Note: lots of crossposts while I typed this out.
That post was, indeed, written before your admission of "buddying up" to zakalwe and then abrupt change to go after zakalwe. Consistency indeed. I have never said, however, that you and zakalwe were working together. I thought it highly unlikely, in fact, that if one of you was a wolf the other wouldn't be innocent as otherwise my Day 1 theory would not make any sense.
Well, I guess they way I see it is you made accusations against me during Day 1 immediately following my vote on zakalwe, and then moved to uberfish who also had his vote on zakalwe. On Day 2 I started again with my suspicions on zakalwe which promptly earned you vote until you went ahead and "parroted" zakalwe. At the end of the day you were second in the lynch count, and in fact immediately following you getting your 4th vote Serdoa moved on to scooter, taking pressure off of you.
Your next post was to defend Serdoa:
Next post you say you're going to stay low, but mention you have a newfound suspicion on zakalwe while voting for Sareln. This post immediately follows a Serdoa post accusing zak of making a bad argument against TT.
Then, on post 692 Serdoa openly votes for zakalwe, and on post 695 you chime in:
I'd be interested in hearing what everyone thinks of zakalwe's play so far. For the record, I was buddying up to zakalwe earlier purely on tactical grounds. I do think he's a good player, whether he's wolf or villager. So if he's a villager, getting on his good side might help establish mutual trust (similar to Meiz last game). If he's a wolf, the trust I seemed to be putting in him might help blindside him a bit.[/quote]
Personally, this seems like a pretty insane way to play as a villager. If he's a wolf, you've spent Days 1 and 2 supporting him, attacking his critics, and defending him to gain what? To "blindside" him? What advantage could you gain by that? Are you going to backstab him with your internet forum knife? To me, it seems you didn't care about zakalwe one bit, you were just trying to find cover.
Your next post is an attack on zakalwe, and a one line defense of your "buddy" post. You continue the defense with:
Well, I don't know what to say about the honesty part in general. I would disagree with it pretty severely, though I'm not in the "lynch all liars" camp. However, it doesn't go with the fact that your "buddying" involved both an active defense and offense; that's not "laying low."
You follow this up with this gem:
To paraphrase: "Serdoa is a villager because he wrote a long post."
Next post says they you think the vigilante should out themself along with a further mention that you're suspicious of zakalwe. And your final post is the one I responded to at the top.
So, Day 1 and Day 2 you tried to be zakalwe's buddy. At the end of Day 2 Serdoa could have probably gotten you lynched but instead switched to scooter. Since then every post you're written is a defense of Serdoa or an attack on his suspects.
What to conclude from this? My take is, at best you're a villager that doesn't want to think for yourself and so you just pick an alpha dog villager to follow. At worst, you're a wolf trying to use credible villagers as cover.
Catwalk Wrote:I find it interesting that both Injera and TT still lump me together with zakalwe, after openly accusing him. Injera did specify that his post was written earlier and didn't take recent posts into account.
That post was, indeed, written before your admission of "buddying up" to zakalwe and then abrupt change to go after zakalwe. Consistency indeed. I have never said, however, that you and zakalwe were working together. I thought it highly unlikely, in fact, that if one of you was a wolf the other wouldn't be innocent as otherwise my Day 1 theory would not make any sense.
Catwalk Wrote:Injera and TT, what are your takes on my accusations of zakalwe?
Well, I guess they way I see it is you made accusations against me during Day 1 immediately following my vote on zakalwe, and then moved to uberfish who also had his vote on zakalwe. On Day 2 I started again with my suspicions on zakalwe which promptly earned you vote until you went ahead and "parroted" zakalwe. At the end of the day you were second in the lynch count, and in fact immediately following you getting your 4th vote Serdoa moved on to scooter, taking pressure off of you.
Your next post was to defend Serdoa:
Catwalk Wrote:I don't think Serdoa did anything wrong, but I don't think we should pursue that argument further. It's sufficiently grey to let it rest IMO.
Next post you say you're going to stay low, but mention you have a newfound suspicion on zakalwe while voting for Sareln. This post immediately follows a Serdoa post accusing zak of making a bad argument against TT.
Then, on post 692 Serdoa openly votes for zakalwe, and on post 695 you chime in:
I'd be interested in hearing what everyone thinks of zakalwe's play so far. For the record, I was buddying up to zakalwe earlier purely on tactical grounds. I do think he's a good player, whether he's wolf or villager. So if he's a villager, getting on his good side might help establish mutual trust (similar to Meiz last game). If he's a wolf, the trust I seemed to be putting in him might help blindside him a bit.[/quote]
Personally, this seems like a pretty insane way to play as a villager. If he's a wolf, you've spent Days 1 and 2 supporting him, attacking his critics, and defending him to gain what? To "blindside" him? What advantage could you gain by that? Are you going to backstab him with your internet forum knife? To me, it seems you didn't care about zakalwe one bit, you were just trying to find cover.
Your next post is an attack on zakalwe, and a one line defense of your "buddy" post. You continue the defense with:
Catwalk Wrote:No, I don't think villagers should always try to appear as honest as possible. Generally, yes. I don't think a play like this is unwise, or even uncommon. IMO it can often be wise to lay low with an accusation, once you accuse someone he becomes wary and can change his playing style to shore up weaknesses. If you get a suspicion on someone and can keep quiet about it, it will sometimes be confirmed later on.
Well, I don't know what to say about the honesty part in general. I would disagree with it pretty severely, though I'm not in the "lynch all liars" camp. However, it doesn't go with the fact that your "buddying" involved both an active defense and offense; that's not "laying low."
You follow this up with this gem:
Catwalk Wrote:I can't decipher all of Serdoa's accusations right now, but the sheer massiveness of it is enough to make me feel confident he is indeed a villager. Most likely also a dead one tomorrow, given that we're short a baner. Not that this proves zakalwe to be a wolf of course, but it makes me more inclined to listen to Serdoa's points.
To paraphrase: "Serdoa is a villager because he wrote a long post."
Next post says they you think the vigilante should out themself along with a further mention that you're suspicious of zakalwe. And your final post is the one I responded to at the top.
So, Day 1 and Day 2 you tried to be zakalwe's buddy. At the end of Day 2 Serdoa could have probably gotten you lynched but instead switched to scooter. Since then every post you're written is a defense of Serdoa or an attack on his suspects.
What to conclude from this? My take is, at best you're a villager that doesn't want to think for yourself and so you just pick an alpha dog villager to follow. At worst, you're a wolf trying to use credible villagers as cover.
