Mafia Game 73 (Mk. II)

[House Mooton]

I could remember dozens of games with an evil guard. And virtually no one with evil healer. With exception of "all-evil" three-sided game.

I strongly hoped it was Vance. But after Inchfield haven't die, it was quite evident that his partner was roled.

Only other variants was that good healer healed Inchfield or good guard guarded Mallister. Both extremely awful.

I recall a game with an evil healer, but I think guard works better in this game.

[House Baratheon]

I'm not really sure what to make of that. Because that's such a bizarre explanation for something so trivial that it sounds ridiculous coming from an innocent or FM.

Truth is often odd. :)

You wait ONE HOUR AND A HALF AFTER THE NIGHT ENDS to show up and say, "Hey guys, awesome job with that lynch!"

I lurked for a while, then left for some business. I didn't know how long night will last and didn't want to refresh every five minutes... or even every thirty.

You were ready to die the next day AS A VIG OR LYNCH TARGET. But not as a nightkill.

I became ready to die after realizing we could win by attrition. It took some time.

You realize that you've just given yourself a motive for killing him if you were watching the thread?

You might not be cheap enough to kill him as alt-hunting, but you might think it was a kindness to put him out of his misery.

Well, I am not cheap, but I am not so kind either. :) And, anyway, everybody else could have this motive.

[House Baratheon]

good point! I am pretty sure it is not Inchfield.

Why did you become so sure? You were ready to kill him at previous day. Did he something today that made you trust him more?

I think our clock restarted an hour ago.

14 hours only? I thought we have more. Well, not that I think we need more. :)

[House Thorne]

good point! I am pretty sure it is not Inchfield. I would happily join you in lynching Royce. I can see points for both him and Tollett.

Out of curiosity, why not Inchfield?

The frame logic doesn't make sense. Obviously, an evil Inchfield has to guard you. Otherwise, you kill him and he loses the game.

By the way, I'd be shocked if there was a symp. Two FM (with an evil guard) + 1 symp and vs. 1 vig and BP in a twelve-player game is crappy balance in a twelve-player game. So although I was tempted to lynch Royce purely because he can be so many people's symps, we probably don't have to depend today's lynch on it.

I am starting to suspect Inchfield more than Tollett.

It'd be nice to have more Inchfield in this thread.

...I guess you saw where I was heading with my questions before. Yeah, I was leaning toward a Royce vote, but right now, I'm in indecisive coward mode again. Everyone has done both things that are hard to reconcile with an evil and things that are suspicious. My head is saying one thing and my gut another...actually, that's not true. Both my head and gut are saying multiple conflicting things.

[House Baratheon]

So although I was tempted to lynch Royce purely because he can be so many people's symps,

Do you think I still can be symp to Inchfied or Tollett?

[House Mooton]

Out of curiosity, why not Inchfield?

The frame logic doesn't make sense. Obviously, an evil Inchfield has to guard you. Otherwise, you kill him and he loses the game.

By the way, I'd be shocked if there was a symp. Two FM (with an evil guard) + 1 symp and vs. 1 vig and BP in a twelve-player game is crappy balance in a twelve-player game. So although I was tempted to lynch Royce purely because he can be so many people's symps, we probably don't have to depend today's lynch on it.

I am starting to suspect Inchfield more than Tollett.

It'd be nice to have more Inchfield in this thread.

...I guess you saw where I was heading with my questions before. Yeah, I was leaning toward a Royce vote, but right now, I'm in indecisive coward mode again. Everyone has done both things that are hard to reconcile with an evil and things that are suspicious. My head is saying one thing and my gut another...actually, that's not true. Both my head and gut are saying multiple conflicting things.

I have been back and forth on Inchfield. I have mostly felt he was innocent, but I was alone and (pot/kettle here) would rather go with those I felt innocent (you and Dayne) than to trust myself.

[House Targaryen]

No, it was him who voted me. :)

Right you are!

It is day 4.

6 players remain: Clegane, Inchfield, Lannister, Mallister, Royce, Tollett.

4 votes are needed for a conviction or 3 to go to night.

2 votes for Inchfield ( Royce, Tollett)

1 vote for Royce ( Inchfield)

1 vote for Tollett ( Mallister)

2 players have not voted: Clegane, Lannister.

