Jump to content

Archived

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

House Targaryen

Mafia Game 74

Recommended Posts

That would be me. Can I have the shirt in white?

You know I had a white Garfield shirt (and my brother too) when I was young, so please say nothing that might hurt my feelings. :dunce:

*hands Garfied shirt to dirty little killjoy*

*hesitates a moment and asks then, Colombo-style"

And, was it fake-symping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Aggression, certainly, but nervousness? Where do you get that from?

Why so wishy washy about Martell? Is this trying to be a case or not? :unsure:

Edit for typo.

1) Agression and nervousness are evil twins. Well, at least we all now know how to ruin Grandison's day. Don't let him know what you think!

2) I still don't vote Martell. ;) Usually I'd be a bit more convinced that his reaction means nothing, but so far I've not been able to read Martell's personality. Let me express it this way: I think his reaction probably means nothing, but a part of my mind is playing Lews Therin ("KILL HIM!!!!!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. :dunno:

You? :wideeyed:

Neither!

That's -2 to the suspect pool. Or -1 if you happen to be either of Bracken or Tyrell. Not bad at all, if I may say so myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither!

That's -2 to the suspect pool. Or -1 if you happen to be either of Bracken or Tyrell. Not bad at all, if I may say so myself.

It was about time to have some progress in this game. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I extremely like this post of Swyft

*sigh*

If it really makes you happy, Connington. Oh my God, you lazy opportunistic sheep, you're placing a fourth serious vote on someone and putting him in danger of a premature lynch.

Ooh, ooh! Can someone please vote me now for making an opportunistic vote that was very easy and safe to justify because you asked me to do it?

But in all seriousness, Connington, if you want to make the game go more quickly, then instead of making a gambit that loses all its effectiveness when you point a neon sign at it, rate the following players in terms of most to least suspicious, explaining why:

Wythers

Bracken the Bull Who Thinks He's a Parrot

Reyne

Vyrwel

Stokeworth

Reyne, do you actually suspect either Connington or Bracken? Did you think Connington's fourth vote was serious?

He points out the flaws in Conningtons posts and also offers a solution to get Connington started. I am satisfied with the cock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please. The tone is harmless. Grow a pair. Unless you just object to C minor, which is a lovely key tyvm.

It's because it's early in the game that it's time to string random crap together in an effort to say something worthwhile. There's enough here to work with; Day 1 hardly calls for much. If we sat around waiting for something dramatic to happen before we started contributing, nothing dramatic's ever going to happen. If we sat around posting about what we didn't do because it'd look suspicious lol, then this would be the world's most mind-numbing game. Surely you know that; surely you know better.

In any case, you've confused me here. I'm defensive? And dismissive? Say what now?

My post wasnt random crap I posted what I felt and thought. Talking about contribution what have YOU done so far? nothing but throwing shit at the wall to see if any stick. Twisting my words and making wild interpretations of them in an effort to look helpful is not contribution either.

You were fast to defend Martell by having a go at me which was what I pointed at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn it!

Why can't I get someone to cast suspicion on me? I'm bored, over-eager to get this game rolling and have nothing better to do than attempt to dig myself out of a hole of my own making! Someone vote for me!

Hmm, maybe I should go make post keeping track of who has yet to show up or something equally as pointless...

You know as well as anyone that things like posts of who hasn't yet turned up or whatever don't serve any purpose in terms of finding suspicious people but can get discussion going, so if you really wanted the serious part of the game to start why didn't you do something like that rather than just whinge (which is doubly pointless)? Feels like you want to get brownie points for wanting seriousness to begin (which, as we all know, is An Innocent TraitTM) but without actually making it happen. What I'm saying is, your attempt to start seriosu discussion rings a little hollow.

I'd much rather just lynch you while you're asleep or something.

Err...desiring to kill people when they sleep..? :)

Is this reply even necessary? I have always found useless replies to votes very suspicious Martell

Why? You seem to be seeking a way to justify putting a vote down. That's the wrong way round, and suspicious

There can't be a decent game without a Wythers!

:D

Get that tone right first please. Secondly Its early in the game and nobody has contributed much. Additionally you seem to be pretty defensive after my vote for Martell, and why are you so quick to dismiss me? now who is distancing himself?

