WW 18 Siege of the Dragon! (Game Thread)

[waterbat]

Lol. I'm Loki!

[Rowain]

Tally

Waterbat (4) - Qgqqqqq Rowain Mattimeo Ichabod
Azza (4) - Zakalwe Lewwyn Bigger Slowcheetah
Ichabod (2) - MJW Uberfish
Mattimeo (2) - Pindicator Selrahc
Qgqqqq (2) – Waterbat Azza
Uberfish (1) - Novice
zakalwe (1) - Serdoa

[Qgqqqqq]

I've tried something different today, instead of going through and answeing in the heat of the moment, I've read thorugh and I'll now go through each page.

@zak, Q

I've answered all your questions. I answered even your barely understandable phone-posts Q and explained why they do actually not refute my case. I also didn't focus on my reasoning of your case. Stop pretending that, it did not happen. You are accusing me since nearly 10 pages now because of my starting post. Thats it. Thats why we talk about it. I've gone trough the thread and till you guys started I actually have once more posted about Q. And that was a direct answer to a post made by him which was not really helping his case imo. Nothing more. Everything else was started by you - and yet you use that to paint me as pushing Q.

Q himself also expects that I somehow take back my case. I won't. I still don't see why you would call a vote useless that isn't useless (and zak, the argument that we wouldn't talk about it if he hadn't called it useless is not making sense. "Oh, if he hadn't killed someone, we wouldn't talk about him killing people".. yeah, right, we wouldn't. What does that tell us?). Anyhow, there is more to it than that, but as I said before, I don't see it as a waterproof-case at all. I just pointed out that this behaviour was suspicious to me. Thats it.

So please, you two, show me where I focussed on Q. Show me were I pushed him? The only ones pushing are you two.

Anyhow, what is asked now of me? That I go around and look for suspects? I've done that already, despite all the questioning and trying to derail the thread by you guys. And I posted it, go back and read. I had to defend since several pages against your accusations and I still have delivered more than you guys up to now. Whom do you find suspicious apart from me? Why?

Oh wait, zak told us already. All Q-voters. Isn't it funny that you guys jump at me because all my suspicions are about people defending Q but yet zak jumping at all people voting for him is totally understandable? Doesn't make sense.

In fact, all your play makes no sense zak.

zakalwe

Serdoa I'll address my phone-posts/our argument in a later post, but looking thorugh the case on it, you respond twice posts 78 and 156 (look in scraper).
In 78 you say that uselessness wasn't the issue - the issue is that I engage with Azza.
I may not have addressed this properly, but my point is that I didn't - he was posting about WW18 and I responded, the fact that I had my vote there is irrelevant, it wasn't a ex post facto justification, it was simply a response to what had been said.
In post 156 however you state, and I quote
And I explained already that the vote was not useless. Thats what all this discussion is about, that you call a vote useless (and therefore easy to separate yourself from it) that clearly isn't.
I've said many times that all we're disagreeing on is semantics, the value of the word "useless" but your argument seems to change in its values and why you are voting me.
The second part is over-emphasizing my exchange with Azza - I voice suspicion as I have dine many times in the past 24 hours, and for some reason its a massive problem.
I don't expect you to take back your case, I expect you to respond to questioning, (zaks & lewwyns in this case) and not try slipping around it.
And again there is the different value on the meaning of "useless" - once more dodging the question. Because I think you've now confused yourself as to why your voting me, could you restate that?
Note that all three of those who posted had challenged your case .

concerning post 196, what am i being asked Qgqqqqq? can't follow 90% of your posts.

You are being asked to respond to the posts asking questions (including my own, rowain and waterbat).
My personal question was if you have an actual case on me, but you seem to be ignoring it.

Ok - took me 4 hours to completely re-write the post scraper- im still not happy with it, but it does the job in a much better fashion than the old one.

new features:
you can update it your damn self
should be dynamic for future games - just reset the thread ID, and its done.
only grabs each page of posts 1 time per update (sorts the posts into player buckets)

removed features:
no "all" link for all posts

open items:
still need to fix some of the intra-site links so avatars and buttons work. probably do this for next game.
not sure at what point the # of posts will exceed the allowed process time. im guessing this is somewhere arround 3000 posts. but im not sure. have wys of dealing with this, but dont have time to do it now

URL:

http://www.cassidyweb.com/ww18

please dont click spam the update. the date of last update is there - so you can see if it needs it or not.

Thanks

it is doubtful i will have time to post much before the deadline.

I must say that the lack of any momentum on candidates other than Qgqqqqq could be telling. The wolves could be waiting for a later move, of course. The vote is still fractured enough they could be waiting to see what shakes out.

If he's innocent, I can certainly understand why Serdoa is voting Zak. If he's not village, he's playing up the fact that he's been "wronged" for trying to contribute. Someone mentioned possible dragon/SK role for Serdoa - I can see this as well. A little more upset than normal that he is being suspected.