[House Dondarrion]

Out of curiosity, why not Inchfield?

The frame logic doesn't make sense. Obviously, an evil Inchfield has to guard you. Otherwise, you kill him and he loses the game.

By the way, I'd be shocked if there was a symp. Two FM (with an evil guard) + 1 symp and vs. 1 vig and BP in a twelve-player game is crappy balance in a twelve-player game. So although I was tempted to lynch Royce purely because he can be so many people's symps, we probably don't have to depend today's lynch on it.

I am starting to suspect Inchfield more than Tollett.

It'd be nice to have more Inchfield in this thread.

...I guess you saw where I was heading with my questions before. Yeah, I was leaning toward a Royce vote, but right now, I'm in indecisive coward mode again. Everyone has done both things that are hard to reconcile with an evil and things that are suspicious. My head is saying one thing and my gut another...actually, that's not true. Both my head and gut are saying multiple conflicting things.

I am back on thread. It's the end of the weekend. Been a busy one.

Anything you want to ask me because I'm pretty sure that I've done basically all that I can at this point.

Also, where do you get a BP from? You said 2 FM (evil guard) + symp vs vig and BP...Did I miss a claim somewhere?

[House Dondarrion]

Before I head to work, I just want to point out a few things. It is being assumed that I am a good player. At least that's what people are saying on thread. Yet people are assuming that I'm playing poorly. I'll show you some examples.

On day 1, I pointed out to Vance that he should stop hiding, that he should post normally. Why would I do that on thread? If we're partners, why wouldn't I do that off thread or why wouldn't I suggest to him that he should continue until RP is over and fade out of it? I drew attention to the fact that he was hiding his identity and wasn't being completely truthful with us and while it didn't lead to him being guilty right away, it did make others like Clegane think about why he was still alive given he was going to such lengths to hide himself. As his partner, doing something like this makes no sense as there is no benefit at all. You might think I was planning some elaborate distancing but if that was the case, wouldn't I have gone a lot further than just a comment?

During night 1, Redfort was killed. He was one of my bigger supporters on day 1, refusing to vote for me. Someone came up with the point that I would kill him because he was going after Vance. However, if you apply this to me, you're overlooking one major factor...I had 4 people voting me. Why would Vance and I as partners go after the one person going after Vance but supporting me yet leave alive all of the people who were going after me, especially when it looked like Dayne, Tollett, Kettleblack were all stronger players? You're telling me I'm a good player yet it would be better to protect my partner from one guy than myself from 4? The logic doesn't stand up. I guess you can say that I thought I was a better player so I wanted the challenge of trying to beat back the lynch, but really? I don't know what other reasoning you'd say.

As we know, I voted Vance instead of Connington. You can say that's distancing. But after Vance comes back, what possible gain would we as a partnership have in him attacking me superficially? I already did the distancing and really, it was good hard distancing. I put him even with Connington. So why go after me when you come back to distance further when the first thing people will do when you flip evil is reread you? Again, if you assume I'm a good player, think about why I would allow Vance to do that if we're conversing in our secret forum.

I know this post has a bit of WIFOM elements to it but I think this is more about motives as an evil person and more specifically, as a partner of Vance. I keep getting the feeling that we're looking for specific actions that make one person guilty over the other but completely missing those same actions that make no sense if they were guilty. If you were in my position, you would have done things differently as well so I want you to think about my actions and think about how they relate to my wanting to win this game. It's entirely possible that I'm just playing poorly and making mistakes or it's more likely that I wouldn't do these things as evil because I gain nothing from them and that I'm actually innocent.

Lannister, you're overanalyzing things as usual. I will make it easy for you. When I get to work, I will, once again, break down Royce and Tollett and make it as simple as possible. If someone wants to break me down, fine. Use these break downs and make a decision. Unless there is a symp (which I really hope there isn't), the game won't be over after today so being wrong won't end this for us.

[House Clegane]

Mallister, you will again say I'm paranoid, but I have the impression you're deliberately ignoring me, and I can assure you it's very frustrating.

So 'ill repeat once again the questions I had for you;

*quote from Mallister*

I didn't see Royce saying it. Only Dayne.

