Posts: 476
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2011
zakalwe Wrote:Who do you see as trying to derail his wagon, besides me?
VM Wrote:p1nd1 g3t y0ur "f4cts" 0utt4 my f4c3. Y0u just w4nt t0 d3f3nd B1gg3r, d0nt y0u.
n0v1c3 1s 0bvt0wn, s0 1s Jk43n.
1m st1ll f1n3 w1th 4 b1gg3r lynch, th3n p1nd1c4tor.
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
Ok. I guess that also explains your earlier comment that I was defending Pindicator, which seemed like a strange reach. Can you also answer the other half of my question?
If you know what I mean.
Posts: 476
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2011
Wh4t, 4m 1 sudd3nly 1n cust0dy? M4k3 y0ur 0wn r34ds!
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
VM Wrote:Wh4t, 4m 1 sudd3nly 1n cust0dy? M4k3 y0ur 0wn r34ds! So you are also in the "why not?" camp, then? I'm not even asking you to explain your read on Bigger, I'm just asking if you actually have one, or if you're just pushing to lynch him on game theoretical grounds. Why so defensive?
If you know what I mean.
Posts: 476
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2011
N0, 1 d0 th1nk h3 1s scum.
Posts: 3,045
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2006
zakalwe Wrote:Novice, have you got anything to say about Waterbat? (Hopefully there is enough source material to work with for a few apt quotes.) Same question for Meiz, but feel free to use your own words. 
I'd think wolves are usually more pressed to get some sort of evidence against players they are accusing, to justify the vote. Waterbat directly admitted that he didn't have much evidence behind his vote, he just wanted to apply pressure. I can understand that. Later he mentioned that Bigger's attack back increased his suspicion, so he kept his vote for more pressure. I do not suspect waterbat that much at the moment.
I'd like to parrot novice bit more, I'm also getting some villager reads from VM (aggressive and even ruthless though, but can be explained with over 50 games behind him).
Posts: 5,157
Threads: 37
Joined: Jan 2011
Currently writing up some proper tracking notes, taking a break at post 120.
Currently have the following marked as suspicious if other people wanted to check what is blipping on my second read through
18 - Zakalwe
21 - Bigger
22 - Rowain
73 - TT
105 - Waterbat
Posts: 6,141
Threads: 10
Joined: Mar 2012
VM Wrote:1 4m v0t1ng f0r b1gg3r b3c4us3 #2 p30pl3 w4nt t0 d3r41l th3 w4g0n 0n h1m, s0 h1s fl1p w0uld b3 m0r3 inf0rm4t1v3 th4n 4nyon3 3ls3s.
C0m0n ppl j01n 1n!
since you started that wagon, I think my lynch would inform the village about your intentions more than anything else. Sometimes villagers want to derail obvious mislynch bandwagons, too.
I'm going to be really annoyed with the village if I get mislynched on day 1 by a campaign lead by a uber-agressive newbie w/ an apparent "pick a name out of the hat" strategy
(newbie may not be the right word, as he appears to have plenty of ww experience, but it is apparent from his reads of several people he hasn't read any of the previous RB ww games)
Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.
Posts: 8,244
Threads: 30
Joined: Jun 2004
Jkaen Wrote:Currently have the following marked as suspicious if other people wanted to check what is blipping on my second read through
18 - Zakalwe
21 - Bigger
22 - Rowain
73 - TT
105 - Waterbat
So you still find my post voting for pind as suspicious wolf-behavior  I think you are trying desperatly to look village.
@VM:
Why do you believe that novice and Jkaen are obv. village? Since you have chosen to ignore it so far maybe i can get your attention now:
VM
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
Let me quote this a third time for good measure and be more explicit about why I find it suspicious, since Waterbat apparently won't address it anyway.
waterbat Wrote: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
This passage assumes that all lurkers are innocent. He says: What good does it do to vote for a lurker, as all you might accomplish would be making a bandwagon for scum to hide on. So maybe Waterbat happens to know that there are no lurking scum in this game, and thus jumped to the conclusion that the proper pro-town stance should be to not pressure lurkers. Rather than thinking about the issue of lurkers in general, he made the mistake of extrapolating directly from what he knows about this specific game.
I also sympathize with what Bigger says, I think he deserves either A) more concrete accusations to defend against or B) more explicit policy statements by those voting for him, explaining why they are making a random lynch.
If you know what I mean.
|
