Mafia 72.5 - Down In The Projects

[House Clegane]

I have looked at pretty much everybody over the last few days so I don't see agree with being called tunnel visioned.

Yeah, you have looked into every direction. But haven't seen anything but Moreland yesterday and Carver most of today. Call it tunnel vision or any other word, it's still suspicious.

Almost forgot: D'Angelo. There is no merit in waiting more.

[House Stokeworth]

You evidently confuse me with somebody else (which is very strange considering your love to rereads). I made only one post at the beginning of day 1, before serious part started, and then was gone for the rest of the day. Like you, I started participating on day 2 only.

You're right :blushing:

That doesn't discount the possibility of a partnership but I'm sorry for misrepresenting you, I had a lot to look through and must have got my days mixed up.

Edit: It probably does make it less likely

[House Stokeworth]

Yeah, you have looked into every direction. But haven't seen anything but Moreland yesterday and Carver most of today. Call it tunnel vision or any other word, it's still suspicious.

Almost forgot: D'Angelo. There is no merit in waiting more.

At least I have looked. Your tunnel vision call applies better to you. The only cases you've made are this one and the one on Carver. You showed some suspicion of Gregg and Moreland but didn't pursue it.

I've made an effort to look at a number of people out of whom only two could be guilty, and make a decision based on my findings as to how guilty they look.

How is your behavior different to the way you have described mine?

[House Connington]

Why claim today? Simple. We're almost in end game so need all the information we can get. Now the killers can choose between either killing our VPI or removing my bulletproof-ness.

Even if they choose to kill me tonight (knowing or otherwise), we don't gain anything for it. That's why I first asked if there was any likely scenario where we could gain a heal. We'd need them to target me AND a heal to be pulled off.

On the other hand, if a healer is now alive, then the night after we have a no kill they need to heal me. If I had waited for a no kill to claim then it could have been a risky FM stunt. By doing so now, if no-one dies tonight we know I'm no longer BP, and therefore I'm the most likely next night kill too.

[House Targaryen]

It is day 3.

9 players remain: Bubbles, D'Angelo Barksdale, Detective Carver, Detective Greggs, Detective Hauk, Detective McNulty, Detective Moreland, Major Rawls, Stringer Bell.

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

4 votes for D'Angelo Barksdale (Detective Greggs, Detective Carver, Detective Hauk, Detective McNulty)

5 players have not voted: Bubbles, D'Angelo Barksdale, Detective Moreland, Major Rawls, Stringer Bell.

[House Clegane]

How is your behavior different to the way you have described mine?

I wasn't wishy-washy, at least. I didn't post rereads with no fruitful conclusion. I always find such staff to be suspicious, not in this game only.

I agree that my own play also wasn't ideal, though.

[House Clegane]

On the other hand, if a healer is now alive, then the night after we have a no kill they need to heal me. If I had waited for a no kill to claim then it could have been a risky FM stunt. By doing so now, if no-one dies tonight we know I'm no longer BP, and therefore I'm the most likely next night kill too.

Do you suggest that heler, if existing, should withdraw from action until no kill night? If he would heal anybody else, we will never know if lack of kill means you being targeted or person healed.

3 hours left. Bubbles, axe him already?

[House Dondarrion]

D'Angelo, for I guess he is waiting already to be spoilers.

[House Dondarrion]

Hauk, I have problems with your claim, but I won't discuss it now.

180 degree flip? Hardly. In the moment I felt like your reactions were good and that you re-reading was good, but I've had a chance to look at that again. The suspicion on you came very early Day 2 and seriously - almost everyone was jumping on you except Carver. You had plenty of time to react and start your re-reads.

You pulled quite a few points against Greggs before making your 180 on him for his (non)voting. You giving 'innocents' a free pass is one of the things I don't like about you. For instance, Daniels. He was going after you hard and you cleared him. Him flipping innocent makes you look 'better' because your judgment is so good. You kissed up to Bubbles too - another one going after you hard. You giving so many people a pass only helps you to focus on a few players and you'll never have to look at anyone else because they are not high on a lot of people's radar. I don't think it looks as innocent as you seem to think it is Mr. PI.

If you want a case, why don't you look at the one Bubbles made, or the one I made after Bubbles, or perhaps my post here earlier this page? Don't get your panties in a twist because no one has bothered to make a cohesive case or points against you - many people have.

I thought you disliked the Bubbles case. It is lightyeras old and it was based on WIFOM and contradictions mainly. Contradictions like calling me for rolefishing, but fishing for roles himself. Calling me for being nice to our vig, but doing the same stuff himself.

