Werewolf 3 Game Thread

[Roland]

Sorry Roland, but I still can't understand. Technically speaking you never said pocketbeetle did that?

"He was the one approaching MJW in votes, and a careful staging of tying his name to Cull beforehand nicely set us up for what we had at the end of the day - an easy explainable swing to Cull."

But that's exactly what you are saying here.

. . .

What I'm trying to say is that any arguments you make against PB after post 278 will be tainted, in my opinion, by your tunnel vision (again, my opinion). Of course, if you make a strong enough case, I'd have no problem in voting for PB. Just saying it so you try to look at things with a fresh perspective.

No, I hear exactly what you're saying Ichabod. It just didn't register with me until about the third or fourth time I re-read it, and you're both right: I combined two statements into one in such a way as to leave the reader thinking they were actually one. As I said, poor formatting. Unintentional, but still important to clear up - for pocketbeetle's sake as much as my own. Honestly, the thought never crossed my mind that he had anything to do with it. I was more musing on the coincidence of it all, and I simply fumbled the delivery of what I was thinking. I hope that clears it up? If not, I don't know how I can make it clearer, other than to simply drop it altogether - it was just an observation, not a concrete marker of guilt.

There's no proof pocketbeetle is a 'Wolf any more than I am, and I have nothing to add to change that notion. It was just a curious occurrence that I happened to pick up on, and I felt the pattern was worth bringing to people's attention. 'Wolves, in my very limited experience, will use any manner of behavior to swing things in their favor - both subtle and aggressive, both direct and indirect.

[Irgy]

I don't know how many people realise this, but villagers really need to bandwagon. More so in the late game than early on, but to some extent early on as well. This is to counter the wolves ability to vote in their own favour.

Imagine for instance it's potentially the last day for the village, there's only one more villager than wolf left. The villagers can only survive by each voting for the same person. If any two villagers vote differently to each other, the wolves can choose who is lynched that day in their own favour. So the villagers need to stick together. And the only way to stick together when you don't know who you're sticking together with is by bandwagoning. Sure, the wolves can manipulate where the bandwagon forms, which is why villagers need to be there stirring the pot as well. They can't just all jump on the first suggestion, but at the end of the day they still need to find a way to vote as a group.

The further away from this last day scenario you go, the less important bandwagoning is as a strategy for villagers. But it is still useful even on day 1, to avoid giving the wolves the opportunity to call the shots all the time.

My point, other than general tactical advice to the rest of the village, is that these big swings could easily be simply villagers bandwagoning, just like they need to do. Of course they could also be wolves up to mischeif. We won't know until we find a wolf and can start to look back at what they've done and who has defended them.

[Roland]

I crossposted with this post. So my previous post doesn't take this in consideration.

So your sentence was referring to a wider perspective of things than I ended up understanding. I was under the impression that you somehow saw some kind of direct connection between Cull and PB and I never seen such a thing.

But since you meant that maybe there was a wider conspiracy, involving third parties, it's more reasonable.

Not saying that I agree with it. But at least it's comprehensible, while my previous understanding of the sentence wasn't.

Crossposting galore!

Yes, that is essentially what I was saying. I don't really think such a conspiracy took place - at least, not as such - but I do think the pattern is worth noting for the future (again, not related to pocketbeetle, but the overarching chain of cause and effect). I do believe certain individuals made a conscious effort to try and connect Cull and pocketbeetle, for the sake of comparing inactive players against one another, but that's all really. What sticks in my mind most is the mentality that pocketbeetle is somehow "better" or more "valuable" to the Village than Cull, when I have yet to see any evidence to back that up - and the acceptance of such an idea without evidence is something I find concerning.

It's ironic that you would be concerned about me getting tunnel vision about pocketbeetle, when that very same concern of mine helped me choose to lynch Cull instead. 'Course, I was (like many, I'm sure) going under the assumption that Cull is going to be Cull no matter what - that is, post very little - and that probably more than anything decided my vote. Much as I don't want to bring outside actions into this game, I felt it was worth taking a chance on pocketbeetle to see if he would have more to offer in the long run than Cull. Once I saw Cull's post after the lynch, however, I began to seriously question that idea - hence replying that I don't think we'd be well-served to lynch him just because MJW was innocent. I think he may yet prove useful - provided he's not a 'Wolf, of course.

At any rate, sorry again for the confusing statement. As I said, it will teach me to be more careful in my posts. My English teachers always drilled us for much that reason: proofread, and proofread often!

[scooter]

Uberfish's post in particular struck me, not least because scooter immediately followed it up with his usual "me too!" vote of confidence (sorry scooter, but your insightful gems aren't quite as common as your echoes).

