Jump to content

Archived

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

House Targaryen

Mafia Game 73 (Mk. II)

Recommended Posts

Somebody already asked this but I'll repeat, what were you expressing disbelief about?

And why did you use that particular phrase? It's not as if it is very common.

General disbelief really. Disbelief that mafia is actually ongoing mainly though.

It's Monty Python - triggered by the Eric Idle connection. :bowdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? If I, personally, don't find it to be important? May I ask him to explain why it might be important?

Everything has the potential to be important this early in the game. In this case, I think Conn's post was strange, and I want to find out why he made it. Might lead somewhere or it might not, its impossible to say as of now.

Also, why are you ignoring my question from before? 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you did, however, was outright deflection. You asked if he didn't have anything better to be concentrating on. In other words, telling him to drop it.

Well, it's a question of approach.

No people in our community do drop their position when asked. Moreover, it's best way to force them to argue their position. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This here seems to be the original case by Tollett:

This is a pretty weak vote to be putting money on. Your votes seem to coming way too easily Inchfield. First you leap on Dayne's clue. Then you jump on Clegane for what is pretty clearly a throw away line.

Also, thank you Vance, you've just demonstrated that there is something in the world that is more annoying than writing in allcaps!

Looks like Tollett suspects Inchfield for having his finger on the voting trigger permanently.

Dayne adds more suspicion:

Ok, one more thing that's not setting well with me. Inchfield is the first to agree with me about the Lannister case. I disliked him jumping in so quick (perhaps an FM not wanting to be seen defending his partner - in this case Lannister). I was going to sit on it to see where he went with it, but then he jumped at nearly the first chance to vote for someone else. He voted for Clegane for saying Vance's post was weird. It's strange to me because both Clegane and Inch seemed to agree with me that that post was suspicious, but then Inch turns on Clegane because of his wording.

Still means that Lannister's my best vote. Just wanted to point out how strange it seems.

Dayne, you hoped that Inchfield was an FM who tried to place his vote on a safe subject? If he hadn't switched his vote, wouldn't you have been suspicious of him, too?

And why don't you understand why Inchfield has been voting for Clegane? You had already realized that Inchfield's reason has been different from yours:

You can tell that off of one post can you? Why do you jump to the conclusion that he's suggesting a Swann defense? I didn't get that from his (Clegane's) post at all. I just thought he was checking to see if it could be construed as a symp clue for House Swann.

Inchfield was talking about the Vance using the Swann defense, Clegane was talking about Vance being a symp to House Swann. That's why Clegane's post apparently looked a bit "weird" to Inchfield. Seems to be crystal clear to me.

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.

I really don't want to comment this in detail. Let's just say that my read of Inchfield differs a lot from this one here by Dayne.

Ok, there's still kore stuff by Dayne, Tollett and Inchfield, but I don't think it makes sense to comment every detail. I'm not behind the case against Inchfield. The case which is that

1) Inchfield put a safe vote on lannister

2) Inchfield changed his vote quickly to Clegane

3) Inchfield voted for someone who had similar thoughts like him

4) Inchfield has been to sure about Clegane's guilt

Regarding 2), I think that it makes no sense for an Fm to vote for Lannister (safe vote) and then switch to Clegane by making a rather flimsy case against Clegane. Point 1) might be valid, true, but is contradicted by 2).

I think I made it clear that Inchfield had, from his PoV, a very different reason to suspect Lannister whih eliminates 3).

And 4)? I think Inchfield was clearly joking. That's the way I read his posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your statement that you are so confident he is guilty looks ridiculous. I understand the point you are making against Clegane, but I don't think its something that should have made you convinced he is guilty. Since your strong feeling looked out of place, I wanted to pin you down now on whether or not you really felt that way, so you can't later claim you were just exaggerating.

Don't worry. Unless new evidence comes to light, my conviction stands.

I know what you were trying to accuse him of, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with it. He said he agreed that Vance's post was weird, and that he checked to see if there was a Swann in the game (to receive a Swan Lake symp clue). I don't think any of that is troubling or non-committal. The only real point you have against him is that he didn't vote, and that isn't a very strong point in this case (its not as if he posted a huge attack against Vance/Lannister and failed to vote).

So I know what your reasoning was, but I don't think your reasoning was very good and I see a disconnect between your evidence and the level of your confidence in your suspicion.

He didn't say anything. He said it was weird. That doesn't mean a thing. It doesn't tell us if he liked it. It doesn't tell us if he disliked it. It doesn't tell us if he was suspicious or not suspicious. It's a word that can mean almost anything depending on the situation. So it's really really easy for him to go in any direction he wants depending on the wind. That's non-committal. Whether you find it troubling or not is entirely up to you.

As for the disconnect, that's your opinion. I think differently hence why I am voting and you are not.

I'm still failing to see the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's a question of approach.

No people in our community do drop their position when asked. Moreover, it's best way to force them to argue their position. :)

From here it seemed to be an accusation that he was wasting our time with drivel, not making any serious points... When as he has pointed out himself, he did so in the post before yours. Glad to pin down that it wasn't. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inchfield was talking about the Vance using the Swann defense, Clegane was talking about Vance being a symp to House Swann. That's why Clegane's post apparently looked a bit "weird" to Inchfield. Seems to be crystal clear to me.

That's not it at all. I thought Clegane was setting up Vance for a Swann defense. I didn't make the connection to Swann Lake because I barely even looked at the video. When it was explained to me, I conceded the point.

I really don't want to comment this in detail. Let's just say that my read of Inchfield differs a lot from this one here by Dayne.

