Werewolf 3 Game Thread

[Mr. Nice Guy]

But I don't want to start it (Rowain bandwagon), because I have someone else I suspect:

Roland

Why Roland? Lets look at the past Days:

I've read through now, and after reading what has been posted, this post and Scooter's have me considering Roland pretty strongly.

In fact, I now have a pretty good list going on:
1. JKaen. He's probably not moving from that list any time soon, just like Scooter never left my #1 spot in WW2.
2. Roland. Serdoa and Scooter put it pretty well. But I have to add that the flavor of his posts are markedly different from WW2. How so? In WW2, there was a predominant theme of Roland trying to bring people together. Even when he was incorrect, Roland was trying to unite the village against targets. In WW3, Roland seems to be trying to divide the village. That, even more than the keen observations of Serdoa and Scooter, is what is making Roland creep up on my radar.
3. Zakalwe. I went into this a little bit yesterday. For now it's just a hunch, but I hope we'll watch him closely. And I hope he'll keep entertaining me with fun posts.

What I keep thinking about is... what happens if Roland is a lynch nominee, and switching from JKaen to Roland can get him lynched instead of someone else? Do I switch? At what point do I switch? See, this is what happened in WW2. Scooter was on my list for a long time. I kept allowing myself to be persuaded to vote for someone else. And that's what almost happened yesterday... I was almost persuaded to vote for PB. But I held my ground and didn't move my vote from JKaen. Right move or not, I can rest easy knowing that even if JKaen is a villager, I voted my suspicion, rather than joining someone else's (misguided) suspicion. So I ask the open question to the village: at what point specifically is it a good choice to move your vote from a top- to a mid-tier suspicion?

[Irgy]

In WW2, there was a predominant theme of Roland trying to bring people together. Even when he was incorrect, Roland was trying to unite the village against targets.

That was before he got voted off for his trouble and read criticisms in the lurker thread. You don't think that would change someone a little? My read on him is quite different to yours, but that's life I guess.

So I ask the open question to the village: at what point specifically is it a good choice to move your vote from a top- to a mid-tier suspicion?

When it's clear that your top suspicion candidate is not going to get enough support to be lynched.

[Jkaen]

I have come to the acceptance I am not going to switch off peoples list, and alas there is no defense against the accusations against me, so I think its just a matter of time for me now, hopefully I can last a few more days and be useful. The wolves would be crazy to eat me now anyway.

While PB was on my list, I will point out I was one of the ones trying to generate another option against him (mainly MNG) but we just could not get critical mass on that one.

To be honest I am happy going with a dying mans wish and going for F&I tomorrow

[Gold Ergo Sum]

I am caught up on everything, although I am destined to fall way behind the next couple days. I thought I had in-office days Tues-Thurs, but now I have none all week.

These were the six people who had voted for MJW and didn't vote for Selrahc: [strike]Selrahc[/strike], Serdoa, MNG, [strike]Cull[/strike], Jkaen, Lewwyn

Considering Cull is on that list, it is hardly conclusive.

Did anybody on that list vote for PB: Rowain, Roland, Meiz, Irgy, Lewwyn, Sandover, Bruindane

The only name that cross-references is Lewwyn. Why am I always led back to Lewwyn? Except, since Cull turned out to be a villager, Lewwyn's inital vote switch is less wolfy. The best reason I can find to suspect Lewwyn at the moment is that weird meta-claim he made about Rowain searching the thread for Bob posts, when scooter claims the forums don't give information that specific. If scooter is right (and we could easily test this), why would Lewwyn fudge the truth on this?

And really, we should add the people who voted against Cull and PB on Day 1 to the list of MJW voters since they all turned out to be villagers. And that is essentially the entire village, so I don't think we can learn much from the Day 1 votes themselves. Maybe the order or timing is more useful, but not much from the actual votes, since the three main candidates all turned out to be villagers.

Personally, I think MNG's list in the post two above is a good place to start: Jkaen, Roland, and Zakalwe.

