Jump to content

Archived

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

House Targaryen

Mafia Game 73 (Mk. II)

Recommended Posts

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.

Reckless?

The entire point of day one is to draw a line in the sand. To take a stand. To put your point across. To fight for the best lynch possible. Not to be careful, sure that you are only voting for someone who looks guilty as sin, and not making mistakes. Day 2, after we've (usually) lynched an innocent, we can then look back at day 1 and see who acted odd. By being careful, not being, as you call it, reckless, you give us very little to work on on day 2.

Day 1 isn't really about catching a killer. If we do, that's just a bonus. It's about TRYING to catch a killer. Which you aren't doing right now Karstark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ser Connington the 1st has been replaced with Ser Connington the Second.

Please welcome and thank this player for stepping forward in your time of need.

:blush:

*polishes armour and buys white horse*

Ah - yes, I will rescue you all!

Um... just give me a few moments to gather my thoughts, then I will singlehandedly reveal the culprits. Uh...hmm...

:leaving:

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 Karstark ( Mallister, Lannister, Vance)

2 votes for Inchfield ( Tollett, Dayne)

2 votes for Vance ( Redfort, Clegane)

1 vote for Clegane ( Inchfield)

1 vote for Connington ( Kettleblack)

1 vote for Dayne ( Royce)

1 vote for Redfort ( Karstark)

1 players have not voted: Connington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got distracted from what I was doing by replying to Karstark. So anyway - I looked over Inchfield's posts to see if he has been doing anything else other than defend himself and the answer is, not really. If you consider my case against Lannister to be the first serious post, then his posts look like this:

Vote for Lannister

Vote for Clegane

Defense

Defense (and a little abuse towards Vance, which at that point was justifiable ;) )

Defense

Reaction to me voting for him

Defense

Defense

Defense

Defense

Defense (with a bit of suspicion thrown at Tollet, but mainly defense)

Defense

Defense

Defense

I know it's hard to focus when you're being poked and prodded, but it seems at odds with his statement that he voted Lannister just to watch for reactions. That implies he wants to poke and prod people and see what makes them tick. He hasn't done any of that aside from his initial vote on Clegane, no comments on anything else in the game. (If he does comment on anything else, I missed it as it was hidden in layers of defense)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dayne's most recent posts are making me feel better about him.

Couldn't Connington have explained his weird African tiger comment before replacing out?

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

Um...did you just confess to being a killer? :P

What I mean is that all the active players are looking innocent. I reread the huge symp clue kerfuffle and tried to find something that stuck out. I was uneasy about Clegane and Redfort for a bit, but their recent posts come across as if they're genuinely trying to find the FM. Clegane, Redfort, Dayne, Tollett, Inchfield, and Kettleblack have all done things that ring true. (I'm neutral on Vance and Royce at the moment; Vance's jump onto your wagon seems a bit opportunistic.)

Therefore, if the killers aren't the inactives (you, Mallister, and Connington), that means they're among the players who look innocent. In other words, they're playing very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I don't know if it's the headache or if it's because Redfort's answer to me makes little to no sense and I have a hard time getting it.

I'll try to break it down

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.

That was the original quote. So you say your theory requires Lannister to be FM and Vance to be symp or FM (since Vance has to know about the partnership. So 1st question: why vote Vance and not Lannister?

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.

OK with this,

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?

So you understand why Vance would react this way if he's innocent, you have to look for reasons to think he's evil, and still you make a "case" and vote for him? What I understand is that you tried to fabricate a case on Vance.

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.

Why would Vance get some credit for getting an innocent lynched? He would look cleared of symp accusations, sure, but get credit?

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.

If Vance is innocent, he knows the point is moot so he has the exact same choice.

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.

OK, so now you are assuming that Lannister=innocent and Vance=guilty, which is precisely the opposite of what you said in the quote I was initially questioning.

And why would you try to find reasons for Vance's guilt based on a behaviour you say makes sense for an innocent.

I'm not so suspicious of Vance (see post above about my mistake) and Redfort's contradictions are enough that I switch my vote to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clegane, Redfort, Dayne, Tollett, Inchfield, and Kettleblack have all done things that ring true. (I'm neutral on Vance and Royce at the moment; Vance's jump onto your wagon seems a bit opportunistic.)

