GOT Mafia 80

[House Connington]

Overton, please use bolded text for your votes only.

Fixed. It bolded me for some reason when I quoted Yarwyck. I voted for Yarwyck.

[House Ashford]

This getting tough.

If I understood correctly, innocents wanna lynch anyone, as they apparently will loose if they don't. FM wanna lynch an inno, for obvious reasons.

I think FM would rather be trying to be subtile when hopping on a train, while innos would rather lynch anyone.

- So very subtile moving his votes to one leading in votes was Upcliff.

- Also Overton and Inchfield kinda made a run for the leading guy, when it was an easy target enjoying his dinner (not lunch as he accidently wrote! FILTHY LIAR)

- Ball and Harlaw startd it off which would be in itself not suspicious, but both were doing so to draw away attention from themselves, which is suspicious. I still don't like either's way of playing, so I'll add "guts" as a reason here.

- Kenning, Cassel, Ambrose, Yarwick seem to try to get the game going. That at least is good.

- Florent hasn't said anything yet.

[Lady Gaga]

Here, have some weak and pointless impressions.

Ambrose - no real read but won't be voting for him today.

Ball - seems to have dug themselves in pretty deep; Will replace my vote for him if no other options present themselves, but admittedly I'm feeling less confident about his lynch than before -- he continues to defend himself which I wasn't really expecting.

Cassel - mixed feelings. satisfactorily addressed my concerns about him, but many of his thoughts on the game seem opposite to my own. (might be a little biased). anyway, not going to lynch today.

Florent - doesn't look like we'll have enough information on him today to properly conclude his eligibility for a lynch. where are you florent? I thought you said you now had time to read through the thread.

Harlaw - not sure how I feel about him. no real read.

Inchfield - same as above except he seems awfully quick to drastically switch opinions. might vote for him.

Kenning - satisfactorily responded to my prodding. need to see a good case in order to vote for them.

Overton - on one hand I admit my initial case was weak (never meant it to be anything but), on the other he hasn't convinced me of his innocence. Like Inchfield they seem to shift opinions at the drop of a dime.

Swann - don't like the case presented so far -- I read him as new to the boards which explains much of the evidence against him.

Upcliff - only gut here, but I'd consider voting for him. There are a few posts that I recall him making that fit the helpful but ambiguous mold.

You expressed discomfort at the choice we had only to reveal that your strongest suspicions are 'might consider voting', based on gut and no real read? You were my most trusted player. No longer.

[House Upcliff]

So you critisize the two most viable lynch options without suggesting an alternative then remove your vote. Nice. Yarwyck

edited to fix bolding issues

Well I tried to do a reread of Upcliff just now but the board has decided I don't have permission to search his posts. I was also hoping for a little bit of feedback from the other people on the thread, as in, who THEY find suspicious outside of the top two.

[Lady Gaga]

This getting tough.

If I understood correctly, innocents wanna lynch anyone, as they apparently will loose if they don't. FM wanna lynch an inno, for obvious reasons.

I think FM would rather be trying to be subtile when hopping on a train, while innos would rather lynch anyone.

- So very subtile moving his votes to one leading in votes was Upcliff.

- Also Overton and Inchfield kinda made a run for the leading guy, when it was an easy target enjoying his dinner (not lunch as he accidently wrote! FILTHY LIAR)

OMG! As every good northerner knows, lunch and dinner are the same thing - you must be lying Swann!

[Lady Gaga]

Well I tried to do a reread of Upcliff just now but the board has decided I don't have permission to search his posts. I was also hoping for a little bit of feedback from the other people on the thread, as in, who THEY find suspicious outside of the top two.

Cassel. Anyone up for it?

[House Connington]

Cassel. Anyone up for it?

I'll lych anyone if push comes to shove, but I'd rather not lynch Cassel. He doesn't strike me as suspicious.

[House Ashford]

Was that a vote on me Ambrose? Because I get the feeling we're on the "let's lynch the n00b, if he's an inno at least no harm is done"- train here. And I seriously have no idea how to defend against that one.