I'm off to bed.

[Roland]

Roland

Why Roland? Lets look at the past Days:

Day1:

Roland stays for a long time on Lewwyn. Then he switched to Cull. His vote made Lewwyn no longer a valid lynch target because MJW had 7 votes, PB and Lewwyn 5 when zakalwe switched from Lewwyn to PB and Roland switched from Lewwyn to Cull.

I explained that my vote for Lewwyn was a jab from WW2 - nothing more, nothing less. I kept it on him because I didn't want to give the appearance of throwing my vote around wildly. It's not my style. I switched to Cull given the choice between him and pocketbeetle, as I really didn't feel MJW was a 'Wolf (although, as was stated, he could have been because with him it's impossible to know). I had no intention of saving Lewwyn - I just didn't believe in my vote enough to keep it on him. Pocketbeetle voted for novice for much the same reasons, I believe - yet he didn't move away. To the best of my understanding, that was because he wasn't around. Still, it's worth noting for comparison.

Not only did that save Lewwyn from every potential late swing but his vote on Cull was pretty safe to look good (because Cull WAS quiet) without counting. Remember, we had with PB, Cull and MJW only villagers to be voted for so he choose the one which probably would not be voted in the end. He could not know that we would have such a big swing for Cull that he came near lynching a villager - after all it is important to keep your record clean on Day 1 because that normally is all we villagers have to go for on Day 2.

You're absolutely right - I had no idea there was going to be such a swing towards Cull. I wasn't around for several hours during that whole period, so I was completely unaware of the proceedings. Having said that, if I was truly concerned about voting for someone who was in no danger I would have voted for someone safer, like you, or Gold Ergo Sum, or Mr. Nice Guy, or any number of people who weren't on the block. I chose Cull as the lesser of two evils, based mostly upon meta (I trusted the judgment of others with regard to pocketbeetle being more involved in the discussion than Cull; evidently they were right to a certain extent). I knew the odds of us finding a 'Wolf on Day 1 were very slim, so it was a matter of narrowing down the Villagers to who would be the least helpful. I suppose, in retrospect, MJW fits that bill nicely, but I didn't feel right voting him off under such pretenses. I'm not judging anyone else for voting him off. I just wouldn't feel right doing it simply because "I don't like him." That's not my style, and I would consider myself petty for doing that - though, again, I'm not judging others, only myself, so please don't take that as me thinking anyone of you are petty, because I don't.

Unfortunately for him in the end we nearly lynched Cull so his vote was questioned, something he had not thought would happen. As a recurring theme he got aggressive against everyone questioning him but in the end had to say something. First he wrote about his thoughts on voting for either Cull or PB:

I'm not sure how it's unfortunate for me that you nearly lynched Cull? I think it was unfortunate that we lynched a Villager, regardless of who it was, but as I said that was to be expected given the odds.

For the record, I find it interesting that you quote me without giving the links. So, in my own defense, I'll quote my EXACT reasons for voting Cull, as posted at the time.

Well, since I'm not confident I'm going to make it back in time to change my vote later on, I'll do it now.

Cull

He hasn't presented us with much to go on, and as much as I'm not enamored with pocketbeetle for his accusations against Novice, I'm not comfortable with the bandwagon that's started against him for seemingly flimsy reasons. Cull, on the other hand, has been very consistent about his lack of posting. I don't feel that's going to suit us well. It's too easy for him to hide if he's a 'Wolf, and he has yet to add enough to the Village to make him worth keeping as a Villager.

I don't have much else to go on. Anyone else I'd say to lynch are all newer players, and much as I don't like the idea of half the Village (exaggeration) being off-limits for three days, I'm not inclined to vote someone off on Day 1 "just because" - better to keep them around for a day or two "just because". Safer that way, IMHO.

And, for reference, here's what you quoted (with the post link), which came AFTER MJW was lynched.

