Jump to content

Archived

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

House Targaryen

Mafia Game 73 (Mk. II)

Recommended Posts

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

Inchfield comes across as though he's deliberately trying to be controversial to advance the game. (I actually buy his explanation for his vote on me.) He doesn't seem concerned about appearances. And some of his responses to you and Kettleblack struck the right innocent tone.

That said, one thing I dislike about him is something I think you mentioned before. He acted so overconfident about Clegane mostly because he (incorrectly) thought Clegane accused Vance of the Swann Defence reference. Sure, he did insinuate that he found Clegane non-committal. But no, Inchfield doesn't just still find Clegane suspicious. He claims to be just as confident in Clegane's guilt as he was when he voted--even though most of why he suspected him in the first place was invalidated.

I'd expect Innocent Inchfield to say, "Oops, now I'm not so sure anymore, but I still find Clegane suspicious because of X."

(Hmm...I'm wavering on Inchfield. Inchfield would make sense as a symp.)

Redfort's response to the symp clue kerfuffle bugged me--although to be honest, it was more of a gut thing--but when I reread him looking for exact quotes, it felt as though I'd just imagined it. And then his most recent posts come across as though he's putting a lot of work into getting to the bottom of things. I see that as an innocent tell. IIRC, it was his big post discussing Inchfield that gave me a town vibe.

I can give specific quotes that gave me these reads on both players if you want, but I'm lazy.

I need to reread the last couple of pages, though. To be honest, I skimmed over the recent back-and-forth between Redfort and Clegane.

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.

Can you point to where I said I'm above an "impure lynch"?

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.

Really, if you want to go by this logic, shouldn't I have voted for Lannister first? I voted for you because your vote on me seems like it's nothing more than an attempt to get a train rolling on what seems like an easy target.

And if how badly I'm playing at this game is any indication, though, please. Lynch me. I give you all permission. I apparently have nothing to add and am playing the wrong way. I obviously don't have a clue as to what I'm doing so please, put me out of my (and your) misery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read Vance's posts again and am feeling better about him, but won't move my vote until I have a better candidate.

Clegane - I'm not sure if I'll get around to you today.

Going to check out Karstark next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point to where I said I'm above an "impure lynch"?

Really, if you want to go by this logic, shouldn't I have voted for Lannister first? I voted for you because your vote on me seems like it's nothing more than an attempt to get a train rolling on what seems like an easy target.

And if how badly I'm playing at this game is any indication, though, please. Lynch me. I give you all permission. I apparently have nothing to add and am playing the wrong way. I obviously don't have a clue as to what I'm doing so please, put me out of my (and your) misery.

OMGUS isn't always thrown at the first voter. And I don't need your permission to lynch you.

Wait, please don't tell me you are playing the whole "lynch me if you think I suck" card.

Me lynching you isn't me saying "Hey, you really suck!" It's me saying "Hey, you are acting in a manner consistent with how I think a player unused to playing as a killer would play when they finally draw that role". Hell, you may be an expert killer and having a bad day, innocent and having a bad day, or anything. But as I said, today isn't about lynching a killer. It's about me trying my hardest to lynch the person who looks most likely to be a killer. And that, my friend, is you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point to where I said I'm above an "impure lynch"?

I was projecting and I apologize for that. It was unnecessary.

I apparently have nothing to add and am playing the wrong way. I obviously don't have a clue as to what I'm doing so please, put me out of my (and your) misery.

:grouphug:

We all have different styles and they are all necessary.

If you are a new player:

We all bluster and yell and get really, really annoyed with each other. We call each other names and get all worked up because we are passionate about this game. Overall it is a good thing, but can be intimidating to walk into. Nothing is meant personally and apologies are abundant after the game if not in the game. Don't let others tell you how to play the game, but do be prepared to defend your stances. If you don't have at least a bit of a thick-skin, this game is a rough one.

