WW16: The Outlaws and The Olives

[Azza]

I'm not voting for a mayor at this stage because I'm not convinced novice is such a good choice to warrant being the overwhelming favourite. No point adding to his lead.

[Injera]

I was not "panicky" last night. Instead I was physically exhausted and trying to post a defence that probably ought to have waited to this morning. The descent into incomprehensibility is as I try to get out the posts fast so that I can go to bed. And no, even if this harms my defence, I never felt under much pressure in WW15.

Ah, a time constraint in addition to the device. Got it, that makes sense.

[BRickAstley]

Official Lynch Vote Count

Sareln - 8 - Injera, tasunke, Merovech, Molach, Jkaen, Mattimeo, Bigger, Arromir
Catwalk - 3 - Lewwyn, Sareln, Ichabod
Merovech - 2 - Serdoa, Catwalk
uberfish - 2 - Azza, Waterbat
Selrahc - 2 - novice, Gaspar
Twinkletoes89 - 2 - Pindicator, uberfish
Mattimeo - 1 - Twinkletoes89
Qgqqqqq - 1 - Selrahc
Waterbat - 1 - Meiz
Pindicator - 1 - Rowain

Players not voting: Qgqqqqq

Official Mayor Vote Count

novice - 12 - Catwalk, Merovech, novice, Rowain, Pindicator, Injera, Jkaen, Molach, Qgqqqqq, Meiz, Mattimeo, Bigger
Serdoa - 3 - tasunke, Twinkletoes89, Serdoa
Lewwyn - 1 - Sareln

Players not voting: Arromir, Azza, Gaspar, Ichabod, Lewwyn, Selrahc, uberfish, Waterbat

[Bigger]

We can all agree I'm the lurker's lurker right?

So what's up with this?

Sareln 12 (really 11 from 1 vote-count)
Azza 11
Selrahc 9
Arromir 8
Molach 7
[Strike]thestick 6[/Strike]

What is this junk? 6 of those posts were made from within 40 minutes of THIS post, meaning 40 minutes before you wrote that you were would have been at the bottom with 6 posts. Did you have an idea to post post counts proving you weren't the worst lurker, then realize - uh,oh, you were the worst lurker, so you had to spam it up a bit first?

Besides, no one said you were the only lurker.

[Sareln]

What is this junk? 6 of those posts were made from within 40 minutes of THIS post, meaning 40 minutes before you wrote that you were would have been at the bottom with 6 posts. Did you have an idea to post post counts proving you weren't the worst lurker, then realize - uh,oh, you were the worst lurker, so you had to spam it up a bit first?

Besides, no one said you were the only lurker.

No, I'm just putting up my thoughts before you all lynch me with 8/24 votes!

Like I said to Injera, can't really take it with me

Why so belligerent?

[Bigger]

I appreciate you putting up your thoughts, I wasn't trying to silence you - but I do think its a little disingenuous to say "look at how active I am" when all your activity was within the past hour.

[Injera]

Does anyone with more experience have a baseline on how Selrahc acts as a villager? My only experience with him is the game where he did his "not saying anything for 3 days" and as planetary faction last game. Maybe WW6, too, but I was too far in over my head to notice anything.

[Lewwyn]

Zak this ones for you.

Ichabod...

Zak's case against me, as far as I can tell, is based on my post against Gaspar that was coincidentally made while thestick was starting to be pressured by him and Novice and the fact that I said I suspected thestick but didn't vote for him. That's it. The rest is gut feeling (it was a "scummy post") + assumptions (like that I stopped posting due to fear of getting battered again).

No I do not agree with this. Zak's main case against you was NOT simply the vote or the coincidental timing. It has to do entirely with the tone of the post and the presentation of the post. As Zak says:

Remember that I've been looking for people who tried to deflect thestick's lynch at an early stage. Ichabod made a post which looks like an archetypical wolf Ichabod post, right at the time when thestick really needed relief. Thestick had recently surged to a 5 vote lead, with no more than 2 votes on anyone else. (Although Waterbat moved his vote off thestick shortly after that happened, so it was 4-2 at the point Ichabod posted.)

To me, this post looks like Ichabod trying to come up with a compelling case, building on some established suspicions but adding his own "twist" so it looks insightful. Only he fails pretty hard, at least in my view. The argument against Gaspar is nonsensical. I was actually thinking at the time that this screamed wolf Ichabod trying to move our attention away from thestick, but I mostly held my tongue because I didn't want to weaken my case by showing too much confirmation bias.