Both Mattimeo and Qgqqqqq - you will be gone at deadline due to your locales, correct? If so - i guess be sure to post defense before heading off.
As of now, I think day1 lynch should be between those two, but i'll admit they arent the strongest candidates ever - havent seen much else though.

I will be gone, though I am here for another ~hour.

Nore coming.

[Serdoa]

Qgqqqq, I decided to go ahead and repost the whole post which you conveniently only grabbed one sentence of:

I really shouldn't have invested the time to read this...

p78 (only caught up to here)
lol what?
I explained its uselessness earliep, b/c its D1 and my first vote - and therefore obviously useful b/c nothings going to happen b/c ofit

It may not be how you play but I never intend to stay on a joke vote.

And I explained already that the vote was not useless. Thats what all this discussion is about, that you call a vote useless (and therefore easy to separate yourself from it) that clearly isn't.

I tried to engage with azza - WTF??
Im online, at a computer for 1ce a bit bored because noones ever online when i am, and az posts.
So i respond. (just like i did to MJW, WB et al)
btw this is a weaknes of my play, that i normally focus on those posts more rec

You vote Azza - useless and as a joke which you don't intend to keep. Azza calls you on that vote because it puts him on top. You respond by calling him, and I quote here: "To me that smacks of wolf focusing on an easy mislynch". Yeah, I would call that engaging with him. To be exact, you stated outright that you believe he is a wolf and voted MJW (and not you) in hopes of an easy mislynch. You first put him on top, you then call him a wolf - and now you explain that you just responded to him because you were bored. Yeah, ok...

So my whole point was to explain to you that your vote was not useless. And yes, that was the point of that singled-out discussion you had started, but not the point of my accusation of you. In the same post you took that sentence out of I explained it already again in more detail.

Honestly, you guys act like it is so surprising and strange how I react but I have issues phrasing that stuff so that it is understood as I mean it and you make me rephrase it countless times, investing several hours of time. But even having me do that, you still need to take one sentence out of context to twist it to match your argument, discounting that in the same post you took it from it is already obvious that you misrepresent what I stated. And no, I don't expect that to be an oversight. Neither from you nor from zak who had me go through this the last day. Especially not from zak. But I'll get to that shortly.

[Qgqqqqq]

Ok, let me try to collect my thoughts, and respond to one paragraph at a time.

...

You haven't answered all my questions. In fact, you keep dodging questions. When I ask "don't you wonder why people followed you on Q" you reply that I'm trying to twist your words, instead of just answering the question. I even rephrased the question because the first version apparently offended you, but still no reply. Also, I'm not painting you as trying to push Q. I'm just saying that your case on Q is weak. I believe I already clarified this. I also said that pushing him wouldn't be a scum tell anyway, so the whole point is moot.

This is basically why I started on you (apart from being pissed off...), not because I wanted to discuss it again, but because you consistently refused to look at anything else and are continuosly avoiding peoples questions

Q himself also expects that I somehow take back my case. I won't. I still don't see why you would call a vote useless that isn't useless (and zak, the argument that we wouldn't talk about it if he hadn't called it useless is not making sense. "Oh, if he hadn't killed someone, we wouldn't talk about him killing people".. yeah, right, we wouldn't. What does that tell us?). Anyhow, there is more to it than that, but as I said before, I don't see it as a waterproof-case at all. I just pointed out that this behaviour was suspicious to me. Thats it.

This is fine, beyond the part that I already quoted separately.

I disagree with zak here.
The point is that you are continually focussing on useless as the core of your case and then getting all up in arms about how much underestimating people are and how they won't read your posts.
In fact see 169 as an example of this (look in scraper, thanks WB).

...

I'll answer later to your actual question about suspects as I need to work now and that needs more time I feel. But as all that talk about me acting strange. Lewwyn, you know me very well from PBEM14 I think. How would you expect me to react when I am called an idiot (not jokingly, but in seriousness to insult me) and inane (again, not jokingly, but clearly meant to insult me). Yes, I am pissed and I actually was thinking about asking Tasunke to simply mod-kill me. If I need to let myself get insulted and react calmly and friendly to that, just because otherwise someone (hi zak) will use my reaction as prove for my guilt, then yes, I might sound strange. Do you remember the WW-game when Gaspar and I really had a bad fight about something he said? I am feeling pretty similar to that time. I'd like to scream and punch some people and tell them to go fuck themselves, but I try to stay rational and friendly for this fucking game. And I am honestly not very good at it.

And thats it for now, as I really need to get some work done even though I'd LOVE to go on discussing how I could be SK, dragon or maybe Tasunke in disguise...

I will address this later, but for now - we've clearly both offended each other, but try to focuss on the subject matter

I'd like to hear some other players chime in here. On this Mexican standoff, or on anything else, really. If you're town then the thread is currently being drowned in fairly useless noise. (pun intended)

Well I think we should consider a lurker lynch. Did you not say that last game? Did it not lead you towards Coco, who while we never lynched, was scum? I think that may be a possible course of action here. There's also been a discussion of this in the last lurker thread about the culture at RB punishing those who step out too much and letting the lurkerdom slide.

