Roland Wrote:I imagine everyone needs to breathe sooner or later
Good post, btw. I'm off to meetings all day; I'll check back later.
If you know what I mean.
|
Werewolf 7 game thread
|
Roland Wrote:Yeah, I gotta say Catwalk I was actually taken aback by your brazen statements. I don't know what game you're playing, but you smack of hubris and ego - like Lewwyn's WW2 game ("I'm playing to survive") mixed with zakalwe's persona. Worse than that, though, you completely lack either player's moral compass. That's disturbing in its own right, and almost reason enough to lynch you based on that. However, the only way I can possibly see you actually saying that is either if you're a Villager - a foolish, arrogant Villager - or you're a 'Wolf who's so close to victory even the threat of getting lynched doesn't phase you. With the air of your persona, both throughout the game and especially right now, I almost can't tell the difference - I could truly see you taunting us right now, being so close to a flawless victory. However, better judgment holds me firm, and I'm going to go with the former option: you're a Villager who's got some pretty screwed up viewpoints, and either lacks the experience or the humility to recognize that. I'm not going to harp on you about it further.Excuse me? What gives you the right to comment on my moral compass? I'm not pulling an uberfish and saying that you're all bad villagers for not accepting the way I play. For that matter, since everybody seems to believe it makes me a horrible villager then I accept that it's a bad play by default. I did not mean to come off as suspicious. I assume you're not referring to my being mod killed last game. Serdoa Wrote:You are not dismissing my theory. You are solely disappointed by the idea that zak could really be a wolf. I remember one comment: "it would be a shame to lose villager-zak". Thats exactly the feeling I get from several of you: Not the believe that I am wrong but the fear that I could be right. I don't think you dismiss me, I think you just don't want it to be true. Honestly, Serdoa, if you want people to listen to your theory maybe you shouldn't dismiss them. Look back at post 359, where I defend myself against your accusations that I'm an no-content wolf, and touch upon my accusations on zakalwe. You didn't respond to that. I explicitly state how I was the only person to pick up on zak's "lynch uber even if he's a villager for lying post" at the time. This ended up in your big post; no attribuation, of course. As I've mentioned before I had my vote on zakalwe from page 8 to page 49, and not once during that time did you even acknowledge my theory, even as you were simultaneously developing your own. After you posted your long post, I replied: Injera Wrote:You can read my thoughts on why I suspect him less now than before my earlier big post, but I'm certainly open to a fresh look at it. To which you responded: Serdoa Wrote:I read them. I understand why you have me in the suspicious camp why he is in your "I trust him"-camp. Unfortunately for me I know that I won't change your opinion on that. Which, frankly, makes me think you didn't even read what I written about zakalwe. I mean, I just switched off of zakalwe after spending 41 pages with my vote on him. I'm saying I'm open to a fresh take on his guilt. Wouldn't I be one of the most likely people to try to bring over to your side? I tried to spell it out for you, giving you the precise reason on which you could try to convince me of his guilt and asking your thoughts: Injera Wrote:To Serdoa especially, but anyone else who'd like to comment as well: the main reason my suspicion on zakalwe has waned, outside of what I've seen as helpful contribution, is because that I don't think it's plausible he would have led both the runs on uberfish and Erebus. uberfish or Erebus I could see, but both seems too reckless. What are your thoughts about that? And, of course, you didn't respond. So, if you find that I'm cool to your theory, it's because you've shown you have no interest whether I join up or not. I don't know why that is, but next time before you tell the village we're disagreeing with your because we're all just a bunch of idiots living in fear of defiling our "villager-zak" idol you should see if maybe, just maybe, you aren't interested in having us to begin with. Roland Wrote:The irony here is that this was part of what's been nagging in the back of my mind about you, giving me just one more tiny reason to suspect you. I read that exchange the first time, and even now it still sticks in my mind. I react the same way every time I read it - it almost feels forced. I'm not even sure if that's how I want to say it - probably not. What I mean is, the turn-around from defensive to offensive just... didn't feel "right" to me. It didn't feel Villagerish. Normally I'm inclined to ignore such minor things as hearsay and jumping at shadows (and we've had FAR too much of that this game), but since the list of suspects is dwindling - as are our chances of pulling this off - I'm finding those little hunches to be worth more and more. I'm having trouble understanding which moment you're talking about.
Though to be honest, I view both moments as defensive, not offensive in nature. In the first moment, Ichabod and Scooter are both justifying their votes partially on a faulty reading of me. Best to correct that initial misconception first before proceeding so that we're all on the same page. It wasn't really a knock at either of them from my perspective. In the other moment, I thought I had caught a wolf-tell in Erebus attacking me and spotted it while trying to organize my own defense. It made sense to switch gears and just go for it at that point, since I thought I had him dead to rights. That he never tried to address my statement, and indeed stated that he would just keep trying to attack others instead of defending himself, made me think he was just trying to ignore my vote and callout of his slip. As I've written before, I'm more suited personality-wise to defense than to offense in these games I think, so switching from def to off is always going to look a bit strange coming from me.