I am also not kssing up Bubbles' ass (that has been D'Angelo), but I was stating something that I consider a scumtell. He could have easily avoided any discussion, since everyone knew that he was after me already. Still he took the time to answer my points again. Doesn't make him innocent automaticall, but is a point in his favour.

One point in your favour is that you are changing your PoV from time to time. FM usually stick with what they've been saying in fear of possible contradictions.

Btw, can you explain why I'm kissing the asses of Daniels, Hauk and Carver, but not yours? All of them had only little influence on this game so far. You have.

Going to answer to you recent case in a minute.

[House Targaryen]

Sorry guys. Busy at work.

It is day 3.

9 players remain: Bubbles, D'Angelo Barksdale, Detective Carver, Detective Greggs, Detective Hauk, Detective McNulty, Detective Moreland, Major Rawls, Stringer Bell.

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

5 votes for D'Angelo Barksdale (Detective Greggs, Detective Carver, Detective Hauk, Detective McNulty, Detective Moreland)

4 players have not voted: Bubbles, D'Angelo Barksdale, Major Rawls, Stringer Bell.

D'Angelo was lynched. He was guilty.

It is Night. PM me!

[House Stokeworth]

I wasn't wishy-washy, at least. I didn't post rereads with no fruitful conclusion. I always find such staff to be suspicious, not in this game only.

I agree that my own play also wasn't ideal, though.

Just because a conclusion doesn't point strongly in a direction doesn't mean that it isn't useful. After rereading Avon I could conclude he wasn't a great choice for a lynch. After rereading Greggs, I knew that although she wasn't super scummy she was a person to watch, because although there wasn't a lot of her what there was wasn't great. My reread of Rawls revealed that he'd behaved in the same manner during the day one lynch making his actions during the day 2 lynch appear in a potentially different light. All useful information if you are interested in knowing who not to lynch, which you should be if you're innocent.

[House Dondarrion]

Moreland takes a lot of people off his list. Daniels most notably, Greggs, Hauk and Carver off the top of my head. I don't deny that certain things can ring true and hit your gut, but that's a lot of people. He also kisses up to Bubbles for answering him (something I don't think is as rare as Moreland seems to think). If you're an FM, you don't want to narrow your suspect list so you can be flexible and take advantage of situations. However, Moreland talks about a lot of things and says, 'I'm innocent, and FM would never want to say what I just did.' Narrowing your suspect pool also helps you stay focused on players without risking being inconsistent.

I'm selfconfident enough to say that I'm almost never wrong when I'm clearing players. It has nothing to do with gut, but with typical innocentish or FMish behaviour. Take Daniels as an example. He really seemed to be annoyed that I didn't want to use D'Angelo as our tool. I can hardly see an FM supporting this idea at all, but none FM would get that emotional about it. That's why Daniels was off my list.

Or look at Hauk. Which FM would offer a plan that would hurt his own faction? Especially someone who has been successfully avoided our attention until then. What if the majority disagreed with his plan? He'd get problems. What if the majority agreed? He'd get problems. So, where is the benefit for Hauk in suggesting a plan like this?

And Carver? Revealing as finder and unrevealing during the same day? What was the plan behind this? To rescue Greggs or me? Likely not, since the simple way to do that was to vote either Greggs or me. Luring the healer away from Stringer? No, because he unrevealed once the day was over. I would have been supicious if he had waited for an hour or two, hoping that the healer would be absent in the timespan between his unreveal and the end of the night.

So, please don't tell me that this is all aplied to my gut. It's simple logic.

Finally, do you think that I need to do all this to avoid being inconsistant? You really think that? If you had a look on my posts, you will surely realize that for example I still keep critisizing Hauk for things that sound suspicious. It's not like I'm blending these fellows out. They're just no current suspects.

Daniels is dead (and suspected Moreland) so he gets brownie points for declaring him innocent before hand. I was looking at his votes on Day 1 and it is in stark contrast to his actions day 2. He laid a vote on D, then moved to Bubbles for no real reason, then back to D when it was at the end of the day. The Bubbles vote still doesn't sit right. He comes back with 'Oh, I don't know what to think'. If he didn't want to be on the lynch train, he might have switched thinking that enough others would be around to lynch him - he was getting a lot of suspicion from nearly everyone. Then when he saw that a lynch might not go through switched it back. I'm conjecturing here, but the Bubbles vote makes little sense to me.

