WW #41. New Horizons.

[Rowain]

Lewwyn is still missing.

[Lewwyn]

Hi, hi. Catching up. I just finished work. I saw the game started this morning, but didn't really have a chance to jump in.

I am a member of the human expansionist league.


I like the setup, I think nights are going to be wild. For now though I feel the guiding force of Serdoa making lynches happen. Zakalwe

[Lewwyn]

Lewwyn is still missing.

SPEAK OF THE DEVIL AND HE SHALL APPEAR!

[Lewwyn]

Well I guess that's...good news, Rowain! 10 players, 1 neutral. So 7/2/1

I think this fits.

If there are 14 abilities and there are pairs of people with the abilities that means 28 abilities. Each townie has 4 single use abilities. 4x7 is 28. That means that Rowain is either part of 3 man scum team, or he's, as he says, a neutral party with separate abilities and VC.

So that means we have a real opportunity to work together in terms of abilities I think. Am I breaking the game? I mean Jabbz literally says we should work together. I think maybe after the first lynch we talk about what abilities we want to use and on who.


I am inclined to believe Rowain, I don't think he'd throw out his "I'm neutral" as scum. Also, Rowain claiming Neutral out the gate is very much what Rowain would do as a neutral party considering Rowain's view on the right way to play.

[Serdoa]

Yes, Serdoa, I know that you play very aggressively, and particularly when you're scum.

I think that statement was shown to be wrong more than a year ago zak. I always play aggressively.

I quoted the relevant part. If your theory was that I was trying to bait you into voting for me, why did you jump to take the bait?

I explained already that my theory was not that you tried to bait someone to vote you, but that you deliberately made your first statement in an attempt to have cover for when we try to verify what you said via the polygraph and only get a "undeterminable" result because you are scum and therefore under duress since game start. And when we get that undetermined result, you would refer back to this statement and explain with it the result.

I don't know if this actually could work, because I don't know if scum is generally under duress, because it is not explained what under duress means. But that you rather deliberately misunderstand me instead of pointing this fact out does give me a strong vibe towards you being scum.

Rowain is a killer <=> Rowain has the ability to kill. You can't be serious that I'm twisting your words there.

Yes I can. Especially because you linked it with me trying to set him up for lynch. I don't want to lynch him (yet) though. Because even though I'm sure he has a night-kill he is not a killer in the sense that he only wins as last man standing. Also he most likely can't kill every night, I believe the game is too small for two night-kills each night, even with all the abilities to save yourself or someone else.

Actually he might even have to collect certain programs (or just a certain amount) in order to win. It don't seem like we have certain roles so the only feature distinguishing one player from the other is the party he is aligned with and the programs he possesses. Actually, maybe Rowain doesn't even decide on a player to kill but instead on a program to retrieve and the player killed is randomly determined from all in possession of that program.

Anyhow, I do believe Rowain can kill, but I don't believe he is a killer.

[novice]

I agree with everything Lewwyn said.
Frankly this game is probably breakable in severeal different ways.

Good point about hackproof, Serdoa. I was thinking it might refer to a possible vig kill, but that would of course be listed as an ability, then.

Should we pick a suspect and force some claims from them? Seems there's more to gain and less to lose than what's normal.

[Bacchus]

I will just point out that you part-quoted me, ignoring deliberately my further explanation about my thought-process. That's not "town zak", that is "scum zak" in a nutshell.

This reads belabored to me. I just part-quoted you, is that a tell? All your posts containing substance are long, is deconstructing them a tell? Is that tell strong enough to be calling alignment? Also the introduction of "I will just point out" leading to an alignment call is bullshit, if you ask me. "I will just point out that this is scum zak, based on a situation I pretty much set-up myself".

@zak: Why didn't you throw out a vote in your first post, and why did you reciprocate?

On the polygraph: Novice's approach surely can't work as pointed out by Gazglum, unless the polygraphee can read alignment.

On Rowain's claim: His answers make him a low-priority target for questioning to me. Things might well change after night actions.

[Bacchus]

On the roles discussion: this set-up has a very "One Night" feel about it, I think a lot will come out from power use and unravelling the trail, with the added benefit that we have several nights and can plan ahead. We don't really know the role pool, and I don't think Lewwyn's idea about each ability existing in two copies is correct. I would think that the stronger ones are unique, whilst the weaker ones are more widespread.

[novice]

So Bacchus, you're saying the polygraph only works on statements whose truth value is known to the speaker? That's not the literal reading of the ability, but either way, remember that scum know alignments. I'll leave how to abuse that as an exercise to the reader.

[Serdoa]

This reads belabored to me. I just part-quoted you, is that a tell? All your posts containing substance are long, is deconstructing them a tell? Is that tell strong enough to be calling alignment? Also the introduction of "I will just point out" leading to an alignment call is bullshit, if you ask me. "I will just point out that this is scum zak, based on a situation I pretty much set-up myself".

It is a tell if you do so in order to misrepresent what was written or explained. If you try to make it look like someone acted erratically or contradicted his own words even though he did not, it is. I think that's pretty obvious actually. The tell is not a part-quote, the tell is that he used a part-quote to misrepresent the argument against him.

I'm not sure why you insinuate that I set up this situation either. I have not made him part-quote me to misrepresent my words, I have not made him ignore the actual argument, I have not made him act like scum zak. He did that himself, I merely observed it.