Aside from both players being rather inactive during Day 1 (each having their own reasons), the tone that some were trying to set seemed to be that pocketbeetle is inherently more valuable than Cull. Being that I believe this is based entirely on actions outside of this thread, and my agreement with... someone (was it Uberfish?) who said it'd be best to judge people on their actions within this thread rather than try to introduce what amounts to meta-gaming (actions in other threads, etc.), it just seemed odd. It was just one of those things that subtly gained traction without any real discussion about it, and that bothers me in a game such as this, what with no PMs and all. Not to mention my natural inclination to resist the idea that anything anyone says is gospel, and thus everyone should follow it (applying to my own comments as much as everyone else's, mind you).

I wasn't even around when everyone switched, and I sure wasn't attempting to sway anyone towards voting for him. Part of the reason I voted for him was that he was so low on the board, I didn't feel he was in much danger, and I didn't feel like contributing to either the MJW or pocketbeetle votes since I didn't feel either was a 'Wolf. I didn't want to vote for any of the new players, either, and since I felt (at the time) Cull was probably going to continue to be quiet, it was in the best interests of the Village to remove the quietest players so we have the most discussion possible, at least early on. Arbitrary, I suppose, but we don't have much to go on at this point.

So, he states that it is odd to vote for Cull only because we feel that PB will contribute more. Now, later he posted the following on why he voted for Cull

So, now it was ok to remove the one he thought would be less incentive for the village? Because PB wrote one post in self-defence?

Yeah, that's pretty much it. What more do you want? Honestly, this feels like the Spanish Inquisition here. Was I supposed to know that Cull, MJW, AND pocketbeetle were Villagers? I'm not a 'Wolf, despite what you may think. I was hoping, in all honesty, to avoid being contributory to lynching ANYONE, because I didn't feel confident in lynching anyone! It wasn't like Day 1 of WW2, where we had a 'Wolf handed to us on a silver platter. I didn't see ANYTHING to go on, except minimal circumstantial "evidence", and since MJW seemed like a sure-fire lynch, and pocketbeetle was a close second, I opted for the third choice - rather than choose anyone else who would have been 100% safe. If I was that concerned, I could have voted for myself! You're not making a very strong case here.

Anyway, I think the most revealing sentence is:

I didn't feel he was in much danger, and I didn't feel like contributing to either the MJW or pocketbeetle votes

Yeah. I am sure that this was no lie. Roland voted for a player he was sure nobody could later call him out on. This alone is nothing special of course nd would it be the only reason I have, I would not go for him.

Again, if I wanted to avoid any suspicion at all I would have voted for myself. Or Mr. Nice Guy. Or anyone else who's name was NOT on the board. You're not making much sense here, in my opinion.

Another post from him reveals more of his thinking:

Yeah, I would also look for people who voted for Cull...

Now some may ask: Why does he suspect himself, that doesn't help him? Well, thats also a recurring them with Roland. He points suspicion on things he did himself. And it does help because why should you suspect the one questioning everything? I mean he sure tries to help the village, right?

Yes, believe it or not, that is what I try to do. Sometimes I succeed (Selrahc), sometimes I fail (pocketbeetle). I'm not infallible. Surely I don't have to tell you that. I'm not a 'Wolf, either. If I was, as everyone keeps telling me, my voting record would be much better.

Well, he pretty much takes each theory thrown out and tears it apart. I would have no issue with that if he would also put theories of his own forward, like he did in WW2. But what he does and the way he does it (together with Lewwyn) makes only sure that people are not speaking up anymore.

I like to think I dissect people's theories and post my analysis. If people feel this is overly harsh than I'm sorry, but it's the same process I put my own theories to - as best I can barring personal bias. As I said, I'm not infallible, but I try my best to post my thoughts on all theories, including my own and especially when people ask me for further clarification or explanation. And for the record, I do put my own theories forward. See my post earlier directed at you. I just haven't had anything really solid this round, unlike in WW2 (half of which was luck, as I'm sure you'd be keen to point out). I think we're ALL in that boat, so singling me out is only fair in the context of you trying to make your point that I'm a 'Wolf - which, again, I don't think you're doing a very convincing job of.