In any case, guess who has the least amount of posts in the thread? Azza with 3. I know there was an early run on Azza and then that all devolved into looking at suspects of the people who made a run on Azza, but maybe we should revisit Azza, since Azza has since seemed to have gone to ground.

Beyond that I'm also still interested in Mattimeo who I think has overreacted suspiciously. Also the Ichabod/Pindicator relationship is weird.

Hmm interesting point, though I must say I disagree as to the effectiveness last game.
Definitely agree on Azza though. I must say it always feels as tholugh he has more posts (this game), because of Serdoa championing his attack on me.

[Qgqqqqq]

I did not focus on that, I merely tried to respond to your accusations and then it kept coming back to that.

[Selrahc]

Actually thinking about it that might be quite a nice wolf ploy on the first day, come up with a strategem which requires little commitment, then explain the strategem, purposefully causing it to implode. This doesn't leave much of a trail, you can use it as an excuse to not get day 1 lynched, and you then become more active later when more is revealed and it's easier to navigate.

Well, I think you've misunderstood the strategy a little. I've not been lurking to bait you. I challenged you to bait you, then tried to contribute in other matters. I'm not really sure how intentionally tanking the plan helps as a wolf either.

I'm naturally quite taciturn. You won't see me at the top of the posting list... ever. If I've got something to pass on though, I will do.

I'll also say, I'm rubbish on day 1. That was why I enacted a big convoluted plan on my last villager game. That's why I've been trying to introduce information into the thread in a different way. It'll be helpful at a later date, if we have more to go on. And putting weird pressure on somebody might well be a good way to get a useful reaction, since Wolves are at this stage in the metagame quite adept at handling normal pressure. They know the early votes in the day don't really matter unless they provoke a slip up. By pushing in a different direction, something more might be revealed where they aren't being so careful.

[Selrahc]

I'll also say, probably wouldn't have done my post that revealed my plan, except MJW annoyed me. The main reason to reply was to tell him not to expect me to show up for 3am werewolf any time soon. Then I just tagged on some unnecessary exposition... I guess I need to be less sleep bleary when I'm posting.

[Selrahc]

Also, I didn't quite say this in my earlier post. But at the moment I don't think any of Zak/Serdoa/Qg are wolves. I definitely think that Serdoa and Qg will *not* be wolves together. The hurt feelings looked too real. If they were faking that, then they're evil geniuses.

[Qgqqqqq]

Now the "pissed off" post.
Let me explore why I am angry at you Serdoa, so you can stop acting like the worlds out to get you.

Qgqqqqq Wrote: Serdoa, could you respond to my responses?
I'd like to hear your thoughtss on the case now that i'vee refuted it.


I'm not seeing it refuted, but honestly, half of your posts are making no sense for me due to the immense amount of typing errors and incoherent sentences, so I might very well not even have read it. Yes, I know, the phone, but why has that to be my problem? Why do I need to invest absurd amounts of time to figure out what you might have meant? Call me old fashioned but there is something called courtesy. And obviously you are able to type correctly (or remotely so) even on your phone, so it is not a language barrier. You just decided that you don't want to invest the time necessary to correct the errors - and again, why should I invest in that case the time to decipher it?

Now lets have a look at why this could possibly make me angry (something only novice seems to understand).
Firstly you insult my posting and say that you might not bother reading it, and then go on about how much time you have too put into deciphering it. No its not your problem but that doesn't mean you need to raise it as an issue.

Let me explain.
By my calculations I spent 5.5 hours reading and responding to WW18 yesterday, largely on the phone.
In other words I put an enormous effort into this (perhaps unhealthily? but thats by the by) and then you come in here and call me lazy for not taking the time to correct my errors??
And then you start explainging to me about COURTESY?!?

I'm sorry I called you an idiot, for what its worth, but I hope you can understand why I was angry.

I have to say, I agree that Q's post are extremely frustrating and lazy.. I find myself just skimming them because its painful to try and decipher them. Q can you at least actually quote posts you are responding to instead of "p167 bla blah p 173 bla bla p 192 bla bla"?

I don't consider that a tell in any direction, though, as he's done that in past games as well.

To put paid to this discussion once and for all, Bigger/Serdoa my phone has a 50 character limit which is why I spam and don't quote posts.
I may stop playing however if seemingly half the players just can't be bothered reading my posts

The feeling I get from reading Q's handy posts is that his device must be a royal pain to type on, and that he's going through a lot of effort just to post what he does post. And his content isn't spam either, he's responding to a lot of stuff directed at him and also doing independent scumhunting. I guess this is not so apparent though if people are just skimming his posts.

I summary, while I don't have any town tells as such on Q, I think he's an odd choice for a day 1 lynch.

This.
I may nto be very good at this, but I am putting work in and trying to disaccosiate from my anger/argument with Serdoa to actually look at other cases/posts.
Which is also what I find suspicious(/annoying) about Serdoa's posts, that he doesn't seem to be bothering to look for other tells.