WW26: The Masquerade [Game Thread]

[Agnes The Orphan]

Looking at the tally, Muriel - I thought she want an option. In general I think her play has been horrible, with very distracting and bad cases, the names meta, but in particular her interactions with John today, which have been generally inflammatory and unpleasant but also have been seizing on minor nitpicks and not listening to people and probably provoking this last, horrible duel.

[Bert The Bard]

That should make it

Sister Mary (7) - Know-Nothing Jon, (Doctor Saul), Fat Rose, Muriel the Slow, Half-Nose Harry, Lady Elizabeth, Bert the Bard
Muriel the Slow (5) - Sir Percival, Rob the Filch, Short Richard, Kate the Waif, Agnes the Orphan
Kate the Waif (1) - Widow Edith

Not voting: Young Will, Scarlet John, Sister Mary

*Doctor Saul in brackets because Fat Rose can't find that vote but it was in the official tally
--------

Scarlet John (8) - Bert the Bard, Fat Rose, Know-Nothing Jon, Muriel the Slow, Half-Nose Harry, Young Will, Kate the Waif, Lady Elizabeth
Lady Elizabeth (6) - Scarlet John, Widow Edith, Doctor Saul, Agnes the Orphan, Short Richard, Sir Percival

Not voting: Sister Mary, Rob the Filch
--------

There's a double vote floating around as well.

[Muriel The Slow]

Looking at the tally, Muriel - I thought she want an option. In general I think her play has been horrible, with very distracting and bad cases, the names meta, but in particular her interactions with John today, which have been generally inflammatory and unpleasant but also have been seizing on minor nitpicks and not listening to people and probably provoking this last, horrible duel.

How do you know my cases have been bad when none of their roles have been confirmed yet? They sure as hell aren't bad because of lack of proof, I've provided more proof for my cases than anyone provided against me. There are 3 confirmed dead villagers and 2 confirmed live villagers (I'm only counting Bert and Will, though I would argue for more than that). I have not made a case against any of them. I even defended one of them and tried to make people switch off from Andrew and instead lynch one of my suspects. I don't understand why you think that people like Mary and Rob are suddenly cleared as villagers and my cases against them are "bad" and only distracting us? It was also me who straight away told Courage that he should not waste a vig kill on John, but you claim that I was the one who made him do it.

[Muriel The Slow]

To all villagers whoever you might be: Don't make cases without checking the facts. When you make a case against someone, give us the reasons behind your claims. When you vote, give us the reasons behind your vote. There has just been so much of this fuckery going on that it can't be just the wolves doing it. If you are a villager doing it, please stop, it makes it harder to catch the wolves.

[Sir Percival]

To all villagers whoever you might be: Don't make cases without checking the facts. When you make a case against someone, give us the reasons behind your claims. When you vote, give us the reasons behind your vote. There has just been so much of this fuckery going on that it can't be just the wolves doing it. If you are a villager doing it, please stop, it makes it harder to catch the wolves.

u kidding me? ur cases severely distort fact and u call out other for not completely factual case?

maybe i just respond to all ur post with "hypocrite" from now on, seem fitting.

[Muriel The Slow]

To all villagers whoever you might be: Don't make cases without checking the facts. When you make a case against someone, give us the reasons behind your claims. When you vote, give us the reasons behind your vote. There has just been so much of this fuckery going on that it can't be just the wolves doing it. If you are a villager doing it, please stop, it makes it harder to catch the wolves.

u kidding me? ur cases severely distort fact and u call out other for not completely factual case?

maybe i just respond to all ur post with "hypocrite" from now on, seem fitting.

Then point out the things that are distorted with proof that they are distorted. Don't go "omg hypcrot sir percival will slay thee!"

[Widow Edith]

@Muriel
For one that you claim that Bert is a confirmed villager. He is not. At least up till now nobody has stepped forward to announce that. He is most likely a villager because of his play but he is not confirmed.


Some more villagers:

Most likely villagers
Will (because even if Bert is scum I doubt he would tell a lie here and I don't think that Brick is such an Bastard)
Lady Elizabeth (based on meta - the fact that Brick felt the need to include a villager-pm afterward points in that direction)
Know-Nothing Jon - the general feels of his posts.

