Jump to content

Archived

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

House Targaryen

Mafia 72.5 - Down In The Projects

Recommended Posts

Not sure how much I can contribute in terms of rereads tonight, but I should at least be around some finally. Again, sorry, but I knew this was coming...I just hoped I was dead by now. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first obvious scummy thing that stood out about Rawls was his rush to get D lynched after Carver's fake reveal as finder;

I think you've got me confused with someone else. I wasn't in a rush to get D lynched before the reveal, and certainly not after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've got me confused with someone else. I wasn't in a rush to get D lynched before the reveal, and certainly not after.

I also can't remember that. Maybe after my reread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried to do a full reread, but I've been unable to follow the game properly for 2 days now and it's really hard to get back into the swing of it (plus the wine is starting to kick in and I'm glazing over). Mainly looking for possible McNulty partners, and I keep coming back to either Rawls or Moreland.

The first obvious scummy thing that stood out about Rawls was his rush to get D lynched after Carver's fake reveal as finder; I do wonder if that was just a way of getting rid of an obvious non-FM so that they could then take out the finder at night. He was then the one that suggested the Avon lynch as a compromise, which again would have done him no harm because as an FM he would know damn well that Avon was innocent.

Moreland, at first, in that lynch mob looked to be in danger - notice, however, that when the voting got really confused and everyone was switching back and forth, McNulty did put a vote on him that could easily have been decisive. OK, he switched it back straight away, but that looks like much too dangerous a play for a partnered FM, and that's the main thing that persuades me of Moreland's innocence.

Notice that when McNulty posted his tiers, he had Rawls right down low as well, though not quite at the bottom where it would have been too suspicious.

So, Rawls it is. And now to bed.

It might be hard to get back into the game, nonetheless I cannot accept that you're apparently not even trying. We haven't been spamming the thread while you were absent, and we have one guilty verdict which makes a reread easier. That's why a reread should be doable for everyone. There's still plenty of time left, so you should probably use it to keep yourself informed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is day 5.

5 players remain: Detective Carver, Detective Greggs, Detective Hauk, Detective Moreland, Major Rawls.

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

1 vote for Major Rawls (Detective Greggs)

4 players have not voted: Detective Carver, Detective Hauk, Detective Moreland, Major Rawls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't get too far with my reread. I stopped after ths post by McNulty at the beginning of day 2:

Yes, it was quotefail; we had same story in previous game.

I dislike both Moreland and Greggs for keeping discussing nightkills. But Moreland was contributing yesterday, whilst Greggs is all about safe topics.

Since I agree with suggestion to leave deciding about D'ANgelo until tomorrow, Greggs.

Greggs has been suspected by some other players already on day 1 and has been discussed as an alternative to D'Angelo by those who were around, but no one voted her on day 2 yet. I just can't see a convincing explanation for an evil McNulty to vote for Greggs at this point. I know it could be distancing, but he couldn't risk to loose his partner that early in the game just to look better himself. Let's not forget that others have been suspecting and voting Greggs before McNulty did, that's why he wouldn't get too much credit after a Greggs lynch.

So, would they risk to loose one FM to gain a small piece of benefit?

Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've got me confused with someone else. I wasn't in a rush to get D lynched before the reveal, and certainly not after.

Huh, you're right. I went back through your posts just now to pick the one I spotted and go "aha!", but couldn't find it. No clue where that came from, sorry.

Remove vote for now, I need to do a proper reread when sober.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is day 5.

5 players remain: Detective Carver, Detective Greggs, Detective Hauk, Detective Moreland, Major Rawls.

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

5 players have not voted: Detective Carver, Detective Greggs, Detective Hauk, Detective Moreland, Major Rawls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before doing anything else, I have a question. How sure are we that we only have to deal with two FM?

Pretty sure, but yeah. we can't know for sure.

I think that 3 FM with a SK is too overpowered. Things that could have helped the FM , but didn't - the SK only got one kill, we knew who the SK was so no guessing games for the FM to manipulate, the Vig didn't get his kill off. Any one of those things happening could have changed the game in their favor so 3 seems very overpowered to me. I know the FM have to worry about being targeted at night, or hitting a BP (or two)It is possible they have a symp, but again, I'm not sure that feels right. It's much more likely than a full blown 3rd FM.

The only one who would fit as symp would be Carver to Greggs or Moreland. Greggs and Moreland both went after McNulty, so no. Carver might fit, and if he is, it is more likely that he is a symp to Moreland than Carver because of his vote late that day. So taking this into account, it doesn't change my vote. Which I should place.

Moreland

And seriously? 4 hours to go and we haven't had any real discussion? If for no other reason, the FM deserve to win this game because we innocents are putting forth a really crappy effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been busy all day and I'm really disappointed that nothing has happened in my absence.

Unfortunatly I had more stuff to do today than expected, so when I say exhausted I mean exhausted.

The day ends in 3.5 hours. I think I'll try to focus my attention on a Rawls reread.

Rawls, what are your thoughts about the other three players? How would you rank them and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've been pretty clear about that

Moreland

Greggs

Carver

Hauk

Hauk is VPI, Carver is PI for me because with McNulty as a confirmed guilty, I see no reason for him to have done what he did. I don't much like his play (Day 1 was a little iffy - Day 2 stunt, and then gone from the face of the earth.), but I have a hard time seeing him as a partner for McNulty.

