Jump to content

Archived

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

House Targaryen

Mafia Game 73 (Mk. II)

Recommended Posts

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.

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 :)

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.

2 votes for Dayne ( Royce, Vance)

2 votes for Inchfield ( Tollett, Dayne)

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)

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

Please only post in bold if your voting. (even really big letters and bold can confuse this mod)

Bold in a different colour if ok though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had quotes and questions all ready for Connington, but it has been resolved (ish).

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.

Since others have also mentioned that me seeking symp clues is suspicious, I just want to be clear that I did not deliberately seek out clues. I read the whole thread up to that point in one go and that video was like a neon light in my head. I couldn't not mention something so blatant, even if it eventually lead no where. Seriously, does no one else see the incredible coincidences here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaaaaaaaah, every time I hit preview, at least five more people have posted. I am so behind right now. (I see Karstark posted while I was writing this, so I'll respond to him in a bit, but first I'll post this.)

Meh, I'm getting way too many innocent reads. Unless the killers are people like Karstark, Mallister, and Connington, they're playing very well.

Connington, do you have anything useful to say? Suspicions/opinions/etc.?

Speaking of questions that Royce has ignored:

What in particular do you like about his vote on Clegane? You haven't attacked Clegane once in your posts, but you still bring up Inchfield's vote on Clegane., I'm still waiting for your read on Clegane.
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.

He was quick to jump on me and he stretched his case against me based on fictional facts and theories.
Which fictional facts and theories are you talking about with respect to Tollett?

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.

Actually, that's not it at all. Inchfield claims to have never changed his mind. His first vote for me was apparently just to test for reactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bleh. Wouldn't this make more sense if it was me being attacked / voted for? Rather than just being put as a symp?

If I was evil, then;

1) If I was his symp, I would have been more careful than to actually make a symp clue, even inadvertently,

2) If I was his partner, I would have been more careful than to actually make a symp clue, even inadvertently,

3) If I was either a symp or FM and not teamed with him, then I'd be happy for him to swing today, thus painting me in a better light when he came up good.

Either way, going to try to catch up with the rest of the thread before popping out.

You forgot point 4 : if you are innocent, why would you overreact to Dayne's accusation? Because I agree with Redfort that you overreacted.

I have to check if the discussion with Tollett about fake symping came before or after, but it's never good for a FM to be caught in a symp clue affair, true or false.

As for the caps thing, Inch and Dayne had both pointed out how annoying they thought it was, yet you took it jokingly (cf. the colour thing) and only changed it when Dayne voted for you. Not much but since I don't have better for the moment, my vote is for you.

1 vote for Connington ( Clegane)

1 vote for Vance ( Redfort)

I confirm that I voted Vance a while ago.

So you chose the "easy" defense. Of course you're right, my theory of you being an FM makes only sense if you're partnered with Lannister. Well,if you are an FM, then we're talking about a probability of a partnership with Lannister that is about 10 percent. That's enough that you can't just wave off my argument.

So you think Vance overreacted because he was scared of a mob building on Lannister? And that's 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. The only way to find a symp is to see who they're protecting.

What's your opinion on Dayne ?

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'm also a bit suspicious of Tollett.

I'm not especially suspicious of Inchfield at the moment. I was slightly at the beginning because of the way he jumped on me (I called it overreacting, and I still think it is) and because of the timing. At that time I was questioning Vance and Tollett and it looked a bit like a way to distract me from this path. Inche's later explanations have somewhat eased that, I can buy the non-commital thing even if I think it's overstretched. I admit to some bias in the matter

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

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

Which Eric Idle connection? Vance only mentioned him way after you did that post !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I know, and I did notice you got a few responses before you posted again. The thing that bothers me is that you wanted reactions but did nothing on your own to elicit them. Saying 'I agree' is not much of an effort.

By using the argument that you want to see responses it implies that you are actively looking for things to question players about. This is great because we should all be doing that. Unless I am misremembering, however, your posts have been suspecting Clegane and defending that position - not much else going on. It is at odds with the image you (seem to) want to project, that of a watchful, helpful innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Now that is non-committal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what you get for writing long posts, Connington answered his own mistake. I agree with whoever it was however, a little actual contribution would be nice.

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?

You are wrong. 1) the Vance case is not that at all. 2) The Inch case is slightly more complex. 3) there are the Dayne case and the Clegane case.

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.

If you want non-commital, it's hard to get better than that. :thumbsup:

ETA : cross-posted with Kettle.

re-ETA: don't know how long I will stay. Migraine hitting full speed. I try to make a reread before I have to head to bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The Vance dance I think it was.

