Mafia Game 73 (Mk. II)

[House Dondarrion]

Are you serious? This moment was mentioned in every reread of me. Everybody and their dog asked me why haven't put second vote on Mallister despite of saying he was my main suspect at the beginning of day 2.

You may look for details in recent Clegane's reread, for example.

Yes, people have asked you why you didn't put down a vote. But you're telling me that you rejected the idea of putting down a second vote on Mallister and therefore that makes you innocent.

However, when I read through your posts, I don't see you rejecting anything. Yes, I see Kettleblack asking you why you didn't and you saying you didn't want to put 2 votes on Mallister early in day 2 but I don't see you pushing others. I don't see you pushing Mallister at that point either. You made one post against Mallister and then kind of waited until others asked you questions. Instead of me seeing it through your actions, I only see it through a response and that's not convincing to me.

If for example you said, "Mallister is my main suspect because of reason A, B and C but I don't want to put a vote on him yet because there are other people I want to look at and it's too early in day 2 to start a train" then fine. I can buy your explanation. However, you did nothing of the sort. You said Mallister was your main suspect and disappeared until Kettleblack called you on it. You answered you didn't want to start a train and that was the last thing we heard of Mallister until out of nowhere, you voted him instead of Vance/Connington who you admitted were much higher on your suspicions list.

Slip? What slip?

Sorry, not a slip. Poor choice of words. You claim that you were the first to object to Vance's healer/Redfort kill comment when in fact you were not. 3 people commented on it before you did.

[House Tully]

On day 1, I pointed out to Vance that he should stop hiding, that he should post normally.

I've only just started rereading you but I don't see this the same as you at all (surprise).

You said this, true:

I swear to god, this is the most annoying way to post period. This is an alted game where we haven't played in ages. There is absolutely no reason to try to hide who you are. And if for some reason, you're not trying to hide who you are, then you're just really really annoying.

And later you said this:

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.

You had the strongest reaction to Vance, no doubt. But you were the third person to express annoyance and honestly it was begging to be reacted to. As far as I can see there isn't anyone who was on the thread at the time who didn't have some reaction. Why not slap him down? It's in character for you and it's a far more natural sounding reaction than "it irks me mildly" or whatever more gentle response you feel that evil you would have made. Then you later smooth it all over and turn it into a positive, and sound more authoritative because you had such a strong negative reaction in the first place.

[House Dondarrion]

You had the strongest reaction to Vance, no doubt. But you were the third person to express annoyance and honestly it was begging to be reacted to. As far as I can see there isn't anyone who was on the thread at the time who didn't have some reaction. Why not slap him down? It's in character for you and it's a far more natural sounding reaction than "it irks me mildly" or whatever more gentle response you feel that evil you would have made. Then you later smooth it all over and turn it into a positive, and sound more authoritative because you had such a strong negative reaction in the first place.

I pointed out that he was hiding. Yes, I could have smacked him down as did everyone else. But did I need to specifically say he was hiding? No.

It did turn into a positive because most people who hide their alt do it because they want to avoid a night kill, not because they are guilty. However, he was still alive during day 2 and that's ultimately what pushed me over to voting him. Clegane had the same thoughts after I brought it up. I had already set myself to use it as a positive in favor of him and I could have argued the point in order to vote Connington but I didn't.

My point is simply that I didn't need to do it. You can say that I was just latching on because others were pointing out annoyance but I specifically mentioned hiding his alt which others did not. Pointing that out serves no purpose unless you think that I was trying to set him up as being innocent. But if I was, why did I turn it around on him as a negative after further thoughts? I guess you could say it's because I was trying to distance. I won't really disagree with you since you can read into it whatever way you want.

[House Tully]

I pointed out that he was hiding. Yes, I could have smacked him down as did everyone else. But did I need to specifically say he was hiding? No.

No, you didn't have to say it but I don't see that saying it hurt at all, either you or him. Also, why not say he's hiding and get some credit for saying what a partner would never say? It's not like everyone wasn't thinking it anyway. Not saying it wasn't going to get that genie back in the bottle. I haven't got to day two yet so I will need to follow how it pans out. How much credit you get for changing your mind probably depends on at what point you changed it.

[House Baratheon]

Yes, people have asked you why you didn't put down a vote. But you're telling me that you rejected the idea of putting down a second vote

Perhaps, it's language barrier. I see absolutely no difference between "not voting" and "rejecting voting". It might be poor choice of words, but fact is same: I could join Malister train but haven't.

and therefore that makes you innocent.

I never sait it makes me innocent. I said it is a point in my favor.

You claim that you were the first to object to Vance's healer/Redfort kill comment when in fact you were not. 3 people commented on it before you did.

