Mafia Game 73 (Mk. II)

[House Dayne]

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.

I disagree with this characterization of Tollett bandwagoning. My impression is that Inchfield voted for Clegane. I questioned his reasons and he responded. Tollett's first comment against Inchfield were in a large post with several quotes that was crossposted with Inchfield and my interactions, meaning he didn't see it before posting. He then goes on to actually vote for Inchfield as I was making a stronger statement about my suspicions of Inchfield - again, we cross-posted.

We came to independent conclusions and Tollett continued to poke Inchfield as did I. We were thinking along the same lines, but we emphasized slightly different points to strengthen our respective arguments. I do not see how that makes Tollett opportunistic.

All of this gives me a favorable view of Tollett. I do wish he would post more as his later posts didn't further my opinion of him (not that they were suspicious, just meh).

[House Dayne]

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.

You're right and when worded like that it doesn't correlate. I was sloppy in my wording and the other times you mentioned you wanted to stir it up were in the back of my head.

So? Is there something wrong with voting early in the game to stir it up a little?

Not really. There are other ways of stirring up trouble than just leaving a vote on someone. But thanks for the advice. I will consider it as I leave my vote on Clegane for being evil.

So my point stands. You are not stirring up trouble. You are not even watching anymore. You found the one post to hang a believable (sort of) case on and are sticking with it. You are offering up no other observations. Well, I take that back. You called Redfort out on a pretty awful post (I agree with you there) and regurgitated some thoughts on Vance and Karstark because they are gathering votes. Pretty safe, non stirring comments.

And btw - Connington is moving up my tiers quickly for middle-of-the-roading it. I know he's new and needs time to catch up, but I just might be persuaded anyway.

[House Connington]

Thanks Dayne - I don't look at it in that much detail so if my Tollett suspicions do return I will bear in mind to look more carefully at the timestamps.

I can't stay around much longer so will move my vote to Karstark.

Dayne - what am I 'middle of the road' on that you think I should be moving more towards the kerb? I'd characterise myself as more 'veering wildly from one side to the other' :P

Agreed I haven't been active in provoking discussion: I have prioritised getting a vote in.

In case it's not clear from my previous posts, Clegane is my strongest remaining suspect. I am no longer suspicious of Tollett. Comparing Vance and Karstark (because they had the most votes) I was originally more suspicious of Vance on gut feeling, but looking at their posts logically I now find Vance less suspicious. I have tried to provide explanations in the time I have.

You have made it clear you suspect Karstark and Inchfield. Do you still suspect Lannister? What do you think of Clegane?

[House Dayne]

I am reading through your posts, Inchfield, and really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but it just reinforces my impression that the non-committal part was tacked on. You tell Lannister to look at the whole body of work and not just focus on one thing (the Swan Defense) but you are doing exactly that.

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.

So, as far as I can tell, you're condemning Clegane for one word that *could* be spun as non-committal, while letting Karstark pass when his whole style is 'wait and see'. (By pass, I mean not a top suspect).

This is the post that I keep coming back to when I re-read you:

I changed my vote to someone who thought it was "weird" and didn't change his vote. That's about as non-commital as you can get. It's early, I understand that, but it doesn't change the fact that his categorizing could have meant anything. It could mean it's suspicious. It could mean it's just strange. It could mean that he's evil. It could mean that he's not. Who knows? That's the problem with his post. I originally thought he was mentioning a Swann defense but I already conceded that I was wrong on that given I didn't make the connection between Swann Lake and House Swann.

You admit that you originally thought that he was mentioning a Swann Defense, but you conceded that he wasn't in a later post. You trying to pass off your original vote as a valid one for being non-comittal doesn't make any sense to me in this context. Also, how could you not make the connection between Swan Lake and Swann Defense - you were the one who brought it up. I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say in that part. When I ask for clarification, all I get is 'my thoughts were perfectly clear'. I'm sorry, but to me they are not.

[House Dayne]

Dayne - what am I 'middle of the road' on that you think I should be moving more towards the kerb? I'd characterise myself as more 'veering wildly from one side to the other' :P

Mainly because you're playing it safe - looking at safe targets, pulling out things already said. I shouldn't hold it against you really because you are trying to catch up to a game in progress. I don't think I would really support a vote of you today. However, if you were in from the start - yes, those actions would be ringing bells for me. You may think you're veering wildly, but from here it looks like you're veering mildly :)

You have made it clear you suspect Karstark and Inchfield. Do you still suspect Lannister? What do you think of Clegane?

I don't think I suspect Karstark anymore. I critisized him and he made a post that said 'It's how I am' with a sad little smiley after it. It kind of took the wind out of my sails a bit and I calmed down. Just as I said that being cautious is not necessarily an independent sign of guilt, neither is being defensive. Karstark's defense had a bit more passion and feeling in it than INchfield's does. I didn't like the whole 'fine, if I'm so horrible then vote me out schtick, but luckily I was feeling generous to him before that. He's not off my list, just not near the top.