Stokeworth, I'm sorry if you're innocent. But this is ringing all sorts of alarm bells. Firstly, you seem to be trying to attract sympathy by complaining about Grandy-boy's tone. I can understand what it's like being on the receiving end of a sharply worded post like Grandison's, but he's basically right, the tone didn't cross the line and I'm not buying your wounded pride. Just saying that no-one has contributed much is not, as Grandison pointed out, an adequate defense. If Martell not really being bothered by a vote was really the most substantive thing you could think of to comment on, or even if it's the only thing you've got round to commenting on then okay, but if that's the case then say so; don't just complain about lack of activity.

And just turning right back at your interrogator with a reflexive 'um but look at you - you're defensive too' is not convincing, and is either poor innocent thinking or suspicious. Either way, I'm happy with a vote on you. Just to be clear, when you ask 'just who is distancing himself', what do you mean? Are you accusing him of distancing from a symp/partner? If so, who? Additionally, do you ahve any other thoughts on the wider game? What do you think about Tyrell's kind-of case about Martell and the whole symp clue thing?

1) Agression and nervousness are evil twins. Well, at least we all now know how to ruin Grandison's day. Don't let him know what you think!

If you're innocent, people not letting you know what they're thinking should ruin your day. If we don't see people's thought processes, we can't make progress, especially early on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I extremely like this post of Swyft

He points out the flaws in Conningtons posts and also offers a solution to get Connington started. I am satisfied with the cock.

So? Normally it's more helpful to talk about people you suspect...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about squirrels, Conny.

I don't say Bracky is totally unlynchable (we don't want him to be killed at night 1, do we, my preciousss?) - but I won't suspect Swyfty for giving him free pass for today.

:blink:

If you don't want someone to be killed, don't SAY that you don't want him to be killed. :bang:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? You seem to be seeking a way to justify putting a vote down. That's the wrong way round, and suspicious

:D

Stokeworth, I'm sorry if you're innocent. But this is ringing all sorts of alarm bells. Firstly, you seem to be trying to attract sympathy by complaining about Grandy-boy's tone. I can understand what it's like being on the receiving end of a sharply worded post like Grandison's, but he's basically right, the tone didn't cross the line and I'm not buying your wounded pride. Just saying that no-one has contributed much is not, as Grandison pointed out, an adequate defense. If Martell not really being bothered by a vote was really the most substantive thing you could think of to comment on, or even if it's the only thing you've got round to commenting on then okay, but if that's the case then say so; don't just complain about lack of activity.

And just turning right back at your interrogator with a reflexive 'um but look at you - you're defensive too' is not convincing, and is either poor innocent thinking or suspicious. Either way, I'm happy with a vote on you. Just to be clear, when you ask 'just who is distancing himself', what do you mean? Are you accusing him of distancing from a symp/partner? If so, who? Additionally, do you ahve any other thoughts on the wider game? What do you think about Tyrell's kind-of case about Martell and the whole symp clue thing?

If you're innocent, people not letting you know what they're thinking should ruin your day. If we don't see people's thought processes, we can't make progress, especially early on.

I wasnt trying to show my pride was hurt or some BS like that, I was just trying to let him know I didnt appreciate being addressed that way since I tend to get nasty pretty bad quickly. Anyway I didnt mean by saying nobody has contributed much to redeem myself but that I was actually implying I had done much more than some others. On another note I was the one who accused Grandison as being defensive, he criticised me of being a craven and trying to distance myself from Martell by that vote.

Regarding your other question, Grandison easily dismisses Martell and I as people he would readily lynch which was pretty early in the game for that kind of sureness, So seeing him diving to defend Martell and then asking for his head I sensed he was trying to distance himself from Martell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post wasnt random crap I posted what I felt and thought. Talking about contribution what have YOU done so far? nothing but throwing shit at the wall to see if any stick. Twisting my words and making wild interpretations of them in an effort to look helpful is not contribution either.

You were fast to defend Martell by having a go at me which was what I pointed at.

Okay. First, read Grandison's post. He wasn't accusuing you of posting random crap, rather he was suggesting that you can make random crap into day one cases already so saying that no-one has contributed much so far is unaccpetable. And saying Grandy has just thrown excrement at walls to see what will stick is simply false - that's the sort of accusation that works for people who have suspected a number of people, thrown out a few cases but not fully got behind any of them, and so seems to be trying to divert suspicion away from themselves without committing to any particular tack (and thus being forced to defend it). This is patently not the case for Grandison - he has pretty much just commented on you and has done so in a forthright manner (which you complained about, remember?). Which leads me to the question - what are you talking about? You seem currently to be defining overdefensive (and OMGUS - 'oh my goodness you suck' for new players).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So? Normally it's more helpful to talk about people you suspect...

Not if you suspect the wrong people. Unfortunatly that post of Swyft is the hardest piece of evidence about someone's allegiance that I have. So far.

The only other thing I have noticed is that Bracken deliberately wrote something that could be read as a symp clue. He seems to be playful, ok, but somehow an innocent shouldn't risk risk a potential case (especially when it's ME who is at the delivering end).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is day 1.

13 players remain: Baratheon, Bracken, Connington, Crakehall, Grandison, Greyjoy, Martell, Reyne, Strokeworth, Swyft., Tyrell, Vyrwel, Wythers.

7 votes are needed for a conviction or to go to night.

3 votes for Martell (Greyjoy, Grandison, Strokeworth)

2 votes for Strokeworth (Tyrell, Wythers)

1 vote for Baratheon (Martell)

1 vote for Bracken (Vyrwel)

1 vote for Connington (Swyft.)

1 vote for Reyne (Connington)

1 vote for Swyft. (Bracken)

1 vote for Vyrwel (Reyne)

2 players have not voted: Baratheon, Crakehall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. First, read Grandison's post. He wasn't accusuing you of posting random crap, rather he was suggesting that you can make random crap into day one cases already so saying that no-one has contributed much so far is unaccpetable. And saying Grandy has just thrown excrement at walls to see what will stick is simply false - that's the sort of accusation that works for people who have suspected a number of people, thrown out a few cases but not fully got behind any of them, and so seems to be trying to divert suspicion away from themselves without committing to any particular tack (and thus being forced to defend it). This is patently not the case for Grandison - he has pretty much just commented on you and has done so in a forthright manner (which you complained about, remember?). Which leads me to the question - what are you talking about? You seem currently to be defining overdefensive (and OMGUS - 'oh my goodness you suck' for new players).

Yea it seems I misread his post which led me to this misunderstanding. Thanks for helping me notice it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note I was the one who accused Grandison as being defensive, he criticised me of being a craven and trying to distance myself from Martell by that vote.

Regarding your other question, Grandison easily dismisses Martell and I as people he would readily lynch which was pretty early in the game for that kind of sureness, So seeing him diving to defend Martell and then asking for his head I sensed he was trying to distance himself from Martell.

Sure you accused Grandison of being defensive (though exactly what he is meant to have been defensive about I am unclear on) but only after he attacked you. Thanks for the clarification of your thinking - I see what you mean, but I disagree, because your case seems to imply spectacular incometence On Grandison's part (defending partner then saying you want to lynch him) which doesn't seem consistent with how I have perceived Grandison so far. But at least I now understand your logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if you suspect the wrong people. Unfortunatly that post of Swyft is the hardest piece of evidence about someone's allegiance that I have. So far.

I'm afraid this doesn't work. For one thing, Swyft's post proves absolutely nothing. It would be an obvious enough thing for an FM to fake. That said, I can sympathise with how you would think it makes Swyft look better. But telling us that in no way helps. For one thing, if you're innocent, it doesn't do Swyft any favours to be marked out as someone who is more-than-averagely trustworthy and therefore less lynchable. And it doesn't give other people a case that we can comment on. What it does do is fill space, and give the impression that you're reading the thread and trying to help. In the absence of actual helpfulness, this is, needless to say, Suspicious.

The only other thing I have noticed is that Bracken deliberately wrote something that could be read as a symp clue. He seems to be playful, ok, but somehow an innocent shouldn't risk risk a potential case (especially when it's ME who is at the delivering end).

Everything is a potential symp clue, yet nothing ever is. It is known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. First, read Grandison's post. He wasn't accusuing you of posting random crap, rather he was suggesting that you can make random crap into day one cases already so saying that no-one has contributed much so far is unaccpetable. And saying Grandy has just thrown excrement at walls to see what will stick is simply false - that's the sort of accusation that works for people who have suspected a number of people, thrown out a few cases but not fully got behind any of them, and so seems to be trying to divert suspicion away from themselves without committing to any particular tack (and thus being forced to defend it). This is patently not the case for Grandison - he has pretty much just commented on you and has done so in a forthright manner (which you complained about, remember?). Which leads me to the question - what are you talking about? You seem currently to be defining overdefensive (and OMGUS - 'oh my goodness you suck' for new players).

This might all be true, but I think it's contraproductive to mark two players as unhelpful and dead weight early on day 1 when it's not that unlikely that these two are part of your team. I am myself certainly not fine with seeing less of Martell and Stokeworth if they're innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×