WW27 Game Thread: Once there were 12

[Jkaen]

Well I will not get too preachy as long as somebody tells me what they thing this mislynch tells us about the other players. I admit along with half the others players there was a mild reason to vote him, I am just not sure the reveal tells us too much.

Also in future CH if you are in the same position reveal your power role please

[Jowy]

Notes:

Zak and MJW spent the whole time fighting each other and distracting the village, but in the end both switched off each other and ended up voting for a now-proven villager together.

Novice's votes:
- Jowy, to bandwagon with Zak
- MJW, for bad play
- Classical Hero, for bad play
In addition, wanted to policy lynch Serdoa before he started posting.
Zero votes for scumminess. Policy lynches are easy to hide behind.

Azarius and Zak also clashed and voted for each other, but in the end both switched off each other and ended up voting for a now-proven villager together.

Q, you voted Matt to get him to talk. He only made 5 posts, one more than CH. Matt said he would prefer to no-lynch, just like CH. The difference between them seems to be that one is new and the other is old, that's all. But later in the day, you were voting for CH, and wondering why people would vote for Matt, even though you voted for Matt yourself earlier and your case on CH is almost identical to the one people had on Matt.

[Azza]

Oh for fucks sake, that was an awful lynch. For a start, he was highly unlikely to be online at the end of the day since he's in the same timezone as Lewwyn. Trying to pressure him into contributing in the early hours of the morning (his time) is never going to work. Secondly, his logic was terrible, that I agree on, but it wasn't scummy. I can only assume that he was working on the assumption that a majority was needed to lynch, so splitting the vote would've meant no lynch; otherwise his comments make no sense. Someone playing scum is highly unlikely to make such a huge misjudgment of the rules. Finally, of all the people who voted for c_h, Qgqqqqq is the only one who'd played with him before on CFC. So I can give the rest of them some leeway, but Q should've known that there was nothing unusual about c_h's play. But he seemed mixed up between policy lynching based on his CFC play, and voting based on questionable logic. I think it's telling that the closing line of his eventual vote for c_h is based entirely on his past play. It suggests that it was because he knows that the logic that generated the wagon was highly dubious, so he needs to add other aspects to his vote.

[zakalwe]

Jowy, like I said before, I don't think it's fair to claim that I've been distracting the village. I have done what I can to steer the conversation onto productive topics.

Azza, I wasn't aware of CH's time zone but I doubt that would have influenced my opinion. I wasn't trying to pressure him into contributing. You (and others) already tried that, and it didn't work. I did catch the fact that you said he always tends to lurk, but I didn't view that as an extenuating circumstance. I had a vague feeling that he might be playing up his unavailability issues, and his stated preference for no lynching seemed like he might just be picking up on the topic of the day, but mostly it was just a pure policy lynch for lurking.

"I can only assume that he was working on the assumption that a majority was needed to lynch, so splitting the vote would've meant no lynch; otherwise his comments make no sense."

That interpretation makes sense to me now, but it didn't occur to me yesterday. And as long as he isn't even around to explain his basic thoughts on things like that, I think lynching him is the appropriate response.

[Qgqqqqq]

Oh for fucks sake, that was an awful lynch. For a start, he was highly unlikely to be online at the end of the day since he's in the same timezone as Lewwyn. Trying to pressure him into contributing in the early hours of the morning (his time) is never going to work. Secondly, his logic was terrible, that I agree on, but it wasn't scummy. I can only assume that he was working on the assumption that a majority was needed to lynch, so splitting the vote would've meant no lynch; otherwise his comments make no sense. Someone playing scum is highly unlikely to make such a huge misjudgment of the rules. Finally, of all the people who voted for c_h, Qgqqqqq is the only one who'd played with him before on CFC. So I can give the rest of them some leeway, but Q should've known that there was nothing unusual about c_h's play. But he seemed mixed up between policy lynching based on his CFC play, and voting based on questionable logic. I think it's telling that the closing line of his eventual vote for c_h is based entirely on his past play. It suggests that it was because he knows that the logic that generated the wagon was highly dubious, so he needs to add other aspects to his vote.

Okay…I disagree strongly. What is the alternative? No-one is being particularly scummy. Like I said, this was primarily a policy lynch, and I don’t see anything better. Consider it this way: based off what he said, and the fact that he didn’t actually contribute anything to the discussion tells me that he wasn’t planning to contribute. I have played with him before, and that’s half the reason I voted him – because I knew from past behaviour that he wasn’t going to contribute AT ALL, which is okay on CFC, where WoG are the norm, but not in a game here, and certainly not in a 12-player one. I gave him a chance to contribute (and contrary to what you said, people had been pressuring him all day, to no avail), and he didn’t, so I thought it was much better to get rid of him day 1 then have this be a topic for the rest of the game, and likely take up a better lynch.
I knew he was likely to play like that, so I voted him first to try and get something early – you did the same. As he didn’t change his play to actually respond to the thread, he was lynched.
Speaking of which, why did you jump off him? You said you would only do so if he changed his style which…he didn’t. What made you want to vote mattimeo (apart from the weak “Call a spade a spade” reasoning provided)?
My last line is not based entirely off past play...but from your (greater) experience with classical_hero, would you disagree with this:

Yeah it is a policy lynch, but based off what he's said so far, and previous experience, I don't think classical_hero has any interest in contributing to the game, and only intends to avoid getting modkilled.

