Jump to content

Archived

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

Piper of Chaos

GOT Mafia 80

Recommended Posts

Please tell me what serious arguments there were to make at the time, Ser?

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.

Harlaw starting a bandwagon would be suspicious... But the comment itself strikes me as a bit too reckless by an FM for today. I would rather see Harlaw later in the game and judge them then.

Any reason in particular for feeling this way about Harlaw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any reason in particular for feeling this way about Harlaw?

Aside from what's in your quote of me?

None. I just don't think FM would put themselves out there like that - certainly not on Day 1. That's all it boils down to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I realized only later, when it was explained, that it was a joke. At the time Overton voted night it was understandable to vote him for that. That's what Yarwick did and I only said, that I didn't find that suspicious.

Ok, I am satisfied, remove vote.

As for the rest, I don't find Harlaw suspicious. Upcliff looks worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is day 1.

11 players remain: Ambrose, Ball, Cassel, Florent, Harlaw, Inchfield, Kenning, Overton, Swann, Upcliff, Yarwyck

6 votes are needed for a conviction or 6 to go to night.

2 votes: Harlaw (Swann, Upcliff)

2 votes: Kenning (Cassel, Overton)

2 votes: Upcliff (Harlaw, Inchfield)

1 vote: Florent (Ambrose)

1 vote: Overton (Yarwyck)

3 have not voted: Ball, Florent, Kenning

A bit under 9 hours left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 vote: Upcliff (Harlaw, Inchfield)

It's like living in Ancient Rome! Many people voting for one vote.

I live in an oppressed society!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my god, seriously?

Alright - looking at what we have so far, I like Harlaw. The post of Florent's that he quoted made me laugh so I won't vote for him today. My vote on Yarwyck was - eh, sort of serious because I didn't like the way he said 'please, someone else start something'. Mostly though I just wanted an excuse to link that video.

I don't like that Kenning and Inchfield obviously know the game is happening, but have posted once early and never reappeared. Upcliff seems a little stuffy, not an team RP player. That could go either way so null. Ball makes obvious innuendos, might vote him just for that. He also skated in and when the conversation did get a bit serious (or what passes for serious here) and didn't even try to get involved. Overton voted night and nothing else? Not optimal, but I won't vote for him over that today. I will scold him for it, however. :spank:

Right now my preferences are Kenning, Inchfield, Ball and then Yarwyck. Kenning for being a Targ kiss up. :kiss:

This post strikes me as off. Sure we all want to get into serious phase so we have something to go on by the time of the lynch, but this post feels over the top and artificially constructed. And there are some curious comments in there - Cassy, would you really not vote for Harlaw because he made you laugh? I agree that Harlaw wasn't particularly suspicious by that point, but by no means innocentish either - what made you decide that the joke was a good enough reason for him not to be lynched today?

The rest of the post is also suspicious because the tone of disapproval that the game hasn't got going and of an attempt to move things on doesn't fit with the vacuousness of the comments (things like 'Upcliff seems a little stuffy' - what does that even mean?)

I also think the vote on Yarwyck is fishy - sort of serious means, to me, that you wanted both to gain brownie points for an early serious vote but be able to backtrack from it if you came under fire.

We've still not seen anything from our friend Florent, have we?

Neither Inchfield nor Ball have said anything usefull or anything that would require... well... inches or balls.

Ambrose started us off with the first vote, but since then has done nothing but enlightining us on genealogy. Anything more to say?

Kennington has given us his good gutfeeling about ball (who didn't say anything usefull) and otherwise just voted for the one voting him. He seems not too stressed yet though.

Yarwick has failed to vote either deliberatly or due to mispelling (it's [ B ] not [ I ]). He did vote on Overton though, when he voted night, which was a strange move to do. EDIT: the night vote being strange here)

He's given the first what passes for a summary (not much to do yet), so he's helpfull at least.

Cassel has been around to discuss and probe a bit. I liked that.

Overton made a joke vote on night, than pressure voting on Kenning. nothing wrong with that imo, at this stage.

Upcliff: When he was around he 2nd me on questioning Harlaw. I liked that. He did not vote yet, so he seems rather laid back. Wanna see what happens there.

Harlaw: I found strange that he jumped on the first vote to form a bandwagon. When pressured by Upcliff and me he got sarcastic and voted Upcliff. That seems a bit aggressive (nervous?) to me. But nothing convincing, ofc.

So I'll stay with my vote for now, but I really wanna hear more from the ones that haven't been too talkative up to now.

What is the point of this? Summaries are not, as you seem to think, inherently helpful, especially when they reveal that you pretty much like everyone who has posted - your concluding comment being merely an exhortation for low posters to post more - a facile point. Harlaw seems to be your top suspect - do you think I should vote for him, and if so, why?

Both these posts I find suspicious, but of the two, I think Swann's is worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... The only at the slightest convincing cases are made against Harlaw and Upcliff:

Upcliff didnt even vote for Harlaw right away, he did so when Harlaw was never answering the question in a calm matter but answered sarcastic, accused upcliff for accusing him and being insulting.