I explained my reasons for becoming unstable with my votes at length. There was suddenly a whole lot of info to go through. I took a premise which I thought would be valid for anyone playing a FM: Not putting yourself out there too much, always hopping on a train when you can explain yourself without looking suspicious. Upcliff fullfills this criterias. Please tell me if there are better things to look for.

[House Payne]

let's lynch the n00b, if he's an inno at least no harm is done

Not at all! Well, not from my POV anyway.

I voted for you because you were the third quick vote on Ball.

[House Corbray]

Third: I switched to Ball because he hadn't done anything. Honestly, that he outright refused to try to do better made me angry. So it was somewhat and anger-vote. It worked: he tried to make a case on me. So I feel that vote was justified (also see #114).

So Ball voted for me - the new weakest player- because I voted earlier for him, when he supposedly were? (Whatever weakest player means?).

Huh, what I've said is that I DIDN'T HAVE ANY THOUGHTS TO SHARE AT THAT POINT OF THE GAME. It is not the same as refusing to share.

Em, I voted for you for the reason that I stated in #115, if I remember it right. And by weakest player I meant myself not being able to think of anything and thus attracting people's suspicions, and as this didn't actually make the thoughts magically appear in my mind, I couldn't really say anything in my defense apart from having no thoughts, which is apparently considered to b something unbelievable here and thus makes me an easy target. Hope you understood what I mean.

Well what's the point of saying they look like a team, if you don't mean to imply that they actually might be a team?

Apologies for saying you're not trying, to be perfectly honest, you seemed (if you're innocent) to be like a relatively experienced player doing one of the 'behave oddly to see what people's reactions are' type gambit, especially after the comments about people who had voted for you - I hate those types of moves because I don't think they are helpful. So I didn't think you'd been trying to help the innocents - no comment on how much effort or time you've put into the game was intended.

O.o It was a general observation.

At the beginning I was just having some fun, and then I only wrote the truth about not having anything clever to share. I didn't realise that this could be considered as some kind of a gambit O.o

[House Upcliff]

You expressed discomfort at the choice we had only to reveal that your strongest suspicions are 'might consider voting', based on gut and no real read? You were my most trusted player. No longer.

What can I say. Everyone I've focused on today has either been able to alleviate my suspicions to some extent --Kenning, Cassel-- or in the case of Ball, is still my top suspect.

It just don't like there were too many alternative cases being tossed around today other than one I disagree with on Swann.

Cassel. Anyone up for it?

State your case. Right now if it were a choice between him and Ball I'd still pick Ball.

[House Dayne]

Yieehah, now this is getting funny. I think I'm the highest vote so far?

First: what's WIFOM? EDIT: thanks for explaining, that post took me too long /EDIT

Second: I have constantly been picking about Harlaw, because he was rather aggressive and that made me think he was nervous. Also because he didn't do anything usefull. THEN he did, by voting for me cause I allegedly voted for night (the only thing I was saying, well trying to say was that Harlaw had been my only option so far for a POSSIBLE lynch). He then engaged more in conversation so I felt my case not being valid.

Third: I switched to Ball because he hadn't done anything. Honestly, that he outright refused to try to do better made me angry. So it was somewhat and anger-vote. It worked: he tried to make a case on me. So I feel that vote was justified (also see #114).

Because of lunch-related-absence I think I have become what it's called an easy target?

So Ball voted for me - the new weakest player- because I voted earlier for him, when he supposedly were? (Whatever weakest player means?).

Overton voted for me because I piled up votes with Yarwick. We did so almost the same minute, for the same reason: Ball asked for it by refusing to say anything usefull. So Overton, if you don't like votes piling up, you probably don't like lynching at all, do you?

Inchfield had the same reasons. So they have moved onto my radar. Will now look again if I find someone better or at least more "evidence", since Ball is now participating it seems. Meanwhile remove vote.

remove vote. Although others suggested you was new, I didn't see it until now. Being new doesn't mean being innocent, but it does go some way towards explaining your game so far.

