Werewolf 3 Game Thread

[Roland]

You are saying that people are developing theories that are really flimsy, that arguments aren't thought out, and even calling my theory "trash." Then you turn around and admit you have no idea at all as to who's who. Why criticize then? If you have good theories, then please share. It's just that, for instance, you criticized my suggestion of Irgy as "weak and flimsy" and then when you finally give your list of suspects, it's basically just a list of hunches with no real evidence for any of them.

I don't recall ever saying your theory about Irgy was "trash". I believe my main point was that it was flimsy - which you yourself admitted. Your main supporting evidence was a "slip-up", if I remember correctly - hardly solid, IMHO. Granted, I applaud your effort for putting something out there, and against someone who hasn't been bandied about since Day 1, but I'm always compelled to speak up against flimsy evidence, no matter who's saying it or who it's about. I do that - look at WW2. I defended a 'Wolf more than once, I do believe, because I felt the evidence was weak. Granted, I was right more than I was wrong when it came to defending people (ironic, isn't it?), so I could be wrong here, but I'd rather we lynch someone on something more than "a slip-up." Personally, I'm more inclined to lynch Irgy for his arbitrary method of choosing 'Wolves.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing per se - because we don't have much to go on here. I'm just saying you are coming across as very hypocritical, when you criticize someone for a "weak" theory, and then offer up a list of hunches that aren't much more than weak theories (and honestly they have far less data. Understand that with what we have to go on right now (almost nothing), that the best of posts are going to be "weak theories." I'd understand your criticisms if you were doing any better, but you are in the same boat as the rest of us - not much to work with.

First of all, you and I see things very differently, it seems. I'm not throwing around wild accusations based upon flimsy evidence, and trying to garner support from people for it. I'm discussing the points people make, and weighing the pros and cons in a public manner - the ONLY thing we can do in this game. If you see something wrong with that, I'm sorry but that's your deal. I'll try not to piss anyone off, certainly, but I'm not going to change how I approach this. Secondly, there IS a difference between good evidence and weak evidence. I feel it's important people know that distinction. It's no different than I said to Mardoc - and you agreed with me on his points. So, really, how isn't that just as hypocritical of you, by your standards?

I'd rather be wrong about a hunch while jumping on the bandwagon than actively lobbying to lynch someone on thin air. Wouldn't you? If not, that's the difference between us - and I don't feel that makes me hypocritical at all. :neenernee

I couldn't figure out why you staunchly defended Irgy and then turn around and suspect people for far less reason than what I did with Irgy. Honestly, that struck me as suspicious in and of itself - as to why you are so convinced Irgy is innocent. That's beside the point though.

Whoa whoa whoa. I didn't "staunchly defend Irgy." I said your evidence against him was flimsy. In other words, come back with something more - please! Believe me, Irgy is far from a confirmed Villager in my eyes. I was merely discussing the merits of your case against him. We disagree on what makes him suspicious - that doesn't mean I disagree with your point. Understand? For me, the METHOD matters more than the result, because generally speaking the ends don't justify the means. Am I making sense on where I'm coming from?

Also, Rowain disagreed with you and you threatened to lynch him. Please don't start that train of thinking in this game too. The last thing we need is to start automatically voting to lynch the same person who suspects us... It's just an extremely bad way to play this game, and will definitely result in a werewolf victory if we all play like that.

Do you see my trying to lynch him? Do you see me actively pursuing a lynch vote against him (ala Serdoa against me)? I explicitly stated I had nothing but emotion to go on with him, and just a gut feeling that he's not on our team, but that's it - and that I was not going to lynch him based on such "flimsy evidence". Again, care to tell me how I'm being hypocritical? The behavior you're describing is exactly what I'm trying to avoid - hence all my discussion about the evidence people are putting forth, and the ways in which I think it's valid or invalid. Look at how many people are on the board to be lynched! Now look at how many of those are being discussed! You don't see anything wrong with that? People are just throwing out votes like darts and hoping they land on something, and it's not accomplishing anything because no one's discussing anything about it! That's what I find frustrating. Then, when I try to bring discussion to the table, I'm called hypocritical? What do you want from me here scooter?

You're one of the most contributory players we have right now. I'm looking to you to field more evidence, more arguments, more discussion, because frankly few others are stepping up to the plate (Mardoc is a very notable exception here; I think he's done a great job of fostering discussion). I'm not going to go off listing names of people who have and have not contributed, but suffice it to say approximately half the Village is being rather mum, and though I understand none of us have much to go on we should at least be discussing what we do have to go on.

