[Game Thread] WW49: Wizards and Werewolves

[Gazglum]

On Ser-Doa/Ser Adrien, I don't have much of a scum feel on either of them. I have agreed with Ser-Doa on a few points. Notably the early Ser Lewwyn/Novice interaction, which felt a little rushed. “I have a magic voting power!” “I would like your magic voting power!” “Sure, have the power!” It’s not much, but if one of Ser Lewwyn/Novice turned up bad I would think about that moment again.

I also think that scum Ser-Doa would have been more tempted to get drawn into a duel of words with the Outlander Rowain. Brushing him off felt the right move to me. 

Ser Adrien, you are voting Ser Savant? What will you do if he does not return before deadline? He seems fairly immune to pressure so far.

[Lewwyn]

By the way rowain here's more fuel for your fire
I am suspicious of thrawn who's posts don't inspire.

Is your brain as bad as your verse? I voted Serdoa for his vote and reasoning not because I believe thrawn to be innocent. IO have no clue what thrawn is. I have nnot defende thrawn at the least.

Do you see me spill nonsense about you defending Serdoa with your vote? No.

Look you have said this very thing,
look at the chaos that you bring:

@Bard
Thrawn is an easy voting place for scum. He was in danger to get lynched day1 ww47  and got lynched Day 1WW48. He is the "if you don't know what to do throw dirt on thrawn and vote him" for all bad guys. It is easy play and it is wrong play for town. Why need I explain that to you?

You imply here that a vote for thrawn is easy for scum
But that implies that you think he is a villager dumb.
Am I suspicious because I think thrawn's a good vote?
he's now on a list of players to smote.

Fine you do not defend that thrawn
you do not know from which pool he spawns.
Does that preclude your ability to give a thought
as to whether he is or is not?

[Rowain]

It’s still not an opportune time. "Admittedly the discussion didn't seem very productive", is me more or less disagreeing with both sides.

You are disagreeing with Lewwyn and me but my point was Serdoa is suspicious which you just said yourself  .
And me pointing out to Lewwyn that he is unproductive raises your eyebrown while you agree that it was not very productive  

Your point was that Serdoa was suspicious for voting Thrawn, wasn't it? That was certainly not my point. I think Serdoa is suspicious for hammering AdrienIer.
It's not you calling Lewwyn unproductive that raises my eyebrow, it's your vote on him.

You had a conversation with Lewwyn which was not overly productive in my mind, but it certainly didn't qualify as time-wasting either. You're complaining about four posts of his in short succession, but those are answers and followups to things you said. That's how conversations work, right?

Let me see if I can paraphrase the discussion:
Post 127: Lewwyn: Rowain, why is a vote on thrawn cowardly and lazy? Is thrawn a patsy that you are protecting?
Post 128: Rowain: I'm not here to protect anyone.
Post 130: Lewwyn: So you don't have a read on thrawn. Even patsies can be scum. You're gatekeeping Serdoa from hunting thrawn.
Post 131: Rowain: I'm not gatekeeping, but Serdoa's vote justification is too weak, I expect better from him.
Post 134: Lewwyn: It's early day one, what do you expect?
Post 136: Rowain: Thrawn is an easy voting place for scum. He is the "if you don't know what to do throw dirt on thrawn and vote him" for all bad guys. It is easy play and it is wrong play for town. Why need I explain that to you?
Post 138: Lewwyn: Last game thrawn was scum. Easy is not always wrong.

I feel like if anyone is responsible for the discussion dragging on, it's you and not Lewwyn. If you want Lewwyn to spend less time composing poetry to you, maybe try answering all his questions at once?

What question do you speak of? I answered that I'm not protecting thrawn.so question answered. I explained that thrawn is an easy place to park a vote for scum and that I expect different from Serdoa so question answered. there were not any more questions there so what are you after at? So what is your reasoning to post that ? I should answer questions that aren't there? I'm Barbarian not diviner to imagine what in this bards brain happens.

[Rowain]

Fine you do not defend that thrawn
you do not know from which pool he spawns.
Does that preclude your ability to give a thought
as to whether he is or is not?