Well, I could miss some posts... or not. Those three comments aren't mentioned in Clegane's reread also. Could you give me references?

[House Dondarrion]

No, you didn't have to say it but I don't see that saying it hurt at all, either you or him. Also, why not say he's hiding and get some credit for saying what a partner would never say? It's not like everyone wasn't thinking it anyway. Not saying it wasn't going to get that genie back in the bottle. I haven't got to day two yet so I will need to follow how it pans out. How much credit you get for changing your mind probably depends on at what point you changed it.

Was everyone thinking it? Clegane said it never even crosed his mind.

I can tell you exactly when I changed my mind. It was on day 2 and I was trying to figure out who I wanted to vote. Connington had 4 votes, Vance had 3. I had already done rereads on Connington and Vance as requested and posted numerous things I didn't like. I wasn't sure who I liked worse. I was making dinner for my gf when I couldn't stop thinking about why Vance was still alive. I made a post about it then voted Vance before I headed to bed later that evening.

[House Dondarrion]

Perhaps, it's language barrier. I see absolutely no difference between "not voting" and "rejecting voting". It might be poor choice of words, but fact is same: I could join Malister train but haven't.

I never sait it makes me innocent. I said it is a point in my favor.

There could be a million reasons why you don't vote. Maybe you're not around. Maybe you're waiting until you've reread someone. Maybe you're waiting for a response. That's not voting.

Rejecting voting means you said no. That you consciously said, I will not vote this person because...

We have no evidence this was your thought process. In my opinion, you could have just not been around and by the time you came back, the Connington/Vance trains were taking form and you felt that the Mallister train was passed. I don't know.

My point is simply that not voting is passive. Rejecting voting is active and you were definitely not active on thread.

Well, I could miss some posts... or not. Those three comments aren't mentioned in Clegane's reread also. Could you give me references?

Sure.

You don't want to have a WIFOM defense on your record, but you're fine with speculation that Redfort died because he claimed healer? This is also a reason to prioritize a re-read on Connington? I can think of many reasons why a Connington re-read is good, but ignoring a self-healing healer claim made during the night is not one of them.

@Vance: :o What Dayne said.

I agree with Vance, to a point. The healer comment was the most obvious reason to kill Redfort. I also know people are never happy with "the obvious" and I figure that was why Connington ignored it. I don't think the need to look too deep is a sign of guilt, just a sign of having been around too many games. ;)

edit to add the word "think" in the last sentence

That post alone from Vance about the self-healer alone is enough to make me want to vote him. (Yes, I'm flip-flopping yet again, but most of the reason I thought he was innocent yesterday was because I thought he'd look even more suspicious if he were evil. )

And now your post.

Yes, but slightly. And I am uninterested in lynching Inchfield anyway.

Vance and Connington are my main concerns now.

I dislike Vance's hypothesis that Redfort was killed because of his healer joke. I definitely won't kill a plyer for that and I doubt many people would. If Vance says he would, perhaps he actually did? Yeah, it looks too evident, but I think killers tend doing rather evident things.

Connington case on Clegane looks weak, artificial and probably OMGUSish.

That's 4 different people saying negative things about Vance's post before you commented.

[House Baratheon]

Actually, Dayne and some others disagreed with Vance's suggestion that Redfort was killed for healer joke, but they didn't say this suggestion was sign of guilt, just disagreed. I believe I was first to take it as evidence.

[House Dondarrion]

Actually, Dayne and some others disagreed with Vance's suggestion that Redfort was killed for healer joke, but they didn't say this suggestion was sign of guilt, just disagreed. I believe I was first to take it as evidence.

No. Lannister was. However, even if you were the first, you never actually voted him. You mentioned it once then never mentioned it again. So if you really took that as a sign of guilt, you would have followed it up with a vote. Instead, you forgot about it and voted Connington.

[House Baratheon]

There could be a million reasons why you don't vote. Maybe you're not around. Maybe you're waiting until you've reread someone. Maybe you're waiting for a response.

And if not voting is so neutral, why several players called me on that?

That's 4 different people saying negative things about Vance's post before you commented.

Yes, of course. But it was another things, different from negative thing I found.

[House Dondarrion]

And if not voting is so neutral, why several players called me on that?

Yes, of course. But it was another things, different from negative thing I found.

I never said it was neutral, I said it was passive. There is a difference.

Ok. You said it might Vance might be an obvious killer. Good job. You win for pointing that out yet never following it up.

[House Baratheon]

So if you really took that as a sign of guilt, you would have followed it up with a vote.

"There could be a million reasons why you don't vote." (© Inchfield)

[House Tully]

Was everyone thinking it? Clegane said it never even crosed his mind.