I for myself got bullied pretty roughly by him and I think PB was as well not willing to talk anymore on this level. His way is not helping the village, it is damaging it. And it also means that the wolves have free reign to control the voting AND that it obfuscates what happened for us villagers.

Neither you nor pocketbeetle addressed anything either I or Lewwyn said, and quite frankly I think Lewwyn posted some very interesting points of discussion. You dismissed them out of hand just like pocketbeetle did, yet I'm the one who forces people not to post ideas? I'm sorry, but I don't agree - AT ALL.

Day 2:

Go through Rolands postings. Look who defended Selrahc the most on Day 2. Yeah, Roland. Hitting on Bruindane why he votes for Selrahc, why he switched from PB - several times. Stating that he just hopes the Selrahc-voters are right and that he doesn't believe it. And when he finally, after Selrahc was voted for by so many votes for Selrahc, he states

He voted for him in the end. Gaining cover when he could not make sure that Selrahc would be saved and PB lynched. And still trying to sway people away from Selrahc.

Yeah, I voted for him. Do you know why? Because his behavior was EXACTLY like it was in WW2! That's why I said I hoped I was right - because it was a hail-mary shot-in-the-dark, based on previous experience with Selrahc and gut intuition. I was right then - 50% luck. I applied the same logic to pocketbeetle - or rather that pocketbeetle's behavior, in response to being accused, mirrored Selrahc's, thus it was suspicious - and it failed. It was a total flop. It backfired 100%, and left me questioning any theory I ever had (or ever will have) about 'Wolves. I'm struggling to make order out of chaos, and you know what I'm learning? It doesn't work. Each person is going to act differently. There is no single standard that can be applied nicely that will fit all profiles. It's just not that easy!

Honestly, if I was a 'Wolf it would make no sense for me to go after pocketbeetle in such a way, especially not with you breathing down my neck since the end of Day 1 (yes, I noticed, even if I didn't respond to you). I mean listen to yourself! You'd be making the same argument if I accused you of being a 'Wolf in the same way! I'm not, because it's ludicrous!

For Day 2, I really can only ask you all to go through his posts. I wasn't aware how much he tried to get people to not vote for Selrahc till I have gone through his posts.

From what I recall (and I'm sure you're just waiting to tear my words here apart and throw them in my face) people were latching onto Selrahc without much of anything to go on. My suspicion for him grew VERY slowly over the course of the day - isn't that what's supposed to happen? I mean, how often can you just start the day with "so and so is a 'Wolf, I know it, that's all there is to it?" Ask Rowain how well that turned out. Or Lewwyn. Or even myself! I can tell you, it just doesn't work that way for 90% of the time, and such was the case both yesterday AND today, and tomorrow for that matter!

Day 3:

Well, who was the driving force behind Rowain to lynch PB? Yeah, Roland and Lewwyn. Who got aggressive like hell because people did not agree with him? Or dared to question him? I am not going to write much more about this day, it is still fresh and I think everyone should be able to see how aggressive he acted.

See, now I think you're just unfairly painting me in a bad light. I specifically asked pocketbeetle to address Lewwyn's points, or my own, and he steadfastly refused. It'd be like your girlfriend asking you if you cheated on her, and you steadfastly refusing to answer the question. It just doesn't look good, no matter which way you slice it, and it's rude, to boot (and yes, I'm fully aware I've probably done this myself; so shoot me - I'm an asshole sometimes). I echo Lewwyn's feelings on the matter. I wasn't hurt, but it sure didn't warm me up to pocketbeetle. Not addressing Rowain I can at least understand, because he did that the previous day. Not addressing two different people making two different points that happen to coincide to the same conclusion is just asking to be lynched - thus you get the result we had. Like Lewwyn, I stick by my vote. I'm not going to pussyfoot around it now after the fact. I wasn't sure of my vote, but it was the surest thing I could cast - much like with BOTH the previous two days. Win some, lose some. If I was a 'Wolf, I wouldn't have gotten involved in the debate at all. It's far too conspicuous a place to be caught.