If thrawn doesn't start hunting no problem with voting him off. If he posts one more time how lost he is I'll vote thrawn myself.

[Gazglum]

Pindicator my friend, you are currently voting with me,
What do you think of Rowain now, do you see what I see?

Same question to Gazglum, as much time has passed
since either of you voted or spoke last.

I voted Outlander Rowain a little hesitantly, not having much feel for anyone being scum. But the posting while I was in prayer makes me feel more negatively to him. 

Last game we met Rowain in the gentle guise of Uncle Iroh, and I thought he played one of his best town games ever. Especially his day 1, where he drew in everybody across the board, asked them their thoughts, acted as a sounding board. 

This game feels very different. Rowain thinking Ser-Doa's vote on Ser Thrawn was lazy is fine, and I half-agree. But then instead of askign Ser-Doa is he has any other suspicions, he seemed to go in hard for Ser-Doa as scum. Is laziness the same as being evil? If so, half the players are scum. 

If Rowain thinks that Ser Thrawn might be a mislynch, he should be casting his net further afield to show up other options. But even while attacking Ser-Doa for makign the lazy vote, Rowain is not pointing out where else he smells villainy. Then when he gets pressure, Rowain reverses course on Ser-Doa and attacks Ser Lewwyn for attacking him. Gets drawn into 1v1 arguments, which is the opposite of what Ser-Doa did, and not good scumhunting. 

Rowain, I think Ser Lewwyn's posts to you have been fair. Ser Pindicator and I are also voting you. Do you think all three of us are scum, or just Lewwyn?

[Lewwyn]

Fine you do not defend that thrawn
you do not know from which pool he spawns.
Does that preclude your ability to give a thought
as to whether he is or is not?

If thrawn doesn't start hunting no problem with voting him off. If he posts one more time how lost he is I'll vote thrawn myself.

Yes but thrawn has posted since you posted that,
has your mind changed since this act:

I am more convinced the WarriorKnight that is somehow neither warrior nor knight and yet showing off to all how he is so powerful must certainly be duplicitous.

Who is this WarriorKnight you speak of? I am Megumin!

All Crimson Demons show off how powerful they are when introducing themselves, that is the Crimson Demon way! And while my Explosion spell is indeed powerful, it comes at a great price. Not only do I not know any other spells aside from Explosion, but I can only use it once a day. And after I do cast it, it drains me off all my mana and leaves me unable to move, forcing someone to either carry me home or give me some mana so I can move myself. I don't care about any of that though, I love the Explosion spell more than anything! When I started, I chose to walk the path of the Archwizard just so that I could cast that one, glorious spell!

Is this spell something your learned in the pleasure house with the barbarian?

[Gazglum]

Ser Superdeath (though I have doubts about your knightdom), you mentioned your timezone. From whereabouts do you hail?

[AdrienIer]

Ser Adrien, you are voting Ser Savant? What will you do if he does not return before deadline? He seems fairly immune to pressure so far.

I'm not really sure. The thing is, moving your vote so as to not pile up on your joke vote is not a total newbie move as you have to have an idea of how pressure works etc... So I'm surprised that minor pressure isn't working on him : no one is on him for strong reasons, just that the only posts we have are debatable and there are so few of them. It's easy for him to get the votes off him if he participates in the current discussions.

All things put together, if DS doesn't come back I'd be tempted to stay in favor of his lynch because 3 posts in 2 days all made in the first hours is just someone who doesn't want to play. We don't bite, everyone would be open to discussion if he tells us he's struggling with the game so far.

And BTW I don't think we've lynched a new player on D1 in quite a long while. Some of them have had some pressure on them but nothing unbearable.

[novice]

I’m not going to enter a quote war with you on mobile. If you want a full on dissection of your dishonesty that will have to wait until I have time in front of a computer.

Yes I would. I mean that honestly. I want to be able to defend if I find something unfair, explain if I feel something misunderstood and accept if I indeed did misrepresent something. But as it is right now, I can't and therefore I also can't assess what to think of this accusation and therefore of you (in this game of course). 

