Mafia Game 73 (Mk. II)

[House Dayne]

All of this gives me a favorable view of Tollett. I do wish he would post more as his later posts didn't further my opinion of him (not that they were suspicious, just meh).

So I went to re-read what I didn't like about Tollett, but apparently the Inchfield stuff was all he's posted. I'm not sure who I was thinking of. So this means Tollett needs to post more, along with Royce.

I really don't like that Karstark is the top vote getter right now a few hours from deadline at three votes. This is where a traditional lynch mob either stalls or gets going, and to have the option to have Karstark lynched by simply doing nothing sits very wrong with me. We shall see how it ends up working out, but all it's doing right now is gutting the pressure of individual people to make hard decisions.

I know that I was one of the people pressuring Karstark, but it feels like an easy option.

[Lady Gaga]

I need to go to sleep.

Of the 4 players with the most votes, I suspect Inchfield the most. So he gets my vote. I've already posted my reasoning.

I don't have a problem with Vance. Maybe I missed the case against him. The only thing suspicious that I can see is that he is voting for an easy target in Karstark. But I also think he has given an acceptable justification for that vote.

Karstark is definitely middle of the road and if he's innocent, then he has a completely different approach to mafia than I do. On day 1, that would sometimes be enough to get my vote. But in this case, I'd rather lynch Inchfield.

The one thing I suspect about Dayne is the feeling that he is a bit overzealous in some of his accusations. Sometimes, it feels like he's putting on a show, rather than being entirely genuine. Not enough for my vote, but worth watching.

[House Targaryen]

It is day 1.

12 players remain: Clegane, Connington, Dayne, Inchfield, Karstark, Kettleblack, Lannister, Mallister, Redfort, Royce, Tollett, Vance.

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

3 votes for Inchfield ( Tollett, Dayne, Kettleblack)

3 votes for Karstark ( Lannister, Vance, Connington)

2 votes for Dayne ( Royce, Mallister)

2 votes for Vance ( Redfort, Karstark)

1 vote for Clegane ( Inchfield)

1 vote for Redfort ( Clegane)

[House Thorne]

To be honest, I know this sounds horrible, but I'm starting to flip-flop on Inchfield. To the point that I'm actually considering changing my vote to him. Yes, I am a total sheep this game. Sell me the Inchfield lynch over the Karstark (or Redfort) lynches, and I will baa obediently.

Dayne, let me try to pin down which quotes in particular gave me an innocent vibe. None of these is really proof of innocence, just stuff that--when I'm only reading the thread casually--makes him sound sincere or gets me nodding my head along with him or plants doubt in my head.

First, this:

Not really. There are other ways of stirring up trouble than just leaving a vote on someone. But thanks for the advice. I will consider it as I leave my vote on Clegane for being evil.

and this:

Absolutely. Everyone is allowed to join in the lynch of Clegane.

just sound very flippant and careless, like he doesn't care about what people think and is trying to provoke a response from Clegane. I've seen town players act like that.

Here's the post I was mostly thinking about when I said he struck the right innocent tone:

I knew you were going to say I didn't wait for reactions. You didn't disappoint. Well done.

As a response, think about it. I wanted reactions, I read a post from Clegane I didn't like. I posted a vote. There is no rule that says I have to wait for a certain amount of time. The chain of events is pretty clear.

Posting the expected response, as Royce did, does not generate reactions. Doing something that people find suspicious does, especially early in the game. I'm not stupid, I promise :)

I guess I buy that he knew just how people would react to his symp clue vote, and that he then voted for the first thing that sounded suspicious. Maybe it's the snarkiness; he's acting as though he'd set a trap for Dayne.

Posts like this come across like he's scumhunting, at least superficially:

I'm surprised no one commented on this. This is an AWFUL post. Fishing for information much? I would vote for you just for this statement.

In other news, why have you both avoided what I have said about Clegane? Regardless of whether it's "tacked on" or not, that doesn't mean the reasoning is any less sound. So comment on it.

It's just.

And this:

It was early. I wanted to give him a chance to screw up some more. Unfortunately, I was called out and forced to explain my reasoning multiple times down to the minutest detail. I don't explain everything right away as I feel that sometimes you can gain a lot of information from being tight lipped. You'll look back on day 2 or 3 and be happy that these arguments have occurred. It's valuable information.

and this:

I chose that vote because it was the first serious case of the day and I wanted to throw down a second vote. It didn't matter what the case was. I wanted to see reactions.

For the record, I think looking for symp clues is idiotic and counter-productive as you will never find them because symps do not leave clues, at least not as blatant as that. The only way to find a symp is to see who they're protecting.

are really not the kind of defence I'd expect from an FM. I treat deliberately risking a lynch by doing something that will draw negative attention to set a trap for scum as a huge towntell.

And keep in mind that when I first read Inchfield's posts, I actually felt uneasy about Clegane (although I've since changed my mind), so I was inclined to sympathize with him.

Lastly, part of it is meta; I believe that an innocent Inchfield would do something like place the second vote on a case he thought was crap to get reactions. (That said, a guilty Inchfield would probably be brave enough to play as he has.)

