Jump to content

Archived

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

House Targaryen

Mafia Game 73 (Mk. II)

Recommended Posts

BTW, care to answer my question Vance :

did you do that search specifically for the game ?

And I'll add another one for the same price: if yes, why ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, care to answer my question Vance :

did you do that search specifically for the game ?

And I'll add another one for the same price: if yes, why ?

Yes.

When I got the message that my name was Vance, I was on the train. I decided to make a "through the medium of dance" joke.

I then sat here, wondered what a funny dance routine was, and decided that I'd go for the Royal Variety Show version of Swan Lake. If you haven't seen it, it's all done really legit until the end, where it turns out (through clever trickery with him running on at the end) that Eric Idle was one of the ballerinas. They then kick in to my favourite song ever... Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life. Couldn't find it on Youtube, but that was either one of the results or on the sidebar from a result anyway.

I don't know why I am explaining my exact thought process that led to the search that inadvertently led to a dubious symp clue, but there you have it. :-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, here's the thing - that is actually plausible. Either you are a fantastic liar and were able to spin that story out of your ass, or you're telling it true. I will admit, I didn't connect the 'Vance' and 'through Dance' rhyming part of it, so that post was completely out of the blue for me, adding to it's strangeness. Now it's coming together for me and when I search royal variety swan lake, the no fear version does come up on the side. I'm rolling with it for now.

I did have some reservations about it being too blatant, especially the Lannister response, but ... come on. That is some freaky ass coincidence. Give me that at least.

Lannister will be glad to hear I am downgrading his threat level to orange, but Inchfield won't like that I am upgrading him to red alert.

Inchfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lannister will be glad to hear I am downgrading his threat level to orange, but Inchfield won't like that I am upgrading him to red alert.

Inchfield

Don't really mind. Just to make sure I understand correctly, the reason you're voting me is because I've changed my vote too many times right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ( Lannister, Tollett, Dayne)

2 votes for Dayne ( Royce, Vance)

1 vote for Clegane ( Inchfield)

1 vote for Connington ( Clegane)

1 vote for Karstark ( Mallister)

1 vote for Redfort ( Karstark)

3 players have not voted: Connington, Kettleblack, Redfort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you baiting a trap? I've only changed mine once and you've changed yours twice so you must be twice as evil, muaaahhaahaaa.

Anyway, that's not the reason. You did jump on my Vance thingie, but then quickly moved it to someone who in essence agreed with us over the way he worded things and acted so sure of it. You didn't question Clegane at all, just pounced like you were looking for a reason to move off of Lannister. It could be because he is your partner, it could be because you saw that you jumped on a seemingly easy vote (Lannister) and then realized people might not back it after a few comments.

The fact that you were so adamant that Clegane was guilty rings bells for me too.

eta: also didn't like the way you were defending your vote on Lannister as stirring it up since it was pointless.Or were you referring to your Clegane vote as the stirring vote? Either way, neither of those looked convincing and your defense struck me as someone defending a poor decision and being afraid to back down entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you baiting a trap? I've only changed mine once and you've changed yours twice so you must be twice as evil, muaaahhaahaaa.

Anyway, that's not the reason. You did jump on my Vance thingie, but then quickly moved it to someone who in essence agreed with us over the way he worded things and acted so sure of it. You didn't question Clegane at all, just pounced like you were looking for a reason to move off of Lannister. It could be because he is your partner, it could be because you saw that you jumped on a seemingly easy vote (Lannister) and then realized people might not back it after a few comments.

The fact that you were so adamant that Clegane was guilty rings bells for me too.

I changed my vote to someone who thought it was "weird" and didn't change his vote. That's about as non-commital as you can get. It's early, I understand that, but it doesn't change the fact that his categorizing could have meant anything. It could mean it's suspicious. It could mean it's just strange. It could mean that he's evil. It could mean that he's not. Who knows? That's the problem with his post. I originally thought he was mentioning a Swann defense but I already conceded that I was wrong on that given I didn't make the connection between Swann Lake and House Swann.

Your "essence of agreement" smells like fake contribution to me. It looks like someone who wanted to set up a potential change of vote later but didn't want to vote now because he wanted to keep his options open.

But it's ok. If you think I'm running away from an easy vote on Lannister, by all means, vote for me. It won't stick though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first I've heard you mention Clegane being non-committal. Saying it now just looks like a tacked on justification after the fact. You yourself said that there are more ways of stirring things up than placing a vote on someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first I've heard you mention Clegane being non-committal. Saying it now just looks like a tacked on justification after the fact. You yourself said that there are more ways of stirring things up than placing a vote on someone.

