WW25 - Game Thread

[BRickAstley]

Ichabod, don't be cryptic. Tell us your reasoning. I do not understand how you swapped at that post that was quoted. You were voting against MJW, same as me, but then Brick made that post and you voted me, and the reasoning is not clear.

Ichabod

[BRickAstley]

"jowy has more votes than slowcheetah so i'll vote for jowy so i dont die myself"

fixed that for you

[Ichabod]

Ichabod, don't be cryptic. Tell us your reasoning. I do not understand how you swapped at that post that was quoted. You were voting against MJW, same as me, but then Brick made that post and you voted me, and the reasoning is not clear.

I voted because I wanted to see your reaction. I felt that particular post was suspicious, so I made a very loose attack trying to see what you'd do. Your reaction was to ignore it until the cavalry arrived saying that I voted without reasoning (turning my attack into something I had to defend about). That was a bad rection, but it could be explained in a lot of ways, so I'm letting it pass for now. But I'm watching you.

Of course, trying to do this sort of information gathering rarely works, due to the already mentioned Cavalry.

Now, novice probably is telling the truth about having limited time to browse the forum, but the expected behaviour of people reading a WW thread with limited time would be to make one and only one pass straight through. So I think a likely sequence of events in this case is

1) Novice sees zak say he doesn't like one of my posts and opportunistically votes me
2) Novice checks back and sees that no one else follows him so now feels he has to justify the vote
3) Novice reads my posts out of order because he doesn't have much time and needs to quickly find some posts by me

I don't think this sounds like a very likely sequence of events. So I agree with Ichabod that this is a weak post.

Why won't you vote for Slowcheetah, Ichabod?

No bells rang while reading his posts. To be fair, I hesitated a bit before saying that. I wrote something like "I won't vote for Jowy and likely not against slow" and other variations, until I decided that I wouldn't vote for him without anything really suspicious (it'd be more of a "no villager signs so could be wolf" vote, but I don't want to do this right now).

---

When you want to refer to Uberfish, Brick, post an incredibly large photo of a fish. That'll be funny.

--

I could vote for Uberfish, because his attack on Novice sounded like: "people expect me to go against the big guys and not follow whatever vote, so I'll vote novice". Usually Uberfish attacks are more to the point, agressive-in-a-good-way and very keen, this one was "meh". I doubt I'll get that much strenght with it.

MJW also fell out of lynch favour.

So, Pindicator again. Better than the other options.

[BRickAstley]

"jowy has more votes than slowcheetah so i'll vote for jowy so i dont die myself"

fixed that for you

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m16k8q...o1_500.jpg

[Jowy]

text eh.

admin kill incoming?

[BRickAstley]

"jowy has more votes than slowcheetah so i'll vote for jowy so i dont die myself"

fixed that for you

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m16k8q...o1_500.jpg

[Ichabod]

What with all those "no reasoning" votes? My previous vote on Pindicator was blatantly without reasoning. Scummy no reason votes are the ones where the guy writes 10 paragraphs without saying anything and than votes. Or votes where you just quote other people and agree (especially if you make paraphrases and not directly quote). Pay attention, people.

[pindicator]

So you're voting for me because when you voted for me before with no reasoning I didn't react? What kind of messed up circular logic is that?

How about this: I dismissed your vote when I first saw it because you didn't put any reasoning with it and it didn't make sense. It didn't really register as odd until zak brought it up today, then I thought about it.

[Ichabod]

To quote MJW:

"This is a case of pot calling the kettle black, but in this case, the kettle is blacker".

Maybe it fits right now.

[Ichabod]

So you're voting for me because when you voted for me before with no reasoning I didn't react? What kind of messed up circular logic is that?

How about this: I dismissed your vote when I first saw it because you didn't put any reasoning with it and it didn't make sense. It didn't really register as odd until zak brought it up today, then I thought about it.

I'm voting for you because considering all the circumnstances of the game, you are the most suspicious player that I have a chance of lynching today. I made that first vote because your posts felt strange, your reaction to it was one that I can see as a wolfy one, there was nothing else pointing me away from your possible wolfiness. All these considered, I'm voting for you.