WW27 Game Thread: Once there were 12

[Jowy]

Some interesting hypocrisy:

Novice thinks that the scum meta is to attack your accuser.
Novice attacks his accuser.

Gazglum thinks that someone focusing on only a few people is a scum tell.
Gazglum only focuses on a few people.

[Jowy]

And I must ask, what is this baseline you are comparing me against? Is it perhaps made up? Since, you know, I've only played two games, there is no baseline. It's literally pulling "scum tells" out of thin air.

[Qgqqqqq]

'cause Jkaen requested it:

1. Zak, already said.
2. Qgqqqqq. I've always had a hard time reading him. The fact that he's not done anything usefel and is attacking me does not help him. Other than that he's okay as he has a decent amount of posts and has'nt done anything too wolfish.

I don't really like this non-tell on me, I mean, it reads a bit like smearing but not attacking the accuser.

3. Mattimeo. Not posting a lot. He's posts seem decent though. He's attacking and voting people legittly, for now.
4. MJW-- I know I'm a villager.
5. novice. Posting a lot and seems to be sincere. He did get attacked by Serdoa, though. I have to read his posts carefully...
6. Jkaen. I struggle to get read on him. He always seems to be fishing for information. But that is understandable as he's never around for the lynch. He feels a bit more passive than usaul.
7. Jowy. Seems to be acting like his normal self. I cannot get a strong read on him but that is because of his murky posting style.
8. Azza. Acting like his normal self but that is not good. I cannot even remember who he is voting for.
9. Az. Not posting a lot but other than that he's pretty good. The reason I attacked him is because knowing who would get night-killed would be very wolfish.
10. Gaz. Seems to be posting a lot and feels sincere.

I'll hit Zak for now.

Your whole post seems all non-tells, do you have any suspicions on anyone beyond zakalwe? Your strongest hit seems to be on Azza, and that is basically just saying he hasn't posted a lot.

Clarifying the Novice - Serdoa connection, three possibilities:
1) Wolf-Novice and his scumbuddies wanted to take out a strong town player with a policy lynch so they don't have to use a night kill on him. They tried, didn't gain momentum, so they dropped it and killed him in the night.
2) Scum noticed that Novice was trying to get Serdoa policy lynched and killed Serdoa to set-up a miss-lynch on Villager-Novice. In this case I would have expected them to bring up that fact, but they didn't, so I don't find this option likely.
3) It was just a coincidence.

I find 3 incredibly likely. Novice may be scum, he may not be, but I don't see why novices early bringing up a policy lynch (and he wasn't the only one, I think he cross posted with JKaen doing the same thing, so under your logic, why isn't jkaen replacing or serving as a alternative to novice in this post?) and then dropping it is in any way implicating him for the death of serdoa?
Even if he was scum, and was accusing serdoa, why would he kill off someone he was accussing? I mean, I'm not saying he's town because of it, even if he had been pursuing serdoa aggressively, but why do scum want to kill off people they're accusing? I can see the other way round, but don't get your reasoning here.

I also agree with zakalwe that the questions novice has been asking have not all been answered or have obvious answers. This whole post feels disingenuous. Also, leaving your vote on zak at the end of day one, if you were around to change it, seems bad. You say you aren't sure if you should vote for the lesser of two evils, instead of someone you yourself suspect. Certainly throughout the day vote your suspicions, I'm not saying you should blindly follow others. But at the end of the day, if you are voting somewhere it is impossible to matter, it is suspect to me. Leaving your vote on as the sole vote on someone going into a lynch makes it easier to hide if you are scum, and you can just say "it is who I suspect".

I answered all of novice's questions until the last one when I got tired of them. I did answer it already though, since people demanded the explanation. I thought it was very obvious, here it is again: If I have a case with a ton of scum tells, and another case that is based on much less and I've already shared it once and it didn't get any momentum and I don't have anything new to add to it, obviously I'm going with the better case. As for my posts feeling disingenuous to you, I can't defend against that. Maybe it is just how I write, and it will take a few miss-lynches on me for people to stop getting that vibe from my posts. I think that my vote did matter, it does give people the option to switch to the one I'm voting for. In both WW games I've played, there was a shift that saved the earlier leader on Day 1. Why could it not happen here? Also in my last game, almost every single vote was between two villagers. Those are some cons I can think of for only voting for the top two, but like I said, I don't know what play is optimal in these situations. I happened to play it this way this time. If there is a clear meta game that says that it's always better to vote for the top two, then I understand why you would take my vote as a scum tell, but if there is a meta like that, I'm not aware of it, nor would I follow it without understanding the benefits of it.