Ok. I'm making it up then :rolleyes:

Read his post and tell me I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, looks like Vance discovered an easy way to traumatize your team members when playing WoW. :P

I'm glad that Dayne was speaking about Vance being the symp. It didn't really make sense the other way around.

I don't like Vance's reaction, and not because of the Capitalized Letters Clusterfuck That Damaged My Brain Irremediably.

Wow, Seriously? o.O

Bleh. If You Really Think Symp Clues (And A Master Acknowledging The Clue With A Nod Back To Me No Less!) Is Something That Would Happen In A Modern Game, Well... It's Hard To Argue Against Idiocy.

So, Instead, I'll Take The More Prosaic View And Speculate That Dayne Is Just Digging For Something To Latch On To.

Either Dayne Is Evil, Or Being Rather Silly. My Faith In My Fellow Mafiosos Leads Me To Fall On The Side Of The Former.

So, Dayne, Time You Expressed Yourself Through The Medium Of Payne? As You Hang By The Neck And Admit Your Crimes.

PS. Is Now A Bad Time To Mention That I Was Originally Looking For The Eric Idle Version Of Swan Lake From The Royal Variety Show, But That One Stood Out As A Funny Alternative?

A bit to agressive this reaction, isn't it? I'd expect a more relaxed defense by an innocent (and Vance already showed that he is a carefree and funseeking person which also doesn't fit together with his reaction). When I read stuff like this I usually translate it as "Well, I am evil but you're still completely wrong with what you're saying, idiot! Get out of my way with that perverted little theory of yours!") It could have ben an overreaction by Vance or an attempt to settle the conflict before it becomes the "theme du jour".

Anyway, it's only a stretched theory but enough for me to vote Vance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. I'm making it up then :rolleyes:

Read his post and tell me I'm wrong.

If you would have brought it up as you were voting for him, sure - it's a valid point. That you bring it up way after the fact and never even hinted at it before, well, that makes it look like a justification, not a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you were so adamant that Clegane was guilty rings bells for me too.

Dayne, since when is it an FM trademark to be (over-) confident in a case, especially when it's early in the game? They're usually rather careful with what they're saying unless they see a chance to get the other player lynched (or one of their team members is in trouble).

I need to figure out the rest of your case yet, but only after I had a conversation with Ser Coffee. (Oh, and you should have kept your signature, I found it hilarious combined with House Dayne. ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True on the overconfidence early on. Usually if it surfaces it's a bit later. It's still ringing a few bels, but not as loudly. Well, that part of it at least. I stand by the rest of it.

Sorry about the sig - it's a pet peeve when sigs hang out for games and games without being updated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ( Lannister, Tollett, Dayne)

2 votes for Dayne ( Royce, Vance)

1 vote for Clegane ( Inchfield)

1 vote for Connington ( Clegane)

1 vote for Karstark ( Mallister)

1 vote for Redfort ( Karstark)

1 vote for Vance ( Redfort)

2 players have not voted: Connington, Kettleblack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would have brought it up as you were voting for him, sure - it's a valid point. That you bring it up way after the fact and never even hinted at it before, well, that makes it look like a justification, not a reason.

I did hint at it. I asked the question "why is it weird?" If you follow a general thought process, you can tell that I obviously thought about the word choice in weird and that I was leading somewhere.

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.

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.

The fact of the matter is that Lannister is still safe. It's clear that Vance wasn't posting a symp clue and therefore Dayne's argument doesn't matter at all. If you honestly believe that I panicked because there was discussion around Lannister (which actually there wasn't much since it was mostly about Vance), then how can you believe that I'd be stupid enough to park my vote on him in the first place when it's clear that there would be discussion about him given it's the first serious case of the day? Again, doesn't make sense.

Just to be clear, is your contention that I saw a case from Dayne that I thought would be really easy. I then voted for Lannister because it was a really safe place to park my vote. But as soon as Vance/Lannister got any attention, I moved my vote to someone else because I was afraid of being on the Lannister lynch? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

And finally, it's clear why I suspect Clegane. I posted my reasoning. Whether you think it's added on late or not is irrelevant to me. My line of thought is clear in my posts.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The fact of the matter is that Lannister is still safe. It's clear that Vance wasn't posting a symp clue and therefore Dayne's argument doesn't matter at all. If you honestly believe that I panicked because there was discussion around Lannister (which actually there wasn't much since it was mostly about Vance), then how can you believe that I'd be stupid enough to park my vote on him in the first place when it's clear that there would be discussion about him given it's the first serious case of the day? Again, doesn't make sense.

