WW16: The Outlaws and The Olives

[Jkaen]

Thats Lewwyn, Injera, Novice, Serdoa and Gaspar all on Ichabod.

That's pretty hard hitting voting power there, to the extent I almost feel I am missing something, but even though Lewwyn detailed his argument well, still all I read is 'gut feel', and I just cant follow based on only that.

Still you will gather a crowd with that group, so I think we are seeing the lynch result here

[Tasunke]

Oh hell ... I think I'd rather have Lewwyn as Mayor rather than Novice.

[Tasunke]

..........................................................

So, umm, yea. Between post 903(uberfish) and post 909(Gaspar) ... mainly Uberfish's posts though ... Well, at least for now, even though he really LOOKS like scum to me, at least from day 1 and most of day 2, if indeed he is normally just rude rather than this being a "hey I'm an angry villager" ploy as a wolf ... well hell. Damnit, damnit, damnit. I mean, it would be so much easier if I still thought he was scum ... but I'm starting to ... not. And yes, I've been re-reading, taking a closer looks at Uberfish's posts ... but its mainly just 903 that read as innocent. And well, hell ... Uberfish is a good werewolf player (usually). So if I had beyond a reasonable doubt, I should probably go with "innocent until proved guilty" ... at least for now.

I really don't like the Selrahc lynch, and I like the Pindicator lynch even less. So ... for now ... ... ... I'll be switching back to Sareln.


Yes, the initial Day1 reads are the same, I mean hell, they voted practically identically. But now ... now they seem a bit different. I really *really* don't think Sareln is innocent, but my gut is starting to say maybe ... maybe Uberfish *is*.

Therefore, with some suspicion, I will be laying off the Uberfish lynch for a while.

[Jkaen]

Tansuke,

The other big push you havent commented on there is Ichabod. Any thoughts there?

[Rowain]

Uberfish is a good werewolf player (usually).

What makes you think so?

[Tasunke]

What makes you think so?

I think so because I've heard so. Honestly though, I suppose I don't have much first hand experience in the matter.

[uberfish]

Twinkletoes89 sounds like himself. I do think the post uber highlighted seemed scummy but its hard to say really whether he's just caught up in paranoia or is scum. I lean the paranoia and hence town atm.

The question is, why wasn't TT paranoid yesterday? If mattimeo's role claim is questionable today, why did he immediately trust it yesterday?

I would prefer to lynch TT today because I think my read on him is strong and his flipping scum will shed a lot of light on the mafia's day 1 tactics.

Now, I thought Ichabod's interaction with me when I asked about his Matt read was genuinely paranoid but I'm not sure what that says about his alignment yet. I have to review his posts again, I personally don't find him easy to read.

Selrahc is a justifiable policy lynch because sitting around and arguing game mechanics/theory is very typical of his scum game. But I would prefer to lynch someone with more interactions.

[Tasunke]

Tansuke,

The other big push you havent commented on there is Ichabod. Any thoughts there?

I do not particularly like the Ichabod push, but I suppose I could put up with it, at least for now.

[Ichabod]

I've just arrived at the thread and I've seen I'm being swamped in votes. As far as I can tell from skiming the thread, Lewwyn made a compelling case against me, that led to the votes. So I'll try to answer this with the little time I have right now.

Zak this ones for you.

Lewwyn et al., if Zakalwe was always right, WW games would be boring as hell. It's really annoying being attacked due to this flimsy justification over and over again.

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.

Ok... I'll try to explain this one more time, even though, for me, I already explained this points before (when I said everything not related to the timing of my vote in Zak's case was either gut feeling or assumptions).

I'll explain paragraph from paragraph of Zak's post (the ones you quoted):

1. What is an archetypical wolf Ichabod post? I don't know myself and Zak didn't explain himself. If you can explain what you understand from that, I can try answering, but without an explanation, I really can't say.

2. Was Gaspar an established suspicion at the time? I don't remember things this way. And I don't find my argument nonsensical and just because Novice and Zak said it was nonsensical, it doesn't mean it was. The Gaspar post I refered to was and still is scummy, in my opinion, even though I can't really explain it (if I just had said that it was gut feeling, I wouldn't be accused of this, but I tried to explain myself).

Can you explain to me why it was nonsensical? To me, the connection gaspar made with Catwalk and Injera was bad. It didn't look like scum-hunting, just mud throwing.

3. I didn't backpedal on my argument, I only tried to explain it better, since it was nonsensical to others. I still suspect gaspar, even though I know I can't lynch him right now (since no one even comments about what I said about him).

4. Subservient? I should probably be annoyed and mad that I was called nonsensical, which can be considered an offense, but I prefer not to bring this type of behaviour to the game. So I tried to explain myself.

5. I EXPLAINED THIS ALREADY!! WHY DON'T ANYONE READ!?

What was the comment about you? That you are a cat herder? I was making a about Gaspar style of play and how I think he has a difficulty to make people follow his suspicions (which I attribute to him not trying to, since I find he prefers to find the wolves rather than convincing people he's right). I find that your style of play is the one most contrarian to that of Gaspar. Or to put in other words, if you are not a cat herder, who is?

The sneaky comment I referred to was the one where you said I had inflated the interpretation of a post. (No time to look up your exact wording.) I did say I was exaggerating a little when I elaborated on my case against thestick. I think you wanted to draw attention to this, but in an indirect way.

Feel free to call me a cat herder, I don't take that as a backhanded compliment.

You admited yourself that you inflated the interpretation of a post:

For example, he asked me "Injera reading Catwalk as not being the kind of person to lie about real life feels suspicious to you?" All I had said was that Injera's defense of Catwalk made no sense. But thestick wants me to enumerate reasons why Injera is suspicious, taking it one step further. Alternatively, maybe I would give a clumsy answer and draw suspicion on myself, instead. An innocuous question for sure, but when all you do is ask innocuous questions, something is fishy.

(Yes, I'm exaggerating a bit here, but I'm trying to convey the tingling feeling his post gives me.)

The bolded part is what I was refering to.

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.

I was just pointing out that there was another player that did the same thing I was being accused of and no one cared. I already had admited that Zak's thoughts about the timing of my post made sense (it was a good wolf tell). In my case, it was a coincidence. In your case, I don't know. I thought about voting for you on day 2, due to not only that, but your general lack of meaningful participation. But I agreed with your comments on Catwalk and that looked like a better lynch.

The conclusion you take from my comment is a bad one and a pretty forced one. I pointed out that two similar behaviours were getting treated differently without any reasoning as to why (especially since I had mentioned that during night 1 and no one cared to look at it before voting for me on day 2). That statement is true and no one seems to care that a dozen players are getting a free vote pass by saying "zakalwe said it!".

Again, I say the same thing I said to Gaspar. I don't play this game thinking of other specific players, either with a wolf or a villager role. What sense would it make to connect myself to you as a wolf? Do you see this kind of strategy working if I'm a wolf? With 26 people talking a lot, do you think everyone would notice how you and me were connected and no one would point out the obvious "wolf would/would not do this" like always? This doesn't make sense...

---

Anything else I should answer or everyone just want to follow Zak's case over and over again? By the way, how my day 2 play fits with Zak's case, that was made on night 1? Doesn't it change something?

[Ichabod]

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

Can you please explain this to the people that doesn't have your head? What Perpy from WW7 means to you??