WW 18 Siege of the Dragon! (Game Thread)

[Bigger]

Q - im reading your posts. But I much prefer the ones you make on your pc . I guess the 50 character limit explains a lot. Maybe if you avoided shorthand and just typed the way you do on your pc posts, that would help a lot. I wouldn't mind the frequent posts if they were in clear English.

[Bigger]

Well, interesting question Bigger. See, the thing is, I don't know why zak acts like he does. I don't know if he is a wolf or if Q is his teammate. But looking back at D1, I certainly can't understand his play. Qs on the other hand I can understand. Not agree maybe, but understand. I still don't like how he reacted to Azza and some other stuff, but it fits his whole other game so far. Thats why I vote zak. Not because I have an overarching theory that he and Q are partners, but because his play is the one making the least sense for me if he is a villager. So, he probably isn't.

Now, let me ask you: Do you see a fault in my theory about zak? Do you agree with it? If you do, wouldn't that be the better vote? If not, what would you tell me, why should I vote for Azza instead?

well, ok. On Zak:
this is interesting. TBH, he was winning the argument most of the day, and you just seemed unhinged. but your last couple of posts pointed out some inconsistencies by Zak I missed myself.
Like novice, I would like to see Zak's response. I'm not completely sure inconsistencies necessarily mean scum. If they do, it would be rather sloppy scum play from Zak. and I am fairly confident in my ability to read Zak as time goes on.

There's another thing: I think my lurking most of day 1 has weakened my reads a bit. I hope that will improve as I become more active. I'm not lynching Zak without a strong scum read on him. I guess I'm willing to give you that benefit of the doubt for now as well. In the abscence of a strong scum tell, I'm happy with a policy lynch on Azza. (or possibly waterbat, although I prefer Azza).

Why should you vote Azza? The benefit an innocent Zak gives to the village greatly outweighs the damage a scum Zak can cause, imo. The opposite is true of Azza. I do think Zak becomes easier to read as time goes on, but Azza leaves far less clues and we'll likely have the same read on him at lylo that we have now.
Besides that, the chances of Azza being night killed if innocent on any night are somewhere between 0 and 1%. the chances of Zak being night killed... well they are higher than that.

[Qgqqqqq]

...
That was my intention, anyway, and uberfish's - I would gamble Zak and Lewwyn had similar motivations (Qgq's azza vote was probably just a coincidence).
...

Just for the record, it was definitely a co-incidence - I wasn't in on this feindish scheme

...

Just for the record, what about the case do you find convincing?
As in, what makes you yhink I'm a wolf?

[Serdoa]

So, I was thinking about my zak-accusation and why all that stuff aggravated me so immensly. Partly I have explained that in my post here. But thats not all of it I believe. Looking through zaks behaviour, it is not only that he called my case bad besides it being the same case he made on someone else. It is not the wrong allegations he made when accusing Mattimeo. It is not that he only voted for Q-voters the whole D1 and engaged only in discussion to get people to not vote for Q.

What really aggravates me, looking back, is that his whole play isn't fair to me imo. For example: He didn't state that he doesn't like my case at first. In fact, as I showed, he used part of the post in which I made the case to accuse Mattimeo, so certainly had read it but decided not to comment on it - besides that Q quickly racked up 5 votes and that would be imo a good time to mention that you disagree I think. He accused waterbat of just easily voting for Q without reason, just following me. But again without even adding that he doesn't like my case. He never mentioned anything about it at all. Till of all people Mattimeo stated that he felt I am pushing for a lynch as I pushed for his last game (which also can easily be verified as untrue as I hadn't pushed for Q at all, just made my post and explained my reasons in more detail). At that point, suddenly zak posted:

I don't like Serdoa so far, either, even though I haven't said anything about it yet. I'm giving Mattimeo a town point for sharing the sentiment. Same perspective, and all that.

I want to lynch one of the Q voters. Maybe even the wagon driver.