The overdefensiveness alone isn't that bad. It's mainly his behaviour re: Clegane that bugs me. I agree with Kettleblack that his Clegane fixation makes no sense given the evidence. Clegane is apparently his top suspect, but Inchfield hasn't even commented once on anything Clegane has done after his "weird" comment.

Question: would you guys rather I dissected at Inchfield's interaction with Tollett (now I'm seeing a couple of things that stand out), reread Redfort, or finished a response to Karstark? There isn't that much time.

[House Baratheon]

Hi again.

I don't suspect Dayne anymore. Now I think our best lynch is Karstark.

I disagree that Redfort's question was awful and am disappointed by Karstark's refusal to answer it.

[House Baratheon]

I'd like an explanation for what you liked about Inchfield's Clegane attack. Do you find Clegane suspicious, or did you just think Inchfield's attack looked innocent? You don't take a position on Clegane here.

Initially I thought Inchfield was sheepish.By fast switching his vote to Clegane he demonstrated he wasn't, so my opinion on him changed.

I had no opinion on Clegane yesterday; now I generally like him, mostly because of his case on Redfort (I disagree with the case, but it was good contribution).

[House Baratheon]

That's the second time you have ignored it. I'll quote the question for you.

You accused me of not talking about "more important" things. I had made a post about the main discussion (which I'm guessing is your "more important" things) 4 minutes before you posted that 1 line question. Why did you ignore my post?

I don't remember exactly, but it was most likely crosspost.

I am a slow reader; reading a page often takes more than 4 minutes for me.

[House Thorne]

Royce, why do you suspect Karstark, in your own words? Only because he didn't answer Redfort's question?

[House Targaryen]

It is day 1.

12 players remain: Clegane, Connington, Dayne, Inchfield, Karstark, Kettleblack, Lannister, Mallister, Redfort, Royce, Tollett, Vance.

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

4 votes for Karstark ( Lannister, Vance, Connington, Royce)

3 votes for Inchfield ( Tollett, Dayne, Kettleblack)

2 votes for Vance ( Redfort, Karstark)

1 vote for Clegane ( Inchfield)

1 vote for Dayne ( Mallister)

1 vote for Redfort ( Clegane)

[House Baratheon]

Royce, why do you suspect Karstark, in your own words? Only because he didn't answer Redfort's question?

No, but my other reasons are exactly same that reasons of players who voted him before me: him being overcautious and refusing to take a position.

Yes, I know that some players always play this way when innocent; but it isn't a reason not to lynch him. In fact, I think sych style should be punished regularly, in interests of the game.

And, alas, I have no other suspects. Virtually everybody else (except, perhaps, Mallister) looks trustable now.

[House Dayne]

Question: would you guys rather I dissected at Inchfield's interaction with Tollett (now I'm seeing a couple of things that stand out), reread Redfort, or finished a response to Karstark? There isn't that much time.

Are you working on any of these currently?

Initially I thought Inchfield was sheepish.By fast switching his vote to Clegane he demonstrated he wasn't, so my opinion on him changed.

Do you have any thoughts on the actual merit of his case and his actions since then?

[House Baratheon]

Do you have any thoughts on the actual merit of his case and his actions since then?

The case was bad. Well, just as bad as your case on Vance/Lannister. :)

As for later actions, I agree he spends too much time defending himself, but somehow he doesn't look overdefensive still. I don't want to lynch him today

[House Dondarrion]

I'm up and awake but won't have much time to do anything as I get ready for work.

From what I've read, it looks like Dayne is still obsessive about me, Lannister doesn't like that I'm confident and that no one really cares about Redfort.

Ok. Nothing has really changed except Dayne convincing Kettleblack that I was trying to stir the pot yet not succeeding (I sitll disagree with this notion) and him agreeing therefore I'm guilty.

Exciting times.

Karstark - as I said before, I would vote for him and given it's end of day, no better time than now. Let my regurgitated opinions stand.

[House Thorne]

Went to take a shower, but I'm back.

I'll leave Redfort for another day, since he isn't getting lynched now.

The stuff I wanted to point out about Inchfield vs. Tollett:

Oh and one more thing. I do not like Tollett at all. He was quick to jump on me and he stretched his case against me based on fictional facts and theories. I would vote him too but alas I only have one vote.

I asked him about this here, but he never answers me. He later repeats his point about Tollett:

I still don't like the way Tollett jumped on me. It was opportunistic and then he continued that attack by stretching the case based on fictional theories.

Rereading, I found what it is he meant about "fictional theories":

You can take it as advice if you like, but the point is that it doesn't look like stirring it looks like firstly parking a vote on an easy suspect (which you've as much as admitted you were doing), and then shifting it on a flimsy pretense when it turns out the initial suspect wasn't so safe after all. There are certainly other ways of stirring up trouble, but I honestly can't see your vote on Lannister as stirring anything, and your vote on Clegane...

I'm actually not sure why you still suspect Clegane. Your initial case was based on him assuming the Swann defense from one post, and you now seem to admit that he wasn't actually doing that. I agree with Dayne, the accusation of non-commitalness appears to have been added after your initial case disappeared as a justification for voting the way you did.