Out of curiosity, what rings true about Inchfield and Redfort?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, the players most likely to get my vote at the moment are Clegane, Vance or Tollett (or Mallister) - will explain in more detail when I get a moment.

I'm putting my vote on Vance for the time being.

I want to find out why Karstark is getting so many votes and see if I agree or not: I could downgrade him, but he only registered a few slight blips on my radar so not getting my vote just now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first paragraph reads as though he's not all that happy that the game got serious.

That's a reach, and I'd like to how you come to that conclusion. It was merely a remark. I recall the jokey happy period lasting some time and not switching gears to serious business so fast.

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"?

What is with the "unless I'm wrong?" Pray tell, I would love to know what is up with that... unless it's my admitting I'm not familiar with the cases I skimmed. As for the wagon on Clegane... huh? Has there been more than one vote on him since Inchfield made his "case"? Does one person constitute a wagon these days? Or are you trying to make a mountain out of a molehill? Because I'm not seeing how this argument is anything other than you trying to make a case against someone who "wasn't playing very well" due to their absence for a good part of the day and then showed up only to state that no cases were very convincing.

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.

Forgive me my ignorance, but I don't have a clue what you're talking about with WIFOM and towntell, etc. I've played the game before, but not enough to become inundated with the slang and verbiage.

Let me try to explain why Vance's annoying typing style bothered me. It seemed aimed at putting a spotlight on his back. Why would someone want to put a spotlight on their back so early in the game unless A) they wanted to deflect suspicion from someone (in which case Dayne could be right that Vance is your symp) or B ) they want to get a wagon rolling on him/herself for something superficial in the hopes that said wagon leaves and they are given a free pass because why would a guilty person stick their neck out like that?

You may not have seen the logic, but you can't tell me it smells like shit while you're sitting on the toilet yourself.

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

I'm familiar enough, and thought Dayne and others were doing a good job getting him to explain. I had nothing new to add... why add it?

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?

Wait, so is there a new role I missed out on? The School-Marm with the power to dictate the game be played the way they want?

"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.

How do you know what is and isn't a tell? Are you that much of an expert that you know everything about every game before it's even played? I didn't like the way that Dayne created a couple serious cases out of seemingly nothing. I said as much. Yet, one in your eyes makes Dayne look shiny while the other makes me look dirty? How?

And his reasons for his few cautious suspicions seem to be pulled out of his ass.

Seem and is are very different. You seem to be trying to create what you think will be an easy case against a player who was absent for a long time (which makes me a bad player in the first place apparently) and then found no reason to place a serious vote. Good job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Connington is in transition, so that's covered. Royce hasn't been around much to comment other than a few quick things. Tollet's been pretty inactive lately. It would be really great to hear from Mallister. Have I forgotten anyone who's flying under the radar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, the players most likely to get my vote at the moment are Clegane, Vance or Tollett (or Mallister) - will explain in more detail when I get a moment.

I'm putting my vote on Vance for the time being.

I want to find out why Karstark is getting so many votes and see if I agree or not: I could downgrade him, but he only registered a few slight blips on my radar so not getting my vote just now.

If you have any questions you want me to answer, be quick, cause I can barely stand and I can't guarantee I'll manage to get up before day's end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karstark is, wow, he's pretty defensive. While I don't like the day 1 school of thought he was following, I know that others do and it's not a good way to measure guilt/innocence on it's own. Add the defense on top of it and I'm moving him up a tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Yeah, I'm not going to do that. It's like asking to be framed.

Reckless?

The entire point of day one is to draw a line in the sand. To take a stand. To put your point across. To fight for the best lynch possible. Not to be careful, sure that you are only voting for someone who looks guilty as sin, and not making mistakes. Day 2, after we've (usually) lynched an innocent, we can then look back at day 1 and see who acted odd. By being careful, not being, as you call it, reckless, you give us very little to work on on day 2.

Day 1 isn't really about catching a killer. If we do, that's just a bonus. It's about TRYING to catch a killer. Which you aren't doing right now Karstark.

Wow Vance, try to start bandwagons much? Mallister's vote on me was a joke, Lannister's wasn't so much and now you're trying to start a train because I'd rather continue reading and determine more than place a serious vote? I also find it strange that you are so quick to jump on Lannister's vote.