And the same I would expect is true for others. I'm not sure there needs to be a quote war though novice, what I want is to understand what exactly is considered dishonest by you.

OK, let's see. It was little things that in total made me feel like you were laying it on too thickly. On rereading I see that AdrienIer himself has pointed out and answered most of these things as well. Anyway:

Basically my issue is with the way you explain things when you get questioned. The way you defend before being attacked and the way you counter-attack, missing the actual point of the accusation (deliberately?).

Preemptively defending is completely valid town play in my opinion. And missing the point of the accusation can surely only be scummy if it IS deliberate.

That last sentence leaves me puzzled. You waited for more people to post before you yourself would post? But if we all did that, wouldn't no one post at all?

I'm actually bothered about the bolded part. It's not like I was hiding for the entire game and then explaining it by waiting for others to post. I participated early, then participated as I woke up, then waited a bit while there was very little to discuss (due to some people being absent).

Why are you bothered? What do you mean by that? Do you think I could be scum? Then just say it, stand by what you think. This instead feels like you test the waters, try to find out if anyone would agree but if not, you can still go back on it and state "oh no, I never said he is scum, I just said that sentence bothered me".

AdrienIer

Here you accuse AdrienIer of testing the waters when it was pretty clear to me that he was thinking out loud. In fact he came back pretty immediately with a vote on you, without anybody saying anything about the water temperature in the meantime, as seen in the spoiler tag below. (And also explained that he had been rereading you before voting.)

Just reread Serdoa to find out if his complete mischaracterisation of my first day was just a one time mistake or part of a larger scummy play. My conclusion is that he caught flak for a bad vote on thrawn (he voted for thrawn for an entirely different reason than SD or I), then tried to redirect and pretend to be scumhunting by going after the first person he could find. I agree with the first two parts of his post 129 but they're not really towny. The only analysis he made is the dishonest one against me.

So Serdoa

In post 91 (around the time I woke up) I ask thrawn some questions, and specifically call out the lack of participation in actual discussion by some people. Being in the first half of D1 with very little to discuss I figured I might wait on some of those people to post. If there had been some important things happening right afterwards I'd have participated, but I thought there was nothing urgent to add on the "graveyard thread" discussion (BTW my position is that there's likely a "revive a dead person for a day" power) so I prefered to wait for a couple hours. And I didn't wait that long too.
I completely disagree with your last sentence, which is actually a mischaracterisation of my posts so far. I prodded thrawn (who didn't answer BTW), and mentioned several things that I was weary about (in the very post you quote).

Adrien, to break it down: When I posted you had 8 posts so far. 4 at the beginning, 1 post 13 hours later and another 3 at the end, shortly before I wrote mine. The first of those latest 3 included your sentence that you waited for others to post. So your relevant posts to look at are the 5 that happened before you made that statement, and not those you made after or at the same time of that statement. So what do we have:

#3: Saying Hello. Voting Rowain (jokingly obviously at that point)
#20: Meta speculation - though you also add that you refrained to do any research on it
#22: Agreeing that DS should not have jumped around that much - I think. Or preemptively deflecting questions why you didn't tell him not to jump around? I wouldn't even know why anyone would ask those, but to me it reads like defending against something that no one said.
#27: Meta speculation and your answer to the question if you don't want to win, what you only answered by stating that you want to play.
#91: Meta speculation, speculation on Lewwyns role (as I pointed out) and a vote for thrawn, prodding him to post something.
#121: The post I questioned because you state you haven't posted more as you waited for others.

Now, looking at those, are you really surprised that I'm puzzled by that sentence of yours? With over a hundred posts written, you have, besides meta speculation, only awkwardly agreed on the DS vote-jumping and asked thrawn to post some thoughts. That's not much - so it was pointed out by WK too. Which you seemed to agree with and defended by giving an explanation: That you waited for others to post something.

I agree that I probably cut short what you posted in #91, but that wasn't the point why I was puzzled either. It was your actual sentence about waiting for others, while other did indeed write 100+ posts. You've by now explained that with exactly what I would have expected in the first place.