Besides: do you seriously think there is a symp if there is a killer guard?

If you are convinced Royce is the symp, then is it not safer to lynch him and keep more time to find the reamining FM? Because if you are right and Tollett is not his master, we lose tomorrow?

1 last one: why did you reveal yesterday first thing in the morning? I never asked but have been wondering for some time.

About this:

I have been back and forth on Inchfield. I have mostly felt he was innocent, but I was alone and (pot/kettle here) would rather go with those I felt innocent (you and Dayne) than to trust myself.

I have also felt Inch was innocent for a great part of the game, Kettleblack went to the point of suggesting I was Inchie's symp, so you were not alone in this.

[House Clegane]

Inchie: can you answer my second question (you said you would do the second later): Why do youthink Tollet or Royce would have killed Kettleblack? Why would YOU have killed him?

[House Clegane]

Out of curiosity, why not Inchfield?

The frame logic doesn't make sense. Obviously, an evil Inchfield has to guard you. Otherwise, you kill him and he loses the game.

By the way, I'd be shocked if there was a symp. Two FM (with an evil guard) + 1 symp and vs. 1 vig and BP in a twelve-player game is crappy balance in a twelve-player game. So although I was tempted to lynch Royce purely because he can be so many people's symps, we probably don't have to depend today's lynch on it.

I am starting to suspect Inchfield more than Tollett.

It'd be nice to have more Inchfield in this thread.

...I guess you saw where I was heading with my questions before. Yeah, I was leaning toward a Royce vote, but right now, I'm in indecisive coward mode again. Everyone has done both things that are hard to reconcile with an evil and things that are suspicious. My head is saying one thing and my gut another...actually, that's not true. Both my head and gut are saying multiple conflicting things.

I'm trying to loo, at Tollett and Inchfield, but there are too many things that don't sit right with me about Royce. So much that I can't really concentrate on the other 2. So for me Royce is the 1st choice, 1) because there is a very good chance he's guilty, 2) because even if he's not guilty I need to get the distraction out.

I also agree with you, my suspicions of Tollett have been going way down. I have to check back Tollett's reaction to Royce's plan.

ETA: checked it and it means nothing.

Inchie, I agree that from your POV as evil killing Kettleblack on night 1 would have been the best bet. He suspected you but was starting to go strongly after Connie. Dayne and Tollett were more dangerous because they were so tunnelvisioned on you, besides you were accusing Tollett.

[House Dondarrion]

Inchie, I agree that from your POV as evil killing Kettleblack on night 1 would have been the best bet. He suspected you but was starting to go strongly after Connie. Dayne and Tollett were more dangerous because they were so tunnelvisioned on you,

besides you were accusing Tollett.

My accusations weren't taking hold. Assuming I was worries about a healer threat, Tollett was a good kill.

As for Kettleblack, the reason to kill him is because he wasn't really suspected and you are worried about the healer threat so ignoring Dayne. His alt could have played into it but not for me.

That being said, he suspected Connington. Probably best to go after Dayne or Lannister who both suspected me more strongly. If it were someone else, they are goodyo keep alive since neither suspected Royce or Tollett atthat point and heavily suspected me. At least with Kettleblack, you could point to a possible connection with Vance.

On the bus now so think I answered your question.

[House Clegane]

I am back on thread. It's the end of the weekend. Been a busy one.

Anything you want to ask me because I'm pretty sure that I've done basically all that I can at this point.

Also, where do you get a BP from? You said 2 FM (evil guard) + symp vs vig and BP...Did I miss a claim somewhere?

I think it's because Mallister asked you if you were BP. It must have confused Lannister.

[House Baratheon]

I've reread Kettleblack partially.

At the middle of day 2 he says that he suspects Tollett more than me and Mallister (#382) and that suspicions of Clegane are most him possibly protecting Inchfield, so lynching Inchfield is good way to decide about Clegane's alignment.

I suppose this means that his kill was somewhat more preferable for Inchfield and Tollett than for me and Clegane.

I like last Inchfiled's post. Now I can see that Redfort's kill would be suboptimal for him...

[House Clegane]

So I've decided to take a llok at Tollett, and more specifically at the circumstances of Tollett's vote on Vance.