I'm not saying that's making him guilty, I'm only saying that's not making him innocent. So Upcliff's reason for his vote seems good enough for me to not start lynching him on day 1.

I'm not founding my case on Harlaw on his jumping on the train against the Florent lynch, but why so aggressive? Would a FM do that, asks Inchfield: Yes he would, I say. Being reckless, as in "I'm much too reckless to be guilty" sounds like a well constructed defense for me. Of course, he could only try to make ppl angry to get some responses, but Upcliff was already talking enough to hold him to his words later on. Still, enough explanation to justify his behaviour.

Will I change my vote because of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the point of this? Summaries are not, as you seem to think, inherently helpful, especially when they reveal that you pretty much like everyone who has posted - your concluding comment being merely an exhortation for low posters to post more - a facile point. Harlaw seems to be your top suspect - do you think I should vote for him, and if so, why?

Both these posts I find suspicious, but of the two, I think Swann's is worse

Up to now I'm trying to find someone that seems more suspicious than Harlaw. The reasosns for that I typed while you were typing, so see below your post :). I'm not claiming it's utterly convincing (at all). But it's all I have, so right now, I'd say lynch him or night. We'll see, I'm not that determined yet.

As for my "summary". I appologize. I started writing it somewhat for my own benefit, to see what's there. there wasn't much so I shouldn't have posted it maybe. But I doubt that's a reason to lynch me? I promise I will only summarize again if there's something to do so.

BTW: actually my post reads more like that (at the time I posted):

- I liked what Yarwick, Cassel and Upcliff wrote.

- I don't mind what Kennington and Overton wrote.

- I didn't like what Harlaw wrote.

- I'd like to see what Florent, Inchfield, Ball and Ambrose will write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these posts make me feel weird. At first someone says that we all should be oh so serious, and then, when some eager ones actually try to observe a bit (although, in my opinion, there's nothing here to build adequate conclusions on), others say "noooo, that's all artificial and suspicious".

Whate-e-e-ever. Harlow is funny, I like funny guys. Kenning looks innocent for now(the reason for this is that he looks innocent for now :) ) Swann, Cassel are analysing for the sake of out little society :) Good lads. Ambrose likes criticising. Ambrose, don't be so hard on those people! They're doing their best :) Yarwick, Inchfield, Overton - dunno what to say. Writing something. And who's left there? Oh, yeah, Upcliff. Why not, after all? No better ideas. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So... The only at the slightest convincing cases are made against Harlaw and Upcliff:

Upcliff didnt even vote for Harlaw right away, he did so when Harlaw was never answering the question in a calm matter but answered sarcastic, accused upcliff for accusing him and being insulting.

I'm not saying that's making him guilty, I'm only saying that's not making him innocent. So Upcliff's reason for his vote seems good enough for me to not start lynching him on day 1.

I'm not founding my case on Harlaw on his jumping on the train against the Florent lynch, but why so aggressive? Would a FM do that, asks Inchfield: Yes he would, I say. Being reckless, as in "I'm much too reckless to be guilty" sounds like a well constructed defense for me. Of course, he could only try to make ppl angry to get some responses, but Upcliff was already talking enough to hold him to his words later on. Still, enough explanation to justify his behaviour.

Will I change my vote because of that?

I only vaguely follow what you're saying here though Swann. Do you mind clarifying your thoughts as you clarified your previous summary post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these posts make me feel weird. At first someone says that we all should be oh so serious, and then, when some eager ones actually try to observe a bit (although, in my opinion, there's nothing here to build adequate conclusions on), others say "noooo, that's all artificial and suspicious".

Whate-e-e-ever. Harlow is funny, I like funny guys. Kenning looks innocent for now(the reason for this is that he looks innocent for now :) ) Swann, Cassel are analysing for the sake of out little society :) Good lads. Ambrose likes criticising. Ambrose, don't be so hard on those people! They're doing their best :) Yarwick, Inchfield, Overton - dunno what to say. Writing something. And who's left there? Oh, yeah, Upcliff. Why not, after all? No better ideas. :)

Try harder, Ball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three votes in three posts must be some kind of record. I understand voting Ball, and I'm tempted to do the same myself, but what was the point in voting Cassel only to change it 3 minutes later?

Where's the pressure in doing that? Votes are the only tool of substance Team Innocent have. They're not something to be thrown around willy nilly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try harder, Ball

That's the best I can do for now. Not in the mood to bother my own brains right now trying to come up with some damn original ideas that you might like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only vaguely follow what you're saying here though Swann. Do you mind clarifying your thoughts as you clarified your previous summary post?

At the point Uplciff and Harlaw were "vote leaders" (2 votes each is not really leading) besides Kenning (for being a "Targ kiss ass" and "for now reason needed at this stage", which I didn't take too seriously).

Upcliff did throughout the game what I would've done and did (gradually increasing pressure on Harlaw who still hasn't done anything really constructive besides claiming it's an early stage and being insulting). So maybe I'm biased because he thought in the same tracks as I did, but I tended to think his behaviour as something that someone would do that knows nothing yet. Of course this also could be a good FM-disguise. But it forces answers and that is good.