Just to be clear, is your contention that I saw a case from Dayne that I thought would be really easy. I then voted for Lannister because it was a really safe place to park my vote. But as soon as Vance/Lannister got any attention, I moved my vote to someone else because I was afraid of being on the Lannister lynch? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

No. I'm saying that you parked your vote on Lannister because it was easy. A case had been made and you could just "me too" and look like you were making a serious vote. You've said that you just wanted somewhere to put your vote and there was nothing convincing about Dayne's clue. I don't think you changed your vote because of any fear Lannister would be lynch (I'm not accusing you of being partnered). I think that you realised parking your vote wasn't all that safe (for you), and when you realised that you might have to answer questions you cast a vote that you at least thought you could defend.

And finally, it's clear why I suspect Clegane. I posted my reasoning. Whether you think it's added on late or not is irrelevant to me. My line of thought is clear in my posts.

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.

I don't find what you've said about Clegane terribly convincing. He's explained his reaction to Vance's post and the explanation seems reasonable. The most suspicious thing about him is that he's still (joke) voting Connington even though he was around after the serious votes started. The post you're voting him for doesn't strike me as especially suspicious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, looks like Vance discovered an easy way to traumatize your team members when playing WoW. :P

I'm glad that Dayne was speaking about Vance being the symp. It didn't really make sense the other way around.

I don't like Vance's reaction, and not because of the Capitalized Letters Clusterfuck That Damaged My Brain Irremediably.

A bit to agressive this reaction, isn't it? I'd expect a more relaxed defense by an innocent (and Vance already showed that he is a carefree and funseeking person which also doesn't fit together with his reaction). When I read stuff like this I usually translate it as "Well, I am evil but you're still completely wrong with what you're saying, idiot! Get out of my way with that perverted little theory of yours!") It could have ben an overreaction by Vance or an attempt to settle the conflict before it becomes the "theme du jour".

Anyway, it's only a stretched theory but enough for me to vote Vance.

I agree with this. Dayne's "case" had the merit to bring up some discussion, and you are right Vance seemed a bit desesperate to dig himself from the hole he dig for himself.

I also didn't like the fact Vance was so quick to change his posting style after Dayne voted for him, even if I said so jockingly.

I did hint at it. I asked the question "why is it weird?" If you follow a general thought process, you can tell that I obviously thought about the word choice in weird and that I was leading somewhere.

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.

The fact of the matter is that Lannister is still safe. It's clear that Vance wasn't posting a symp clue and therefore Dayne's argument doesn't matter at all. If you honestly believe that I panicked because there was discussion around Lannister (which actually there wasn't much since it was mostly about Vance), then how can you believe that I'd be stupid enough to park my vote on him in the first place when it's clear that there would be discussion about him given it's the first serious case of the day? Again, doesn't make sense.

Just to be clear, is your contention that I saw a case from Dayne that I thought would be really easy. I then voted for Lannister because it was a really safe place to park my vote. But as soon as Vance/Lannister got any attention, I moved my vote to someone else because I was afraid of being on the Lannister lynch? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

And finally, it's clear why I suspect Clegane. I posted my reasoning. Whether you think it's added on late or not is irrelevant to me. My line of thought is clear in my posts.

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.

OK, so your case on me is that I was non comital when I commented on Dayne's case, and that's it, right?

First, it was not clear from the question you asked me. "Why is it weird" is not the same as "what do you mean by weird".

Second, why didn't I vote? For whom did you want me to vote: Lannister or Vance? Because if you go back to my post, you'll see I said I agreed Vance's post was weird, not that he looked like Lannister's symp.

I already explained why Vance's post looked weird to me, and by weird I meant strange, bizarre. Like Dayne, I had the reaction that it might be a symp clue, but my first move was Swann. I wanted Vance to explain himself, before I made an opinion on Vance and on a possible Vance-Lannister connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I'm saying that you parked your vote on Lannister because it was easy. A case had been made and you could just "me too" and look like you were making a serious vote. You've said that you just wanted somewhere to put your vote and there was nothing convincing about Dayne's clue. I don't think you changed your vote because of any fear Lannister would be lynch (I'm not accusing you of being partnered). I think that you realised parking your vote wasn't all that safe (for you), and when you realised that you might have to answer questions you cast a vote that you at least thought you could defend.

That doesn't really make sense either since it was pretty clear that I didn't care about answering questions. Someone asked me what I found convincing about his case and my answer was "nothing really." Or something like that. That kind of flies in the face of me being scared of getting questions.

I don't find what you've said about Clegane terribly convincing. He's explained his reaction to Vance's post and the explanation seems reasonable. The most suspicious thing about him is that he's still (joke) voting Connington even though he was around after the serious votes started. The post you're voting him for doesn't strike me as especially suspicious.

Fair enough. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×