Two quick comments before bed. I wish I had something amazing and insightful to add, but it was a relative quiet Western Hemisphere night (Keep fighting the instinct to call it North American because of Ichabod.) Probably doesn't help that we've lost a few soldiers over here, but nonetheless, wasn't as wordy as normal.
Serdoa Wrote:Guys, one point I want to make about my suspicion for zak: Intrinsically I agree with the statement that I don't like the idea of losing villager-zak. I certainly counted him the scariest player both times I played wolf, and while he's certainly wrong his fair share, his track record overall in catching wolves is excellent. That said, I'm not going to not lynch someone I believe to be a wolf because I think they're useful as a villager - that's just stupid. And I never said I think zak must be innocent. I think is zak is probably innocent, but I think you raise some interesting inconsistencies. I just don't think its prudent to vote for him right now, personally. I think we can't afford mislynches and I'd count right now TT, Sareln and scooter all as more likely wolves. Probably would put Catwalk ahead of him as well, then I'd say zak is probably right there. I think we have the opportunity to get more information on him whereas several more days of verbal jousting seems unlikely to tell us anything more about those other players who haven't had a whole lot to say to this point. Catwalk Wrote:Excuse me? What gives you the right to comment on my moral compass? I'm not pulling an uberfish and saying that you're all bad villagers for not accepting the way I play. For that matter, since everybody seems to believe it makes me a horrible villager then I accept that it's a bad play by default. I did not mean to come off as suspicious. I assume you're not referring to my being mod killed last game. Not that I want to get in the habit of defending Roland - not least because its always entirely possible I'll get an entire Wall of TextÂÂ aimed at me for doing so - but I think he's solely referring to your villager moral compass here in terms of what you feel like you're willing to "do to" the village. I didn't read at all that he was making commentary on you as a human being nor did I get the sense he was referencing your error from the last game. Maybe I read it wrong, but I doubt it in this case.
I've got some dirt on my shoulder, can you brush it off for me?
Injera, I am sorry if I misunderstood you. But your post mentioning all players and your take on them left on me the impression that you feel now that zak is innocent because he can't have started a bandwagon on uberfish and Erebus. That is an argument which can't be really countered I felt, what was the reason why I wrote what I wrote. It was not meant to dismiss you or take you not seriously but simply frustration on my end at that time.
Then at 23:45 around my time - shortly after my last post for the day and myself being in bed - you wrote that "to serdoa especially..." post. As you will see I posted again at 7:49, after I had breakfast and then again at 8:12, writing a short notice about my feelings. And then I headed off to work where I am now. I didn't mean to dismiss your question, I simply had no time to answer it sufficiently and so I did not answer at all. I am now at work btw and have to go to attend a meeting, but afterwards (in around 2-3 hours, when I have lunch-break) I hopefully can write something to it.
I think many common arguments have to be turned upside down because of the lack of a seer. You can no longer scry an active player who guesses wrong. And there were compelling reasons to vote for both uberfish and Erebus, although Erebus did a lot to convince us of his innocence near the end of the day unlike uberfish.
Roland Wrote:Call it empathizing based on my own experiences, or an emotional hunch like I had with Erebus, but this bit right here is swinging me even more towards Villager for Twinkletoes. He's not cleared in my mind, but he's definitely striking me as more innocent than guilty, and I think the few things I've suspected about him can be chalked up to this (changing his behavior so he doesn't get so burnt out on this game; I think I may be feeling a bit burnt out myself at this point, although I could just be tired), as well as his initial response to uberfish. At first it struck me as typical Twinkletoes, much as I loathed it. Then I think I let my biased view of it (lynching a Villager just because he made a bad call? I don't agree with that) color his stance, and it made me doubt him. I just can't seem to find much to suspect about him other than him being quiet, though. There's nothing glaring or obvious about it - it's all very subtle, but it's there all the same. I'm going to follow my gut on this one, despite him being a top suspect for several people. Don't you find it odd that TT attacked only Zakalwe, despite that many have had similar accusations against him, and for example I've been quite vocal regarding him. Could it be that he saw Zak suspected and poured more fuel in it? It's not only Zak who is suspecting him, so why suggest that Zak has some vendetta against him? Another odd thing. TT has still not commented anything regarding his accusations against me. To repeat, he suggested that I was a wolf who had to get rid of Lewwyn to avoid getting suspected by him. I pointed two times that Lewwyn didn't even suspect me, and it's completely ignored by TT. This kind of bad logic accusations cannot be explained by being busy...
Injera, you are next. For now, Meiz:
First time suspected by Lew potential misunderstood post by Lew |
