's definitely the most popular opinion, but I'll go out on a limb and say I don't think he'd be my choice for a lynch.

Rest of the people I think I'll just lump on a middle tier, no real read, probably need to post more heap.

[House Velaryon]

Quick question. Did you re-read me before placing that vote?

No, why? I voted you immedeately after reading the thread, rereading it without any pause would be quite senseless.

[House Clegane]

Although...I should note one exception. I think that Bracken is being extremely blatant about insisting that he won't follow the King. To me, that is suspicious. He's beating his chest and shouting to the rooftops that he'll follow his own path. He wants to make it very clear that he isn't kissing up, and I see that as a player who is too concerned about how other players perceive him.

Again, I didn't think the discussion over lynching low posters or not was worth having. It feels too easy for an FM to avoid trouble and look active. I wanted to move the discussion in a different direction before we had post and runs of "hey, I think we should lynch low posters..but not me because I really don't have time! Bai!" etc.

3) I think it's strange that Bracken went on the attack when he saw me questioning Plumm. Bracken is now claiming that he is okay with pressuring people, and he's clearly taking that approach to the game himself

Again and again, my issue was with the topic of discussion. I didn't want to just follow whatever the King wanted (I also did not take it at face value, I thought it sounded like an empty threat). I'll agree that it could be construed as defending Plumm obliquely. Nothing I can really do about that other than continue to play the same way moving forward and consistently give my honest opinion on discussion.

Yes, you were wrong. Again, I wasn't arguing that we should do as Grandison directed. I was pointing out that there was no reason to avoid discussing Rule 2. By encouraging us to discuss it, he made it clear that he wasn't trying to keep his plans secret, and so I felt comfortable talking about the ramifications of Rule 2.

Whatever, you said that the King asked us to discuss it so you wanted to discuss it. The way you represented yourself at the time seems different than how you are characterizing it now, to me at least.

Disagree. First, I don't think most people focus on low posters on day 1. I can't remember the last time we lynched somebody on day 1 just for being a low poster. It's rare.

Generally it is discussed but doesn't happen after someone else does something blatant that fits 'FM profile' and we look for someone that might provide connections.

No, I don't. While I prefer to avoid getting personal, the fact is that you have been extremely obnoxious thus far. You can play an aggressive game without being a jackass.

I think you are being a little too over sensitive, as is everyone else that seems to think that I've been a jackass. No personal attacks, no really truly combative comments IMO. Frankly, most of the disrespect has been piled on me and I don't appreciate it. Most of my posts I have been smiling as I've typed them, apparently that has not been conveyed properly.

Harclay and Reyne have not posted much, but they have seemed less suspicious so far.

Of the rest, I have some suspicion of Tarbeck and Dayne. I hope that they and Vyrwel and the rest participate more before decision time.

Could you expand on this? Pretty safe post to make here, particularly (as it was pointed out) that you give Yar and I a pass.

I'm also not too hot on the fact that the stronger players are in your trusted list and vice versa. Currying favour, trying to make friends and become trusted by the dangerous players while simultaneously attacking others less likely to bite back? Hardly the way an innocent goes about establishing themselves in a game.

Right, I have stuff to do, so I may as well give you all my current thinking in case anyone hops on to discuss it.

My tier right now would be:

Tier 1: Dayne

Tier 2: , Plumm, Reyne

Tier 2.5: Quorgle*

Tier 3: Grandison, Harclay

Tier 4: Yarwyck

Tier 5: Bracken

edit: Anyone missing hasn't given me a reason to place them on a tier yet, obviously. :-p

+Your unnecessary defense of me. You seem to have caught yourself in your own net Cerwyn. Also, I don't know how you make tiers and ignore several players (even if they haven't posted)...(Qorgyle, IIRC did this too with an "everyone" tier. Put the names in please)

[House Velaryon]

I don't like Tarbeck either, a very low contributor that just comes in on the last second and jumps onto the lynch mob trying to sound like he's original and has his own motives while not really commenting on anything else.

If you disagree my reasoning was original, please refer to a post where same point was noted before me.

But you are right that I should commented on more stuff.

In exchange between Yarwick and Bracken the former looked better (perhaps because he was more polite?) and, for me, Yarwick is m,ost trustable player for now. Bracken is less trustable, but still less suspicious than the rest of the field.

I am content with Plumm's answers to pressure.

I think "case" on Qorgyle was rather poor, that's the main reason why I dislike Reyne (the rest of his posts was quite decent) and twose who supported him, namely you.

Cerwyn has said stuff which I agree doesn't look so good, though he's such a non-contentious issue I have slight problems seeing him as guilty. Right now he's looking more scape-goatish than anything else. He's definitely the most popular opinion, but I'll go out on a limb and say I don't think he'd be my choice for a lynch.

Perfect middle-roading.

Now I think you are second best candidacy for lynch after Cerwin.