So I've reread everything that happened from the start of day 2 till Tollett's vote on Vance. I wanted to know what was the amount of suspicion that had been raised against Vance when Tollett put the second vote on him. Unfortunately, it's not as telling as I thought it would be. So here is a recap. Royce and Inch also pop in.

*snip: comments on other players. Still suspects Inch*

Redfort's death (so sad by the way) has got me thinking about Vance and I think that's someone who could stand to be in the spotlight a bit. After I dropped the symp thing I kind of let him slide, but he needs a re-read.

Vance

That was the first vote on Vance, based on the night kill and the desire to put Vance in the spotlight.

I'm still waiting for the explanation.

*snip case on Connington*

Besides Connington has been given a free pass yesterday and deserves attention.

I have to go. No more rereads for tonight, I may be able to check in quickly this evening, but can't guarantee anything, so I may be gone for 12 hours or so. This way Connington has time to answer. And I hope Tollett, Royce and Mallister post more too.

Tomorrow, I'll try to have a look at Dayne (I have a hard time with him because I agree with most of what he says and I've given him a pass till now), Inchfield (I have a hard time with him for the exact opposite reason as Dayne) and Lannister.

And there is Vance, I dropped part of my suspicions at the end of day, but I still think his overreaction makes sense for a FM, as I discussed with Redfort before his death.

This is me going after Connie. I mention some suspicions of Vance too.

This is all middle-of-the-road fluff. Vance's participation yesterday consisted of his (over) defense of the symp accusation, a few quick, easy comments and then latching onto Karstark with some passion. These behaviors wouldn't put him at the top of a suspect list for me, but combined with Redfort's suspicions and this post, he's firmly in my top tier.

Connington is up there as well. I didn't like his wishy-washy posts yesterday, but ultimately gave him a pass. He's now had time to absorb the game and form opinions, so I need him to step up.

Inchfield, Vance

Connington, Mallister

Clegane, Royce, Tollett

Lannister, Kettleblack

Dayne fleshes out his suspicions on Vance and gives his tiers. Vance is up there, next to Inchfield.

*snip*

Long story short, I'm leaning toward a Tollett or Vance lynch...but you know, I'm also considering other options. :)

That post alone from Vance about the self-healer alone is enough to make me want to vote him. (Yes, I'm flip-flopping yet again, but most of the reason I thought he was innocent yesterday was because I thought he'd look even more suspicious if he were evil. )

Hey, Kettleblack! While you're working on those tiers, I have another question for you.

What do you think of Vance's recent posts?

Would you be willing to vote Vance today?

:)

Lannister also expresses suspicions on Vance and calls Kettleblack to prompt him looking at Vance.

*snip*

So I'll just point out something that has changed my mind, and made Connington a priority to reread (from the POV of Vance as his FM partner and Inchfield as his symp).

I was rereading the last page, and agreed with many of Clegane's points on Connington (and Dayne's and Kettle's on Inchfield). Then a post from Connington caught my eye.

*snip: Connie-Vance interactions*

Also, I've noticed some interaction between Connington and Vance on D2 that reads as fake. In my next post, I'll just give quotes that sound like distancing without commenting because the demon virus makes writing a pain in the ass.

Lannister adds suspicions of Connie and raises the first stones of the Connie-Vance edifice.

Yes, but slightly. And I am uninterested in lynching Inchfield anyway.

Vance and Connington are my main concerns now.

I dislike Vance's hypothesis that Redfort was killed because of his healer joke. I definitely won't kill a plyer for that and I doubt many people would. If Vance says he would, perhaps he actually did? Yeah, it looks too evident, but I think killers tend doing rather evident things.

Connington case on Clegane looks weak, artificial and probably OMGUSish.

Royce steps in. Reaffirms he doesn't want to vote for Inchfield. Raises Vance and Connie as main suspects.

Remind me why I am cleared in your eyes, I don't remember.

Also, why has Mallister dropped off your radar?

Dayne calls Royce on Mallister.

Well, most leading and contributive player never appears guilty. Almosty never, perhaps.

He hadn't dropped, but two others had raised above him.

Vance and Connie are above Mallister. I think this is to note, since Royce later switched to Mallister when the votes were building on Vance and Connie.

