Werewolf 2 Lurker Thread: Spoilers!

[Sareln]

One thing to keep in mind - it was obvious to people who are lurkers with lots of spoiler knowledge, but to those playing the game, not so much. Quite a few villagers voted for Roland, in fact there were more villager votes on Roland than there were werewolf votes. I've seen a few comments from people in the lurker thread on how something was "obvious" but when I look through the thread and the amount of info that is available in the spoiler tags, you could easily construct the entire roster of who is who without even watching the game. This can make something look really obvious to you, but to someone in the dark (like a player), not so much.

Eh, he appeared innocent to me. Perhaps I should've argued more strenuously but the problem with averting a lynch is that you need to come up with someone else, rather than just argue that the person on the block is innocent, and I didn't have a strong suspect yet that I wanted to bring forward.

[scooter]

Kyan: For what it's worth, I never considered your owl-clarification post out of line. I wouldn't have wanted to win the game based solely on a rules misunderstanding anyway.

I forgot to comment on this - but that incident actually did annoy me quite a bit, but there was nothing I could do about it, since if I would've protested it, it would have gotten me lynched. I just felt it was very inappropriate for a dead player to be commenting on a game mechanic which would affect the way certain people were viewed. In that case, it's the game manager's job to clarify, and dead players should say nothing at all that affects the game whatsoever.

[scooter]

You are probably right about that scooter, but it remains indisputable to me that lynching Roland was a shockingly bad play by the villagers. What seemed bizarre to me was how everybody started justifying their votes on the following day by saying he wanted out - essentially claiming that they willingly lynched an innocent.

(fake edit: cross-posted with novice)

For what it's worth - us wolves were pretty shocked by it too. I still have no idea how Roland ended up getting lynched, so I'm not pretending like it should have been no surprise.

Eh, he appeared innocent to me. Perhaps I should've argued more strenuously but the problem with averting a lynch is that you need to come up with someone else, rather than just argue that the person on the block is innocent, and I didn't have a strong suspect yet that I wanted to bring forward.

Oh no doubt several villagers knew it was horrible, I'm just saying there are 3-4 people that I know for a fact are villagers (a couple of them good ones) that voted for Roland as well. When 3+ villagers are fooled that late in the game, then it's not too obvious.

[Kyan]

I forgot to comment on this - but that incident actually did annoy me quite a bit, but there was nothing I could do about it, since if I would've protested it, it would have gotten me lynched. I just felt it was very inappropriate for a dead player to be commenting on a game mechanic which would affect the way certain people were viewed. In that case, it's the game manager's job to clarify, and dead players should say nothing at all that affects the game whatsoever.

I totally agree that f&i should have done it, but there's a few things f&i has or hasn't dont that haven't been appropriate. I've discussed this with him in private though and don't want to re-hash it.

I left it for awhile to give f&i the time, but he didn't do his job on that front. The players were working off of incorrect knowledge provided by the moderator. If it was something small, then fair enough, but it was false knowledge that would have impacted the game massively.

It wasn't clarified for the villagers because nobody, except f&i, was aware of exactly what happened until after i'd died and we contacted one another via PM. The village, and myself at the time of my death, believed that f&i had changed my role mid-game. This was based off of information provided by f&i and effectively confirmed a wolf as being an innocent since i wasn't declared a 'fool' role at my death. F&I later clarified via PM to me, but not in the game thread, that in fact, the role had worked this other way all game long but there had been a breakdown in communication from the start. I don't see how not informing them of a mechanics question would have been fair either. I understand your frustration though for sure, especially at the time, as im sure that you were as invested as i was.

[MJW (ya that one)]

MJW: I don't recall trying to get you mod killed. In any case, every post I made with regard to getting you or not getting you mod killed was completely independent of my role in the game. I go to great lengths to keep my opinions on technical matters seprate from my in-game actions. See my willingness to conceed my own death just now for an example.

It would be extremely aggersive to point out to the mod if you where a villager that a power-role on your team broke the rules. 90% of players would not do it. See Kyan post about I should have been mod-killed. So I think Gasper was re-reading the thread and guessed that you where a werewolf from you doing that. The information about what happened is on pages 16-19.

[Irgy]

Well in all honesty it isn't really your place to fix the moderator's mistakes Kyan, but as I said I think it worked out for the best.

I don't know if it's been said already, but it was, I suspect, the wolves that actually (partly unintentionally) triggered the "change" in the owl rules. We actually make a specific point of getting uberfish to send the kill the night I was scried, and he was instructed to explicitly state that he alone was doing the kill. I then killed alone the following night. If only one wolf can kill when there's only one left, why do we all need to do it when there's more of us? At the time, we didn't know if that was how it worked or not, but we figured it was worth a shot just in case it worked. Afterwards I got the distinct impression that it only ever started to work that way when we specifically suggested that it might.

So in some ways the wolves actually intentionally changed their behaviour to counter the owl role, which in turn manifested itself as what seemed to be a change in the rules of the game.

[fire&ice]

The wolves need not fear None of the rules governing the roles in the game were changed during the course of the game

[Sareln]

Lesson: Clearly stated roles are our best friends. But Sareln, what is "Clearly"? :neenernee

[Selrahc]

The wolves need not fear None of the roles in the game were changed during the course of the game

Uh... I think my role was changed during the game. If I was really a villager all along then I seriously misused that list of wolf names I was given.

[Kyan]

The wolves need not fear None of the roles in the game were changed during the course of the game

This is correct. Irgy, i'll concede that. You're probably right.

It's possibly worth noting though that i did not know you were a wolf when i posted it as there was nothing to that effect in the thread. You *were* on my list of suspects but so were Mr NG, Rowain, Serdoa and Scooter. Of those, you were my 4th choice so i guess a well played comment is in order