I did pick apart Ichabod's case on Gaspar, though, and he quickly backpedaled furiously:

His tone throughout this exchange is just incredibly subservient. I think he realized how exposed thestick was and really felt on thin ice. Ichabod never rejoined the discussion after this, and as expected, his promised vote on thestick never materialized. It's as if he was afraid to rear his ahead again, for fear of getting smacked back down.

Also notice how he managed to sneak in a comment about me inflating the interpretation of a post. Thestick's post, in particular, although that went unsaid. Classic wolf Ichabod, trying to sneak in backhanded compliments or jabs while seemingly making some unrelated point.

I have bolded the parts I think are relevant here. You've stated that Zak's case was based on the timing of the post hedging suspicion on thestick but then voting for Gaspar. I've highlighted parts of Zak's accusation that show a read based on how he thinks wolf Ichabod will play. He mentions the nonsensical argument against Gaspar, subservience in the ensuing dialogue and the sneaked in backhanded compliments or jabs. I'm not saying that Zak didn't look at the timing as suspicious, but that the argument he makes leads away from the voting itself and delves into tone and personality. That is an argument I can get behind that isn't entirely based on a situational thing.

So I think you've done a good job at shaving away the more damning pieces of Zak's argument while addressing the things you can explain.


Also, since it concerns me:

You know what's interesting about this? It's interesting that there was a player who did the exact same thing that Zak accused me of doing, at basicly the same time. It was Lewwyn and I pointed this out in my answer to Zak, before end of night 1. Let's see:

I ask everyone to go back and read this posts in the time they were made. Lewwyn went aboard with the thestick lynch, but when the heat started getting really high, he jumped ship. Maybe he found someone he suspected more, maybe he was trying to divert attention away. But one thing is certain, it was the same thing that Zakalwe's accused me off.

Are you trying to say that I'm guilty by saying your guilty of the "same thing" you are accused of? Or are you trying to say you're innocent and I'm innocent? I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. To me it sounds like you are connecting the two of us to both A) defend yourself and then B) set me up to go down too... after you turn up wolf, of course.

The problem is we didn't do the same things. I gave reasons for my vote on thestick and then actually voted for him. It is not my fault that 30-40 minutes later Catwalk posts this:

I don't see why you'd call that anything but a joke vote, that's the definition of a joke vote. Your comment in parenthesis strikes me as peculiar, especially after you later clarify that you had a little gem of an insight after someone else started throwing some mud my way. I made a brief post, easy to analyze and probably easily attracting attention. Did the little gem happen after it looked like there was an opening to have me lynched? Is it a coincidence that it happened right as you got two votes on you? Could it be (as Ancient Alien Astronaut theory suggests) that the Pyramids were built by extra-terrestrials? You have much to answer for Gaspar!

And I go WTF and vote for him. I still can't read that without getting scummy vibes. You say and I'll repeat:

Lewwyn went aboard with the thestick lynch, but when the heat started getting really high, he jumped ship. Maybe he found someone he suspected more, maybe he was trying to divert attention away. But one thing is certain, it was the same thing that Zakalwe's accused me off.

I did vote thestick, but noone else voted thestick during the time that I was on him before I switched to Catwalk. There was no change in heat! Then you say maybe this maybe that. But isn't it clear what I did? I found someone I suspected more? And It's definately not the same thing Zak has accused you of. He accused you of having a wolfish tone and mannerisms within your posts. And this post you've done both diminishing Zak's argument and then trying to tie me to you is even scummier in my opinion than the post that Zak initially called you on.

Just FYI I haven't had a chance to get much further in the thread past this because I was writing this up so I will need to read other responses to Ichabod and any more of his posts yet. But at this point I'm happy to endorse lynching Ichabod.

[Lewwyn]

I don't agree with this. In my opinion, it's not easy to make up crap when you are a wolf. Villagers make up crap normally (in hindsight, of course), because they don't know the info. When you have the info, you have to "act it", not only "be it", which is harder. So wolves tend to go with more objective arguments, rather than subjective ones (another reason why Gaspar commetn about my lack of understanding of him doesn't make sense if he thinks I'm a wolf).

That being said, Catwalk. I'll review Qgqqqq case later, as I've already said, but what was pointed out in the thread (by himself and Uberfish, if I'm not mistaken) make me think the main argument against him doesn't hold.

Urg I hate it when my new topic suspect votes for my other top suspect... WW15 Deja Vu.

[Lewwyn]

So, may I ask all the "Gaspar is easy to read" gang what they think about Gaspar in this game. I don't remember seeing many people comment about you today...

Reminds me of WW7 Gaspar where he was Perpy I believe.