You certainly seem desperate, and your admission that it's OK if we kill an innocent is just plain wrong. Yes, an innocent is likely to be lynched first, but there is nothing OK about it. Yes, we get evidence for Day 2, but wouldn't you rather try to ensure a bad guy is killed on Day 1 than go into Day 2 down two innocents?

I'll let you know, there is nothing reckless about this vote, Vance.

I want to find out why Karstark is getting so many votes and see if I agree or not: I could downgrade him, but he only registered a few slight blips on my radar so not getting my vote just now.

Apparently wanting to be able to read more cases and more evidence before casting a vote is bad. At least according to Lannister and Vance it is. Mallister's vote on me was a joke from early on in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karstark is, wow, he's pretty defensive. While I don't like the day 1 school of thought he was following, I know that others do and it's not a good way to measure guilt/innocence on it's own. Add the defense on top of it and I'm moving him up a tier.

I can't help it. I'm just that way :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm not going to do that. It's like asking to be framed.

Wow Vance, try to start bandwagons much? Mallister's vote on me was a joke, Lannister's wasn't so much and now you're trying to start a train because I'd rather continue reading and determine more than place a serious vote? I also find it strange that you are so quick to jump on Lannister's vote.

You certainly seem desperate, and your admission that it's OK if we kill an innocent is just plain wrong. Yes, an innocent is likely to be lynched first, but there is nothing OK about it. Yes, we get evidence for Day 2, but wouldn't you rather try to ensure a bad guy is killed on Day 1 than go into Day 2 down two innocents?

I'll let you know, there is nothing reckless about this vote, Vance.

Apparently wanting to be able to read more cases and more evidence before casting a vote is bad. At least according to Lannister and Vance it is. Mallister's vote on me was a joke from early on in the game.

Oh My God, You Suck!

Seriously, hyper defensive, and now omgus-ing? Why should I care if someone else's vote on you is or isn't a joke. Mine is there because you are trying to paint yourself as something you are not, while trying to portray your style of playing as helpful when in fact it is the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh My God, You Suck!

Seriously, hyper defensive, and now omgus-ing? Why should I care if someone else's vote on you is or isn't a joke. Mine is there because you are trying to paint yourself as something you are not, while trying to portray your style of playing as helpful when in fact it is the opposite.

Please explain. This makes no sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You certainly seem desperate, and your admission that it's OK if we kill an innocent is just plain wrong. Yes, an innocent is likely to be lynched first, but there is nothing OK about it. Yes, we get evidence for Day 2, but wouldn't you rather try to ensure a bad guy is killed on Day 1 than go into Day 2 down two innocents?

Accepting that innocents are going to get lynched is a fact of life. Do we like it? No. It's just an acceptable price of doing business. In fact, I don't remember him saying we should just lynch anyone willy nilly, he said we should in fact try to find a killer and that is the important part. I absolutely agree and don't see why you're going all holier-than-thou and being so totally above an impure lynch. We all get our hands dirty sooner or later, even you my dear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accepting that innocents are going to get lynched is a fact of life. Do we like it? No. It's just an acceptable price of doing business. In fact, I don't remember him saying we should just lynch anyone willy nilly, he said we should in fact try to find a killer and that is the important part. I absolutely agree and don't see why you're going all holier-than-thou and being so totally above an impure lynch. We all get our hands dirty sooner or later, even you my dear.

Exactly. I don't like lynching innocents, but it will happen. I've yet to play a game where we didn't lynch one.

I have played plenty of games where in lynching an innocent, we end up gathering information that later leads to the killers though.

As for the OMGUS thing, it's self explanatory. I vote you, you scream "Oh my god, you suck!" and vote me back. Usually done as a joke, but it is a real reaction people sometimes have, and it isn't usually flattering. Common newbie scum tell iirc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have approx 10 hours before day ends or we enter lynch tie break mode.

Mod Pebs is going to Bed. You will have to look after your own vote counts until one of us mods get up.

Please make sure you send in any night action/no action PM's for a quick(ish) night and please spam our inbox with your thoughts.

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 Karstark ( Mallister, Lannister, Vance)

3 votes for Vance ( Redfort, Connington, Karstark)

2 votes for Inchfield ( Tollett, Dayne)

1 vote for Clegane ( Inchfield)

1 vote for Connington ( Kettleblack)

1 vote for Dayne ( Royce)

1 vote for Redfort ( Clegane)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×