Basically my issue is with the way you explain things when you get questioned. The way you defend before being attacked and the way you counter-attack, missing the actual point of the accusation (deliberately?). Like your next post:

That last sentence leaves me puzzled. You waited for more people to post before you yourself would post? But if we all did that, wouldn't no one post at all?

I'm actually bothered about the bolded part. It's not like I was hiding for the entire game and then explaining it by waiting for others to post. I participated early, then participated as I woke up, then waited a bit while there was very little to discuss (due to some people being absent).

Why are you bothered? What do you mean by that? Do you think I could be scum? Then just say it, stand by what you think. This instead feels like you test the waters, try to find out if anyone would agree but if not, you can still go back on it and state "oh no, I never said he is scum, I just said that sentence bothered me".

And as for your actual point here: You answer to some accusation, implying that I accuse you of hiding, but I never made that accusation. I don't care if you call what you do hiding or participating or roleplaying. I'm bothered by the words you use and the sentences you craft and I believe you could be scum.

AdrienIer

Ok so you accuse me of... Having the style that I have ?? I choose my words and don't throw accusations around if I don't feel strongly about them. I usually take time to rethink, and put things in context, instead of reacting too much to one specific thing. So first I point out that something bothers me (forcing myself to do things like that because if I never do that then I'm barely ever going to post), then reread you, then if I can connect some dots I go the extra mile.

This is maybe the worst part, the bolded part seems plucked out of thin air. How on earth is what AdrienIer said an admission that he looked scummy?

Just reread Serdoa to find out if his complete mischaracterisation of my first day was just a one time mistake or part of a larger scummy play. My conclusion is that he caught flak for a bad vote on thrawn (he voted for thrawn for an entirely different reason than SD or I), then tried to redirect and pretend to be scumhunting by going after the first person he could find. I agree with the first two parts of his post 129 but they're not really towny. The only analysis he made is the dishonest one against me.

So Serdoa

And with "caught flak" you mean Rowain expecting me to know things I can't know and to play in a way that is not even making sense if you do? Ohhhh-k, feeling good with my vote here

I also find it amusing that you accuse me of pretending to scumhunt by going after the first person I could find. That still means you are the person that was scummiest. I'm glad we agree on that at least.

What I don't understand though: If you agree that your play could be interpreted as scummy, why attack me for pointing that out? Why don't you simply explain it? I've discussed with Rowain quite a bit back and forth, I never felt a reason to counter-vote him. Why do you?

...as indeed AdrienIer points out.

What I don't understand though: If you agree that your play could be interpreted as scummy, why attack me for pointing that out? Why don't you simply explain it? I've discussed with Rowain quite a bit back and forth, I never felt a reason to counter-vote him. Why do you?

Huh ? I never said I was scummy, you just found someone whose play you could construe as scummy and went with it.

So to summarize, the core of your case, that AdrienIer wasn't very active for someone who said they'd have a lot of time, is fair enough. But the embellishments are a bit over the top. So it could be that you're scum who decided you needed to create some activity in the thread, and decided that hammering a case on AdrienIer was the way to do it.

[Gazglum]

I read everything but admit I am lost. In 47 I got lucky to get on a thread from the start and it resolved itself. And in 48 I was totally wrong about who the wolves were. Now no idea where to begin.

Ser Thrawn, there is no shame in calling for aid and I congratulate you on your honesty.

A lot of people are suspicious of you, because you are not interacting with anything anybody else is saying in the thread. I am also suspicious of you for this reason. If you are a munchkin, Ser, you must up your game. If you are a Player, Ser, you risk damaging the town because you will be easily mislynched and cost us a day. The best thing to do is just give your thoughts succinctly. Do not feel the need to copy Ser Lewwyn and I with our flowery prose, we are only entertaining ourselves and doing no help to the others with it.

What do you think of some of the things that have happened? For example:

1. Serdoa said you are trying too hard at first, were you?
2. Rowain then voted Serdoa for that, what do you think of Rowain?
3. What do you think we should do with a player like Savant, who is not participating?
4. Is there anybody currently under no pressure, who you think perhaps is just skating by?
5. Insert your own question here!