The above holds water so long as you weren't going to be on at end of day - but if your around at or near the end, then you should cast a vote on whoever you think is most likely among the candidates, as there's no reason to leave it there when you could switch it in a realistic timetable. And classical_hero wasn't an earlier leader - I know I only voted him 2ish hours before end of day (which is when I get/wake up), and I think I pushed him up to near mattimeo then. So you could say the same thing happened here.
I would say optimal play is to vote for who you suspect most of the candidates, possibly voice an interest in another, and if people bite then lead a late charge on them. I think there is clear meta in favor of this too, as it means your vote is useful and helping decide it on who you suspect most, and gives interaction tells for the village.

Novice, I think my crosspost answers some of those questions. I'll answer the rest now.

Zak's case simplified in a timeline for you:
1. Zak posts a shitty joke theory that is forbidden in the rules thus will not help us ever in this game even if it was good (which it wasn't).
2. We find out that it isn't just a joke, but Zak has been putting a lot of thought into it and it could have even been pre-planned.
3. We find out contradictions by Zak about it.
4. We find out the answers to the questioning have been about a fictional alternate universe in which the theory was not forbidden in the rules.

I disagree with all of this.
I find the emotive language interesting given that you clearly didn't feel strongly about it at the time (or, at least you didn't post in that way).
I'd go thorugh everything wrong with it, though I'm sure I'll cross post with zak/novice doing it better, (and I can't be bothered ) so I won't. I will note that you ignore MJW's part in 4, or that it worked as a icebreaker to begin the game (even if it has lasted way. too. long. ).

= Zak is scummy. Could he still be a villager who just made a mistake in making a joke and then a ton more mistakes in arguing about it rather than just saying that it was a joke theory? Yes, absolutely. But to me a scum tell doesn't mean it's a 100% evidence that someone is a scum. To me, a scum tell means that person now has a higher chance to roll a wolf once lynched, and I believe this to be the case for Zak.

You and Zak are both voting for a bad reason, again. I made cases against both of you, you disagree with them (duh) so you revenge vote and try to get me lynched. When the day ends and I'm a dead villager, you'll probably say something stupid like "He did it to himself by posting a bunch of scum tells which some of them we didn't agree with!" If you two are villagers and want to win this thing, how about you start catching some scum, instead of policy lynching or revenge lynching a bunch of villagers? Only scum don't catch scum.

Especially the bolded bit
I hater to say it, but I'm really seeing what grated against me in '26 - the way you state that you don't need 100% evidence for a scum tell sounds like you are trying to lecture us on how to play the game.
Also, you allow a possibility that he is a villaer, but only as one that:

Could he still be a villager who just made a mistake in making a joke and then a ton more mistakes in arguing about it rather than just saying that it was a joke theory? Yes, absolutely.

So do you think it is absolutely impossible that he could be a villager who believed in his theory (which, BTW, I don't think is a bad option for a day 1 lynch)? Or impossible that he hasn't made any massive mistakes, that it was a theory worth considering even if it didn't apply this game, and that he had no idea people would keep going on about it.
And stating that their actions are just revenge voting when they have clearly examined a few different lynchs and only jumped on (what they at least saw as) flaws in your logic.
I find the way you pretty well assume that they are villagers in that as suspicious.

I don't have time for the rest sorry, I'll try to pick up from there in 3-4 hrs.

And I must ask, what is this baseline you are comparing me against? Is it perhaps made up? Since, you know, I've only played two games, there is no baseline. It's literally pulling "scum tells" out of thin air.

People can form their baseline on someone off one day. They are comparing you to how they feel you have played in the past two games, which lasted what, 10 days put together?
You don't think that's enough to see how someone plays? I mean, your infuriating obfustication makes it harder, but still.

[Gazglum]

That was very honourable of you MJW.

VOTE COUNT

Jowy (3) - Gazglum, Zakalwe, Novice
MJW (2) - Jkaen, Q
Azza (1) - Mattimeo
Mattimeo (1) - Azarius
Novice (1) - Jowy
Zakalwe (1) - MJW

Not voting: Azza

Some interesting hypocrisy:

Novice thinks that the scum meta is to attack your accuser.
Novice attacks his accuser.

Gazglum thinks that someone focusing on only a few people is a scum tell.
Gazglum only focuses on a few people.

Two games IS enough to establish a baseline on someone, ie: that you tend to contribute more than you have this game. And a decrease in post-count is often a scum tell, because it's harder to post naturally when you're living in fear (I know about that Jowy, oh yes I know. You terrified me last game). So it's specifically a scum tell on you for focusing, not because focusing is inherently scummy, but because it seems out of character with what I know of you.