But I do have a last gem. The one sentence which started my suspicion

So, how comes you know that scooter is not playing on Team Werewolf Roland? I see only one possibility: You yourself are on Team Werewolf and you slipped up.

You take an off-the-cuff, tongue-in-cheek remark and use it to paint me as a 'Wolf? That's your biggest piece of evidence? I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad. Scooter, I hope you read this for your own benefit. I made that statement as a half-joke because, quite honestly, your playstyle in this game is so radically different than the last that it's honestly refreshing. I felt like I was seeing you for the first time as a player, and finding far more to like than I did in the last game. The complete turn-around leads me to believe you're a Villager, along with your excellent explanations for your reasoning and thoughts, even if you're rarely certain of your votes (hint: none of us are at this point). To take what was a silly comment and use it as definitive proof of me being a 'Wolf is absurd. It's no different than calling novice's Baner comment "fishing for the Baner". It's ridiculous, and the very definition of grasping at straws. At least Mardoc's theory was built on an attempt at logic, however misguided - this is just building something out of nothing, quite frankly. The fact that scooter is buying it as much as, if not more than, you is disturbing frankly, and makes me wonder if I wasn't wrong to make such a statement about him earlier.

Now, since you've pushed me back into writing novellas (are you happy now?) have I satisfied your queries, and proven to you I'm not a 'Wolf? Can we just set aside the past and move forward? Honestly, I've no desire to waste the Village's time in lynching you when I'm fairly confident you're a Villager. Why don't you make the same conclusion about me, for much the same reason, and we can work on finding a REAL 'Wolf, especially since at this point I have ZERO ideas. What do you say?

[Roland]

Although I will also say (yes, here it is, content again!) that Roland doesn't seem much different from in WW2 to me. Evolved, improved in various ways, but basically the same person. I flat out don't believe he's capable of putting on his personality to the extent he'd need to if he was a wolf, so he's on my safe list for now. Even on my "protected" list (people I'll switch my vote to save) in fact at this stage of the game, as he seems to be yet another player who's evidently capable of getting himself voted off in the face of vast evidence to the contrary.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. You're either a good Villager, or a good 'Wolf trying to gain favor. Considering how well your 'Wolf strategy worked last game, I'm very much inclined to think the former, as this is a little too risky compared to your last play. Regardless, it's nice to know someone recognizes me for who I am. Speaking of which...

That was before he got voted off for his trouble and read criticisms in the lurker thread. You don't think that would change someone a little? My read on him is quite different to yours, but that's life I guess.

Wow. You know, I think you put it better than I could have myself, to be quite honest. I'm not sure I realized, consciously, just how much that all affected me. I mean, yeah, I know it affected me - it's why I went into this with a different mindset, and a different set of goals. Hearing you say it, especially like that, brought it all back - wrapped up in a neat little package. I think I tried to just push aside all that and forget about it, so as not to dwell on it, but you're right - it did have an affect on me, perhaps more subtly than even I realized. So, thank you once again for your enlightening insight.

[Jkaen]

This is what I was worried about, in analysing the PB votes, we have those who were almost certin he was a WW, and those who thought it likely he was. His defense was such that nobody (except the wolves I guess) really was convinced he was innocent, hence the voting for him tells us little.