I've completely confused myself - Vance was after my post, so I must have just been thinking of it. :unsure:

Yeah, I'm confused too. There's something very strange about you. And by strange I mean weird. And by weird I mean suspicious. Your confusion over why you made the post doesn't make any sense. Connington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, I'm getting way too many innocent reads. Unless the killers are people like Karstark, Mallister, and Connington, they're playing very well.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Because I have to sleep and work I'm not playing very well?

Now that is non-committal.

Indeed. It's far too early to commit to anything other than inklings of suspicions, which I laid out. If it comes down to the end of the day I would vote for either Vance or Dayne, but I see no reason to add votes to them at this point in time. I'd like to continue hearing what they have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inchfield, you answered the easy part of my post, but what about this?

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.

Everything points to you suspecting Clegane for an attempt to set up a Swann Defense for Vance.

Well, weird + Swann made sense. However, I will concede that it could be because the video was Swann Lake.

Basically you're saying weird + Swann = Swann Defense. You're not saying anything about weird = non-committal. This would have been a great place to clarify what you actually meant. I stand by my opinion that you found a reason to justify it after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. It's far too early to commit to anything other than inklings of suspicions, which I laid out.

I know you have to say that because you got called for being wishy-washy, but this attitude on day 1 bothers me. Of course we haven't got anything other than inklings, but if you don't vote because you're really just not sure, gosh darn it, then we get nowhere.

Golly, it would be horrible to lynch someone on day 1, I mean, how unfair to kill someone because they just *might* be guilty. We should all vote for night and have a slumber party.

... I got a little carried away there and used you as an example for all the times I've seen this attitude, and for that I'm sorry. I do think it's not a useful attitude, however and just because you're not 100% convinced, or even 70% convinced does not mean you can't throw a few votes around to see what happens. Sure, you're gonna get called on it anytime you vote, but since you have truth and innocence on your side, what are you afraid of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I don't know if I'll reach the end, a few comments I want to throw in.

On reflection, and now that I believe I misunderstood what Dayne was saying, I'm thinking that if the clue really was a clue then it is possible that Vance is guilty and not Lannister (fake symping), but if Lannister is evil and it is a clue then Vance is definitely also evil. All of which notwithstanding, I don't believe it was a symp clue.

I have a hard time with Tollett. I said I understood where he came from on the confusion about who was the symp/FM between Lannister and Vance, but I skipped through this part. I think someone else already asked a question about Tollett's change of mind on the possibility of fake symping, but I don't remember seeing Tollett's answer, so I reiterate the question.

On another note, I realize I've been greatly exaggerating things about Vance's caps things. Tollett called him on it once (and not Inchfield, I confused them), Vance answered with the colour thing, Dayne voted for Vance, then Inchfield added it was annoying and Vance stopped it. So it's a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you have to say that because you got called for being wishy-washy, but this attitude on day 1 bothers me. Of course we haven't got anything other than inklings, but if you don't vote because you're really just not sure, gosh darn it, then we get nowhere.

Golly, it would be horrible to lynch someone on day 1, I mean, how unfair to kill someone because they just *might* be guilty. We should all vote for night and have a slumber party.

... I got a little carried away there and used you as an example for all the times I've seen this attitude, and for that I'm sorry. I do think it's not a useful attitude, however and just because you're not 100% convinced, or even 70% convinced does not mean you can't throw a few votes around to see what happens. Sure, you're gonna get called on it anytime you vote, but since you have truth and innocence on your side, what are you afraid of?

I think you're vastly overreacting to what I said. Was I noncommittal? Absolutely. Am I wishy-washy and acting like I'm scared to lynch someone? I don't believe so.

With about 12 hours left in the day, I believe there's plenty of time left before we do lynch someone.

I'm curious as to why you are playing so hard already, however. Maybe you've been jonesing fairly hard for some mafia, but it seems like you're really reaching for serious cases that will stick when there isn't really anything serious yet. I believe those who try to push others to recklessness are far more dangerous than those who you may believe are wishy-washy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think Vance overreacted because he was scared of a mob building on Lannister? And that's it?

I don't think it's the mob on Lannister alone. The game was only just starting and it there was only a little chance that it would succeed. If both Vance and Lannister were FM, they should have been concerned but far from being panicked. However, they must have feared that once one of them would be lynched in the course of the game, the innocents would remember that they're somewhat tied together by Dayne's symp case.

