Mafia 72.5 - Down In The Projects

[House Baratheon]

Bubbles hasn't contributed that much so far, has he? And he has probably stolen my i-Pad, too.

Reason enough to lay a serious vote on Bubbles.

People like McNulty, Hauk, Stringer or Bubbles probably deserve a wake up call, but why Bubbles, and what do you think this vote will accomplish? If you want to go after the low-liers (and I certainly won't argue much after last game...) then by all means do, but this is kind of weak.

I can't help, but I just have this picture of you as the agreeable killer guy in my mind. :unsure:

I get this often.

[House Targaryen]

It is day 1.

13 players remain: Avon Barksdale, Bubbles, D'Angelo Barksdale, Detective Carver, Detective Freamon, Detective Greggs, Detective Hauk, Detective McNulty, Detective Moreland, Lieutenant Daniels, Major Rawls, Omar Little, Stringer Bell.

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

3 votes for D'Angelo Barksdale (Omar Little, Major Rawls, Detective Freamon)

2 votes for Bubbles (Detective Greggs, Detective Moreland)

2 votes for Detective Greggs (D'Angelo Barksdale, Avon Barksdale)

1 vote for Detective Moreland (Bubbles)

1 vote for Major Rawls (Detective Hauk)

1 vote for Omar Little (Detective Carver)

3 players have not voted: Detective McNulty, Lieutenant Daniels, Stringer Bell.

[House Velaryon]

Especially when we have a wishy washy "I think I'd like to vote Greggs but i'd rather vote the man who's voting for Greggs" in that over reaction.

heh - fair point. I think the difference is that my vote actually put pressure on D'Angelo rather than reassuring him that if he laid low I'd eventually move onto someone else.

[House Baratheon]

I'm out for the night and won't be back before the day ends.

You'll have to make do, I guess. My vote stays where it is.

[House Velaryon]

People like McNulty, Hauk, Stringer or Bubbles probably deserve a wake up call, but why Bubbles, and what do you think this vote will accomplish? If you want to go after the low-liers (and I certainly won't argue much after last game...) then by all means do, but this is kind of weak.

I agree with this. Why Bubbles in particular? My first thoughts are OMGUS or to widen the vote options. Bubbles already has a vote, so pushing Bubbles up gives the illusion that he is as viable as the others right now maybe? We've got two votes on him right now with absolutely zero reason.

[House Thorne]

Okay, after my reread I'm gonna vote Moreland. I'll get to why in just a minute. There has not been much discussion today, and too much of what there has been has focused on Greggs' comment and the the RP/serious phase transition. But since I am as responsible for this as everyone else, and indeed more so than most, no matter. We must deal with what we have.

Well, Greggs' defense is odd (and wrong IMO). It's like he's implying the case on Omar had some merit to begin with - which it didn't at all. Then the random vote on Bubbles to spread the love. Why bother? If it's a random vote, make up some stupid reason and vote. If it's a semi-serious vote (to widen the vote options) what's the point? There is no reason behind it so it's not like it's going to convince anyone that Bubbles is a good option.

I also think Omar is right in calling out D'Angelo on his wishy-washy vote. Why bother to cover yourself so early on when nothing has really happened yet? That vote was soft as silk.

I almost voted for Greggs, then realized the only vote on him was coming from D'Angelo and that tipped me to vote for D'Angelo instead. Not entirely sure why, but I'm going with it.

I quoted his as I strolled through the thread, so I will comment - I really don't like this post. It's completely all over the place - wishy washy and contrived points about Greggs, yet a vote on D for no stated reason. Rawly, have you come any closer to deciding why you wanted to vote for D at this point?

Hey! A bunch of nerds emulating something-or-other is my crowd of choice. If you don't like it go and play football or pick up girls in bars or something :thumbsdown:

Maybe, but pointing this out is pretty useless. That vote on Omar was definitely not serious.

This is just stupid, and together with the previous sentence it's suspicious. Are you symping Omar or just fake-symping him?

Leading questions are your kind of thing? I don't like this particular exhaustive commenting. It wasn't warranted and makes me think Freamon is trying too hard to come up with reasonable opinions like the sort they would have if they were innocent.

