WW16: The Outlaws and The Olives

[uberfish]

No way this was a wolf move to save anyone.

We should really be looking for individual wolf actions, not coordinated moves

[novice]

Started to translate this but got distracted by work.

@Lewwyn, Fork


Pindicator # !"&/
Pindicator =

This refers to post 1267 which is Pindicator's vote tally.

Apparently Meiz feels Pindicator scores villager points for this.

[Catwalk]

I read through the rest of their accusations, and I don't think there's all that much to them. Did you address Gaspar's suspicion of why you kept questioning people? Couldn't find any response to that.

[Catwalk]

I would be wary of giving pindicator village points for that. Which is probably ungrateful, as pindicator did put a lot of time into something that's useful for the town, but he would also have a good motivate for doing it as scum (= gaining village points). Is that the main reason you're leaning town on him Meiz?

[novice]

Novice loses some town points for this, it seems to be stretching to find a reason to vote Rowain to me. Don't see why anyone would expect Novice to hop to a second scum read just because someone else voted them.

I have to refer to my sidekick on this one.

Rowain, I don't think that argument is bad, at least not bad enough to warrant head banging. novice states half a suspicion on someone, you post "Indeed" and put a vote on him with no additional reasoning. I don't see how D2 is relevant as we don't know the alignments of the other candidates. We do know that thestick was guilty and Bigger was innocent, that makes your vote a little more interesting.

Uberfish, I made this exact same point in my night 1 post on Rowain which I linked to a few posts upthread. Why didn't you comment on it then?

[Rowain]

Did you address Gaspar's suspicion of why you kept questioning people? Couldn't find any response to that.

Gaspar accused me of questioning people while not giving thought of my own. Which is untrue as I gave my vote and my reasons behind them. And I continued to ask people questions because we have some scum to find .

[novice]

Really? You have followed those games here or? What do you make of day 2 then novice didpiggyback me and voted with me for pindicator! shocking the horror. Most likely we are both wolves and don't even know it.

Why are you trying to make the case on you about piggybacking?

The way I see it you're suspicious for
a) Trying to deflect suspicion from Thestick early on day 1
b) Early vote parking on players not proved to be scum. (Bigger, Pindicator)
c) Combined with aggressive questioning of everybody else without contributing any further leads of your own.

If you want to discuss piggybacking, it's possible I followed you onto Pindicator, I don't really remember, but you followed me onto Qgqqqq first. Anyway that's completely besides the point as far as I'm concerned.

[novice]

Don't see why anyone would expect Novice to hop to a second scum read just because someone else voted them.

I do this all the time. I jumped around like crazy on day 2, trying to find candidates that others were also willing to vote for.

[Lewwyn]

I do this all the time. I jumped around like crazy on day 2, trying to find candidates that others were also willing to vote for.

That's like, what, catherding by osmosis?

[Catwalk]

Your questioning did stand out, you'll recall I reacted to it as well. What compelled you to do this? Again, it doesn't look clear-cut scummy to me. It makes good sense as scum to safely poke less active players and get them to contribute, it also makes safe as a townie to want people to contribute. Your approach struck me as a little odd, though. Rather than post votes and state suspicions of less active players (as I have done on Azza), you kindly ask us to post.

I might vote for you if you're on the block by lynch time, but failing that I don't see a strong case on you. I would much rather investigate the uberfish trio: Azza, Merovech and Arromir. I still think the fact that they're getting so little attention (mainly Azza and Arromir) suggests that a large group of players (= scum) have no interest in suspicions being poked towards those 3.

Now please don't hang me for independent thought or I'll have to duct tape myself to novice again On that note, though:

b) Early vote parking on players not proved to be scum. (Bigger, Pindicator)

That was a bizarre expression. I thought you meant to imply "players proven not be scum", but since you include pindicator that's very much not the case. Vote parking on pindicator is suspicious? We suddenly know pindicator is innocent? Not following at all here.