That was my impression from my previous game with classical_hero (which was, admittedly, 3 months ago) and what he said in the thread.

I also had no idea as to classical_hero's timezone, and for me it was definitely a policy lynch, the logic was more trying to get him to actually contribute to the game, and a comment on how he wasn't contributing and didn't sem likely to change.
I don't think that was his assumption, as he's definitely played in games of RB's style and his posts don't seem to suggest that.

Q, you voted Matt to get him to talk. He only made 5 posts, one more than CH. Matt said he would prefer to no-lynch, just like CH. The difference between them seems to be that one is new and the other is old, that's all. But later in the day, you were voting for CH, and wondering why people would vote for Matt, even though you voted for Matt yourself earlier and your case on CH is almost identical to the one people had on Matt.

My vote for Matt was a early one to just get him to voice his thoughts. He responded to that (albeit limitedly, I'd still like to hear his thoughts on the day) but he did say things. So I moved off. Classical_hero on the other hand, wasn't contributing at all - they may have posted a bit, but he didn't actually comment on what was happening beyond him at all. Whereas mattimeo was at least commenting Look at his posts:

Lets see how different these games are compared to CFC. BTW I hate the way the PM messages are done here since they are not obvious enough so you can know if you have one.

It looks like that the votes have to be in red. Azza is quite a shady character.

Lets see how different these games are compared to CFC. BTW I hate the way the PM messages are done here since they are not obvious enough so you can know if you have one.

It looks like that the votes have to be in red. Azza is quite a shady character.

Q asked you about the latter paragraph. To get you talking, I wouldn't mind hearing more about the first paragraph either. How are the CFC games, and how do you usually approach the game?

CFC games are generally more quieter than those here. My style over there is much more subdued since those who talk a lot are deemed to be rather suspicious and and thus to try and stay under the radar it is best to say as little as possible.

What do you ant me to say about the first paragraph, just about the game at CFC? Right now I am just trying to catch up with this game since I keep forgetting that I am in this and not just PB 14.

@classical_hero, why do you think azza is a shady character? Is that based off something he's said here, or previous impressions at CFC?

I don't think random lynches are a good thing MJW, how do you see that (rather then the normal day 1 discussion) as being helpful to the village?

It's day one, just a random vote with a plausible explanation. Day one is just really guessing unitl w have some action on the night and we get some results.

Day one lynches are always a lottery and for the most part I am not a fan of day one lynches. I knew that from what I had read that Azza had no votes on him, so it was more than likely that he wouldn't get lynched. Day one is always the craziest day and generally just for this day no lynch is preferred.

It is also the fact that, based on my experience (and supported by what happened here), mattimeo will contribute, but classical_hero wouldn't.
Is that why people were voting matt then? From what I could see it looked like just based off gut reactions to his inital posts.
But you're right, matt has posted far less then I was thinking, what are your thoughts, mattimeo?

[Azza]

Oh for fucks sake, that was an awful lynch. For a start, he was highly unlikely to be online at the end of the day since he's in the same timezone as Lewwyn. Trying to pressure him into contributing in the early hours of the morning (his time) is never going to work. Secondly, his logic was terrible, that I agree on, but it wasn't scummy. I can only assume that he was working on the assumption that a majority was needed to lynch, so splitting the vote would've meant no lynch; otherwise his comments make no sense. Someone playing scum is highly unlikely to make such a huge misjudgment of the rules. Finally, of all the people who voted for c_h, Qgqqqqq is the only one who'd played with him before on CFC. So I can give the rest of them some leeway, but Q should've known that there was nothing unusual about c_h's play. But he seemed mixed up between policy lynching based on his CFC play, and voting based on questionable logic. I think it's telling that the closing line of his eventual vote for c_h is based entirely on his past play. It suggests that it was because he knows that the logic that generated the wagon was highly dubious, so he needs to add other aspects to his vote.

