Mafia 72.5 - Down In The Projects

[House Dondarrion]

Speaking of which, I just checked the rules and saw that they still say that this is a Kingmaker game. :lol: So no one's votes should have counted at all so far.

I declare myself king, and all of you dead!

You can't do this to D'Angelo! The man's on a mission! :tantrum:

[House Redfort]

Burrell,

You pest. :) (like I should be talking)

unvote D'Angelo.

[House Dondarrion]

I really didn't anticipate that kill.

I'm not at all surprised that the "finder" was lying. Not sure if it was a failed killer ploy or simply some crazy innocent behaviour though.

If we kill D today, we have 7 players tomorrow, then 5 the day after. Worst case scenario 2 lynches. If we let him live, we have 1 lynch and his 1 kill.

There is absolutely no reason not to lynch D'Angelo today, unless we simply decide that it's better to let a lame duck SK win than the FM.

The annoying thing is that if he killed on odd nights, we'd be able to let him have one kill. When we go down to 4 (1SK 1FM 2 innocents) it's an odd night, so even if we hit the FM, D gets to kill that night to win the game. Barring a heal of course, but then the killers seem to be evading our healers sights.

Is that all you have to say?

I'd really love to hear thoughts from Greggs, Stringer and you. Especially from Stringer! <_<

[House Connington]

Is that all you have to say?

I'd really love to hear thoughts from Greggs, Stringer and you. Especially from Stringer! <_<

Like I said, struggled to engage with the game, will make a big effort some time within the next 12 hours. After that you'll have plenty of thoughts.

[House Corbray]

Like I said, struggled to engage with the game, will make a big effort some time within the next 12 hours. After that you'll have plenty of thoughts.

My write up on you was going to start by calling you the "in and out" man :lol:

Meeting time :tantrum:

[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.

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

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

I'm off for a while.

[Lady Gaga]

Is that all you have to say?

I'd really love to hear thoughts from Greggs, Stringer and you. Especially from Stringer! <_<

I thought we had lynched Moreland when I left. :blink:

I don't trust D'Angelo. I'd be happiest with him gone today.

I think Carver has done some very silly things while going around proclaiming himself to be the only one seeing things clearly, and I don't trust him.

I don't trust Moreland. He was a clear leading candidate yesterday and was to my mind the main beneficiary of the vote swing. I also have felt a certain level of, urm, slime emanating from him. I can't tally the way he has been playing and the things he has been doing with an innocent player.

I don't trust McNulty. I feel that he is playing a certain style of game that looks to position themselves in a position where he is unlikely to be troubled by a lynch or an NK. I need to reread him to see if the level of design is as much as my gut says.

I don't trust Greggs, but not to the same extent as others seem to. I haven't agreed with some of the early points against her, and I have felt as if she has been the go to as an easy target in this game.

I don't trust Rawls. I consider him to have been the primary proponent of this switch to Avon, which I didn't see the point of at any stage. There's been sone other stuff as I read the thread which makes me think less of him. Someone already pointed out the whole "provides questions, but not answers" thing which is a pet hate of mine.

I honestly wish I had more vig kills, because I'd turn this game into a bloodbath. You know you want to mods! :leer:

[Lady Gaga]

That post really looks like it needs Tiers for differentiation of suspicion levels:

Tier 1: D'Angelo

Tier 2: Moreland, Rawls

Tier 3: Greggs, Carver

Tier 4: Hauk, McNulty

Tier 5: Bubbles

[House Dondarrion]

Loos like everyone is busy staring at each other. I am off for a while myself, which means you have to wait for the rest of my reread until tomorrow.

[House Velaryon]

He finds Bubble's case on Mooreland too subjective and doesn't like it, yet 33 minutes later he makes his own case that basically says the same thing.

Most of his comments are about the WIFOMness of Moreland, yet his own comments are the same.