Also, even after its brought up and you retort about it, you're STILL not commenting on other players.

However, you may be right that I am being hypocritical about it, so I will try to knock together some thoughts on the whole gang this evening.

[Azarius]

Some interesting hypocrisy:

Novice thinks that the scum meta is to attack your accuser.
Novice attacks his accuser.

Gazglum thinks that someone focusing on only a few people is a scum tell.
Gazglum only focuses on a few people.

I believe Novice said scum meta was to kill your accuser.

[Azza]

Q, I think the onus should be on you to explain why Jkaen deserves such a strong village lean. Personally I think that is premature, even if I haven't got any specific scumtells on him.

MJW, why were you so dismissive of my case against Azarius yesterday? Looking back, my argument should be right up your alley, as you love to pick on minor anomalies. If he did deliberately choose to let people think he was new, don't you think that would be significant?

Just because. There were people making far fewer content then him. And the anomalies he did weren't that wolfish. Why wolf wolf Az not want to correct people that he is not new? Why would a villager Az not want to correct, ether? The most likely expiation is that he didn't read the fact that people were mistaking him.

Using the "Az" abbreviation is very confusing when there's two different people whose aliases start with Az.

[Qgqqqqq]

While I definitely agree, do you have anything useful to add to the thread azza?
What do you think on novice/Jowy or zakalwe/MJW, for example?
Also thanks for reminding me about:

Q, I think the onus should be on you to explain why Jkaen deserves such a strong village lean. Personally I think that is premature, even if I haven't got any specific scumtells on him

I feel his play has been very natural and fitting, as well as generally useful and contributing and haven't seen any scum tells.
I'm not saying I'm strongly supporting him, but I think its hardly premature in a small/short game.

[zakalwe]

Zak's case simplified in a timeline for you:
1. Zak posts a shitty joke theory that is forbidden in the rules thus will not help us ever in this game even if it was good (which it wasn't).
2. We find out that it isn't just a joke, but Zak has been putting a lot of thought into it and it could have even been pre-planned.
3. We find out contradictions by Zak about it.
4. We find out the answers to the questioning have been about a fictional alternate universe in which the theory was not forbidden in the rules.

This is so terrible I don't even know where to begin. When I am asked "why would you have suggested this?" we are implicitly talking about an alternate universe. It's not my fault if it took you all of day one to realize that. The apparent contradictions you refer to were between what I did in this game and what I might have done in an alternate universe. So I guess they must be quantum contradictions, or something. The way you pitch this whole argument is a gross misrepresentation, trying to paint the picture that I've been driven from post to post, having to admit one inconsistency after the other, when in fact the only inconsistencies are in your own arguments and interpretations.

[zakalwe]

I think you answered your own question by quoting me I've stated that I found Matt's and CH's cases very similar, with of course the difference being that one is a veteran and the other is a newbie. Should a player always vote for lesser of the two evils rather than someone they suspect themselves? I don't know if there is a right or a wrong answer to that question.

This looks evasive to me because you were asked why you stayed on me instead of making your vote count, and tried to deflect that by restating it as a philosophical conundrum that cannot be answered.

Well Gazglum has posted a lot since then. What is your opinion on him now? Why haven't you followed up your suspicions while you had the chance to get feedback?

I wasn't actually sure if you considered yourself as having answered this, which is why I said "is/was" uncooperative. I think it's a very pertinent question why you didn't pitch in against Gazglum earlier today, at the time that he actually had momentum and was on-line to defend. So if you say you've answered this, I'm not very satisfied with your answer. What was the "much better case" you had? The one on Novice? If so, that seems to confirm my impression that the accusation against Novice was prepared in advance.

The fact that you even have this "hypothetical game" you keep referencing is a scum tell in itself. We're supposed to catch wolves in this game, anything you do or don't in your "hypothetical game" doesn't matter and only serves to distract us.

True. The only error here is that the hypothetical game isn't my creation - it's yours. So why are you attacking me over what I did in this hypothetical game of yours?

[Azza]

While I definitely agree, do you have anything useful to add to the thread azza?
What do you think on novice/Jowy or zakalwe/MJW, for example?

Not really. My gut feel is that you're scummy, but that's always my gut feel on you. Gazglum's post about it being awfully convenient that Mattimeo couldn't be online all day resonated with me a bit, so right now I'd be choosing between him and you.

I have no idea what either Jowy or MJW are on about, but I'm not going to label Zak or novice as town because of it.