You evidently missed some posts during your reread.

I haven't voted for him yesterday (ETA: RL yesterday, that is) because I thought it was too early for a second vote. I didn't want a train being building at the time.

Today I am choosing between Vance and Connington. I'd prefer to see Connington's reply to Clegane's case on him before making final choice.

I look for new posts roughly every 30 minutes...

Again, underlined is mine.

As for the part I put in italic, I don't remember about whom that is but it surprises me. Being afraid of putting a second vote when 6 are needed for a lynch is not something I associate with Royce.

Vance

*snip reread of Vance*

Conclusion - I'm mainly worried about the middle of the road opinions on Conn and Dayne. He could be an FM playing it safe on day 2, after pushing hard for the person who was lynched on day 1.

Connington

*snip recap on Connie*

Conclusion - I'll probably try to go more in depth on Conn later. He's one of my top suspects. In fact, he's going to get my vote again - Connington.

*snip reread of Clegane*

Conclusion - Most of my suspicion of Clegane is derived from a possible connection to Inchfield. I'd want to lynch Inchfield first, to see if he's FM, before lynching Clegane.

And at this point, I'm pretty sure I'm rambling. It's 2 a.m., and I've barely slept in weeks. Everyone seems suspicious right now, only separated by the varying degrees. I'm convinced that I'm not playing well and that we are going to lose. Whatever. This sucks. I want to play again when I'm back to full capacity (maybe in 3 months?). :(

Kettleblack has some suspicions of Vance, but finds Connington more suspicious, and he still suspects Inchfield a lot, with me as a symp.

Inchfield. :P

:leaving:

Yeah, alright, I do still suspect him but I imagine you mean aside from him as well. Mallister irks me. This is just from memory right now, but my impression is he's a bit of a Inchfield sycophant. I have no business commenting on anyone else's participation, (so I won't) but when he is here he appears to play safe. Vance I'm going to reread. I've basically caught with the thread now and seen the healer comment. I can sympathise with everyone who finds Vance suspicious.

Yourself and Lannister sit well with me on a gut level. The above point (about your tiebreak) is my biggest issue with you at the moment, it isn't trivial, but aside from that nothing you've done sets off alarm bells. I do want to dig into Inch's case on Lannister a bit further to see how it holds up to scrutiny. There's stuff in it that seems legitimately suspicious on reading it, but I'm not familiar enough with the game to know if it's fair.

Kettleblack, Royce and Connington don't seem to have made much of an impression on me.

Dayne I trust most at this point.

Tollet's first post after a long time. He still suspects Inchfield (he has attacked him quite a bit since the beginnning of day2, didn't quote those posts).

I'm really not speaking clearly, am I? Why can't Lannister be guilty and Vance innocent? Because Lannister posted the definition of impavid and then Dayne posted the Swan Lake video with the No Fear sound track. A player can frame someone by posting a matching response to something the first player said, but it's next to impossible to frame someone by initiating the clue and forcing them post the answer. I know we have some cunning players, but they aren't that good. For the symp-clue to meaningful Vance had to be some shade of guilty. Actually, for the symp-clue to be meaningful Vance had to be the symp, I just got mixed up because I thought Dayne had outright declared Lannister the symp.

Since the whole thing would be based on me accepting the symp clue, which I dismissed from the start, I really don't think it stands up. If I'd turned around and claimed that the symp clue cleared my partner, what do you think would have been the next thing to happen?

I'm quoting this post which was answering Kettleblack's question about the famous post that neither Kettle nor me understood. Which reminds me something interesting: on day 1, Tollett, like Redfort, misunderstood Dayne's symp clue post and thought Lannister was the symp and Vance the FM in Dayne's mind, and he called Dayne for voting Lannister instead of Vance.

Here's my reread of Vance.