Serdoa

So zak needed Mattimeo to post his suspicion so that he would actually act on it? Since when does zak need someone else to start a wagon? And why did he not once mention that he dislikes my case before? Zak did never try to get a better read on me, he never tried to give me even a chance. He decided he wanted to lynch me. And thats what pissed me off. That I felt all the time that I was fighting without it making sense because my opponent wasn't even interested in what I had to say. He just wanted me to be gone.

And btw I asked already here how zak and Mattimeo think I orchestrated the lynch on Mattimeo last game. Thing is, I first decided whom to get lynched and why and then I tried to rally all to my case. I never intended to let myself get swayed by Mattimeos arguments because I wasn't interested in guilt or not. I was interested in lynching him. And that is exactly what zak is showing here imo. He is not interested if I am guilty or not, he just wants me lynched for his own personal reasons. That might be because he is a wolf, that might be because he dislikes me or simply because he was certain that I am a wolf before he started his attack. I don't know - but so far, due to the other points I mentioned and the zak-atypical wrong allegations I lean towards wolf.

[Qgqqqqq]

Just btw I'm crossposting with a buch, I won't respond to Bigger et al until I've finished the rest.

The case against Serdoa appears to be that he's getting too upset over being attacked. But as far as I can remember he tends to overreact and get into fights like this all the time anyway, so that's not really a scum tell, I remember getting into a fight with him over a pretty minor point one game.
...
Still think Ichabod reads off and needs more attention, still do not like how waterbat changed his justification for Q vote about twice now, azza's a decent policy lynch, still hate Q's vote on me but also hate my current company on this bandwagon.

Firstly my point more revolves around Serdoa not focusing on anyone else ( not that I necessarily think Serdoa's guilty, though I have more venom towards him, I'm actually more suspicious about wb).
Secondly, could you point out why you hate my vote so much - IIRC its mostly just that I had voted with you beforehand (*sigh* joke votes, *sigh*).

I'm about to go to bed, if you actually have some sort of case against me please post it in the next 5-10 minutes so I can actually defend myself against it.

You know, your job as a townie isn't just to sit around waiting for people to make accusations that you can defend against.

Theres a bunch of flak going Azza's way, but I think this summarizes it nicely - though its easy to focuss on defending when the worlds up in arms at you, it is definitely more useful to hunt scum (not saying don't respond, but don't limit yourself to defence).

[zakalwe]

Btw: Below is the last part of my first post in the thread

Lastly, to get away from that topic: Mattimeo

He first sated that he rolled a dice for his lynch vote. And then he stated that he is not married to his vote. That makes no sense. If you rolled a dice, you obviously are not married to your vote. Mattimeo let it sound like it would something necessary to point out when in reality it should be obvious. Why? I think he really just wanted to make clear that he can be swayed still as he found Qgqqqqs behaviour slightly suspicious (Qgqqqq inquired about the passive roles in a slightly off way). But the way he did it doesn't sit well with me. I'd not put it into "scum-camp" already, but something to look out for.

Hey, thats zak accusation against Mattimeo! But no, I wrote that long before he made his accusation. He just added the part about putting words in peoples mouths. Which I could show isn't true. He just copied what I had already posted, added a little bit of his own and took it from there.

That post of yours that you're quoting from is this one, and your first post in the thread:
http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showthrea...#pid316631

That's actually the post AFTER my accusation against Mattimeo. So no, I did not copy what you had already posted.

About the rest of your accusations, I'll respond to your summary, to keep it relatively brief:

1. "he accused me despite us both making the exact same argument (just me doing it for both Q and Mattimeo and he only doing it for Mattimeo)"
Besides the fact that I was first, I don't think the two accusations are very similar, at all. Mattimeo allegedly used random.org to generate a vote, and then happened to find something to back it up. Q voted for Azza deliberately, but for an unspecified reason. He was then questioned by Azza on this vote, and responded. That's hardly "starting with a random vote and immediately finding something to back it up". He could not plan for Azza to question him like that, after all. You even said yourself, in the opening lines of your first post in the thread, that you agreed with Q's suspicions against Azza. (But now, you'd rather park your vote on me than vote for Azza.)