Scarlet John because I think he was honest about his feelings of continuing and tries as good as he can. (Yes Muriel no real hard facts just gut-feel).

Now logic dictates that I should vote Scarlet off in the duel (he is lower than LE) but given that I'm partly responsible for him continuing the game and the (rather big) chance that he is village-watcher I simple can't bring myself to do it.


-more to come

[Fat Rose]

@Sir Percival

Might I suggest that it would probably be better to build the case by pointing out the distorted facts? Because to be quite honest I don't think it gets us anywhere if half of the village is all the time just writing "She posted bad stuff, she is a wolf" and shuts up as soon as asked what exactly that bad stuff was. And that is not meant as a judgment of the cases itself, because they can't be judged if presented that way.

I mean, for example Agnes post:

In general I think her play has been horrible, with very distracting and bad cases, the names meta, but in particular her interactions with John today, which have been generally inflammatory and unpleasant but also have been seizing on minor nitpicks and not listening to people and probably provoking this last, horrible duel.

1. point: Very distracting and bad cases.

What does that mean? Why were the cases bad and which ones are meant? The one on Sister Mary? I agree with that case on certain points and several others with me, so I have a hard time seeing it as bad. And which cases were distracting - and for what reason?

2. point: Names meta

At least on this one it is relatively clear what is meant, though I have to say I still disagree that it is used as evidence against Muriel and would find it great if someone would point out what exactly she did wrong. Answering LE? Having a different definition of role than others do? I can see how that was not helpful, but I don't see it as scummy.

3. point: interactions with John being inflammatory and unpleasant, seizing on minor nitpicks, not listening to people and provoking the duel

Now, that's a point that should be explained in more detail imo. Reading back on Muriels posts I really don't see the inflammatory and unpleasant interaction from her side up to the point where she calls him moron if villager. And that was at a point were I feel it is fair to say that you could call several people inflammatory (as explained earlier already).

Seizing on minor nitpicks is a statement I can't really grasp what situation or post is meant with. The same for the not listening to people (and half the players are guilty of that anyway...) and provoking the duel which indeed was already pointed out was even the other way round.

So that accusation might have a valid background, but I can't grasp it. And if I can't grasp it and the accuser isn't pointing it out either but uses instead generalized statements I don't see how that case has merit. It begs the question if it can even be called a case if it consists mostly of those generalized statements.

[Muriel The Slow]

@Muriel
For one that you claim that Bert is a confirmed villager. He is not. At least up till now nobody has stepped forward to announce that. He is most likely a villager because of his play but he is not confirmed.


Some more villagers:

Most likely villagers
Will (because even if Bert is scum I doubt he would tell a lie here and I don't think that Brick is such an Bastard)
Lady Elizabeth (based on meta - the fact that Brick felt the need to include a villager-pm afterward points in that direction)
Know-Nothing Jon - the general feels of his posts.

Scarlet John because I think he was honest about his feelings of continuing and tries as good as he can. (Yes Muriel no real hard facts just gut-feel).

Now logic dictates that I should vote Scarlet off in the duel (he is lower than LE) but given that I'm partly responsible for him continuing the game and the (rather big) chance that he is village-watcher I simple can't bring myself to do it.


-more to come

Good list and I agree, apart from Scarlet John. Gut feelings and following your instincts can be a powerful resource, and I have nothing against them. It's just that in a game like this, not every vote and case can be based on just a gut feeling, else it gives the wolves too easy a way to blend in. And I am not accusing you of anything, just speaking in general. I would add Rose to the list of most likely villagers, but I might be biased in that because of how much we seem to be on the same page.

[Young Will]

I really thought I had busted Scarlett John. The way my pm is worded, I really shouldnt have visited Bert. But I held off posting that and sent a pm to the GM. Apparently, I *did* visit Bert. yay for poorly worded role pm's.

Nonetheless, I agree with Bert, and I'm keeping my vote on John. especially after seeing Matt almost win the game last game as a scum watcher.


for the main vote, I'm less certain, and kind of lost, tbh. Thats partly due to anonymity, I guess, and partly due to time constraints. (sorry, there's a big futbal game in Egypt today, I'll be better this weekend)
I'll vote sister mary for participating even less than me and John have.