I do kind of suspect Lannister, but only middling so. He wasn't around when I was connecting him to everyone I could see (OK, just Vance and Inch) but he did come in and make a comment, then disappear again. He came back and gave us a few good, reasonable comments, mentioned he should do a re-read but then only snuck in to comment on a possible modkill*. I get a lurker vibe from him. So it's not a full-blown suspicion, just a hunch.

Clegane I admit I need to re-read. My impression so far has been favorable, but I want to look at some of his later interactions a bit closer. Early on he seemed to be poking people and moving things along. That's always a good cover too, so like I said, I want to look at him again to be sure.

*Speaking of which ... um, Mallister. You there?

[House Thorne]

I couldn't resist the urge to pop in and say that I technically am lurking.

:ninja:

(As in, I've had the thread open to this game all evening, and on-and-off writing a response to Karstark, but I've been putting it off to catch up with a game off-site that I've horribly neglected.)

Speaking of disappearances, whatever happened to Kettleblack?

[House Mooton]

So my point stands. You are not stirring up trouble. You are not even watching anymore. You found the one post to hang a believable (sort of) case on and are sticking with it. You are offering up no other observations. Well, I take that back. You called Redfort out on a pretty awful post (I agree with you there) and regurgitated some thoughts on Vance and Karstark because they are gathering votes. Pretty safe, non stirring comments.

And btw - Connington is moving up my tiers quickly for middle-of-the-roading it. I know he's new and needs time to catch up, but I just might be persuaded anyway.

Reading through the game I noticed a few things that sort of stuck with me. Most notably was the interactions between Dayne and Inchfield. I am not sure if I get the whole of the issue, but it just seemed like a lot between them for day one.

One of the things I have noticed about Dayne is that he is guilty of the same thing he is accusing Inchfield of: Being tunnel visioned.

When looking at Dayne's posts out of context, you can see that in the majority of them it is Inchfield that he is quoting and poking at.

Seems to me this is a good way to look like you are contributing and doing a lot, while in truth, most of your focus has been in one direction.

(btw, I hate the new "board", it makes it much harder to find all of one person's posts)

[House Dayne]

Click on the little grey icon to the right of the player's name. You will see three icons at the bottom of a pop-up window. Select 'Find my content'. You will get a new page that shows all the topics the player has posted in. At the top right, you will see a drop down menu. Select the last option, 'View all posts by X' and you will see all of their posts.

I know a lot of my content is focused on Inchfield, but not all of it is. I have other opinions laced through them and I initiate more interaction than Inchfield. If you compare them, I think you'll find the tone is very different.

eta: I knew it Lannister! I caught you red-handed! (which isn't hard since you're red pretty much all of the time.)

[House Mooton]

Click on the little grey icon to the right of the player's name. You will see three icons at the bottom of a pop-up window. Select 'Find my content'. You will get a new page that shows all the topics the player has posted in. At the top right, you will see a drop down menu. Select the last option, 'View all posts by X' and you will see all of their posts.

I know a lot of my content is focused on Inchfield, but not all of it is. I have other opinions laced through them and I initiate more interaction than Inchfield. If you compare them, I think you'll find the tone is very different.

Thanks. I had part of that. I found content, but not all posts. :wub:

Internet is still a bit hinky. Hopefully they will fix it soon.

[House Redfort]

This sucks. I won't be here before the end of the day and I have 20 minutes to make up my mind. Great! <_<

[House Thorne]

Gah, then it'll be too late for you to hear my response to Karstark (which I've barely started)! And now I'm not even sure if I want him lynched over...someone else, because I'm doing the same thing Karstark did and I'm at the very least experienced enough to know what "WIFOM" means. And you won't be around to respond to...whatever it is I might post once I reread the Clegane v. Redfort interaction.

(Yes, I'm completely useless this game, and I would totally lynch myself. It's just that most people have done something that looks innocent.)

I've been spoiled by games with seven-zillion week deadlines during the hiatus.

But I made myself a cup of coffee so I could be around for the deadline.

I prefer the Karstark to the Vance lynch, though. Vance is erratic and over-the-top in his posts...but I have a feeling he'd be more so if he were evil. Dayne does a good job of making the Inchfield wagon sound tantalizing (even though I agree that Dayne's coming off as a teensy bit tunnel-visioned), but every time Inchfield posts he makes me doubt my suspicions of him.

Mallister: I'd like to hear your opinions on another player besides Dayne. What about, say, Clegane? Or Vance? Or Redfort?

(Off-topic: for some reason, the reread function shows posts out of chronological order. So a post from last game appears before one from this game.)

[House Redfort]

Just finished my reread, but I don't have time to write a big post. I forgot about the new voting system, so I don't have to force myself to create a decisive mon right now. Yeah new rules! :cheers:

I'll explain myself to Clegane later. Regarding my question to Karstark (vig/healer): since Karstark apparently was unable to work out at least some tiers of susupicion, I thought it would help to create a scenario for him in which he has to decide. Maybe someone should tell him that an innocent should not be afraid to name a top suspect and someone he trusts the most. :unsure:

[House Thorne]

Redfort, who is your top suspect right now? Who are any of your suspects now?

Because you can still cast a vote, even if it's not for a popular lynch.

