WW26: The Masquerade [Game Thread]

[Muriel The Slow]

if muriel is as experienced as she claim she should know that her role claim would not change perception.

Have I at some point said that I'm an experienced player, or do you just assume that because you think you know who I am?

Speaking of experience, I have a theory on you Percy. It will have to wait until tomorrow though, Muriel needs some sleep after a long day arguing in the internet.

[Doctor Saul]

I did not give the opposite result percy i give the real result

[Know-Nothing Jon]

Short Richard is a scum suspect by elimination. He has posted very little in general, and only once since I last voted for him.

Kate the Waif

I'm not sure what to think on Rob. He played a good D1 by persistantly attacking Muriel, but I found myself agreeing with Widow Edith during their debate. As for his anger and replacement, I can't decide between 'wolf-plot' and 'genuine.'

At the time I felt like the general mood was swinging towards a "Rob is innocent for requesting a replacement" stance, so this felt a little like he didn't want a potential mislynch to slip away.

Here is Bert's case against him on day 2:

I'll cut Scarlet John some slack. He didn't post much on day 1 but I liked what he did post. Scum could easily add some non-content to stand out less.

Short Richard's posts:

MJW Courage Lady Elizabeth

Bert the Bard, since I don't see what's scummy about MJW's post.

What makes you two think Lady Elizabeth is MJW?

Three seconds in and we're already metagaming the role PMs...

I also received a last name, but I don't think it matters.

But who cares. Why do you want to debate it?

Curiosity.

Expanding on this, it seems any last names are tied to our roles. We are all called by our first name, nick name, or both. Any last name received would be interchangeable, and they were received specifically in a role-PM. Last names might yet play a part in this game. They might be used by a role or multiple roles, or they could be part of other gameplay at some point. Whatever it is, there's no need to start guessing. Unless someone has more information, they are no help to us, and should be ignored.

I don't like the way Muriel states the obvious in this post either.

The 'last name = role?' connection didn't feel obvious to me. I'm willing to cut Muriel some slack, the post has a bit of a condescending attitude but it does its job as a warning.

Fat Rose's Post #58 feels like he's reading too far into absolutely nothing. 'This list of people who haven't voted is evidence of metagaming and therefore scumminess!' Though it could be an overactive villager...

Now to my vote. Rob, you are very eager to attack someone only a few hours into the game. While I find it hard to believe that a wolf would rather go on an attack like that than stay low, I find it even harder to believe that a villager would be so convinced of someone's guiltiness right off the bat that they would go on such an attack. Especially when I know that the person you are attacking is a villager, and one of the few contributors so far. It's also odd how you describe that my post had an aura of innocence, yet you take this as a reason to lynch me? What kind of screwed up logic is that, to lynch those who you feel are villagers? Yes, a wolf could play you so that you believe it to be a villager, but for gods sake man there's a thing called Occam's razor maybe you should look it up.

Overdefensive, Muriel?

First impression, I'm feeling conflicted on Muriel, the wine says that (s?)he's too confrontational and aggressive to be a wolf.

Please point to where I stated that it is scummy. Because I most certainly did not.

Apart from that, this is just a small part of the actual post and I'm kinda curious why you just focus on that small part instead of commenting on the other 9/10s of my post.

I don't get that. You agree that this whole metagaming isn't fun and not what this game should be about and than you post a list who hasn't posted yet, which is just another way of metagaming who is most likely in which timezone and therefore who is who. Doesn't really add up for me.

I thought that you pointing out a contradiction implied you thought they were scum. Oops. Didn't have a clue what you were saying in the rest of your post, you lost me with that much text.

I'm starting to believe that the case on Muriel is a huge misunderstanding, that Muriel's assertion that name-roles may or may not exist was taken by Saul to be that name-roles do exist. I'm willing to believe this:

Yes, I said they could be used by a role. That does not mean that every single power role has a last name, or that any power role has a last name, or that a role who does use the last names has a last name himself. All it says is that there might be a role or more out there who have information on how the gameplay mechanic works.

Sir Percival for his rambling?

I really don't like the "too angry" argument, here. As Gaspar said earlier it is easy to fake anger as wolf. Just tap into something that makes you angry. It is very easy here because dieing because of using the word "role" incorrectly is BS. Gaspar in ww6 couldn't tap into angry as nothing silly was happening besides people attacking him for be wolfish (because he was a wolf).

Short Richard's response to LE's post above:

You drink one cup, I drink the other.

Can you elaborate on your case on Sir Percival please?

It was more of a 'policy lynch the incoherent' thing. I don't read him as confrontational, but I can't get a read better than 'hates meta and talks strangely.'

I would also like to hear Sister Mary's response.