I don't particularly see any paranoid conspiracy theories there.

But Inchfield replies with this:

Why wasn't the initial suspect not safe? What has been said in this entire game to give you the opinion that my vote on Lannister would have gotten him lynched? Hell, what argument has been made besides Dayne's that would have dictated a lynch? Further to that, who actually agreed with Dayne besides myself and a non-commital "weird" post from Clegane? You're making stuff up now to stretch a point that doesn't exist, at least not in this game.

So the weird theories seems like a misrepresentation of Tollett's posts.

All in all, it seems as though Inchfield pulled his Tollett suspicions out of his ass.

That said...more Tollett in this thread would be nice.

[House Thorne]

You know what? That recent Inchfield post won me over.

Inchfield

*baas*

[House Dondarrion]

You know what? That recent Inchfield post won me over.

Inchfield

*baas*

What did you want me to do? I just woke up, I see that I'm one of two top suspects and I don't have much time for anything while I'm getting ready for work.

Seriously, you people are so stupid. You're going to vote off one of your most active innocents on day 1. I can't tell you how frustrated I am right now.

[House Dayne]

I think I love you right now Lannister. :wub:

[House Thorne]

Because that defence was very snarky and flippant, and sounded more like something an FM irritated with the case on him would say than an innocent.

I'll admit that I'd feel guilty if we mislynched you. But instead of calling us stupid and trying to scare us away from voting you, why don't you make a good defence or offence--like justify your Clegane and Tollett suspicions in a way that we can believe that you're innocent, or present a better target?

You and Karstark are both guilty of pulling that emotional appeal routine, but I can believe it's more likely to be sincere from Karstark than from you.

[House Dondarrion]

Because that defence was very snarky and flippant, and sounded more like something an FM irritated with the case on him would say than an innocent.

I'll admit that I'd feel guilty if we mislynched you. But instead of calling us stupid and trying to scare us away from voting you, why don't you make a good defence or offence--like justify your Clegane and Tollett suspicions in a way that we can believe that you're innocent, or present a better target?

You and Karstark are both guilty of pulling that emotional appeal routine, but I can believe it's more likely to be sincere from Karstark than from you.

Two reasons.

1. It's early morning and I am walking around getting my crap together to go to work. I have to take a shower in about 3 minutes when my flatmate gets out. That means, I don't have time this morning to write up a big offensive on two people who will not get lynched.

2. There is about 30 minutes left in this day. Why would I possibly try to present a better target or push a lynch on someone who has absolutely zero chance to get lynched, especially when I'm about to get lynched as an innocent?

The fact of the matter is that I've tried to be active this game and I don't think I've done anything wrong. Your arguments against me are as nit picky as you can possibly get and they do not portray me as guilty at all. You tell me that I'm guilty because I didn't stir the pot enough. You tell me I'm guilty because I was too confident in a player's guilt that you couldn't see. And you tell me that my first vote reasoning wasn't sufficient because I didn't lay out my entire reasoning in the very first post 12 hours into the game but instead laid it out after people started posting more which helped generate discussion.

I'm not going to pretend I was out there trying to stir the pot by posting questions at people all day. I wasn't. I never claimed to do that. Dayne says I did but in fact, I said I wanted to vote to stir reactions. See that. I wanted to vote to stir reactions. And guess what I did, I voted. I stirred reactions. They might have been against me, but they are there and if you look at all of them on day 2 when I flip innocent, you'll get a lot of valuable information. There was nothing in my posts that ever said that I wanted to stir the pot by accussing everyone, asking questions, prodding...all of things Dayne expected me to do and all things I never said I had plans to do.

I did spend the majority of my time defending myself. That's because I've had people, like Dayne, tunnel visioned on me for reasons I truly cannot see how it makes me a FM. You can argue against my style all you want but until you tell me what I was trying to gain, what my end goal as an FM would be from my play thus far this game, then you'll never convince me that I was wrong with what I've done.

I have posted thoughts on Karstark, regurgitated or not. I have posted thoughts on Vance. I said things that others didn't and I took a stance. I called Redfort out for something that I thought was bad and guess what was said about it? "I agree that's awful" by Dayne and then no one even mentioned it again. And I posted thoughts on Tollett.

RIght there, you're looking at definitive people I'd vote for, people I've posted on and yet you want to lynch me over Karstark who's only contribution to this game has been to vote for Vance, the person who originally voted him.

I don't know what else you want me to do. I hope you feel bad for this because quite frankly, it's baffling to me. And you'll be losing one of your more active innocents on a day 1 case that still doesn't even touch on how it makes me a FM.

And with that, shower time.

[House Targaryen]

It is day 1.

12 players remain: Clegane, Connington, Dayne, Inchfield, Karstark, Kettleblack, Lannister, Mallister, Redfort, Royce, Tollett, Vance.

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

4 votes for Inchfield ( Tollett, Dayne, Kettleblack, Lannister)

4 votes for Karstark ( Vance, Connington, Royce, Inchfield)

2 votes for Vance ( Redfort, Karstark)

1 vote for Dayne ( Mallister)

1 vote for Redfort ( Clegane)