*snip comments on Vance's quoted*

I hadn't actually realised that Vance was near the forefront of the vote on Karstark. I have to admit that some of his best contribution came in his points against him. His argument in voting Karstark (here) about the objective of day one I agree with 100%, and Karstark's non-commitalness wasn't at all helpful. Karstark accuses Vance of hoping on Lannister's train (Lannister having voted Karstark not four posts earlier) and votes Vance, Vance accuses Karstark of OMGUS. On the face of it the Karstark's vote did have a hint of OMGUS about it. But I honestly think Karstark's accusation was fair. We know Karstark was innocent and a non-commital innocent on day one, sitting back and letting the world go by is a gift for an FM. Especially if there's already a vote and a decent case in place. Reading back through it does look opportunistic. Not only that but we can probably credit Vance with considerable part of the success of the Karstark lynch. He gave Lannister's innitial some momentum and he was the one who stuck with it. Lannister famously headed elsewhere (though not til quite late in the game, admittedly). Lynching an innocent isn't a sure sign of guilt. But Vance is pretty much right where I'd expect an FM to want to be in that vote (especially if Inchfield is also guilty :P).

That's Vance's major contribution. After that there's some wishy-washiness (here), a promise to reread Lannister which hasn't yet happened (here), and then the healer post.

All in all a reread increases my suspicion of Vance. His tone sits wrong with me and his attack on Karstark seems opportunistic. Indeed he has won my vote.

Vance

As an addendum. I'm a little surprised that Kettleblack never mentioned Vance's role in the Karstark lynch in his reread.

ETA: For God's sake! I give up on ever posting anything original!

The vote comes immediately after (Tollett apparently forgot to bold.

Err... Vance.

(You really should bold your votes)

And the closest vote count after this vote:

2 votes for Connington ( Clegane, Kettleblack)

2 votes for Vance ( Dayne, Tollett)

1 vote for Clegane ( Connington)

1 vote for Tollett ( Inchfield)

4 players have not voted: Lannister, Mallister, Royce, Vance.

So to sum it up: there had been a lot of suspicions going Vance's way before Tollett voted. Actually, I think nearly all players had expressed suspicions of Vance (except maybe Mallister and Inchfield). So Tollett's vote for Vance could very well be distancing: Tollett knew he couldn't be back before night to change his vote (he had made it clear that he had a short window of time to play).

However, there were 2 contenders to a Vance lynch: Connie, who had garnered 2 votes. And Inchfield. Actually, Dayne was the only vote for Vance, and Dayne had made it clear he didn't forget Inchfield. And Kettleblack was also suspecting Inchfield. I think that if at this point Tollett had voted for Inchfield, maybe pushing a bit the issue raised by Kettleblack about my quick vote for Karstark, nobody would have been surprised and he could have had a chance to bring back Dayne on his favourite target, thus making a mob building on Inch possible.

[House Tully]

I have 2 questions for all 3 of you:

could you all make a summary of the points in favour or against a partnership between Vance and the other 2 according to you. If you have already done that in a previous post, then please just link to it.

Thoughts on Royce here. And my forthcoming masterwork simply titled, Inchfield: A Retrospective, will be available in the coming hours if the requisite reading doesn't kill me.

Regarding the Kettleblack kill: for which reason do you think he has been killed? If there can be different reasons, please detail for each of the other...

I suspect he was probably killed to avoid the healer and possibly to protect someone. Kettle not having had a lot of time makes it difficult to anticipate who because he had a lot of suspicion day two but no single focus. He expressed suspicion of Inch, Royce and myself (though as Royce said he put me above Royce). Honestly, I think he was just a sensible choice, appearing innocent and competent but distracted enough that the healer probably wasn't on him.

...and (more wicked) detail why YOU would have killed Kettleblack.

That's mean. :P Honestly I'd have killed Kettleblack to frame someone, probably Inchfield, but I would have done it night one when the connection was clearer. For what it's worth I wouldn't have chosen Redfort because he lead so clearly back to Vance.

[House Baratheon]

As for the part I put in italic, I don't remember about whom that is but it surprises me.

About Mallister.

Being afraid of putting a second vote when 6 are needed for a lynch is not something I associate with Royce.

With either guilty Royce and innocent Royce, I hope? :)

[House Dondarrion]

I have 2 questions for all 3 of you:

could you all make a summary of the points in favour or against a partnership between Vance and the other 2 according to you. If you have already done that in a previous post, then please just link to it.