Omar, would you feel the same way if it was D'Angelo getting the pile on treatment? How many votes do each have anyway?

eta: Avon and I cross-posted with votes on one each of Greggs and D'A. It's hardly what I'd call a pile on.

Nevertheless, I agree with Omar that at the time, it felt like it was a pile-on. Do you agree?

Two dead bodies. How do we know which was killed by whom? (unless one deader is a FM) Also, as I recall, this discussion started with respect to day 1. Clearly there will be a bit more information to work with to find an SK in later days. In the first few, however, there is pretty much nothing.

eta-Skittishness, eh, possibly. Could be a roled person as well. Fact is, there is so little way of tracking an SK during the first few days that we ought to look for FM and hope we get lucky (aka a bad SK).

Well, obviously. But I guess I would argue that we ought to look for any suspicious behaviour and worry about

the niceties of which faction it might represent later.

Moreland's first post (or first post after RP, I forget) appears to take Greggs seriously and disgrees with the assumed assertion that we shouldn't vote of the SK, but doesn’t vote to back that up, just disapproves snarkily - so neither disagreeing poiltely as one would if one thought a fellow innocent might have made a tactical mistake nor treating it as suspicious and voting. Seems wishy-washy to me, typical of FM trying to see what they can get to stick and seem contributive without gaining enemies. Moreland continues to be wishy-washy and his case on Freamon is just gut, but not explained fully and he doesn't even quote the post he finds suspicious - as if he doesn't want anyone to notice. Worst of all he doesn;t even vote for Freamon. I am going to go to bed, and am happy with my vote here.

[House Redfort]

Just got back, catching up now.

[House Mooton]

Omar back.

Wow, with three hours left this is looking like being an uninformative day. Unless things pick up a little we might even have trouble lynching here.

I note that, despite his protestations to the contrary, D'Angelo decided to stick with his vote for Greggs. I'm assuming that, as per his timetable mentioned earlier, he won't be coming back to change it now.

[House Dondarrion]

Why Bubbles? Because he

1) already had a vote

2) has been around unlike the others to contribute stuff

I confess it's a problem that I'm not familiar with all these chracters. Totally forgot about McNulty that way.

[House Redfort]

The same clues that help us find paired killers, minus the partnership. I started listing things and then I realized I was painting a roadmap. There is always something someone does that tips another player off. Reactions to things like serious votes, for instance.

We have 12 hours, the last half of which I will be alseep. I don't find 6 hours of real discussion too much, do you? I hate the idea that we have a "not serious phase". Really, why delay the game that way? Hiding something?

Going to place my vote on D. I never liked his first reaction to Gregg's post. It felt like a very forced way to cast suspicion (in addition to being, well, wrong). None of his posts really got him back in my good graces. The pride in switching the game into "serious" mode seem to be an attempt to assuage some of the suspicion rather than being really genuine. The last throw in line in this post I quoted bothers me as well, just a weak attempt at casting doubt anywhere else.

So you're backing down too? Seeing what kind of crap D'Angelo is getting for his vote and decided to make a retreat before it turned on you? Good plan. <_<

Did anyone question you on this (if so I missed it) or are you just volunteering this info to make yourself look better (theoretically)?

Avon is definitely up there among people I'd vote for as well. They seem to have been a bit careless in jumping on with D on Greggs and after realizing their mistake he backed off meekly. Not going to be today's lynch though unless something drastic happens.

Okay, after my reread I'm gonna vote Moreland. I'll get to why in just a minute. There has not been much discussion today, and too much of what there has been has focused on Greggs' comment and the the RP/serious phase transition. But since I am as responsible for this as everyone else, and indeed more so than most, no matter. We must deal with what we have.[snip]

Moreland's first post (or first post after RP, I forget) appears to take Greggs seriously and disgrees with the assumed assertion that we shouldn't vote of the SK, but doesn’t vote to back that up, just disapproves snarkily - so neither disagreeing poiltely as one would if one thought a fellow innocent might have made a tactical mistake nor treating it as suspicious and voting. Seems wishy-washy to me, typical of FM trying to see what they can get to stick and seem contributive without gaining enemies. Moreland continues to be wishy-washy and his case on Freamon is just gut, but not explained fully and he doesn't even quote the post he finds suspicious - as if he doesn't want anyone to notice. Worst of all he doesn;t even vote for Freamon. I am going to go to bed, and am happy with my vote here.