I laid a joke vote on Omar, not D'Angelo. Even if I did, why is a joke vote part of your analysis? <_<

Then I tried to pressure a low poster. Bubbles. I said that I wasn't convinced of the case against D'Angelo.I went to bed, woke up and voted D'Angelo, as he was the only possible lynch option left.

Your explanation for this looks kinda stretched. Reminds me of Bubbles' case somehow.

Then on Day 2, he doesn't vote and doesn't vote forever. Instead he is attacked by a lot of people so he begins to do his re-read pulling out lots of quotes to question. At the time it made me feel better about him, but in retrospect, it doesn't. He wasn't really making cases, just questioning. He pulled out a few quotes that put Greggs in a bad light, but her actions at the end of the day made him flip - but he had plenty of time to place a vote before that happened. Notice he clears Greggs for doing the same thing he did - not vote for the other top candidate. He did a good job of helping fuel bad feelings about her though (using dead players as back up). He picks up my suggestion quick and votes Avon. A vote which he both defends and tries to cast suspicion on.

You think I made this reread just because I was being attacked? Well, I made the reread that late because I was being attacked, so late that time was running out. I didn't have a guarantee to continue to post, as my head was on the block. That's why I had to hurry with my reread. It turned out that I didn't even have the time to make notes, so I fired out my thoughts and questions as they came.

Fact is that instead of revealing a role, instead of voting for the other top suspects, I spent my time rereading the thread to find suspicious posts. Why bother doing all that work when after my lynch my CF would tell you that I'm evil? Do you think that makes any sense?

Then it is ridiuclous to use my non-voting against me. Remember that I was in danger of being lynched? It's possibly not a smart move to discuss issues like lynching SK or not, risking to make yourself new enemies, instead of making a case against an easy target (Avon, Daniels, Greggs, Hauk, McNulty) or instead of clearing several of this group. At least when you're evil. Waiting for the very last minute to vote someone that has only been slightly discussed is also not mentioned in the latest issue of the "FM guide".

In conclusion, your main point against me is that I am a clever FM who tries to web a net of trust and lies. The more trusted you already are, the better. This, however, is only something you can do when your head is not at stake. But if you look at yesterday, I had more urgent issues to handle than the ones you've brought up.

[House Dondarrion]

Have to go again. Like I said, today I'm mostly away, so I'll be back in approx 8-9 hours.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

D'Angelo was lynched. He was guilty.

It is Night. PM me!

:crying: btw, D was Lany.

[House Stokeworth]

I am starting to wonder about the Rawls/Moreland exchanges, they are becoming more theatrical, particularly Moreland's latest response. It's an angle that hasn't been covered and could be worth a look tomorrow although it's fun to watch...

[House Stokeworth]

:crying: btw, D was Lany.

Nicest SK I've ever met :thumbsup:

[House Targaryen]

---- Down in The Projects ----

The west side has been turned on its head. Avon Barksdale was killed, and Stringer Bell became the new power. The vacuum Avon left behind was filled with no bloodshed, as Stringer places more faith in profits than in bullets. But another morning brings another body.

Stringer Bell (The Man Who) lies lifeless on the floor. He followed in his predecessors footsteps, his Innocent heart split in two, just as the Barksdale empire now lies in ruins with lieutenants set to battle for control of the streets.

-----

It is day 4.

7 players remain: Bubbles, Detective Carver, Detective Greggs, Detective Hauk, Detective McNulty, Detective Moreland, Major Rawls.

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

7 players have not voted: Bubbles, Detective Carver, Detective Greggs, Detective Hauk, Detective McNulty, Detective Moreland, Major Rawls.

[House Clegane]

But if you look at yesterday, I had more urgent issues to handle than the ones you've brought up.

And tactics you used helped you much to hande those issues.

A criminal lynched by every Detective in the game, nice picture. :)

Evidently, neither lynch nor kill give us new info to work with, so no reason to change my plans. Carver.

[House Stokeworth]

I'm going to bed pretty soon and I'm busy tomorrow so I won't be around much for some time. That was fucked up.

I would like further explanation from Hauk on the benefits of his revealing.

I will vote MCNulty for the moment. His case on me is very defensive and his explanation for his actions don't sit well with me.

[House Clegane]

I will vote MCNulty for the moment.

His case on me is very defensive

Defensive? In what way?

and his explanation for his actions don't sit well with me.

Do you mean my answer to Moreland's questions? I don't remember you asking me any.