[Lady Gaga]

Connington being replaced sucks. Guess we won't get any further explanations for his strange behavior to start the day. Anyway, I'm still suspicious of him. New Connington isn't much of an improvement on Old Connington.

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.

While there's nothing wrong with placing a vote, I think Connington seems eager to get one down here. He doesn't back it up with any reasoning (promising to post it later) and adds the qualifier that its his vote 'for the time being'. So its fairly meaningless, aside from maybe adding a little more pressure on Vance in the form of a growing lynch mob.

I've got to wonder if he was worried about standing out as the only one who hadn't cast a vote in the game yet.

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.

So Conn expresses suspicion of Vance, and then starts to feel better about him...without ever telling us why he was suspicious in the first place. I know Conn was catching up, but its still suspicious - feels like the way a lazy replacement FM would get into the game, rather than an innocent who is actually making an effort to discuss suspects and find the FM.

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.

Finally shares some thoughts about a few suspects, but nothing in depth. Says he prefers to vote Karstark over Vance, but doesn't back it up with a vote.

He does switch to Karstark later...but once again confuses the issue by saying that its because Karstark has other votes. His real preference is Clegane.

[Lady Gaga]

Just finished my reread, but I don't have time to write a big post. I forgot about the new voting system, so I don't have to force myself to create a decisive mon right now. Yeah new rules! :cheers:

That is an awful cop-out.

ETA - At least you're already voting for Vance, who has one of the largest lynch mobs.

[Lady Gaga]

Just finished my reread, but I don't have time to write a big post. I forgot about the new voting system, so I don't have to force myself to create a decisive mon right now. Yeah new rules! :cheers:

I'll explain myself to Clegane later. Regarding my question to Karstark (vig/healer): since Karstark apparently was unable to work out at least some tiers of susupicion, I thought it would help to create a scenario for him in which he has to decide. Maybe someone should tell him that an innocent should not be afraid to name a top suspect and someone he trusts the most. :unsure:

Also, the two underlined points seem very contradictory. So you wanted Karstark to name a top suspect and be forced into a decision, but you aren't willing to do the same thing yourself?

[House Thorne]

I didn't notice that Redfort's vote was on Vance. It'd have been nice to know whether he still suspected Vance, considering that Redfort appeared to be wavering on him in his last post. He's still voting Vance for his "overdefensive" reaction to Dayne's symp clue case.

Ugh, I'm starting to suspect Redfort again. I wish he was around right now.

He does switch to Karstark later...but once again confuses the issue by saying that its because Karstark has other votes. His real preference is Clegane.

I understand the rest of your points against Connington, but didn't Vance also have other votes on him? So he does back up choosing Karstark over Vance.

And since someone has to do this:

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 ( Lannister, Vance, Connington)

2 votes for Dayne ( Royce, Mallister)

2 votes for Inchfield ( Tollett, Dayne)

2 votes for Vance ( Redfort, Karstark)

1 vote for Clegane ( Inchfield)

1 vote for Connington ( Kettleblack)

1 vote for Redfort ( Clegane)

[Lady Gaga]

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."

I think that's a good point about Inchfield.

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.

And I think that's another good point about him. Inch is attempting to adopt the persona of the active innocent who stirs the pot and seeks information on day 1. Yet he really hasn't done much to accomplish that goal. Kind of gives me the feeling that he is more concerned about letting us know that he's the 'pot stirrer' than he is with actually making an effort to find the FM. Its a good cover for a FM, since the active, information-hunting players often get labeled as innocent.

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.

Your constant harping on the word 'weird' is getting tiresome. Like I said before, I disagree about it being such an ambiguous word. I've personally used the words 'weird' and 'strange' before as an innocent, so your argument doesn't hold any weight with me at all, and I find it suspicious that you keep pushing it with such strength. Is there anything more that makes you suspect Clegane, beyond that one point?

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.

Earlier, I made a point in your defense, by agreeing that your initial attack on Clegane did hint toward a criticism that he was non-committal. I do think you made a step toward that accusation in your post. But to say that the Swann defense issue had nothing to do with your confidence, label it as 'clearly' being the weakest part of your case, and imply that the non-committal part was obviously a bigger part of your case from the start is misleading at best.

Here's your post -

Why was it weird? Why would you check to see if there was a House Swann? I understand the whole Swann thing but nothing Vance did, especially as a first post during RP, suggests that he's going for a Swann defense. Jumping the gun a little bit?

The part about the Swann defense seems like a prominent (if incomprehensible) element of your post.

[House Dayne]

I really don't see anything about Clegane that looks suspicious. I think he has explained his viewpoint very well and is interacting with lots of different players. Redfort is bothering me a bit too. He is pretty good about explaining his point of view, but he doesn't have a firm concept of the arguments happening. that's not necessarily suspicious in and of itself, but it really makes it hard to evaluate him. And since his cheering the new rules has already been pointed out, I'll just say it really bugged me too.

[House Dayne]

Kettleblack's post reminded me of this post. I asked what about Inchfield seemed genuine.

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.

I disagreed about point 1 and 2 (controversial and appearances) and you've not gotten back to it. Do you still hold these opinions and if so, could you explain further? Which responses in particular struck an innocent tone?