[Serdoa]

I'm not sure what to say. You know it is nighttime, you have paws now and still you can type - I'm honestly baffled

As to be serious:

For Day 1: Day 1 was odd because we only really had villagers to go for. So the votes itself don't help all that much. I just happened to read your posts and found them not matching all that well with each other. I don't mean that you have stated different opinions, but that I got the feeling that you are not very consistent in them. You always have an explanation why you change your opinion but I can't often understand how you so easily can be swayed. Example as by my previous long post: First lecturing others for voting for Cull only because he is quiet and then doing it yourself. You know when you explain it, it seems to make sense. But when you look back at it later, you feel like something is wrong. Like when you ask your girlfriend if she cheated at you and she doesn't straight say yes or no but starts a debate with you about what cheating really is

My conclusion for Day 1 was: I feel you voted for Cull just because he happened to be

a) a valid target which will not be questioned and
b) a target which shouldn't get too much traction

That would not have been true for me for example. You would have had to explain why you voted for me. For Cull? Nobody normally should question you about that, it is sooo obvious. Only that I still do question it.

But I agree with you (and I think I stated that already in my last post): That alone would be weak to no evidence. It is only combined with everything else that it gives a picture - showing you with paws and fur and bloody teeth

For Day 2: You did not really address the most important point on Day 2. It is not about whom you voted for in the end but how much you tried to defend Selrahc. You state that was because your suspicion grew over the day. And that you got suspicious because he didn't defend himself. But you also state that people started to go against him without anything to go on. For me that means that you got suspicious because he did not defend against baseless accusations.

Roland, I don't want that you feel I again try to put words in your mouth. I really just don't understand your thought process here. And for me that means that someone is either a villager with blinders (what doesn't suit in this case all that well because you did defend Selrahc because the accusations were so bad) or a wolf trying to mislead others.

Day 3: Not much to add here.

As for your comment: You know you state that you are sure that scooter is a villager and wrote it from this standpoint. But then only 2 lines below you state that because scooter also was wondering about this sentence you are now considering if he is not a villager. Again, I might just not understand you very well but for me sentences like those don't make sense. You make your defence and in the same second you already tear it apart yourself.

General remark: If I seem to be highly aggressive or someone feels I am trying to twist their words, talk with me about it. I just am writing the best I can and that means that I probably often will come across as aggressive simply because I am blunt in the way I phrase sentences or am maybe not understanding what someone wrote and therefore put it in my words to see if that was what was meant. That obviously happens more often with you Roland simply because you write with more "fillers" then others do and so I have to question stuff more often to understand it.

[Serdoa]

This is what I was worried about, in analysing the PB votes, we have those who were almost certin he was a WW, and those who thought it likely he was. His defense was such that nobody (except the wolves I guess) really was convinced he was innocent, hence the voting for him tells us little.

Jkaen, that is not true. We had some people believing that he was innocent AND defending him. Just most did not want to listen. I still think the voting for him can tell us stuff, we just have to combine it and not only look solely at the voting.

[zakalwe]

Right now I'm skeptical of anyone who is convinced of anything. I'm not really fully caught up either, because there is a lot of back-and-forth that I really just skimmed over, so I'll need to go back and read it all more carefully. (Not really looking forward to that, though).

I think Serdoa raises a good point here though:

Roland, I don't want that you feel I again try to put words in your mouth. I really just don't understand your thought process here. And for me that means that someone is either a villager with blinders (what doesn't suit in this case all that well because you did defend Selrahc because the accusations were so bad) or a wolf trying to mislead others.

I kind of get the same feeling; Roland is not playing with his blinders on here; he has made plenty of good, objective arguments in my mind. Yet he somehow manages to come off as inconclusive, and at times I get the feeling that he is acting against his better judgment, as if he knows he's doing the wrong thing. Additionally, I don't think anyone hedges his bets as much as Roland does, but then again, that is his style, and it may just be founded in a genuine fear of being wrong. This is backed up by his phenomenal capacity for insisting he was right, in hindsight.

As a side note, Lewwyn seems like the exact opposite of Roland. It almost looks like he takes pride in being wrong.

Did anyone look into the timing of Roland's vote on Selrahc? Was it at a point in time when Selrahc looked sure to die either way?

I also agree with what Novice said: we should look for wolves hiding in the "wake of destruction". That is the most natural place for a wolf to hide.