2. "he added obvious wrong "evidence" to his case"
You already brought this up earlier, and I responded.

the votes could be interpreted that way

Sure, but I still think Mattimeo was quick to jump to that interpretation. He didn't ask people if those were their reasons, he just took it for granted. Trying to defuse something, perhaps, or maybe just eager to be a good boy.

I don't think this constitutes adding obvious wrong evidence to my case. My whole point was that Mattimeo interpreted people's intentions for their votes and stated them as facts, instead of e.g., asking people what their intentions actually were. That's what I was getting at all the time, when I said "I don't think anybody explicitly said they were voting Azza because he fooled us last game, or Pindicator "just because". I don't like how you're putting words in people's mouth there". Note the key word "explicitly".

3. "he voted the whole first day only for people voting for Q and always with the reason that they vote for Q"

I got a feeling early on that Q was innocent, and he collected lots of votes that were IMO weakly founded. So I decided to look more closely at those voters. That's a pretty natural line of investigation on day 1. It's not all I'm basing my votes on, though. I'm also voting Azza because he's a blatant lurker. That makes him a pretty good day 1 lynch, in itself.

Cross-posting with everything after post 732.

[Serdoa]

@Qgqqqq

I understand why you got angry and I am sorry. As I said, my wording was certainly too harsh, simply telling you that I am having a hard time understanding what you mean and asking you to repost what exactly you want to ask when you are back at an actual computer with keyboard would have been clearly better.

[Qgqqqqq]

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.

No, I don’t wonder why people follow me on Q, because we have Day 1 and I am expecting that some players will just follow. That’s how we always play. Someone makes an argument, the others follow if it is decent (what it was imo, otherwise people wouldn’t have followed). The accused either makes a good counter-argument, explains your argument away or puts his foot in his mouth and gets lynched. That’s it.

I have to say that I quite honestly don’t see how I attacked Q unfairly when I told him that I don’t understand why I have to read his handy-posts. I probably am stubborn about this, but as much as those who speak English as their mother-language might laugh at it, I always try to be as correct as possible in order to be understood, even though that means that I am writing sometimes several hours for long posts. And it is not even that I didn’t answer him, I did. But I personally felt a need to tell him that he could take a little bit more time so I would actually understand what he means. Has nothing to do on what device he has to work and I am thoroughly sorry for him that his computer broke, but still, if I can’t decipher a post because it is riddled with errors than chances are I will overlook it. Not because I hate the person behind, but because I need awfully long to comprehend what was written anyhow, even without having to guess about it.

I am sorry that it obviously came off pretty harsh, I’m like that unfortunately. But I am not sorry for generally expressing my expectation that everyone tries his best to make it easy for his readers.

Firstly, I disagree that you shouldn't question when people blindly follow you onto someone, especially when I (at least in some peoples opinion) have made a decent response. By this point at least you should be curious as to what their opinions are rather then just letting lurkers follow you.
Secondly, F**K OFF. I am finished with discussing this. We disagree, we each got angry, move on and hunt some scum.

[zakalwe]

And I'm being distracted, so I can't catch up until later.

[Qgqqqqq]

No, I didn't flee from the rancor. I think I and Serdoa reached an agreement that none of us meant any bad feelings towards the other. I just had internet problems at home due to a storm. I'm here now and trying to catch up between things to do at work. But I have to say that I don't like to see what the thread has become.

Regarding your Uberfish suspicion, I think you have a point. Especially the general advice thing. I can add that the reason he gave for voting for me is a pretty easy one (I know that I use teh "gut-feeling" argument for lynching people a lot of time and there's quite some times where it was indeed right -> it still is an easy reason to make, though). I still prefer Waterbat for now, though.

Just a general thing, but could you cut it down to the parts you respond to?
Thats a REALLY long post.