Speaking of off-handed comments... I mean seriously, how dare I agree with someone! So uberfish's post struck you as odd because he articulated a reason and then someone agreed with it? The beauty of it is that about a half dozen posts later you wrote basically the exact same thing as uberfish, only with more words (which is to be expected). I challenge anyone curious to go back and look at the two posts, they are strikingly similar - and for good reason too because it's the obvious reason to vote for Cull. So because I didn't paraphrase him, it's just an "echo" but because you paraphrased the exact same idea, then it's some stunning revelation? I'm not mad here by the way, just trying to point out why you are rubbing people the wrong way right now.

My point is this. Careful with your off-handed comments like you just admitted to a couple posts ago. I'm not sure how you could look at what I wrote and say "a typical scooter 'me too'" post, because I don't think you'll find anything like that so far in this thread from me, but it's already managed to be labeled by you as something I usually do. If you'd like, I'll paraphrase other people's opinions too, but really, what's the point? There's not much insight to be had on day 1 and that's that. There is no voting records, no power role evidence, no night kills, no behavior patterns, no contradictions... It's purely guesswork and meta, so the only real reason to go with Cull over PB, for example, is the reason that uberfish and yourself stated.

[scooter]

What sticks in my mind most is the mentality that pocketbeetle is somehow "better" or more "valuable" to the Village than Cull, when I have yet to see any evidence to back that up - and the acceptance of such an idea without evidence is something I find concerning.

Honestly, my reason is purely a meta reason. In WW1, PB lasted one day, and Cull lasted to the end. PB provided more valuable posts in one day than Cull did in that whole game. Honestly, I'm expecting Cull to barely contribute in this game, so if he's a villager, he's dead weight, and if he's a werewolf, he's dangerous. PB on the other hand, if he's a villager, I expect he'll be quite active, and therefore beneficial.

So to me, the status quo on those two guys is that PB is more valuable than Cull, and I'll adjust my thoughts accordingly if that changes as the game develops. I think that's where most people are getting the idea that, if we're going to kill one, Cull makes more sense. I'm guessing that's where everyone is getting these ideas. One more thing:

The beauty of it is that about a half dozen posts later you wrote basically the exact same thing as uberfish

I mis-spoke here. The post you wrote was actually 15ish minutes before uberfish and not afterwards. My mistake.

[Roland]

I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with you either, scooter. You post some very well-crafted points when you put your mind to it. You didn't in that case, and if you do as you ask (reread the posts carefully) you'll note that Uberfish was making assumptions about the player's behavior in relation to them being a 'Wolf or not. It was that statement that, to me, you were agreeing with, and that statement makes no sense to me (thus your agreement adds nothing to the discussion). I fail to see how Uberfish, or anyone for that matter, can say "Player A will act like this, but Player B will act just the opposite, therefore A should be kept and B thrown away." Your chiming in with nothing more than "me too!" was more disappointing than alarming, especially since I think you can bring a great deal to the table when you choose to actually discuss things. I understand English isn't your primary language, but really - you do a fair job with it, and you can be damn convincing when you put your mind to it. At the very least you bring discussion to the table, which is worthwhile in itself.

It's perfectly fine to agree with someone, and say "They summed up my thoughts nicely. I have nothing to add." I have no problems with that, so long as SOMEONE has articulated a point and the reasoning behind it. No one did that, though. Uberfish threw out some small comment that made zero sense to me - it seemed entirely based upon assumptions rather than hard facts, or even evidence to support his argument - and you did nothing to further the discussion. That was my point. Obviously, I should have addressed that too with my "offhand comment", but then I'd be writing yet another essay (which nobody seems to like, despite me being forced to do it anyway).

Anyway, this is dragging on far too much. I'm too tired to be writing novels about single comments. Suffice it to say that I respect your input when you give it, but am often put off when someone posts something arbitrary and you simply agree with it without any further explanation. Sorry if that irks you, but that's how I feel.

I suppose now I should ask Uberfish just what he did mean with his comment regarding pocketbeetle versus Cull, but I think the usefulness of that discussion has long since passed.

[Roland]

Honestly, my reason is purely a meta reason. In WW1, PB lasted one day, and Cull lasted to the end. PB provided more valuable posts in one day than Cull did in that whole game. Honestly, I'm expecting Cull to barely contribute in this game, so if he's a villager, he's dead weight, and if he's a werewolf, he's dangerous. PB on the other hand, if he's a villager, I expect he'll be quite active, and therefore beneficial.

Ok, that's what I was looking for. From what I took away from Uberfish's comment, he was tying activity for one and inactivity for another as being inherently 'Wolfish or not 'Wolfish, thus my confusion at his assumptions (at least they appear to be assumptions to me), and my further confusion when you didn't add anything other than to say you agreed with him.