If you are a vet:

Suck it up, Buttercup! You know we all yell and bitch and moan and then have a love fest when all is said and done :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much to choose between Karstark and Vance. I didn't feel either were very sincere in jumping on each other: both seem overdefensive. Karstark hasn't made much impact on me (sorry Karstark), whereas Vance has been active and has actually made more points I have agreed with (and if evil would have had no reason to unvote me so quickly after I admitted my mistake). In Karstark's defence I find it hard to believe a killer would draw attention to himself by being quite so overcautious. However if I had to choose between them Karstark's lack of commitment to voting does make him harder to pin down so I'd marginally prefer voting for him now.

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)

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)

The mods might not be around during euro night, so take it easy. I'll try to get up early and will definitely be around an hour before the end of the day if you want to take things to the limit and we need to implement the new rule. If not, someone proxy to vote count and use the rules we all know and love and your common sense. Once one player gets an absolute majority of the votes he may no longer post any more, and the day ends. Provisional actions are your friends, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What what, Karstark?

Um, I think Mallister is less than an hour away from a modkill.

Targ, do you have a replacement for Mallister lined up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, I think Mallister is less than an hour away from a modkill.

Targ, do you have a replacement for Mallister lined up?

No, I don't, but as per the rules (or at least their intent), players automatically get an extension until the end of day one:

Days will be up to 36 hours and nights up to 8. Modkill limit is 24 hours, but nobody will be modkilled during weekends and players who don't post during the first 24 hours of the game will only be modkilled if they fail to post before the day is over (and may be replaced by the mods).

If Mallister doesn't post before the day ends (in whatever way) we will modkill them, but not until then. This special extension doesn't apply on any other day, though (except weekends).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, I think Mallister is less than an hour away from a modkill.

Targ, do you have a replacement for Mallister lined up?

:(

I wonder if the voting rules are making people more disinclined to vote... unless they have something at stake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I skimmed over this earlier, but I disagree with the first two points.

Inchfield comes across as though he's deliberately trying to be controversial to advance the game. (I actually buy his explanation for his vote on me.) He doesn't seem concerned about appearances.

What has he done that is controversial? How has he advanced the game? I think the answer to both of those would be his vote on Clegane. That is one post, and then eleven (yes, I counted) posts defending that vote. I don't call that controversial, nor do I call it advancing the game. As to being concerned about his appearance, well, putting that much time into your own defense while not discussing anything else is pretty much the definition of caring about your appearance. I will say that a few of his answers individually can give off that vibe, but on the whole - no.

Um, I think Mallister is less than an hour away from a modkill.

He has until the end of the first day to post, so he potentially has 10 hours until modkill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the voting rules are making people more disinclined to vote... unless they have something at stake.

What in the what?

Are there special voting rules I didn't see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Checked out Tollett but he's looking fine as far as he goes... which isn't far enough. Would be good if Tollett returns.

Read Clegane but don't want to vote him today. I just have a gut feeling that he is being so very careful, as if he is playing the game with a ruler and compasses. I thought he defended well against Inchfield, who came out of it looking less rational.

I've just got time to have a quick skim of Inchfield now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What in the what?

Are there special voting rules I didn't see?

If noone has been lynched at end of day, the person with the majority of votes dies. If there's a tie, it goes into extra time...er...playoffs...penalties...<insert appropriate sporting term>

Mod post 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, I think Mallister is less than an hour away from a modkill.

Targ, do you have a replacement for Mallister lined up?

Sorry. internet was out (construction in the area affected it). (still overly slow)

first off: remove vote on Karstark, since it was a joke.

I'll be reading a catching up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, rereading Inchfield has given one more thing to add to my suspicions of Clegane, and makes me wonder if I should have stuck with my gut feeling on Tollett.

It helps to see Inchfield explain why he pounced on Clegane. However I do understand Dayne's criticism:

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

Inchfield: was there some reason why you voted for Clegane, asserting such confidence, but without actually explaining your reasons? You could not expect others to join you purely based on your 'conviction': if you were really serious about trying to put Clegane under pressure some explanation would have helped. Even after you provided reasons you didn't seem too worried whether people believed you or not. It makes you seem a bit flaky, undermining your attack on Clegane. [Added too late: Actually, second thoughts, you've done enough defending, treat this as a comment, a marker of my thoughts, not a question. Vindicate yourself by making better accusations in future ;)]

You didn't like the way Tollett jumped on you and stretched a case against you. While neither of these things bother me (since I can see the criticism of the way you played the Clegane vote), I did get a twinge when Tollett bandwagoned on you. However Tollett had already expressed suspicion of you for a different matter before Dayne voted you, so it was consistent on his part, though opportunistic. Not enough for me to revive my Tollett suspicion, then, yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll answer these things on me first. Then I'll go back and look at Karstark/Vance as they seem to be creaping up with some votes.