Ok, there's still kore stuff by Dayne, Tollett and Inchfield, but I don't think it makes sense to comment every detail. I'm not behind the case against Inchfield. The case which is that

1) Inchfield put a safe vote on lannister

2) Inchfield changed his vote quickly to Clegane

3) Inchfield voted for someone who had similar thoughts like him

4) Inchfield has been to sure about Clegane's guilt

Regarding 2), I think that it makes no sense for an Fm to vote for Lannister (safe vote) and then switch to Clegane by making a rather flimsy case against Clegane. Point 1) might be valid, true, but is contradicted by 2).

I think I made it clear that Inchfield had, from his PoV, a very different reason to suspect Lannister whih eliminates 3).

And 4)? I think Inchfield was clearly joking. That's the way I read his posts.

Wow, you're very confused.

1. Yes, I put my vote on Lannister.

2. I changed my vote to Clegane after Clegane posted something I didn't like.

3. The person with similar thoughts was Clegane, at least in Dayne's eye. He believes that saying a post is "weird" dictates suspicious therefore given I voted, Clegane must think the same as me. It has nothing to do with Lannister.

4. I wasn't joking. I think Clegane is evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't remember you asking me any question.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General disbelief really. Disbelief that mafia is actually ongoing mainly though.

It's Monty Python - triggered by the Eric Idle connection. :bowdown:

Okay. What Eric Idle connection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inchfield has a point when he accuses Clegane of being non-commital. Clegane subtly supports Dayne's suspicions without really joining. Clegane's later explanation sounds ok to me, but at this point he had time enough to think about a proper answer. So was Clegane supporting Dayne's case or not? Of course a lot depends on the interpretion of Cleganes' words, but apparently Dayne was convinced enough that Clegane was in his boat(which is why he wondered why Inchfield attacked Clegane). Being non-commital means leaving one's options open, and Clegane could have done exactly that, if he was evil. Well, at least I find this kind of behaviour more supicious than switching your vote carelessly (in the beginning of the game).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't say anything. He said it was weird. That doesn't mean a thing. It doesn't tell us if he liked it. It doesn't tell us if he disliked it. It doesn't tell us if he was suspicious or not suspicious. It's a word that can mean almost anything depending on the situation. So it's really really easy for him to go in any direction he wants depending on the wind. That's non-committal. Whether you find it troubling or not is entirely up to you.

As for the disconnect, that's your opinion. I think differently hence why I am voting and you are not.

I disagree on the ambiguity. To me, "weird" means suspicious / out of place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Yes, I put my vote on Lannister.

2. I changed my vote to Clegane after Clegane posted something I didn't like.

3. The person with similar thoughts was Clegane, at least in Dayne's eye. He believes that saying a post is "weird" dictates suspicious therefore given I voted, Clegane must think the same as me. It has nothing to do with Lannister.

4. I wasn't joking. I think Clegane is evil.

I was summarazing Tollet's and Dayne's suspicions, not your actions.

And no you were joking.

You... were... JOKING!!!!!!!!!!! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah, cross posted (took 3 minutes as i had to check back) with Conn himself admitting it was before my post. Back to Dayne then. While he's reasonable, his symp clue seeking wasn't. It's out of character. I'd feel better about him if he'd been a useless player after the symp clue hunting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dayne still is my main suspect. I don't like looking for symp clues, I don't like his answer to my vote, I don't like his third vote on Inchfield.

:kiss:

I think the people saying Inchfield tacked on his 'non-committal' accusation are wrong. I think his question of 'why was it weird' does head in that same direction.

I really don't see how that leads into 'middle of the road'. He even stated that 'weird' and 'Swann' combined in his head to make a Swann Defense accusation more likely. Now he's saying that 'why is it weird' is code for 'I find you non-committal'. I just don't see it.

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.

You didn't wait all that long to wait for a wide variety of reactions. There were a handful, I will grant you, but nothing remotely like a discussion at that point. You didn't propose the theory nor did you push it further, you just piggy-backed and waited for something to happen. Also, I don't know what to think of this last part. Symp clues are crap (and Dayne is an idiot for doing so :P), and yet you supported me. Yes, I know you'll say it was to get a reaction, but if you really felt that way, wouldn't it have been more natural to come out against me like Royce did?

It really feels like you were testing the waters - responding quickly as you thought an innocent would and then realizing after the fact that you took a position you wish you hadn't.

Personally, I don't like the Inch case at all. It basically boils down to him changing his mind too often, during the first stage of serious posting.

There's more to it than that for me. I think he is defending himself badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this sure did make the switch from happy times to serious business in a hurry. Well, maybe not a hurry but you know what I mean.

Unless I'm wrong, the two outstanding cases are on Vance for being annoying after posting what could have been a symp clue. And Inchfield for changing his vote a little too often?

I'm not completely convinced by either, though I do find it strange that Vance would try to hide behind a certain style of typing in the first place. To me it seems less like trying to hide a posting style and a little bit more like trying to stick their neck out early so that they can try to quickly be confirmed as possibly innocent. Because why else would someone do something so reckless? Does that make sense?

While I'm not completely convinced by either case, I am convinced that Dayne appears to be lynch-happy. And not just the playful, "I'll toss votes around on Day 1" type but the "I'm going to attempt to make serious cases based on little to nothing to get someone killed on Day 1."

I'm not comfortable with someone attempting to control the flow of the game right out of the gates, but not comfortable enough to cast a vote for him when he's already sitting with a few.

For the time being I remove vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×