Mafia 72.5 - Down In The Projects

[House Stokeworth]

Defensive? In what way?

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

Defensive in that I made a case on you and your subsequent case on me painted me in the worst light possible and was based on behaviour that applied best to you.

I refer to your behaviour during the lynch when you chose to abandon viable lynch choices who were the two most likely partners of your top suspect to switch to Avon.

[House Stokeworth]

I've gotta go to bed, I'll catch up tomorrow night.

[House Dayne]

OK, so I come into work today and find out that they're cracking down on excessive internet usage, so I gotta keep my nose clean. I know it's crap but I'll have to wait till I get home for a reread now. The endgame bickering looks quite amusing though...

[House Clegane]

Defensive in that I made a case on you and your subsequent case on me painted me in the worst light possible and was based on behaviour that applied best to you.

You are overstating things and being confused about timing. You never made a case on me (just like I never made a case on you). It started when I put you higher than Moreland in my tiers (which you had full right to question, I agree). Then you forgot about your suspicions of Moreland and Carver and started attacking me (attacking but not making a case, you just parroted what Moreland said about me). The I've said I would reread you and probably put you lower in tiers - and you've left me alone for a while. Then I've made a reread and came to conclusion that you still look suspicious. If you think it was "worst light possible", you are evidently wrong. Trust me, I was perfectly able to paint you in much worse light if I was ready to be demagogue. Would you dare to claim you aren't suspicious at all?

Then you've voted me over your previous suspects.

If somebody is defensive here, it's definitely not me.

I refer to your behaviour during the lynch when you chose to abandon viable lynch choices who were the two most likely partners of your top suspect to switch to Avon.

Those lynch options weren't viable, from my PoV. I was strongly afraid we might miss a lynch again, so I've joined an attemt of a compromise. Later, when I've seen a possibility to lynch Moreland, I supported it rather heavily by instructing D'Angelo to switch in right moment. I haven't switched myself because I didn't want D'Angelo to axe: it would be bad as either RL or game move. After Lany's vote on Moreland, I probably hesitated a bit more than I should, but I was sure I had enough time to axe and didn't expect Lany to switch again. I was absolute sure I had axed Moreland, it's fixed on the thread.

Bubbles, at the moment I was perfectly aware I was one of Moreland's two top suspects. If I was evil, would I hesitate to axe the only player expressing suspicions about me?

[House Connington]

OK, so I come into work today and find out that they're cracking down on excessive internet usage, so I gotta keep my nose clean. I know it's crap but I'll have to wait till I get home for a reread now. The endgame bickering looks quite amusing though...

:grouphug: Commiserations.

But, as a serious note, Carver is still my run-away favourite. I don't buy any of his answers to my case. Sure we have plenty of time, but hey after day 1 it's safer to just get the votes over with early. :-p

[House Velaryon]

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.

Again, let me state that I didn't like the case made by Bubbles - it was too subjective and he added a lot of snarky comments. I did think he had some good points buried in there so I re-read myself and pulled out what I thought were the relevant ones. It came down to the fact that I had bad vibes on you which Is why I didn't pursue the case at the time. Since then you've done little to alleviate those feelings.

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.

I think it's a null tell. It does come off as a bit of brown-nosing IMO.

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.

You ask why you're not brown-nosing me right after you say something nice about me? Anyways, Daniels, Hauk and Carver have all taken non-standard stances or actions. If you know they are innocent, it's not hard for you to come down on that side instead of attacking it when something out of the norm comes up.

[House Stokeworth]

I hate to do this again...

I have a role and I fucked it up real bad. I am a martyr and I should have been on Stringer last night but I got confused and was sitting on the wrong person.

I feel absolutely shit about it.

I think it's possible that we can still carry a VIP through to day six if there is still a healer around and we get that far.

I can be healed when I take a bullet for somebody so my idea is a follows:

I protect the healer tonight and the healer heals me.

The following night I protect the healer ensuring he makes it through to day 6.

I'm posting this now because I won't be around much tomorrow and I don't know what's going to happen in the mean time. Carver already has two votes.

I have no idea if this is the best thing to do but now that Stringer is dead my role is useless otherwise.

I have to get up for work in five hours, but I'll hang around for 10 minutes if anyone has questions.

[House Velaryon]

I think he looks worse on a reread, the most concerning thing being his willingness to vote Avon when he could have had Morewell or Greggs, his top suspects potential partners.

Can you explain why you voted for Avon in the first place when you were well on the way to lynching Morewell?

This is the most suspicious thing about McNulty IMO. I've found myself agreeing with his thinking a lot of times - or more accurately, not agreeing, questioning it in my head and then seeing his point. (For instance, Carver looking bad) However, no matter how he explains it, the swing doesn't look good. I'd say it makes him a good candidate for a Moreland partner. Of course he would axe Moreland if he was going down - and I really think it looked like he was. Now he's moved Moreland down in his tiers and haring off in another direction.

I am absolutely sure that Carver's lynch is better that Moreland's lynch. And I am almost sure that Gregg's or your lynch is better than Moreland's tomorrow. Because Greggs might be Carver's partner as well and you... well, I feel better about you now. Perhaps I'll exchange you with Moreland in tiers afte the reread.

This is where he rearranges his tiers. He is still casting suspicion on Moreland elsewhere, but there 3 other lynches that he'd rather go for.

Bubbles:

<snip>

Conclusion: until very last hours, looks like FM who chose being tunnel-visioned as a cover. Still very suspicious.