But back to my jokes. What's Wishy and Washy and middle of the road all over?

Here, have some weak and pointless impressions.

Ambrose - no real read but won't be voting for him today.

Ball - seems to have dug themselves in pretty deep; Will replace my vote for him if no other options present themselves, but admittedly I'm feeling less confident about his lynch than before -- he continues to defend himself which I wasn't really expecting.

Cassel - mixed feelings. satisfactorily addressed my concerns about him, but many of his thoughts on the game seem opposite to my own. (might be a little biased). anyway, not going to lynch today.

Florent - doesn't look like we'll have enough information on him today to properly conclude his eligibility for a lynch. where are you florent? I thought you said you now had time to read through the thread.

Harlaw - not sure how I feel about him. no real read.

Inchfield - same as above except he seems awfully quick to drastically switch opinions. might vote for him.

Kenning - satisfactorily responded to my prodding. need to see a good case in order to vote for them.

Overton - on one hand I admit my initial case was weak (never meant it to be anything but), on the other he hasn't convinced me of his innocence. Like Inchfield they seem to shift opinions at the drop of a dime.

Swann - don't like the case presented so far -- I read him as new to the boards which explains much of the evidence against him.

Upcliff - only gut here, but I'd consider voting for him. There are a few posts that I recall him making that fit the helpful but ambiguous mold.

Answer: A post by Yarwyck

I also have a nasty feeling he might "accidently" mess up a hammer, just as he's done with normal votes. That's just me being paranoid though, maybe.

[Lady Gaga]

Was that a vote on me Ambrose? Because I get the feeling we're on the "let's lynch the n00b, if he's an inno at least no harm is done"- train here. And I seriously have no idea how to defend against that one.

I explained my reasons for becoming unstable with my votes at length. There was suddenly a whole lot of info to go through. I took a premise which I thought would be valid for anyone playing a FM: Not putting yourself out there too much, always hopping on a train when you can explain yourself without looking suspicious. Upcliff fullfills this criterias. Please tell me if there are better things to look for.

Um, no. I've said I think you're innocent and won't vote you today. In response to Yarry's plea for more suspects I suggested Cassel. Cool it.

What can I say. Everyone I've focused on today has either been able to alleviate my suspicions to some extent --Kenning, Cassel-- or in the case of Ball, is still my top suspect.

It just don't like there were too many alternative cases being tossed around today other than one I disagree with on Swann.

State your case. Right now if it were a choice between him and Ball I'd still pick Ball.

Thing is, me too. That's why I'm voting him. I'll go over my Cassel case tomorrow.

[House Upcliff]

Perhaps I should have posted tiers instead of impressions because my intention was to have other people follow suit and post their opinions/rankings of players not be criticized for posting mine.

My impressions may be perceived as wishy-washy, but at least I'm not afraid to show them. Lets see you guys do the same...

[House Reed]

I explained my reasons for becoming unstable with my votes at length. There was suddenly a whole lot of info to go through. I took a premise which I thought would be valid for anyone playing a FM: Not putting yourself out there too much, always hopping on a train when you can explain yourself without looking suspicious. Upcliff fullfills this criterias. Please tell me if there are better things to look for.

Voting for two different people during the course of a day means that I'm always hopping on a train?

[Lady Gaga]

Perhaps I should have posted tiers instead of impressions because my intention was to have other people follow suit and post their opinions/rankings of players not be criticized for posting mine.

My impressions may be perceived as wishy-washy, but at least I'm not afraid to show them. Lets see you guys do the same...

Now is not the time - we'll only give the FM more to go on when they're deciding their night kill.

[House Mooton]

My gut says that Upcliff is guilty.

Overblown case on Harlaw

Personally I think getting a bandwagon going against someone who hasn't yet made his presence known is a bit odd. Would you care to expand on your reasoning?

What time would be appropriate to take things rather seriously? How many people should be lynched for (apparently) no other reason than a gut feeling?

If there's more to your reasoning than you have mentioned so far, please share.