I didn't like Bubble's case on Moreland, but I agreed that he was suspicious. I did use a lot of his points (the ones I agreed with) because when I did my reread, I picked out the things that really stuck out to me. Bubbles used a ton of quotes and a lot of them I thought were just an opportunity for him to make a snarky remark and not terribly relevant points. I did a re-read (and case) to see why I had a bad feeling about him. I know a lot of the points are subjective and based in gut, but that didn't erase the bad feeling I had. I didn't want to vote for him when I had little objective evidence.

In between that, he doesn't like how Hauk posts and then disappears. That is a lot for 30 minutes. Why disagree with Bubble? Why not just say "hey I have been working on this case too. It's similar, but maybe a little better" instead of commenting on how it is all subjective? Could be he is uber-mafia and can make a case in less than 30 minutes while reading other comments too.

I hadn't been working on a case. Bubble's case inspired me to make my own re-read. Apparently I do have uber-mafia skills.

He did a case on Moreland, but voted Greggs; When Moreland was nearly lynched, he swung things to Avon.

I started feeling better about Moreland by his reaction to being under pressure.

I've started re-reading, but haven't finished. So far I've remembered why I didn't like Moreland early on but have to re-read day 2 before deciding what I think of him.

I also think Carver looks worse than I originally thought. I thought he was contributing more than he actually was - in my notes his name appears twice so far and that's for voting D and then after the reveal saying we could lynch him today or tomorrow. Something happened to violently change his mind on this, but I haven't gotten there yet.

We have a weekend freeze coming up before the end of this game day, right?

[House Connington]

You know what?

remove vote

This is a huge fucking gamble, but I am absolutely convinced that Carver is evil.

Well, would have been fun to have actually lynched the SK yesterday, but it can wait until tomorrow or the next day.

Definitely in agreement with those that are not liking Greggs. Between her posts like this and the disappearing act. Overdefending = FM...so she disappears to look innocent? Now was that her natural reaction or one designed to look innocent?

Looking through some scenarios now...if we refuse to lynch him today, we have to lynch him tomorrow. The innocents are pretty screwed if we lynch innocents and he kills an innocent. Lynching D on day 4 after having lost 5 innocents (D2 lynch, N2 FM kill, D3 lynch, N3 FM and SK kill) will be a loss. Day 2 would have 2FM, 1SK, and 3 innocents. Lynch SK, FM NK, and then we have 2 FM and 2 innocents. So we'd have no choice but let him continue to slide.

Unless my logic is wrong here, I have to agree with Bunk actually. D'Angelo is only of help to us if he kills an FM N3, but his only chance of winning is killing an innocent that night. No thanks. Lynch him today, let the FM kill an innocent and reduce the suspect pool, and we'll take a shot at a FM tomorrow.

Lynch D'Angelo.

The maths shows that like Carver said earlier, we had 2 days in which to kill him. However he uses it to justify going from a "let him live" to a "he must die" opinion?

One fewer innocent to waste our time contemplating whether they are FM or not.

What exactly would my end game be if I didn't want to make a choice (it probably would be Greggs by the way)? I'd just be in the same position tomorrow.

Again, why has this changed from the first post?

We must lynch the SK today or tomorrow. Allowing him to kill again is *pause for effect* MORONIC. The only chance the SK has of winning is having us screw up (quite possible) and then killing an innocent. How does that help us? Answer: it doesn't.

Meaning we have two choices:

D2: Choose from a pool of 10 (dead CIs=Freamon and Omar)

N2: Innocent gets nightkilled

D3: Lynch D

or

D2: Lynch D

N2: Innocent gets nightkilled (who knows what else may happen here, find/heal/etc.)

D3: Lynch from a pool of, most likely, 9 (3 dead CIs=Freamon, Omar, and N2 kill)

Do I need to continue hitting this poor dead horse or can I stop?

ABck to today or tomorrow, plus ignores the possibility that hitting a killer today (yesterday now) or a heal would have meant we had the benefit of letting him kil without losing anything for the pleasure.