Greggs - voted McNulty early, just as McNulty voted Greggs early and stayed there (minor detour to Carver). It's possible there was some strong distancing going on, but I think it less likely than the last alternative.

Moreland. McNulty was completely wishy-washy on the case Bubbles made for you. He kept his vote on Greggs. McNulty said he'd vote you, but then quickly swung over to the Avon lynch started by you. The only qualm I have with this is that he said he'd vote you for D to hammer. At the time, I felt that the Moreland train would take off before the Greggs train, so him saying he'd vote for you could be a play to be seen on your train rather than one of those resisting it. It's a ballsy move, but not as ballsy as sitting on your partner all day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I don't like Moreland - some similar points as Bubbles' case, but a bit more condensed.

This is in response to Greggs' voting Bubbles for no reason. Who does he later vote? Bubbles. He gives his reasons (weak ones) but it looks like he forgot he questioned Greggs' earlier. When he does vote, he soft-sells it and gives himself an obvious out.

Granted, this is WIFOM, but he has a lot of WIFOM type arguements so far (i.e. FM wouldn't talk about the things I'm talking about)

This was directed at Freamon. Could just as easily describe himself. During day 1 he'd been casting soft suspicion on Freamon based on gut rather than actions. Freamon called him on it and was combative - a possible reason for a Freamon kill, especially since no one was looking at Freamon but him.

This is the WIFOM discussion I referenced earlier.

I also don't like that he used Freamon's suspicions to frame several people, and then brings up the possibility that D lied. If you're going to use Freamon's death as evidence, fine. I might disagree with the strength of that evidence, but don't weaken it further by saying, of course this might not be true. Sowing too much confusion and suspicion everywhere.

Having said that, I mostly have a bad feeling about him, but still feel stronger about Greggs at this point.

Another quick point - people didn't like Moreland fishing for roles. Avon was doing that too when Stringer hinted last night. Not so obviously, but he wanted to discuss it. Point against him. I didn't really follow his explanation about a vote swing.

This is Rawls first case against me. I haven't discussed it yet because it's rather weak, since there hasn't been much going on and I really started contributing only afterwards.

The point about Bubbles is of xourse nonsense. Only because I critizised Greggs for randomly voting someone (=Bubbles) I'm not allowed to vote Bubbles myself?

Well, but I don't want to discuss the case since it's old. When I look at this post, however, I remembered why I feel so uncomforatble about voting Rawls. We seldom agree, his ideas don't match mine, but his posts feel genuine to me. Like an innocent who's actually trying to solve problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've been pretty clear about that

Moreland

Greggs

Carver

Hauk

Hauk is VPI, Carver is PI for me because with McNulty as a confirmed guilty, I see no reason for him to have done what he did. I don't much like his play (Day 1 was a little iffy - Day 2 stunt, and then gone from the face of the earth.), but I have a hard time seeing him as a partner for McNulty.

Greggs - voted McNulty early, just as McNulty voted Greggs early and stayed there (minor detour to Carver). It's possible there was some strong distancing going on, but I think it less likely than the last alternative.

Moreland. McNulty was completely wishy-washy on the case Bubbles made for you. He kept his vote on Greggs. McNulty said he'd vote you, but then quickly swung over to the Avon lynch started by you. The only qualm I have with this is that he said he'd vote you for D to hammer. At the time, I felt that the Moreland train would take off before the Greggs train, so him saying he'd vote for you could be a play to be seen on your train rather than one of those resisting it. It's a ballsy move, but not as ballsy as sitting on your partner all day.

Obviously my brain is on strike right now and I don't have the time and will search for special posts.

What will you do if I get lynched and you'll learn that I am innocent? Because you know, it's the same question I'm asking myself right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rawls' suspect list early on day 2:

Bah - thinking about my tiers and some of these are gut placements, but here it is anyway.

Greggs, Moreland, (D'Angelo)

Hauk

Avon, Bubbles, Carver

Daniels, McNulty

Stringer

Hauk I don't like because he pops in but doesn't really engage. Strong statements, but little thought.

Avon was higher for me, but I'm getting a more genuine vibe from him lately. He's still in the middle because I'd lynch him in a pinch.

Bubbles is still a fairly big unknown for me, Carver has said some things I like, but his stance on D'Angelo is annoying. I don't know if it's genuine or if it's an FM stuck defending a recorded opinion, or if I just don't like his attitude.

Daniels and McNulty have said things I agree with and their comments seem to the point - not clearing them but I can't see myself voting for them yet.

McNulty is at his lowest tier (Stringer doesn't count). However, he gives good reasons for it. I only don't get why Hauk is that high on his list. For me he's comparable to Daniels and McNulty. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That#s a votcount from day 2:

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

3 votes for Detective Greggs (Detective McNulty, Major Rawls, Avon Barksdale)

3 votes for Detective Moreland (Bubbles, Lieutenant Daniels, Detective Hauk)

1 vote for D'Angelo Barksdale (Detective Carver)

1 vote for Detective McNulty (Detective Greggs)

3 players have not voted: D'Angelo Barksdale, Detective Moreland, Stringer Bell.

Two FM on the same mob? Looks strange. :worried:

Carver. Hmmmmh, I have a thought....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't like his low participation, often with just a vote and little, if anything, else. He explained his limited internet access after I posted that and his contribution has gone up in both quality and quantity since then (however hard it is to tell at the moment <_< )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×