[House Velaryon]

Bracken, initially your discussion with Yarwick was useful, but now you both started self-repeating, and it becomes a distraction of Arryn-Greyjoy sort. Stop please.

[House Clegane]

Secondly, you dislike inactives but won't lynch them? You like pressure on them but they are bad lynch choices? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here. I dislike this... It doesn't come off as genuine.

I could have sworn I wrote this exact point. Twice. Speaking of disingenuous.

For now, I support lynching Cerwin, for reasons slightly different than everybose else's. I saw nothing wrong with him defending Bracken, but defending Vyrwel is a different story. It looked very overexersizing and insincere. Just like that, being caught defending one played, he decided to make this a habit, to show that his connection with Bracken isn't special.

You know, I actually quoted your post and expected to want to hammer you for it, but I think this is a valid point that was missed. Qorgyle seems a bit random at first in picking out someone that has been absent. I would expect him to get some heat for that not for someone to post a defense, to the length they did as well, like Cerwyn did.

*EDIT*- Tarbeck, fair enough.

[House Corbray]

I feel incredibly popular.

Before I get into the game, can I just say I don't think the mods should be doing vote counts? If the King wants to run stuff that way, that's his choice. It's up to him to keep track of things. It's part of how we can judge if he's a good King or not - how willing he is to follow his own guidelines.

Yarwyck, I've read your posts, and I got nothing. Your quotes definitely make it look like that's what I was saying, only I know I wasn't. Clearly I fail at cohesive posting. I'm going to leave it for everyone else to make up their mind on the matter, because I really didn't intend it to be such a large point. My intention was merely to point out that Grandison was possibly directing the game at the low posters for all of Day 1, protecting potential partners, and not giving enough time for the KM to claim if they are on the table. Onto other matters.

I just want to reiterate the fact that Plumm was arguing that people could see making 7 posts as safe is just bad. He seemed to really get into detail about why he thought it was bad and it almost pushes the line of being forced. Like he wanted to be very careful with his words when defending his idea.

I disagree.

Short enough defence for you?

I am utterly baffled by Bracken's play at this point. Because FM usually aren't this rabidly aggressive, but he's very...um, erratic. And seems to enjoy commenting on every single throwaway sentence people write and finding a contrived reason for calling it scummy. I really can't make heads or tails of it.

Whoa - one post dude and you rip every line of it apart? With quotes even?

<snip>

Seriously - that was a rabid and snarky, yet surprisingly content free attack on me. Are you the one Yarwick was accusing of this earlier? If so, then chalk another mark in the Yarwick is awesome column for me.

I've bolded the relevant words.

It's a stretch, I do admit, but Reyne is coming across as a bit of a King's Sheep in this post. He uses the same terminology as Grandison, and also brings up the same point that Bracken comments on every minor sentence. I've definitely been witness to partners using the same terminology on thread because of their communications elsewhere, but it could also be:

- A symp concentrating too much on his master.

- An FM concentrating too much on pleasing the King.

In all three scenarios, Reyne has to go. In two, Grandison is up for consideration. At the moment I'm still more worried about Dayne than Reyne, but they're pretty even. Dayne for the obvious one off post earlier, and Reyne for this.

Qorgyle, Cerwyn

Plumm

(everyone else)

Bracken

Yarwick, Harclay

These tiers don't make sense. They're also rather useless. You should have a better read on the King than simply lumping them in with everyone else.

I also don't understand how your previously quoted post leads to Bracken appearing more innocent than most players on your tiers.

You don't see the inconsistency of liking Grandison pressuring low posters...and then defending one immediately?

Does he? That would be interesting. I'll look into it now.

[House Thorne]

No, why? I voted you immedeately after reading the thread, rereading it without any pause would be quite senseless.

Actually no. Once you had the theory that I had been caught defending one person so defended another gave you a new light to read me under.

The reason I asked is that I always attack bad arguments, whoever they are directed against, so I'm certain you'll find instances of me defending others throughout the serious phase. Find that and your "fake defence to look normal" theory starts to fall apart. :)

[House Corbray]

Does he? That would be interesting. I'll look into it now.

When I say "now", I mean after work.

[House Thorne]

+Your unnecessary defense of me. You seem to have caught yourself in your own net Cerwyn. Also, I don't know how you make tiers and ignore several players (even if they haven't posted)...(Qorgyle, IIRC did this too with an "everyone" tier. Put the names in please)

Okay, that does look a touch hypocritical, but then I refuse to play with my suspicions list to try to look more innocent. Unfortunately I can't really see either of you two as being guilty right now. I'm not set in stone on that, as it's only day one, but I'd be reluctant to see you hang.

As for adding "everyone else", in a word... No.

I had included everyone who had posted in the serious phase of the game up to that point. What use has an "everyone else who hasn't posted" tier got for me, you, grandy or anyone else for that matter?

As people post and I get a handle on them, I'll add them in where they seem to fit.