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

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.

In that post, yes. Because he said "weird" instead of suspicious. But when you realize he wasn't implying the Swann defense, then you understand that "weird" means something entirely different. It's not that hard to work out the thought process.

It's all about the word choice. If he said suspicious, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. He didn't. He said something that can easily be spun in any direction he wanted it.

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)

Watching for reactions does not imply poking and prodding. Last time I checked, the word watch means "to be attentive." I didn't know it meant to create reactions by poking and prodding.

As for the defense, I see nothing wrong with it. I've posted who my suspect is. I have posted why. I have also said I didn't like Tollett and why. I didn't know it was up to me to find more people to hate when most of the focus was around me.

That said, one thing I dislike about him is something I think you mentioned before. He acted so overconfident about Clegane mostly because he (incorrectly) thought Clegane accused Vance of the Swann Defence reference. Sure, he did insinuate that he found Clegane non-committal. But no, Inchfield doesn't just still find Clegane suspicious. He claims to be just as confident in Clegane's guilt as he was when he voted--even though most of why he suspected him in the first place was invalidated.

I'd expect Innocent Inchfield to say, "Oops, now I'm not so sure anymore, but I still find Clegane suspicious because of X."

(Hmm...I'm wavering on Inchfield. Inchfield would make sense as a symp.)

The Swann defense had nothing to do with my confidence. It was the non-committal part. It's why I have stuck with my vote. It's why I have defended my vote. That was clearly the weakest part of my reasoning so it shouldn't be the focal point. Stop looking at one post and start looking at the entire body of work.

Inchfield: was there some reason why you voted for Clegane, asserting such confidence, but without actually explaining your reasons? You could not expect others to join you purely based on your 'conviction': if you were really serious about trying to put Clegane under pressure some explanation would have helped. Even after you provided reasons you didn't seem too worried whether people believed you or not. It makes you seem a bit flaky, undermining your attack on Clegane.

You didn't like the way Tollett jumped on you and stretched a case against you. While neither of these things bother me (since I can see the criticism of the way you played the Clegane vote), I did get a twinge when Tollett bandwagoned on you. However Tollett had already expressed suspicion of you for a different matter before Dayne voted you, so it was consistent on his part, though opportunistic. Not enough for me to revive my Tollett suspicion, then, yet.

It was early. I wanted to give him a chance to screw up some more. Unfortunately, I was called out and forced to explain my reasoning multiple times down to the minutest detail. I don't explain everything right away as I feel that sometimes you can gain a lot of information from being tight lipped. You'll look back on day 2 or 3 and be happy that these arguments have occurred. It's valuable information.

I still don't like the way Tollett jumped on me. It was opportunistic and then he continued that attack by stretching the case based on fictional theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't like the way Tollett jumped on me. It was opportunistic and then he continued that attack by stretching the case based on fictional theories.

I didn't like the way Clegane jumped on Vance after Redfort's vote, that seemed a bit too slick... but then I don't like the way Vance and Karstark jumped on each other either.

Waiting for Mallister to post again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would vote for Karstark but he's obviously not my first choice. I agree with all the posts pointing out his wishy-washiness. I can see his defense but he's has to make a choice at some point and there is more than enough information out there to form some kind of opinion. The fact that he's not, that it looks like he's waiting until the end of day 1 doesn't sit well with me.

He's not my top choice but I wouldn't fight his lynch.

As for Vance, he seems fine to me. I don't like people trying to hide who they are but when they do, especially when very annoying, they're generally innocent. That is a point on the positive side to me and he hasn't really done anything else to suggest he's evil.

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?

I'm surprised no one commented on this. This is an AWFUL post. Fishing for information much? I would vote for you just for this statement.

I'm heading off. I'll be back before day's end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×