WW14 - The Edge of Reason

[pindicator]

Whoops, I meant WW12 - not WW11.

[zakalwe]

really? I have to disagree here. From what I have seen so far, if you are a villager and you vote on a lurker, what good does that do? If a bandwagon forms, the wolfs can easily hide on those day votes. Voting during the day seems like the best indicator of alignment - that and crazy role claims.

Strange passage. You seem to equate lurkers with villagers. While that may be true in some games (including this one?), it is not generally so.

I really haven't seen much else worth pouncing on so far, so I will move my vote to Waterbat. I mean... why not?

[slowcheetah]

Mainly because of my spotty accessibility.

I have had times where I've been called into work at short notice, decided to go out with the other half or with friends or simply lose connectivity and if I throw my vote around and then can't get back on to change it then I think that is not serving the village. I want to be able to vote and be sure in my head that should I not be able to come back on before a deadline, I would be able to defend it.

I undertand the reasoning, although it seems overly cautious. I don't like your phrasing of "defend your vote"; again that sounds more wolvish then villager. Wolves being all about survival, while good villagers seem to play more on the offense (at least during the day).

[Mattimeo]

First, you were in ww 13. "everyone show up" before voting would mean no vote until halfway into day 2. Same with WW 12, actually.

And you did quite well last game, getting eaten by wolves, but you now forgot all about why use votes to pressure people?

Mattimeo.

'Everyone' was a generalisation, 'more than half' would have been too weak and it hadn't been met at the time anyway...
Really wouldn't call being killed on night 2 in a game that village lost as 'doing well'. And you obviously didn't pay any attention to anything I did if you think that I 'forgot' to waste time with useless votes early when there are plenty of avenues of discussion available to encourage people to talk without instantly putting them on the defensive, where any scum hunting they're doing has to be suspect 'cause we've made hitting *anyone* else a higher priority than hitting the *right* someone else.

Voting zakalwe. Changing his vote that much, he doesn't care who gets lynched, as long as someone is. Villagers care who gets lynched. Wolves don't, especially if they're the ones starting the wagons.

[Sareln]

Good morning.

Old Count:

Vote count

Meiz (3) - Bigger Lewwyn Rowain
Bigger (2) - Novice VM
Mattimeo (2) - Injera Molach
Rowain (2) - Jkaen Meiz
Jkaen (1) - Slowcheetah
Novice (1) - Sareln
Twinkletoes89 (1) - Zakalwe
VM (1) - Pindicator

Not voting - Mattimeo Twinkletoes89 Waterbat

Flavour is up in post #2

Changes:

• (91) Rowain votes for JKaen from Meiz
  
• (97) Waterbat votes for Bigger from NoVote
  
• (112) Zakalwe votes for Waterbat from Twinkletoes89
  
• (114) Mattimeo votes for Zakalwe from NoVote
  

New Count:

(3) Bigger - Novice, VM, Waterbat
(2) Meiz - Bigger, Lewwyn
(2) Mattimeo - Injera, Molach
(2) Rowain - JKaen, Meiz
(2) JKaen - Slowcheetah, Rowain
(1) Novice - Sareln
(1) VM - Pindicator
(1) Zakalwe - Mattimeo
(1) Waterbat - Zakalwe
----------------------------------
(1)Not Voting - Twinkletoes89

[Twinkletoes89]

So Sareln, now that you are up, why are you voting for novice?

[Sareln]

Novice w/ a non-permanent post restriction (can only quote and vote)

VM w/ a permanent post restriction (1337 5P34K or any other non-standard formatting near as I can tell, "doesn't think" it will go away). Experienced in WW, but not here. Used to a meta with longer days from what I can tease out of the leet.

People talking about a serial killer?

Meiz is first to mention the possibility, while parsing rules. VM thinks the first person to mention a serial killer is much more likely to actually be one. He thinks Bigger mentioned it first though... getting details wrong. Lewwyn disagrees with VM's reasoning. That means, I think, that he believe that a hypothetical SK would keep his head down. That makes sense to me.

[Sareln]

So Sareln, now that you are up, why are you voting for novice?

Opening vote to see how he reacts. With his post restriction though, I doubt we can get anything from him until it goes away.

@ Mattimeo, the quick vote switching is Zak's form on day 1 IMO.

@ Waterbat, why are you voting Bigger?

[pindicator]

I know my experience is limited to just the last two games, but this looks like a villager read from zak -- actively hunting and digging around. His post early on about if the posting restrictions have to be done in the wolf thread just seems like he's trying to bait people into voting him. Well, trying to get people talking, even if they are voting against him.

Jkaen, you have a lot of posts that are just filler or confirm / buddy up with what other people have already said. Excited about drawing wolf this time around?

[zakalwe]

Voting zakalwe. Changing his vote that much, he doesn't care who gets lynched, as long as someone is. Villagers care who gets lynched. Wolves don't, especially if they're the ones starting the wagons.

I do care about who gets lynched, even if I may have a hard time deciding who it should be. Given sufficiently persuasive arguments, I could be talked into lynching anyone but myself. That would not be the case if I were a wolf. (So maybe your premise that wolves don't care isn't all that solid?)

That said, I'm feeling good about my vote on Waterbat currently, and if you want me to stop switching I'm happy to stay there. In fact, you should join me if you want to target people who don't care. He placed the third vote on Bigger, making it a bandwagon, but won't acknowledge that he did. Instead, he justifies his vote with "why not?", saying the burden of proof should lie solely on the accused. It reminds me a lot of how he joined a bandwagon on me on day 1 in the previous game, while denying that he did it for the sake of bandwagoning. Bandwagoning isn't necessarily bad, but when you try to brush it off as something else, something is fishy.