Tollett

For:

1. Vance never mentions Tollett once. Not a single time in any of his posts. He never comments on any of the cases I made. He never comments on anyone else's opnion about Tollett. There is one interaction between Tollett and Vance and that's when Vance makes his annoying multi-colored post to prove he can be even more annoying than the caps thing. That's it.

Against:

1. Tollett voted for Vance early on day 2 and stuck with his vote.

Royce

For:

1. Vance and Royce had a little spat early on day 1 about Royce "deflecting" Kettleblack's question to Connington. It lasts 3 posts and ends in both Royce and Vance lowering the intensity with smilies. It is never mentioned again. Actually, Royce is never mentioned again.

2. Voted for Connington over Vance.

3. The only time Royce suspects Vance is when he mentions Vance's healer post, saying he dislikes it and it might be a bit evident but killers do evident things. However, he also attacked Connington in the same post and then never mentions Vance or Vance's post again. At least I don't think as I'm having a massive issue with posts being all over the place.

4. This post is disingenous.

Inchy still might be a symp. Yeah, he voted Vance, but what choice he had if Connie was a partner?

I perfectly understand I am one of top suspects now, since I never commented on Vance on day 1 and voted Connie on day 2. Points in my favor: 1) I rejected a chance to built train on Mallister early on day 2; 2) I was first to object Vance's idea of Redfort being killed for healer joke; 3) I PIed Clegane early and needlessly (now, evil me couldn't win without lynching Clegane at some point); 4) if I was evil, I'd give up already. :)

And, yeah, Connington; I see no other reasobnable lynch today.

Point 1:

How did you reject a train on Mallister? I'm scrolling every page of day 2 trying to find this and I can't. Can you please point out when you came in, posted suspicions of Mallister and deliberately chose not to vote him but instead went after someone else?

Well, I am quite confused by Redfort's kill. Evidently, there were better options. Tomorrow I'll need to reread Redfort to remember who were his main suspects. I am too weared now.

If ignoring Redfort's death, Mallister looks like my most perspective suspect. I don't like his vote on Dayne at all. If it was first vote, I won't object, but since my own vote was also on Dayne till the beginning of the day (and I was absent for long), I can easily see this as an a meek attempt to lynch a strong player for doubtful reasons.

Now I am almost sure that Dayne and Clegane (main Redfort's accuser) are both innocent.Inchfied looks worse, because of his tunnel-vision on now innocent Clegane. Need to think more about others.

This is the only post you made from the beginning of day 2 until Connington/Vance were at 3-3. Actually, I take that back, you made one other post and it involved you not understanding why I would kill Redfort, the guy who thought I was innocent. At least, that's all I found. You might have made others that say something different but I can't find them. Please point them out if they exist.

So please explain to me how you rejected building a train on Mallister?

Point 2:

Also not true. The first person to point out the slip was Dayne a full 10 hours before you did. Following Dayne, Mallister and Connington commented on it as well.

Points 3 and 4 are worthless. They don't mean anything.

Against:

1. Nothing

As I go through these posts, I think more and more that Royce is his partner. At least the evidence leads that way. Yes, Tollett could have distanced. He didn't post anything against Vance until he said he'd reread him and he didn't post anything really after he did reread him/vote him. So it's really hard to say definitively one way or another if Tollett was his partner since there is less evidence either way given Vance's ignorance that Tollett was playing and Tollett's tunnel-vision on me.

I still think Royce is cleary the #1 suspect and wouldn't want to vote Tollett over him. I have my issues with Tollett this game but he's not nearly as suspicious of Royce and I have to admit, my problems with him stem more from the fact that I felt he was parroting Dayne and going after me needlessly instead of the actual evidence that he was partnered with Vance.

On a side note, this post took me over an hour. We need to post in the bug fix forum and get the view all content page fixed as I hate wasting time trying to put the order together.

[House Baratheon]

Can you please point out when you came in, posted suspicions of Mallister and deliberately chose not to vote him but instead went after someone else?

Are you serious? This moment was mentioned in every reread of me. Everybody and their dog asked me why I haven't put second vote on Mallister despite of saying he was my main suspect at the beginning of day 2.

You may look for details in recent Clegane's reread, for example.

I wonder how you managed to miss this if paying any attention.

Also not true. The first person to point out the slip was Dayne a full 10 hours before you did.

Slip? What slip?