Okay…I disagree strongly. What is the alternative? No-one is being particularly scummy. Like I said, this was primarily a policy lynch, and I don’t see anything better. Consider it this way: based off what he said, and the fact that he didn’t actually contribute anything to the discussion tells me that he wasn’t planning to contribute. I have played with him before, and that’s half the reason I voted him – because I knew from past behaviour that he wasn’t going to contribute AT ALL, which is okay on CFC, where WoG are the norm, but not in a game here, and certainly not in a 12-player one. I gave him a chance to contribute (and contrary to what you said, people had been pressuring him all day, to no avail), and he didn’t, so I thought it was much better to get rid of him day 1 then have this be a topic for the rest of the game, and likely take up a better lynch.
I knew he was likely to play like that, so I voted him first to try and get something early – you did the same. As he didn’t change his play to actually respond to the thread, he was lynched.
Speaking of which, why did you jump off him? You said you would only do so if he changed his style which…he didn’t. What made you want to vote mattimeo (apart from the weak “Call a spade a spade” reasoning provided)?
My last line is not based entirely off past play...but from your (greater) experience with classical_hero, would you disagree with this:

Yeah it is a policy lynch, but based off what he's said so far, and previous experience, I don't think classical_hero has any interest in contributing to the game, and only intends to avoid getting modkilled.

That was my impression from my previous game with classical_hero (which was, admittedly, 3 months ago) and what he said in the thread.

I also had no idea as to classical_hero's timezone, and for me it was definitely a policy lynch, the logic was more trying to get him to actually contribute to the game, and a comment on how he wasn't contributing and didn't sem likely to change.
I don't think that was his assumption, as he's definitely played in games of RB's style and his posts don't seem to suggest that.

My problem is you're taking what'd be a perfectly valid reason to want to policy lynch (not contributing all that much, expecting it to continue), and tacking on some rather poor arguments to try to paint him as scummy to make sure of the mislynch. I don't know what he was thinking, but even if his posts make almost no sense as village, they make even less sense as scum. The goal isn't to punish bad play, it's to catch the wolves. My impression is your vote was to punish bad play, but making sure you at least appeared to try to hunt wolves.

I moved off c_h because his posts didn't give me anything that resembled a scummy vibe, while Mattimeo's post that I quoted in my vote did.

[Gazglum]

When Q moved from Mattimeo to CH, it switched the lineup from Mattimeo leading the voting by 2 to him being tied with Classical Hero. So if Q turns up scummy, it might suggest he was protecting Mattimeo who had started to attract more heat than expected.

But it does seem clear that Q's Mattimeo vote was a pressure vote to get Matt talking, and Mattimeo did respond eventually, so Q changing his vote doesn't seem like a scum tell in itself.

[Serdoa]

Q, zak, novice, MJW imo you all didn't even discuss other options that were presented. c_h was as lazy a lynch as you can get and claiming there was nothing better (Q) or it was a policy lynch (which is stupid in itself on D1 on a new player) ignores the facts (again imo). What you all did was discussing zaks first post and than discussing whom to policy-lynch before you "policy-lynched" c_h. That's it. Sprinkle some "Oh Mattimeo plays D1 as he always plays D1 so he clearly has to be scum" into it for good measure.

You could have instead discussed my case on Gazglum or Jkaen. But what did you guys do instead?

zak: Decided to not even mention it, instead voting Azarius for a weak reason directly in the next post after my case.
novice: Decided to ignore the case and instead voiced his lack of understanding for the perceived indignation in my earlier post.
Q: Ignoring it, going for c_h and stating later that nothing better was available.
MJW: Discussing meta...

And note, I'm not suggesting that my case would have been better or that you did wrong by not following me. But that you didn't even discuss it - or anyone else - is imo telling, especially regarding zak and novice.

MJW could be scum, but if he's not, Azarius looks a bit shady for post #52.

I don't get that part of post #62 zak. Azarius vote in #52 for MJW because he felt that MJWs thinking makes no sense. The thinking he talks about here is MJWs explanation why zak should never have suggested a no-lynch. Why would Azarius be shady for that if MJW was not scum?

[novice]

I didn't see any strong or even non-weak cases yesterday, so if I didn't comment on your cases Serdoa that was probably why. My comment would just have been noncommittal noise. With cases like that I prefer to let the accused answer for himself. I think Jkaen did, and Gazglum was sleeping.

[classical_hero]

Day one lynches are always a lottery and for the most part I am not a fan of day one lynches. I knew that from what I had read that Azza had no votes on him, so it was more than likely that he wouldn't get lynched. Day one is always the craziest day and generally just for this day no lynch is preferred.

Classical Hero, can you please clarify this? Are you meaning to say you voted for Azza because you thought he won't get lynched? Because that is what I get from reading your statement. I just want to make sure I'm following your meaning here.

I'd thought I had made it clear that I think most day one lynches are better for the wolves than for the town. Often getting rid of an important person and thus making it easier for the wolves to claim victory.

I mean what is there to contribute on day one? All we have randomness and nothing concrete about anyone. As I warned so many times that day one lynches are terrible and best for the wolves, and it was so. I mean just spamming for no reason doesn't help the cause and only confuses things and gives the victory to wolves, but hopefully you will see that by lynching me could bring down the wolves.