Perci is for me dubious because of his offensive style he uses towards everyone not a poor widow. It is an act and given past experience acting rather helps scum. The dialog between Perci and the friar is so weird that it gives me uneasy feelings. And it was IMO unique. Example Muriel and the Doctor had a discussion and came to the conclusion they are both villagers. Me and Will have a discussion and think each other rather scummy. But Perci and the Friar had no discussion at all. It went - A: you scum; P: FO; A: you village - . That's as unhelpful as it gets. And while it rather indicates the Friar it is possible that it was an act in case one of them gets caught

The afterforementioned conversation:

Sir Percival, for being more influential than me.

haha suck it fatty

Fair enough.

unvote

Strange that you read it as more than random first-day banter.

Looks like my laptop charger's dead

Made it just in time. Friar Andrew, rather lynch lower-content.

Foo!

Really came back just in time, helped grandmother with groceries.

Wow, that's a lot of waffling on Muriel:

First:
The 'last name = role?' connection didn't feel obvious to me. I'm willing to cut Muriel some slack, the post has a bit of a condescending attitude but it does its job as a warning.
In the same post (!):
Overdefensive, Muriel?
Then:
First impression, I'm feeling conflicted on Muriel, the wine says that (s?)he's too confrontational and aggressive to be a wolf.
Then:
I'm starting to believe that the case on Muriel is a huge misunderstanding, that Muriel's assertion that name-roles may or may not exist was taken by Saul to be that name-roles do exist.
(I don't know why but I get the feeling Short Richard knew what Muriel meant all along, and just now sees fit to point out the misunderstanding.)
Finally:
Made it just in time. Friar Andrew, rather lynch lower-content [than Muriel].

Also, as pointed out on day 1 by Widow Edith and Fat Rose, it's odd that Short Richard votes Percy when he uses "too angry" as a town tell on Muriel. Richard does retort that he does not view Percy as angry, but Percy did accuse town of throwing the game and called Short Richard "Tiny Dick".

Other general scum tells on Short Richard is the attempt to start off topic discussions (why do you think LL is MJW?) and the need to point out when he's online and offline, and rushing to get a vote in. Feels like scum striving for all the activity points he can get. At the same time, he dismissed Percy as "rambling" and said that he "didn't have a clue what you [Fat Rose] were saying in the rest of your post, you lost me with that much text." So he is maybe more interested in appearing active than in actually doing his job.

So tentatively, Short Richard.
---
TBH, this feels like a tenuous case though, so I'm interested in what others think.

And here is a later observation by Widow Edith, which points out another pretty scummy post.

Small Richard: One of the low-contributors. In his big post today he first sides with Harry (who calls Scarlet scum ) but then turns around and votes Elizabeth because he has no strong feeling. I don't like that I don't like it at all.

@ Scarlet John
Why would you be assumed to be faking if you post something? If the village is pushing people for not contributing, and then they contribute, I don't see how that leads to them being automatically lynched for faking it. The whole point of pushing someone for not posting is to get them to post so we can get a read on them. If you come off as scummy then yes people may stay on you, but it's a fallacious argument to say that you will be lynched just for posting. You're creating a fabricated no-win situation you say you're in and it seems incredibly scummy.

Agree with Harry here.

.....

Elizabeth, since I'm not feeling any particularly strong conviction on either of them.

Finally, there's the somewhat cheesy point that Bert was killed before Lady Elizabeth. And Bert was listing Short Richard and Hard-Nose Harry as his top suspects.

Short Richard

[Know-Nothing Jon]

Is it just me, or has Doctor Saul "dumbed down" his posting style since the beginning of night 3?

[Muriel The Slow]

Is it just me, or has Doctor Saul "dumbed down" his posting style since the beginning of night 3?

Yes. I find it suspicious, but he said on Day 1 that he is trying to roleplay, so there's that.

[Half-Nose Harry]

Is it just me, or has Doctor Saul "dumbed down" his posting style since the beginning of night 3?

Dumbed down significantly, and also wrong/misleading.

I did not give the opposite result percy i give the real result

Kate the Waif's lynch would seem to point to this being false.

[Sir Percival]

I did not give the opposite result percy i give the real result

i think u misunderstand my hypothesis. u scan village, u see wolf. u scan wolf, u see village. not that ur lying about ur scans.

[Half-Nose Harry]

Also Sir Percival

[Sir Percival]

if muriel is as experienced as she claim she should know that her role claim would not change perception.

Have I at some point said that I'm an experienced player, or do you just assume that because you think you know who I am?

Speaking of experience, I have a theory on you Percy. It will have to wait until tomorrow though, Muriel needs some sleep after a long day arguing in the internet.

i have no idea who u are. i have spent no thought on such things. however u have assumed that i am not an experienced player, which suggest that u think u know how an experienced player should play opposed to how an inexperienced player would, and ud obviously need to be experienced to have that preconception.

[Sir Percival]

Is it just me, or has Doctor Saul "dumbed down" his posting style since the beginning of night 3?

not just u. i noted this myself 20 minutes before ur post.