My point is that we'll have a better chance of getting an FM tomorrow than today. It may not be *that* much more information, but it is enough to be worthwhile. I also don't want to risk any kind of nonsense going on that would cause people to be dumb and decide to not lynch D tomorrow. There is no limit to the stupidity that can happen in these games (I very much include myself when I speak of this).

somethign like a change in circumstances that could have made letting him live the optimum choice?

Ignores the fact my post shows a scenario where we'd want to use D, instead nitpicking the smaller details. Once i show the maths doesnt matter i'm right anyway, he ignores my post totally.

Then there's the fake reveal and all in entails, including pulling the healer off of the obvious heal choice. The justification for it is ass backwards too, claiming it was to get us to kill him when with a finder, the obvious thing to do would be to NOT kill D, as we know his alignment anyway. Best to narrow the field for the finder to be searching in. I think this was intended to draw the heal, and once it didn't work a secondary target was targetted instead.

My vote stays on D. I'd like a chance to do a find tonight so we have a chance at another result. Healer :whip:

Driving in to work now, I may check in again before the end of the day.

Backs me up, eh?

I have about 25 minutes until a meeting by the way. May not be back by the end of the day to see D'Angelo lynched. :(

eta-

Bubs, I figure there is a one shot healer that hasn't used their shot yet. They would be silly to have.

Wow, so it's suddenly worth drawing a one shot healer's single shot just to get a man you say can be killed on one of 2 days killed on the first of those 2 days? Bullshit,

Yes, I said:

I'm not sure I get this case. The only suspicious thing is the 180 on the SK, but even that came after the maths didn't it? Then again I really don't get your previous vote, on Greggs. I can't see the case there at all.

However on proper re-read, I'm wrong. Carver is scummy as hell.

[House Connington]

Fuck it, no. D'Angelo has to go today anyway. Carver can go tomorrow.

Am I right in thinking that a heal / botched nightkill, once D is dead, is absolutely useless to us? We'd need 2 now to gain a lynch right?

[House Redfort]

Fuck it, no. D'Angelo has to go today anyway. Carver can go tomorrow.

Am I right in thinking that a heal / botched nightkill, once D is dead, is absolutely useless to us? We'd need 2 now to gain a lynch right?

After 4 hours you make a big post, pulling together quotes etc. etc. and then flip flop in two minutes? Really man?

[House Redfort]

The maths shows that like Carver said earlier, we had 2 days in which to kill him. However he uses it to justify going from a "let him live" to a "he must die" opinion?

How is this scummy? I looked over the scenarios and didn't like what I saw. The SK absolutely has to kill an innocent tonight to have a chance, that ends the game for the innocents if we don't hit an FM today.

ABck to today or tomorrow, plus ignores the possibility that hitting a killer today (yesterday now) or a heal would have meant we had the benefit of letting him kil without losing anything for the pleasure.

D'Angelo had to go yesterday or must go today. Do I really need to show how the lynch yesterday turned into an abortion or do you want to argue that it was better than lynching D and having a chance today to make a decision on who to lynch as a potential FM?

somethign like a change in circumstances that could have made letting him live the optimum choice?

Ignores the fact my post shows a scenario where we'd want to use D, instead nitpicking the smaller details. Once i show the maths doesnt matter i'm right anyway, he ignores my post totally.

We NEVER would want to use D. Stop being thick. I've said it a thousand fuck times and politeness goes out the window at this point. The SK will kill an innocent and will fuck our chances at winning. Even if D *does* listen to us and legitimately hopes they hit an FM, they may not, and guess what? It doesn't change the fact that we are fucked. Keeping D alive is killing another innocent, plain and simple.

Then there's the fake reveal and all in entails, including pulling the healer off of the obvious heal choice. The justification for it is ass backwards too, claiming it was to get us to kill him when with a finder, the obvious thing to do would be to NOT kill D, as we know his alignment anyway. Best to narrow the field for the finder to be searching in. I think this was intended to draw the heal, and once it didn't work a secondary target was targetted instead.