Admittedly I don't know what everyone was thinking, but it was an obvious interpretation and someone else was going to say it eventually. Taking Vance aside and suggesting he was putting his foot in his mouth wasn't going to prevent the idea coming out. So, again, why not say it first?

I can tell you exactly when I changed my mind. It was on day 2 and I was trying to figure out who I wanted to vote. Connington had 4 votes, Vance had 3. I had already done rereads on Connington and Vance as requested and posted numerous things I didn't like. I wasn't sure who I liked worse. I was making dinner for my gf when I couldn't stop thinking about why Vance was still alive. I made a post about it then voted Vance before I headed to bed later that evening.

Then it's complete WIFOM. If you're evil then late day two you either had to decide whether to distance and risk a partner who would almost certainly be voted off the following day anyway, or save the partner and risk the connection. The reason you gave as you distanced is almost irrelevant. So, the answer to the question "why did I turn it around on him as a negative after further thoughts" is, "because you needed an excuse to vote for him".

[House Dondarrion]

Admittedly I don't know what everyone was thinking, but it was an obvious interpretation and someone else was going to say it eventually. Taking Vance aside and suggesting he was putting his foot in his mouth wasn't going to prevent the idea coming out. So, again, why not say it first?

Would it? There wasn't any evidence of that but if you say it will, ok.

Then it's complete WIFOM. If you're evil then late day two you either had to decide whether to distance and risk a partner who would almost certainly be voted off the following day anyway, or save the partner and risk the connection. The reason you gave as you distanced is almost irrelevant. So, the answer to the question "why did I turn it around on him as a negative after further thoughts" is, "because you needed an excuse to vote for him".

Not really. I already had an excuse to vote for him. But if you want to say that I needed more excuse, then fine. You can argue that point.

[House Baratheon]

I never said it was neutral, I said it was passive. There is a difference.

We talk about differences thing now.

People thought that non-voting was bad tell about me, after CF result I argued it was in fact good tell. Now you are arguing it was null tell, and this is wrong.

Ok. You said it might Vance might be an obvious killer. Good job. You win for pointing that out yet never following it up.

That's why I don't state it clears me, it's just small point in my favor. Small, but still point.

[House Dondarrion]

We talk about differences thing now.

People thought that non-voting was bad tell about me, after CF result I argued it was in fact good tell. Now you are arguing it was null tell, and this is wrong.

How are we talking about different things? My point is simply that what you say is not true based on my interpretation of the events and the language you are using. If you want to say that it's a language issue, fine, it could be. But in my opinion, based on your actions, I see no situation in which you actively chose not to vote Mallister in order to prevent a train on him. It's not in your posts except in a response to Kettleblack which is after the fact and doesn't corroborate with any of your actions.

I'm done harping on this point. We're obviously going around in circles.

That's why I don't state it clears me, it's just small point in my favor. Small, but still point.

How? You didn't do a thing with it. Pointing something out after 4 people commented on it then never following it up is not a point in your favor. At best, it's lazy innocence. At worst, it's distancing.

[House Tully]

Royce, without getting into passive/active/neutral/...unneutral. The fact that you didn't place a second vote on a person you found suspicious to avoid creating a train may be suspicious. The fact that you didn't place that vote when it was the start of the day and your partner was in no danger does not indicate that you aren't partnered with Vance. At the time there was nothing to protect him from, and by the time there was something to protect him from attempting the train would have looked suspicious. As in fact it did when you tried it (fairly half-heartedly) later in the day.

[House Baratheon]

Pointing something out after 4 people commented on it then never following it up is not a point in your favor. At best, it's lazy innocence. At worst, it's distancing.

Giving new incriminating info about player isn't in my favor? I thought you've agreed it was new info, though on the same player?

At the time there was nothing to protect him from,

Not really He was on the mob day before, so not that safe.

[House Dondarrion]

Giving new incriminating info about player isn't in my favor? I thought you've agreed it was new info, though on the same player?

Jesus man. All you said is that he could be an obvious killer. It's not like it was rocket science.

You can post all you want and point things out all you want but unless you follow it up, it doesn't look like anything. It's not like anyone took your amazing evidence and ran with it as the main reason for voting Vance. And it's not like you did either.

[House Tully]

Would it? There wasn't any evidence of that but if you say it will, ok.

It stuck out like a sore thumb. You really think that no one was going to think about why he'd do it? And having thought about it you think no one was going to think he might be hiding? And then you think they weren't going to mention it? You play with a different bunch of Mafiosos than I do.

Not really. I already had an excuse to vote for him. But if you want to say that I needed more excuse, then fine. You can argue that point.

You have to have that final bit of evidence that pushes your decision and makes your vote look authentic. Bah, just let me read it so I can stop talking about it hypothetically.