I'm still thinking about Vance's reason to react the way he did. If he's innocent we already know the reason, but if he is evil? I thought that an FM would not act this way when he has an opportunity to get an innocent lynched and earn some credit for it. But then, Vance never had a chance to join the mob on Lannister, since as an FM/symp pretending to be innocent he "knew" that the case was BS. He had two choices: reject the case and focus on something else, or reject the case and focus on it. His attack on Dayne brought him in no danger, since Dayne suspected Lannister to be the FM. Maybe he hoped that Dayne would believe in his case even more after he attacked him rather harshly? Would be a very smart move, if an FM angers an innocent so that he holds his vote on another innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People, stop stealing my ideas before I can post them!

I have original thoughts, I swear. :crying:

Just for dramatic irony, I'm going to leave in the first sentence of my sparkly, shiny Karstark case that I've been working on for half an hour:

And now for something completely different. (See what I did there?)

Karstark

Let's break down his most recent (edit: when I wrote this, anyway) post:

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?

The first paragraph reads as though he's not all that happy that the game got serious. And the second reads like he isn't familiar with the cases (particularly since he completely ignores the wagon on Clegane). What's with the "unless I'm wrong"?

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?

I'd give him a pass for the wishy-washiness, because I know how it is to be undecided early on, but then he undercuts his own neutrality by giving reasons to suspect Vance.

Furthermore, the reasons he gives to suspect Vance are, TBH, kind of crappy. He's doing something to stick his neck out? Especially when Vance immediately switched back to his normal posting style when he came under heat? A few of Vance's posts have rubbed me the wrong way, but instead of pointing out legitimately scummy things Vance has done, Karstark says that Vance is suspicious by the WIFOM logic that Vance is doing something that's a towntell.

Again, it reads like he's not all that familiar with Vance's posts.

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."
This is the kind of thing I expect from a newish player, and Karstark isn't coming across as new.

Please give concrete examples of where you think Dayne is lynch-happy. With quotes. Are you talking about the symp clue case (which was the first of the game, so not really "pushing on someone"), or his interaction with Inchfield?

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.
"Controlling the flow of the game"--particularly when you're controlling it by trying to make it more serious--isn't a scum tell. And of course, more wishy-washiness.

For the time being I remove vote.

And of course, he closes this off with the meek unvote after the random stage. (Yes, I know I did the same thing, but...but...shut up. Nothing I ever do is a scumtell.)

All in all, this post really bugs me. I understand that it's a first catch-up post, but Karstark is just very meek and hedging his bets with all his opinions. And his reasons for his few cautious suspicions seem to be pulled out of his ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to why you are playing so hard already, however. Maybe you've been jonesing fairly hard for some mafia, but it seems like you're really reaching for serious cases that will stick when there isn't really anything serious yet. I believe those who try to push others to recklessness are far more dangerous than those who you may believe are wishy-washy.

I'm with Dayne here. I understand that it's difficult to phrase convincing suspicions on day 1, but it's neccessary that at least one or two players are pushing cases, even if they're rather absurd. The following discussion gives other players the opportunity to analyze reactions. See, I'm not a friend of Dayne's cases, but I appreciate his efforts to get things moving.

Karstark,if you were a vigilante, who would you kill tonight(if you had to)? And if you were a healer, who would you heal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Dayne voted for Vance, then Inchfield added it was annoying and Vance stopped it. So it's a moot point.

No, it was me who got Vance to stop, he said so. Me! Me! I take all the credit! :P

I think you're vastly overreacting to what I said. Was I noncommittal? Absolutely. Am I wishy-washy and acting like I'm scared to lynch someone? I don't believe so.

With about 12 hours left in the day, I believe there's plenty of time left before we do lynch someone.

Eh, non-committal, wishy-washy - they are both the same to me. You did look scared to stick your neck out and take a stance.

I'm curious as to why you are playing so hard already, however. Maybe you've been jonesing fairly hard for some mafia, but it seems like you're really reaching for serious cases that will stick when there isn't really anything serious yet. I believe those who try to push others to recklessness are far more dangerous than those who you may believe are wishy-washy.

Sadly, I really did believe my Lannister/Vance connection at the time. And I really do think Inchfield is behaving badly. I don't think either of those is reaching very far honestly. I think that Inchfield claiming his vote against Clegane for being noncommittal is stretching far more than I, but obviously we don't agree on that.

I think we need a mix of aggressive/wishy-washy/timid players, but if I had to chose between players who were passionate and active over the apathetic wait-and-see ones, I would choose the passionate players every time even though they would piss me off every step of the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×