If I sound overly hostile, fine. That can be a fair argument against me, and it's something I'll have to keep an eye on about myself. To call me hypocritical, though, I think is just way off the mark. You of all people should realize that, scooter.

[Roland]

Oh, and scooter, if the crux of your argument is that I'm not posting quotes from the people I suspect, that's just going to have to wait until I get home. I can dedicate small blocks of time to this while I'm at work, but that's it. I'm not going to spend my work day combing the thread to build a post full of supporting evidence against people until I get home. Doubly so since this connection has been so flaky the last two days - already I've been kicked off twice between my earlier posts and this one. I don't want to be halfway through a big, content-laden post and lose it to lack of internet access. I explicitly said I intend to dig through the thread later tonight, and post some more solid thoughts (and maybe a vote) for tomorrow, since I can't trust my internet connection at work anymore.

[novice]

The advantage with being 100 posts behind is that you always find someone to quote who already posted your exact thoughts.

Mardoc, thanks for the post. While most of the content made me literally smile (people at the office are looking me weirdly btw.), it screams to me as writings of an inexperienced WW player. So despite what I said at the start of the day, [strike]Mardoc[/strike].

Fortunately we have plenty of time left, so now I just need to find another suspect.

[strike]Mardoc[/strike]

I'm also going with Meiz's suggestion of Selrahc

Yes, this ties me very much to Meiz, seeing of how we were accused by Mardoc of a conspiracy and all. No, wolves wouldn't be that obvious. Sometimes villagers just happen to agree. (Or a wolf and a villager, I don't know Meiz's status.)

BTW, for people jumping onto verbal slips - it is very easy to write something badly formulated or just plain wrong when composing a rushed post, especially if english isn't your first language, and you can't quite make your sentences have a good sentence structure, if you know what I mean.

Why Selrahc? He hasn't convinced me of his innocense, whereas small tidbits here and there posted by various players have made me inclined to believe they're villagers. An example: PocketBeetle was very quick to support my claim that I intended to lynch Cull with my last minute vote. A wolf wouldn't be so keen to remove suspicion and confusion.

So basically I'm just picking someone who hasn't given me a villager vibe.

Slightly off topic: One of the things I find entertaining as a clueless villager is to see other players' theories that involve you as a wolf. At least that's one theory where I know better.

Fake edit: Roland and Scooter, stop the flame war.

[scooter]

I was afraid of an overreaction. I'll just address one thing and then I'll leave it:

I'd rather be wrong about a hunch while jumping on the bandwagon than actively lobbying to lynch someone on thin air. Wouldn't you? If not, that's the difference between us - and I don't feel that makes me hypocritical at all. :neenernee

I think what irked me was that I got called out by you the day before for simply agreeing/disagreeing rather than giving my reasons and thoughts, and now a day later you seem like you're doing the exact same thing while I'm doing the opposite. I'm not going to discuss this topic further since I don't think it's productive at all, but I figured I would explain that part.

Oh, and scooter, if the crux of your argument is that I'm not posting quotes from the people I suspect, that's just going to have to wait until I get home. I can dedicate small blocks of time to this while I'm at work, but that's it. I'm not going to spend my work day combing the thread to build a post full of supporting evidence against people until I get home. Doubly so since this connection has been so flaky the last two days - already I've been kicked off twice between my earlier posts and this one. I don't want to be halfway through a big, content-laden post and lose it to lack of internet access. I explicitly said I intend to dig through the thread later tonight, and post some more solid thoughts (and maybe a vote) for tomorrow, since I can't trust my internet connection at work anymore.

[side note: that's not my point at all, but my point is mostly irrelevant so I'll leave it]

Oh yeah I fully understand that, because I run into the same issue sometimes with flaky wireless. My recommendation is to do what I do - I actually very frequently write up posts in notepad (turn on word wrap to preserve your sanity), copying and pasting quotes into there if need be. The benefit is that I can write for awhile, then leave it, come back to it an hour later, finish it, and whenever I'm done I just paste it in as a quick reply. I rarely lose posts anymore because of this, and it helps a ton with managing multi-quotes and such. It's actually exactly what I did with this post.

[Roland]

Fake edit: Roland and Scooter, stop the flame war.

No! I enjoy my discussions with scooter too much. Seriously though, when scooter's not playing on the 'Wolf team and spending all his efforts trying to discredit me, he's actually quite a pleasure to converse and hold discourse with. I'm sure he hasn't taken any offense to what I've said, and the reverse is certainly true - despite how things may come across in text.

[scooter]

Fake edit: Roland and Scooter, stop the flame war.

If you think that's a flamewar, then you clearly did not read the WW2 thread.