I'll admit my own meta bias against Cull, but it's more based on Cull staying quiet, rather than pocketbeetle definitively being more useful (active). I was taking a gamble that he might prove more active than Cull, but thus far I'm not seeing that being the case. Moreover, Cull has left me with the impression that, outside activities notwithstanding, he intends to contribute - even if it's not as often as we may want. Maybe I'm completely wrong on that front? I don't know. It's just the impression I was left with from his post after the lynching. He contributed something that at least provoked thought and discussion, even if I didn't quite agree with all his stances, and that's led me to think he's worth keeping. I'm still reserving judgment on pocketbeetle for the moment. So, in that regard, I'd say keep them both around for now, if it comes down to the question of activity.

[scooter]

I didn't mean to be quite so confrontational, I just think you need to be careful with the broad brush you paint sometimes. You make statements that are half true. Sure that post I made was a bit of a "me too," but in no other point in this thread have I ever done it. You could bring up WW2 I supposed, but remember, I was werewolf then, so my goals in that game were quite different. It's the same thing PB got annoyed about, you made a statement that was halfway true and combined it with a statement that was .... a bit of a stretch. Just be careful - your comment annoyed me and your other comment annoyed PB, and I think sometimes you just need to be a little more careful with how you word things, because your posts can come across as a bit like you are intentionally spinning things against someone (rather than focusing on being impartial), whether or not that's the intention. I don't want that to distract the village, so I wanted to address it now before we launch into another day.

One other minor thing I'll mention because it made me laugh

I understand English isn't your primary language, but really - you do a fair job with it, and you can be damn convincing when you put your mind to it.

I don't know if I should admit this, but I am American, so... well as the stereotype goes, English is all I actually know. Although, given that I am studying computer science, another stereotype would suggest that I'm actually terrible in writing in English.


Edit: Note that this is crossposted with Roland's post above this. Nothing else in the content of this message was actually edited.

[Roland]

You could bring up WW2 I supposed, but remember, I was werewolf then, so my goals in that game were quite different.

Yeah, I was more referring to WW2, and you're right - different role, different goal. So, I guess that just proves the meta point even more, right? Make no assumptions based on past behavior!

It's the same thing PB got annoyed about, you made a statement that was halfway true and combined it with a statement that was .... a bit of a stretch. Just be careful - your comment annoyed me and your other comment annoyed PB, and I think sometimes you just need to be a little more careful with how you word things, because your posts can come across as a bit like you are intentionally spinning things against someone (rather than focusing on being impartial), whether or not that's the intention. I don't want that to distract the village, so I wanted to address it now before we launch into another day.

Well, not to nitpick (), but PB had a legitimate complaint. I did make it sound like he orchestrated the shift from himself to Cull, and that wasn't my intent. You're right - I should have been more careful there. Which is not to say that you don't have a legitimate complaint, just that it wasn't intended to offend you - any more than you calling me out on taking things too personally in WW2 was intended to offend me, despite how sometimes it did more than annoy me. Give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not out to spin anything? I play devil's advocate a great deal, but it's precisely because I try my best to look at things from all angles. Admittedly, I should be more careful in how I word things - and I suppose I should add that my original post that set PB off was only half-finished when I had to leave for awhile, so I really didn't give it any thought when I came back to it. I pretty much just ended it and posted it - not a very smart move.

I didn't mean to annoy you, and I'll try to wipe the slate clean with regards to your past behavior. Only fair, yes?

One other minor thing I'll mention because it made me laugh

I don't know if I should admit this, but I am American, so... well as the stereotype goes, English is all I actually know. Although, given that I am studying computer science, another stereotype would suggest that I'm actually terrible in writing in English.

Seriously? Man... Sorry? I thought you said in the last game English wasn't your native language! Heh, guess I confused you with someone else? Oops! Is it ok if I laugh at myself with you on that one? Yeah, tonight's not my best night, is it? All sorts of screw-ups. Not helping that I am quite tired. On the plus side, I'm not blindly accusing anyone of being a 'Wolf!

It's a pretty safe bet with me that anything I say that causes offense wasn't intended that way, but if I say something that is just completely off do feel free to bring it to my attention. Just try to keep in mind that I don't intentionally step on anyone's toes - I'm just clumsy with big feet.

[scooter]

I didn't mean to annoy you, and I'll try to wipe the slate clean with regards to your past behavior. Only fair, yes?

Yep - we're fine... I guess I'm just afraid that any sort of reputation for me will carry over from WW2, which wouldn't really be fair because I had different aims and goals in that game. On that note, I'll probably take a step back and wait for daytime before posting further.

Seriously? Man... Sorry? I thought you said in the last game English wasn't your native language! Heh, guess I confused you with someone else? Oops! Is it ok if I laugh at myself with you on that one?

Oh don't apologize, that was pretty funny to me. My best guess is that you're thinking of Serdoa.