Mafia 72.5 - Down In The Projects

[House Corbray]

So we all agree then that the game does have a non-serious phase and then transitions into serious discussion? Because what got this tangent started was you claiming to hate the suggestion that a non-serious phase existed at all.

So, to repeat. You found a comment Greggs made at the start of the game suspicious and voted her. You finished your vote with the kind of phrase you usually see people use in the last hours of the day when they're thinking about compromise, not at the start of the day attached to the very first serious vote.

Yep, that sounds about right.

but again, how much of the last hours I will be here affects my response in leaving my voting changing open.

[House Velaryon]

To be perfectly clear? I don't actually suspect Greggs any more than I suspect anyone else, and her 'lynch someone random and see what happens' strategy seems fair enough to me.

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)?

[House Mooton]

My vote was because I felt the comments unhelpful. I hope that clears things up?

Look, if you're just voting because the comments are unhelpful (which I accept if that's what you say) then obviously something better is going to come along and obviously you're going to change your vote when it does (unless the something better is a better case on Greggs). Rawls is right, saying this only serves to undermine your vote. It still reads to me like the sort of thing you tack onto a case your pretty confident of ("look, this case looks strong, but I'm willing to change if I see something better") otherwise it's redundant and obvious. Either way it's out of place in this context.

[House Tully]

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)?

Technically someone called me suspicious earlier (AND NOBODY FUCKS WITH AVON BARKSDALE). And told me my reasoning was crappy. I'm not "backing down" because my argument is pretty much the same as it was an hour ago, or whenever I voted. :dunno:

[House Mooton]

Technically someone called me suspicious earlier (AND NOBODY FUCKS WITH AVON BARKSDALE). And told me my reasoning was crappy. I'm not "backing down" because my argument is pretty much the same as it was an hour ago, or whenever I voted. :dunno:

I questioned it. And Omar definitely fucks with Avon Barksdale. :smug:

[House Corbray]

otherwise it's redundant and obvious.

That sounds like me.

Just wait a day or two until the "guts" start talking ;)

[House Velaryon]

I looked at your original vote -

But anyway. Greggs, because keeping the SK alive early on sounds like a terrible idea. There's probably a place for it near the end of the game should we decide on who the SK is, but right now that strategy makes no sense, and for lack of anything better to base a vote on, voting for someone whose ideas suck isn't any worse than a random vote.

Yep. It has the same reasoning as D'Angelo. That's not really a point in your favor you know :P It's just as soft and insubstantial. D'Angelo is getting pressure because he was the first to voice it, but consider the problems I have with his vote to apply to you as well.

[House Tully]

I looked at your original vote -

Yep. It has the same reasoning as D'Angelo. That's not really a point in your favor you know :P It's just as soft and insubstantial. D'Angelo is getting pressure because he was the first to voice it, but consider the problems I have with his vote to apply to you as well.

WELL NOW YOU'RE JUST SHEEPING ME.

Seriously. I already said that. :rolleyes:

[House Mooton]

Alright, I'm tippin' on out.

Be back when I'm back

[House Velaryon]

Seriously. I already said that. :rolleyes:

Well, yeah. I wanted to look at it myself though because I apparently glossed over it the first time. Should I not do that?

[House Tully]

Me too. I've got shit to do. Like ask my #2 man who needs to die.

ETA: Rawls, you can read my posts all you want. Just don't call Avon Barksdale anything but a self-analytical man.

[House Baratheon]

I agree the Barksdale votes on Greggs look suspicious, though I dislike D'Angelo's more than Avon's.

I'll cast a vote on D'Angelo and be gone for a while.

[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 Detective Greggs (D'Angelo Barksdale, Avon Barksdale)

2 votes for Omar Little (Detective Moreland, Detective Carver)

1 vote for Bubbles (Detective Greggs)

1 vote for Detective Moreland (Bubbles)

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

[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.

Really? So you believe that an SK will behave the same as a FM? Of course, other than distancing, awkward interactions with partners, the fact that the SK can be actively searching for killers instead of being false about cases, etc. So that leaves...what precisely?

[House Dondarrion]

So we all agree then that the game does have a non-serious phase and then transitions into serious discussion?

Bubbles missed that transition. And I never had the impression that Greggs was in the non-serious phase. :P

Seriously, if I was a killer I'd clap myself on my shoulders. Has been a long time since no one suspected me on day 1. :uhoh:

[House Thorne]

Really? So you believe that an SK will behave the same as a FM? Of course, other than distancing, awkward interactions with partners, the fact that the SK can be actively searching for killers instead of being false about cases, etc. So that leaves...what precisely?

Have you not thought of the night kills? Pretty obviously we will need to use them. Also general skittishness - if the SK dies that's it for their faction, but if you or I die (assuming you're innocent :)) the team will fight on.

I am currently feeling bad about the extent to which D seems to be kissing up to his attackers in an attempt to conciliate. But I'm going to reread the thread now - I'll just be a mo.

[House Redfort]

Have you not thought of the night kills? Pretty obviously we will need to use them. Also general skittishness - if the SK dies that's it for their faction, but if you or I die (assuming you're innocent :)) the team will fight on.

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).

[House Dondarrion]

Ugh, I have no clear preference who to lynch right now. And I'm pretty tired.

I'm not behind the case againts D'Angelo. Why did he bother to point out that his vote was serious when his case was wishy-washy? I don't know if it's a contradiction at all. One can be seriously wishy-washy.

Who else?

Carver Daniels just saved his ass by returning in time and posting some useful stuff in the next few hours.

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.

Will be back in time (in about 6 hours) to switch my vote in a most opportunistic way.

Edit: confused Carver with Daniels

[House Dondarrion]

I agree the Barksdale votes on Greggs look suspicious, though I dislike D'Angelo's more than Avon's.

I'll cast a vote on D'Angelo and be gone for a while.

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

[House Connington]

So, yeah. Big D was a bit wishy washy and a touch over reaction-ary... However the over reaction to his over reaction is far more revealing to me...

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.

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.

Rawls, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.