The point was to give MORE reason to hold off our attempt at lynching an FM until today. Not my fault that it was cocked up by people who didn't listen to my initial logic. So...best to narrow the field for a finder or for a lynch? How does that make any sense?

Wow, so it's suddenly worth drawing a one shot healer's single shot just to get a man you say can be killed on one of 2 days killed on the first of those 2 days? Bullshit,

Do you think the healer healed me after I said I wasn't the finder?

Yes, I said:

However on proper re-read, I'm wrong. Carver is scummy as hell.

Yup, you are wrong. That is the one thing you actually have gotten right.

[House Connington]

After 4 hours you make a big post, pulling together quotes etc. etc. and then flip flop in two minutes? Really man?

The big post stands. The decision to flip to you was a last minute one, which I decided against pretty much straight after, yes.

Tomorrow, you will be my #1 choice unless something huge changes. I'm still half-open to the idea of just lynching you today.

[House Connington]

D'Angelo had to go yesterday or must go today. Do I really need to show how the lynch yesterday turned into an abortion or do you want to argue that it was better than lynching D and having a chance today to make a decision on who to lynch as a potential FM?

We NEVER would want to use D. Stop being thick. I've said it a thousand fuck times and politeness goes out the window at this point. The SK will kill an innocent and will fuck our chances at winning. Even if D *does* listen to us and legitimately hopes they hit an FM, they may not, and guess what? It doesn't change the fact that we are fucked. Keeping D alive is killing another innocent, plain and simple.

Do you think the healer healed me after I said I wasn't the finder?

Firstly, it was only the last minute swing that was... abortion-like. We had a decent suspect with a decent case against them, who was decently heading to a normal lynch. Who may well be a killer still. It was the last minute swing that was just... wrong. Hardly a symptom of keeping D

Secondly, now we have to kill him. However if we had hit an FM yesterday or healed successfully last night, it WOULD have brought about a scenario where his powers could be useful for us.

Thirdly, it was clear that you wasn't being particularly... believed... before you withdrew your claim. I doubt it would have been withdrawn if you had recieved a warmer reaction. Plus there's the risk that the healer wouldn't have been around to see and change it. If you are innocent, and we did have a one shot healer, you may well have diced with our chances there.

[House Redfort]

Firstly, it was only the last minute swing that was... abortion-like. We had a decent suspect with a decent case against them, who was decently heading to a normal lynch. Who may well be a killer still. It was the last minute swing that was just... wrong. Hardly a symptom of keeping D

So the only problem was actually the lynch itself. Ok great.

Secondly, now we have to kill him. However if we had hit an FM yesterday or healed successfully last night, it WOULD have brought about a scenario where his powers could be useful for us.

We didn't. So, I'm a bad guy for wanted to try to lynch a potential FM when we had the most information possible instead of less information and the chance that we have a healer AND the healer heals right? Ok, yeah I'm the bad guy.

We do have to kill him? I thought you wanted to perhaps lynch me? Or you have want to lynch me?

...That would be an excellent way of losing the game for the innocents by the way.

[House Connington]

So the only problem was actually the lynch itself. Ok great.

We didn't. So, I'm a bad guy for wanted to try to lynch a potential FM when we had the most information possible instead of less information and the chance that we have a healer AND the healer heals right? Ok, yeah I'm the bad guy.

We do have to kill him? I thought you wanted to perhaps lynch me? Or you have want to lynch me?

...That would be an excellent way of losing the game for the innocents by the way.

I can lynch you tomorrow. You aren't worth the risk that we'd lose it tonight.

[House Redfort]

I can lynch you tomorrow. You aren't worth the risk that we'd lose it tonight.

It would be a mistake tomorrow also. But you are welcome to try to continue the comedy of errors that has been the norm for us lately.

[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.

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

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

7 hours until the Weekend Freeze.