[Meiz]

Novice, you actually make me feel quite paranoid. Scooter was agreeing a lot with me on WW2 and most of us know what happened there... . Still I'm glad you vote for Sehlrac, since I believe he could very well be a wolf.

I'm off to sleep now. Somehow I suspect that my concentration on work might be in danger tomorrow...

[zakalwe]

Looks like I'm the only one left shaking Mardoc's tree (if you know what I mean).

So... looking at the currently leading candidates, it seems like they were all "seeded" some time ago. I wonder what happened to everybody's suspicions against fire&ice? Didn't he have a bunch of votes against him at some point yesterday?

[Rowain]

Are you trying to insinuate that because I hate to lie (and am so terrible at it), and that I've said so little, I must be holding back what I say, thus I'm a 'Wolf? Seriously? That's your whole argument against me?

And is this idea so far fetched? As you said we have not a lot to go on so this would be as valid as most reasons I see brought against Selrahc.

But as you might have noted it was a bait to get a response from you which I got - even an interesting one.

[Roland]

I think what irked me was that I got called out by you the day before for simply agreeing/disagreeing rather than giving my reasons and thoughts, and now a day later you seem like you're doing the exact same thing while I'm doing the opposite. I'm not going to discuss this topic further since I don't think it's productive at all, but I figured I would explain that part.

Always appreciate the effort in explanations. You were totally right on calling me out for it yesterday - it was completely a meta bias, and that's unfair to you. As for me doing the same thing, I can't say I agree? I don't think I've jumped on anyone's bandwagon at this point. As I said before, I'll get deeper into my reasoning tonight, when I can focus better - work is too distracting to make a solid case.

Although, actually I think I see what you're saying here. My whole "jumping on the bandwagon" comment really does come across that way. What I meant was following a lead on someone I believe in, along with others - not just tossing my vote blindly in with everyone else. I really didn't make that clear, did I? Also, I think you should keep in mind that whoever I vote for I intend to post my reasoning behind it, and not just add my voice to the din. That was my complaint from yesterday - a vote without reasoning or discussion. I mean, it's OK to just say "I agree with this lynch vote for the reasons posted by so-and-so," but when everyone just throws out a vote with minimal explanation it's irritating, you know? There should be discussion as to WHY, even if it is only gut feeling, or just following the leader. Maybe I'm asking for too much? That could be, I suppose. I just don't like bandwagoning for the sake of it, nor do I like blind votes without discussion. Take yesterday afternoon with Cull, for example. I agree a late vote pile-on is a powerful weapon against a 'Wolf, but with so little to go on it just looks... odd. No discussion, no reasoning, just "Let's kill Cull." I'm trying to avoid that sort of thing while there's time to avoid it. I think you'll recall in the last game sometimes the most discussion we had was in the very last hour of a vote. I'd like to see that spread out more, so we don't all have to camp the thread to read what's going on, and won't be caught with our pants down in the end. Besides, as has been discussed, ALL we have to go on here is our discussion - no PMs, and now no Seer, so I'm heavily in favor of people speaking their mind, and heavily in favor of their words being picked apart. I'm not counting myself out from that, scooter - that's why I took (mild) offense at the accusation of being hypocritical: I don't think my words carry any more weight than anyone else's, nor should they, nor do I feel I'm above reproach.

Oh yeah I fully understand that, because I run into the same issue sometimes with flaky wireless. My recommendation is to do what I do - I actually very frequently write up posts in notepad (turn on word wrap to preserve your sanity), copying and pasting quotes into there if need be. The benefit is that I can write for awhile, then leave it, come back to it an hour later, finish it, and whenever I'm done I just paste it in as a quick reply. I rarely lose posts anymore because of this, and it helps a ton with managing multi-quotes and such. It's actually exactly what I did with this post.

That's not a bad idea, actually. Although, I do prefer to do most of this from home rather than work - especially if I get halfway through a long post, and then find myself at the end of the work day wanting to go home. Good advice, though. I may have to utilize that at some point. Usually I just use multiple tabs in my browser, and cut & paste into one big post, but that doesn't change the chance of losing it to poor internet or a browser crash. 'Course, my home internet is rock-solid. I'm on wireless here, though, and the signal has decided to flake out as of yesterday morning.

Anyway, your post about Irgy is something I want to go back to at some point tonight, and see if we both can't find something more concrete. I just don't like weak evidence, frankly, even when it's all we have to go on. I'm sorry if I came across too harshly against you yesterday, because that wasn't my intent, and my posts today weren't directed at just one or two people, but at the general running background, if that makes sense. Of the evidence being presented, I think some people are just chasing the wrong leads, and in contrast there are too many people simply going along with the flow and not being called into question on it.