I can't decide here whether I find Daniels suspicious or if I just don't like this post. It certainly seems odd to me to have the quotes and responses sandwiched between his vote for Bunk and his reasoning..which is completely bereft of quotes. I don't get it.

Really going to need to improve the participation to have any realistic chance of winning. Frankly, I'm not sure there is anyone that I particularly find myself liking and agreeing with other than maybe Rawls and that is a stretch. Freamon perhaps. Hauk, Bubbles, McNulty, Stringer, etc. need to step up. Definitely don't like that the last two don't have a vote down yet.

[House Redfort]

Forgot to bold D'Angelo. Really need to get a lynch here in the next two hours. I'd like to go to bed shortly, but I'll stay on at least another hour.

Had something else to say...blanking completely. It'll come back.

[House Dondarrion]

Forgot to bold D'Angelo. Really need to get a lynch here in the next two hours. I'd like to go to bed shortly, but I'll stay on at least another hour.

Had something else to say...blanking completely. It'll come back.

Yep. Since I have to go now I place my vote on D'Angelo, too.

[House Mooton]

Yep. Since I have to go now I place my vote on D'Angelo, too.

So by my count that's five for D. Looks like whether we get a lynch or not is really going to depend on who shows up in the next couple of hours.

[House Velaryon]

And to think I was feeling guilty for not getting back to the thread before now ...

Rawly, have you come any closer to deciding why you wanted to vote for D at this point?

What I was referring to was the fact that D'A voting for Greggs' made him jump over Greggs in suspicion for me. It was based more in gut and I couldn't pinpoint why, hence the 'I don't know why' comment. The basic suspicion (soft vote) still stands and is the main reason.

Nevertheless, I agree with Omar that at the time, it felt like it was a pile-on. Do you agree?

I can see that.

[House Velaryon]

To be honest, I was kind of assuming D'Angelo (or Greggs) wouldn't be the top options at the end of the day. Usually something else comes up in the course of the initial crap cases and we run off in another direction.

Is it even possible to vote someone else out at this point? Not that I have a better candidate in mind, but I don't like this much.

[House Mooton]

Hauk, Bubbles, McNulty, Stringer, etc. need to step up.

You know who the most interesting member of etc. is to me? Greggs. Sure, she's had a metric crap-ton said about her, but she's only posted three times, all in the "non-serious" phase. Every time people list the low contributers they miss her. I suppose this is because she's been a topic of conversation, but lying low once you draw some heat is an excellent way to survive the day and something I'd expect an FM to do. Innocents are usually all gung-ho to defend themselves.

If I were going to vote a low lier at this point it would be Greggs.

[House Mooton]

To be honest, I was kind of assuming D'Angelo (or Greggs) wouldn't be the top options at the end of the day. Usually something else comes up in the course of the initial crap cases and we run off in another direction.

Is it even possible to vote someone else out at this point? Not that I have a better candidate in mind, but I don't like this much.

I know what you mean, but at this point I'm not even sure we can get D'Angelo. If Carver is still around and all three of us switched to Greggs we could get her to the same position (five votes). Unless a bus-load of people come back in the next hour or so I doubt anyone else is even possible.

This has been one of the lowest participation day ones I've seen in a while. It seem like the initial suspects were voted, we argued over them a bit, and then the time ran out. There's a whole phase of the day missing.

[House Redfort]

Good point on Greggs, she does for some reason seem to stick in my mind as someone that contributed more. Well, simply as a result of her comment that started the Barksdale voting parade. I'm not sure that I like her over D, but if that is the only way to get a lynch (it probably isn't) I'll switch.

[House Velaryon]

If I thought more people would actually be on, I'd be in favor of switching over to Greggs just to see what kind of chaos would result. However, I don't think it would make much difference at this point.

[House Redfort]

If Omar is still around and is down, then I'll switch to Greggs.