I disagree that Bubbles is very suspicious. I think you're stretching.

[House Velaryon]

Oh my god. Need to process all the role reveals.

Problem is, I believe Hauk and I believe Bubbles. I know I said I had problems with Hauk, but I wanted the FM to doubt him and perhaps make a mistake. Slim chance, I know.

Vig

BP

Martyr

Can I ask who you were sitting on and why?

[House Stokeworth]

I'm off to bed I have to be up in a few hours

[House Velaryon]

:bawl:

Bad timing.

[House Connington]

On one hand, if the healer can be taken out tonight, I can then be safely dealt with without having to give us an extra lynch.

On the other hand, if Bubbles is the FM they can afford to lose from the pair, the one to take the risk, we're screwed any way. Bubbles being an FM would pretty much clear anyone with any suspicion at all on them today.

Gah. Is this an all roled game?

[House Clegane]

I have a role and I fucked it up real bad. I am a martyr and I should have been on Stringer last night but I got confused and was sitting on the wrong person.

This game will be remembered forever as A Game of Awful Reveals. Should I claim guard only to make more fun?

I can be healed when I take a bullet for somebody so my idea is a follows:

I protect the healer tonight and the healer heals me.

It's up to healer to decide, but I don't recommend him to reveal at the time.

Bubbles, if you really are what you claim to be, just target a player you think to be most trustable and unlynchable. Hauk, probably. Since you are quite lynchable, you still can be useful for inno's case this way, even after you fucked a chance to save Stringer (I can't see how you managed to make such a mistake, but whatever). Just don't ask for healer to claim, it's very bad move.

If you are evil - STOP STEALING MY BRAIN!

[House Connington]

This game will be remembered forever as A Game of Awful Reveals. Should I claim guard only to make more fun?

It's up to healer to decide, but I don't recommend him to reveal at the time.

Bubbles, if you really are what you claim to be, just target a player you think to be most trustable and unlynchable. Hauk, probably. Since you are quite lynchable, you still can be useful for inno's case this way, even after you fucked a chance to save Stringer (I can't see how you managed to make such a mistake, but whatever). Just don't ask for healer to claim, it's very bad move.

If you are evil - STOP STEALING MY BRAIN!

Why would a martyr protect a bulletproof?

[House Clegane]

Why would a martyr protect a bulletproof?

Well, if Bubbles trusts some other player than you, he should protect him. I dunno whom he trusts. Not me, evidently, not Carver probably, not Moreland possibly. Leaves Rawls or Greggs.

The game is a total mess now. :(

[House Clegane]

And, by the way, why would a martyr believe that there is a regular healer in the game? Can anybody remember a game oh that size where we had both healer and martyr? Can anybody remember any recent game with martyr at all?

Now I am absolutely sure that both Carver and Bubbles are lying liers who lie. But only one of them is guilty, and I have to choose which. Which isn't an easy dilemma.

If they both are innocent and killers are, say, Rawls and Greggs - I give up. I can't win this with half of innocents playing up to opponent's favor.

[House Velaryon]

It's up to healer to decide, but I don't recommend him to reveal at the time.

This I agree with.

If you are evil - STOP STEALING MY BRAIN!

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't understand this comment.

And, by the way, why would a martyr believe that there is a regular healer in the game? Can anybody remember a game oh that size where we had both healer and martyr? Can anybody remember any recent game with martyr at all? Now I am absolutely sure that both Carver and Bubbles are lying liers who lie. But only one of them is guilty, and I have to choose which. Which isn't an easy dilemma.

This I'm not following. Of course Carver lied, he said so. How are the two connected so that one is guilty and one is innocent? Could they not both be innocent? If they are both guilty, I see no advantage in it at all. Bubbles revealing doesn't help Carver in any way, just paints a target on himself. A martyr reveal makes no sense (then again, neither did a BP yesterday). I might buy this reveal as FM IF it were end game (it's not yet) or if he were sure that there is no healer (he can't be).

I agree, however, that a healer and martyr in the same game with 2 BP is wrong. If there is a healer, they shouldn't reveal, but please think about the balance and what is believable.

[House Clegane]

This I'm not following. Of course Carver lied, he said so. How are the two connected so that one is guilty and one is innocent? Could they not both be innocent? If they are both guilty, I see no advantage in it at all.

Definitely they can't be both guilty. It makes no sense.

Theoretically, they can be both innocent, but then they are giving a win to killers on golden plate by making worst mess I've ever seen. I can't play against two crazy innocents. Three, if counting Hauk.

I just have to presume that one of Carver and Bubbles is guilty. Otherwise I give up.

Which one is worse, I still have to rethink. Luckily, we have enough space to lynch both (unless there is three FMs, highly unlikely).

[House Dondarrion]

This is the most suspicious thing about McNulty IMO. I've found myself agreeing with his thinking a lot of times - or more accurately, not agreeing, questioning it in my head and then seeing his point.

That's probably because he was parroting agreeing with you. And he has been discussing safe topics and acted carefully. But then I also had a good impression by McNulty before my reread, but afterwards he just looked bad. Like an FM who didn't know what to do. Adding some comments or harmless questions.

If you compare his recent defense post to his other contributions you can see that he is apparently able to say more than just two paragraphs in one post. I think he could have done more than he actually did.

[House Dondarrion]

Let me see, Bubbles is a martyr who trusts no one but failed to heal the only VVVVVPI we had. And having Stringer's dead body right in front of him, he still thinks there is a healer?

:shocked:

:leaving: