Mafia Game 74

[House Thorne]

Am I making a big deal out of nothing? Probably, but if you have nothing on me, why mention me at all as a suspect?

I probably would have let this slide had you said something more substantial than 'gut' reasons. The way it looks to me is like you're setting me up for further suspicion down the line, perhaps for some good ol' fashioned scapegoating.

Why not mention you as a suspect? Sorry if gut is not a valid reason for you, I'm not going to ignore it however.

Anyway, I have actual reasons now, and If you want to tell me why I'm all wrong about you, you can find it here.

Be back in a bit to hear how you defend yourself.

[House Connington]

What inevitable? Who would you vote for if I hadnt revealed? why should people listen to you and carry on like I wasnt part of the game?

Well if you read my previous posts I thought I made it pretty clear. I was in favor of lynching either Martell -- for being the center of two conflicting arguments where he'd be a partner in either case -- or Tyrell -- for a possible symp connection in Bracken.

There was also a reason why I didn't switch my vote from Reyne. There were still a few comments he made that were niggling at me.

Luckily, you saved me from having to decide :P

Connington will be happy that I now have a concrete reason to vote for him. I do believe he was fishing for something to say when he brought up the Tyrell/Bracken interaction. He hasn't answered a direct question about it when asked, even though he was pushing me to find something concrete. I think his reaction to Stokeworth is, as I said, relief that we have a safe place to funnel votes. He said his thing, then left, not caring if Stoke was going to come back to try and explain this or not. He can now safely place his vote and has an excuse to not contribute any more today. His willingness to overlook Stokeworth's contributions, even thought he had been the center of a lot of discussions, is perhaps fear that we will find something to connect them.

Connington

Again, if you read my previous posts it's not like I didn't mention my suspicion of Tyrell/Bracken.

I didn't answer your post because a)see above and b)WE HAD A FRIKIN' FM REVEAL!

Stokeworth's contributions? LIKE THE ONE WHERE HE REVEALED AS A FRIKIN' FM???

Also, I left? Where did I go?

Mind you, Connington's reaction was a bit middle-of-the-road, too. It still felt kind of sincere to me. In spite of my poking him early on, I've never been that suspicious of him.

Admittedly my reaction to the reveal did get stronger the more time went on.

I have a legitimate reason however: I was anticipating that if Stokeworth was joking he'd make another post right quick explaining that it was all just a joke. The more time went by, the more I was convinced he had a tantrum and ran off.

As it stands, I still don't buy that it was fake. I think Stokeworth is in damage control mode.

[House Connington]

(Sorry forgot some stuff I was going responded to in Stoke's post)

What inevitable? Who would you vote for if I hadnt revealed? why should people listen to you and carry on like I wasnt part of the game?

To be fair those comments were made in the heat of the moment. I was convinced you'd left the game and wouldn't be making a reappearance.

As for why I thought your comments/potential connections should be ignored: I guess it's just my sense of fair play. I felt sorry for your 'partners' for being stuck with a quitter.

(I also didn't expect people to agree with me on the matter... I was just stating personal opinion)

[House Thorne]

Again, if you read my previous posts it's not like I didn't mention my suspicion of Tyrell/Bracken.

I was asking specifically about that interaction. You didn't say anything about it other than to fish for reactions from others. I didn't see where you said why that particularly looked suspicious. It seemed like you were hoping someone would come up with outside evidence and opinions to support your suspicions. I admit, I very well could have missed where you explained it - I did ask you to point it out if I did.

I didn't answer your post because a)see above and b)WE HAD A FRIKIN' FM REVEAL!

We had an EVIL reveal, not FM reveal. And so? That doesn't stop discussion for the day. You know who wants to shut down discussion? FM, that's who. :P

Stokeworth's contributions? LIKE THE ONE WHERE HE REVEALED AS A FRIKIN' FM???

Stokeworth contributed a lot more than just his reveal. Before that he was making arguments and was the focus of attention for a fair bit of it. We can't just pretend like he never played the game. If he is evil and just revealed, like you say you believe, then shouldn't we pay more attention to his contributions?

[House Thorne]

As for why I thought your comments/potential connections should be ignored: I guess it's just my sense of fair play. I felt sorry for your 'partners' for being stuck with a quitter.

(I also didn't expect people to agree with me on the matter... I was just stating personal opinion)

This, I can actually buy. Of course, if you are that unlucky partner it makes perfect sense why you'd think it only fair. (bleah - I know, conjecture and WIFOM. I do honestly buy your explanation. After all, a sense of fair play did let a confirmed evil survive in the Kingmaker game. It just seemed so strange at the time. )

[House Reed]

@Crakehall and Connington: here's why I now think Stokeworth is innocent.

I was actually going to start off my big catch-up post explaining why I thought Reyne and Stokeworth were innocent (even though they'd both done stuff that looks suspicious on paper).

With Stokeworth, most of the case on him was essentially that his arguments are bad. It felt as though he was being attacked more for his posting style than for actual suspicious behaviour. But just reading his post history, I see lots of sincere comments and attacks that look as though he's trying to find the FM. He asks a lot of questions and calls people on stuff he finds suspicious, even if I think much of what he's pointing out is irrelevant.

I'll just give you a couple of Stokeworth posts that I found genuine:

Arent you being a little bit hasty to get to conclusions? As I confessed, it was a misreading of one of his posts not that I was taking his words out of proportion deliberately. I didnt react the same way to others because I noticed my careless reading and didnt want to make the same mistake again. Still I think I have shown consistency with my treatment of others as you could see it with my replies to Wythers for example.

Then his claim obviously made me rethink things, particularly since he didn't immediately clarify that it was a joke. But he gave an alternate explanation that I didn't provide for him in my posts--that he was fishing for reactions--that made perfect sense. Because why would he claim scum in the first place if he was going to retract it, anyway? He could have just kept his mouth shut and hoped the mob swung to Martell.

So right now, I think Stokeworth's motivations make five times more sense for an innocent than as an evil player. Evil players value their lives much more highly, and are more cautious. Stokeworth is too in-your-face and controversial and reckless. (And before someone mentions the Swann Defence, I see a difference; he seems perfectly willing to sacrifice himself and isn't playing up the WIFOM value.)

And lastly, it's a good part gut. His reactions after the claim come across as very sincere. All that stuff about poking for reactions, and knowing the suspicions would dog him all game...that doesn't sound like someone who decided to give up, and then thought of a cover story an hour later.

I find that when a player doesn't come across as that sophisticated (um...no offence, Stokeworth), that's a good sign that towntells from that player should be weighted more highly. So say, I find Stokeworth's attempts at digging into people's motivations more convincing than those of Crakehall, who's all helpful and points out lots of "textbook" scumtells like Connington's Tyrell/Bracken comment out of context, but doesn't seem to have all that much conviction in what he's saying.

So bottom line, ignore what I said before. I'm now vehemently opposed to lynching Stokeworth today.

Aaah, now to choose another suspect. Waffling between Bracken, Martell, and Crakehall, but I'm really not sure. A few other players have done stuff that bugs me.

[House Connington]

Connington will be happy that I now have a concrete reason to vote for him. I do believe he was fishing for something to say when he brought up the Tyrell/Bracken interaction. He hasn't answered a direct question about it when asked, even though he was pushing me to find something concrete. I think his reaction to Stokeworth is, as I said, relief that we have a safe place to funnel votes. He said his thing, then left, not caring if Stoke was going to come back to try and explain this or not. He can now safely place his vote and has an excuse to not contribute any more today. His willingness to overlook Stokeworth's contributions, even thought he had been the center of a lot of discussions, is perhaps fear that we will find something to connect them.

Connington

So wait, rereading this: you actually think there's a connection between me and Stokeworth?

In that case why are you voting for me instead of my CONFESSED FM PARTNER Stokeworth? It's not like Stokeworth is my symp who came out to protect me... I was in no danger of being lynched when he revealed. Heck, I wasn't even under very much suspicion (despite my best efforts :P).

You are looking very sympy in my eyes Piggy, very sympy indeed.

[House Thorne]

Look, he's either an innocent who through a temper tantrum or a bad guy who through a temper tantrum. Either way it was a move in poor spirit... I say we don't prolong the inevitable.

So, what's your impression now? Guilty or just an innocent we can afford to cut lose because they have poor judgment? I kind of got the impression that you were thinking guilty now, but your willingness to just cut him lose and not get to the bottom of this still bothers me.

[House Thorne]

So wait, rereading this: you actually think there's a connection between me and Stokeworth?

In that case why are you voting for me instead of my CONFESSED FM PARTNER Stokeworth? It's not like Stokeworth is my symp who came out to protect me... I was in no danger of being lynched when he revealed. Heck, I wasn't even under very much suspicion (despite my best efforts :P).

You are looking very sympy in my eyes Piggy, very sympy indeed.

I don't think there is a connection - I thought there *might* be a possible connection that you wanted us to overlook. And again, Stoke is a confessed EVIL, not a confessed FM.

Anyway, this is moot since I now see and believe where you were coming from with your attitude about ignoring Stoke's posts. That and I was mainly voting for you to provoke a reaction. A vote on Stokeworth at this point is not going to provoke any more reaction that it already has.

[House Reed]

I'm also very confident that Connington is innocent, as well, from his most recent posts.

Do I need to write another wall of text substantiating my strong gut feeling, or can people just do what I say and not vote him? :P

That said...Connington, Crakehall can't be Stokeworth's symp. He was the third vote on him before the reveal.

[House Thorne]

Actually, I'd like an abbreviated version on Connington if you can. I'm still on the fence.

[House Reed]

Why is no one trying to refute my pro-Stokeworth wall?

I can defend Stokeworth and Connington as much as I want because I already voted for them, so now no one can make a lame symp case on me. :P

Anyway, this is moot since I now see and believe where you were coming from with your attitude about ignoring Stoke's posts. That and I was mainly voting for you to provoke a reaction. A vote on Stokeworth at this point is not going to provoke any more reaction that it already has.

So wait, Crakehall. You're saying that you now think Connington is innocent?

ETA: crossposted by Crakehall. I should really go to bed, or make an actual case, but I'll try.

[House Thorne]

No, I said that I don't add that to my list of reasons to suspect Connington anymore. I still have more. I do still think some of his behavior is suspicious.

eta: and I'm not going to comment on Stoke anymore until others have had a chance to weigh in. I know, middle-of-the-road and all. So be it.

[House Targaryen]

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 Strokeworth (Wythers, Reyne, Connington)

2 votes for Connington (Strokeworth, Crakehall)

2 votes for Martell (Greyjoy, Grandison)

1 vote for Baratheon (Martell)

1 vote for Bracken (Vyrwel)

1 vote for Grandison (Tyrell)

1 vote for Swyft. (Bracken)

1 vote for Tyrell (Baratheon)

1 players have not voted: Swyft..

[House Connington]

Oh god, I just realized I wrote 'through' when I meant 'threw' I'm sure it's just one of many spelling/grammar mistakes I've made, but still :blushing:

So, what's your impression now? Guilty or just an innocent we can afford to cut lose because they have poor judgment? I kind of got the impression that you were thinking guilty now, but your willingness to just cut him lose and not get to the bottom of this still bothers me.

My opinion on the matter hasn't changed. I think Stokeworth is in damage control mode. I respect Swyft's attempt to convince me otherwise, but I'm not swayed. I should probably go back and reread, but seeing as how I should have logged off two hours ago, that reread will have to wait.

And hey, if I'm wrong, so be it. I'm sure it will cast a bit more suspicion my way tomorrow, but tomorrow is still a CF result away.

[House Connington]

I'm also very confident that Connington is innocent, as well, from his most recent posts.

Swyfty, are you trying to get me night killed?

[House Thorne]

That didn't really answer my question. So you don't really care if he's innocent or guilty, you just think that one lapse in judgment and he has to go. I'd prefer a guilty or innocent verdict from you rather than 'damaged goods'.

eta: reading that again, you imply Stoke is guilty, but don't say it. Please say it :)

[House Connington]

That didn't really answer my question. So you don't really care if he's innocent or guilty, you just think that one lapse in judgment and he has to go. I'd prefer a guilty or innocent verdict from you rather than 'damaged goods'.

eta: reading that again, you imply Stoke is guilty, but don't say it. Please say it :)

That's a pretty big lapse in judgment, don't you think?

People get lynched for a lot less than what Stokeworth did.

And yes, I'll say it: I think Stokeworth is guilty.

But regardless I'll remove my vote for now. I have every intent of recasting it barring some grand revelation, but I don't like the idea of being part of a lynch train in absentia.

[House Thorne]

Of course it was a big lapse in judgment, and of course people get lynched for lesser things all the time. I am bothered by the fact that you didn't seem to care if he was innocent or guilty. The very post you definitively say you think he's guilty, you pull your vote. If you think he's guilty, stand behind it. Don't wait until tomorrow to see how the wind is blowing.

[House Ashford]

It seems I missed a lot.

Now I am pretty sure Stokeworth is innocent. I also trust Tyrell and Bracken. Crakehall is generally ok, but I am slightly discontent with the fact that his suspect list (before the confession: Tyrell, Martell, Stokeworth) was almost copy of my trustworthy list.

Swyft's super-quick switch from voting Stokeworth to entirely trusting him looks odd; on my watch list.

Baratheon is unhelpful.

I don't think Grandison's interactions with Stokeworth are suspicious, but I don't see a reason to trust him either.

Reyne is the only player being totally under radars. Nobody ever discussed him, and I don't remember a word he said.

Who is left? Connington. He is my main suspect, for reasons which were already sounded by other players.

I'll try to make a case in several next hours.

ETA: And I totally forgot that Greyjoy plays in ths game. :(