I was thinking the same thing, but then I thought that maybe that's just what Harlaw wants - never actually needing to make any arguments when quips and jokes will suffice. What do you have to say about that, Harlaw?

This early it isn't easy to find serious arguments, which is exactly why I found your behaviour a bit odd to begin with. You seemed to want to deflect the question of why one would vote for Florent, and then you keep asking questions instead of giving any motivation for your actions.

Any reason in particular for feeling this way about Harlaw?

Seems to be floating in and out of conversation. Reading everything altogether, I sort of got the impression that he was lurking and would drop in a comment here and there, while other people did most of the active arguing.

Also, he drops an opportunistic vote on Ball.

I'm aware of that, and I'll definitely add my vote before the day ends. For now I'm thinking that I might vote for Ball (not being more likely guilty than anyone else doesn't mean complete innocence), but I'll wait a few posts to see if any compelling arguments are made against anyone else...

ETA: Changing a portion of text I bolded into italics instead.

Personally, not trying is not at all what I think about you. But since what I am thinking is that you're behaving somewhat suspiciously, I'm voting for House Ball.

I don't think he explains why he feels Ball is suspicious. If he did I missed it.

Ball's defensiveness is bordering on rediculous, but overdfensivness is null for me. It says less about the player's guilt or inoocents and more about the player's desire to remain in the game.

I don't like Yarwyck or Swann for the vote pile up. At this point I'd be happy to see either go.

I also felt Overton's vote on Swann was opportunistic.

Blame my gut, but that last post of Swann's sounds so innocent (kudos to you if you're FM, but I'd very much expect FM to come back with a sort of 'well what do you expect at this stage of day one' type of defence to my accusations) that I shall change my vote to Cassel

What about Swann's post from way back then sounded so innocent?

Remove vote

Well that supplied some good information. Namely that I don't think Yarwyck and Swann can be partnered, but that I do think one of them might be evil.

Good point I agree. Makes me like Inchfield a bit.

Also like Harlaw. Cassel is okay, less suspicious than most right now.

Swann looks suspicious for his early summary post. Might be new like he says but that doesn't mean he has to be innocent.

Had a relatively bad impression about Ambrose but can't remember why. Will have to check back later. Being a replacement isn't fun, too much to catch up on and you don't get a feel for the flow of the game.

[House Ashford]

Voting for two different people during the course of a day means that I'm always hopping on a train?

Yes, because they were always the ones under most pressure and besides me the only ones that had any real pressure going on them until now.

[House Corbray]

Mostly about two comments that you made earlier, comments that I find odd:

#105: "I don't have any though process to talk about today. Unforgivable? Oh well, lynch me."

#125: "If I were an FM, then I could win in a competition for the worst FM ever."

And?? What's suspicious about that?

Was that a vote on me Ambrose? Because I get the feeling we're on the "let's lynch the n00b, if he's an inno at least no harm is done"- train here. And I seriously have no idea how to defend against that one.

I explained my reasons for becoming unstable with my votes at length. There was suddenly a whole lot of info to go through. I took a premise which I thought would be valid for anyone playing a FM: Not putting yourself out there too much, always hopping on a train when you can explain yourself without looking suspicious. Upcliff fullfills this criterias. Please tell me if there are better things to look for.

Actually, what I also wanted to say is that the way you play reminded me of my own one when I was newbie FM. Yours is much stronger and much more reasonable, but, just in general, just this general impression... But it's probably just about being a new player.

I don't know...Your latest comments make me feel better about you, and plus I see your point on Upcliff... Damn, I don't know :bang:

[House Dayne]

40 Minutes to go!

1 vote: Overton (Kenning)

2 votes: Ball (Ambrose, Upcliff)

3 votes: Swann (Ball, Inchfield, Overton)

2 vote: Yarwyck (Cassel, Harlaw)

2 vote: Upcliff (Swann, Florent)

1 players have not voted: Yarwyck

So we REALLY need to decide. Ball, Swann, Yarwych and Upcliff are viable lynches right now. I mean, anyone's viable, but those four are the most viable.