About Harlaw I said he's being aggressive and that I didn't like that. I said being aggressive doesn't necessarily mean he's innocen (as was implied by inchfield I think). Not if considering that we may have some experienced players hanging around. They would be able to pull off a "do you really think I would go around pissing of people if I were guilty?"-defense.

Allright, by now I sound like I'm on a witchhunt for Harlaw. Enough Explanation on this case, it's not that substantial so I will lay off posting for a while till I have something new to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three votes in three posts must be some kind of record. I understand voting Ball, and I'm tempted to do the same myself, but what was the point in voting Cassel only to change it 3 minutes later?

Where's the pressure in doing that? Votes are the only tool of substance Team Innocent have. They're not something to be thrown around willy nilly.

Clearly I didn't intend to vote thrice in three posts; however, Swann gave me good vibes, and then Ball pissed me off so I voted him. Cassel is still highly suspicious to me though, so I may switch back if Ball actually becomes bothered enough to do anything - I'm not sufficiently sure of Cassel's guilt that I would mind if we lynch Ball, who at best is an unapologetically busy innocent who can't/won't engage with the game. To be clear, right now I'd be happy to lynch Cassel or Ball, but I thought my vote might be more useful on Ball (and it was, since it elicited another post from him).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the point Uplciff and Harlaw were "vote leaders" (2 votes each is not really leading) besides Kenning (for being a "Targ kiss ass" and "for now reason needed at this stage", which I didn't take too seriously).

Upcliff did throughout the game what I would've done and did (gradually increasing pressure on Harlaw who still hasn't done anything really constructive besides claiming it's an early stage and being insulting). So maybe I'm biased because he thought in the same tracks as I did, but I tended to think his behaviour as something that someone would do that knows nothing yet. Of course this also could be a good FM-disguise. But it forces answers and that is good.

About Harlaw I said he's being aggressive and that I didn't like that. I said being aggressive doesn't necessarily mean he's innocen (as was implied by inchfield I think). Not if considering that we may have some experienced players hanging around. They would be able to pull off a "do you really think I would go around pissing of people if I were guilty?"-defense.

Allright, by now I sound like I'm on a witchhunt for Harlaw. Enough Explanation on this case, it's not that substantial so I will lay off posting for a while till I have something new to say.

Okay, that's helpful, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I miss Overton confirming his vote of night was a joke?

How did Cassel go from this:

um, and Overton, that was a joke, right?

To this:

Overton voted night and nothing else? Not optimal, but I won't vote for him over that today. I will scold him for it, however. :spank:

This after listing off a number of minor --read seriously stretched-- points against other people.

I know there wasn't a lot to go off of at the time the post was made, but that's sort of my point: Certainly the vote for night was the most glaringly suspicious (or at least observable)thing anyone had done at that point. If Cassel's point was to trigger discussion, why absolve Overton of suspicion for something he hasn't accounted for yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for my "summary". I appologize. I started writing it somewhat for my own benefit, to see what's there. there wasn't much so I shouldn't have posted it maybe. But I doubt that's a reason to lynch me? I promise I will only summarize again if there's something to do so.

Well, you are so... swannish.

(For newer players: "Swann defence" is common name for being way too wierd to be actually guilty).

There is nothing wrong in posting summaries by itself and no reason to apologize. Those are always useful, because of allowing us to know what you are thinking and if you are truely thinking.

You just need to make those in a way which makes us trust you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you are so... swannish.

(For newer players: "Swann defence" is common name for being way too wierd to be actually guilty).

There is nothing wrong in posting summaries by itself and no reason to apologize. Those are always useful, because of allowing us to know what you are thinking and if you are truely thinking.

You just need to make those in a way which makes us trust you.

Nah Swann doesn't read weird to me, just new - reminds me of what I was like way back when...*remembers old days*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright - looking at what we have so far, I like Harlaw. The post of Florent's that he quoted made me laugh so I won't vote for him today. My vote on Yarwyck was - eh, sort of serious because I didn't like the way he said 'please, someone else start something'. Mostly though I just wanted an excuse to link that video.

I think you missed the part where I then went and tried to start something. Frankly what I was looking for was a dialogue, which doesn't happen when posts are sparse.

Also, the Harlaw thing really bugs me. You won't for him today because of a joke? Isn't it a bit too soon to be making ANY declaration of who you won't vote for today. Humour means nothing. Especially early on in day one when it's pretty much expected.

(yes, this post is a shameless attempt to pad my count. For instance, Yarwyck has over twice my post count ... I really need to step up my game if I want to catch him. Plus, that link is hi-larious. Fact.)

And you feel the need to pad your post count, why? Afraid to go for quality over quantity?

His joke in answer to Yarwick's request for something serious. I think a guilty would either try to actually say something serious or ignore the request.

Again, see above.

I hate to think we're limiting our lynch options today based on things done in the RP stage of the game. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×