WW 18 Siege of the Dragon! (Game Thread)

[slowcheetah]

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.

I was actually a bit clumsy with my language earlier, I think that the challenge would give you an excuse to lurk i.e. you do have a kettle boiling and are trying to hunt. However, I think at the minute that's an unlikely scenario, the villager skewed reason explained above is equally as plausible and you are giving off more of a villager vibe as far as I'm concerned. I just wanted to mention something in case it became important later.

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.

I agree with this, although I think Zak and Serdoa are capable of concieving of and pulling off a double bluff where they attack each other vehemently, so we shouldn't get them cemented in as enemies.

[Serdoa]

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

Sorry for that, you are right. I actually did misremember as I had written pretty long on my post (long before you posted yours) and read yours only afterwards. So in my memory you had written that after me.

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.)

Q stated that he votes for Azza for last game. Thats not an unspecified reason, thats basically as good as random.org. Voting for someone for an outside reason that has no bearing on this game. And as less as he could plan for Azza to question him like that, Mattimeo could also not plan for Q to request explanation about the passive abilities from the GM.

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".

And I tell you (and quoted it for your convenience before) that they till state that explicility enough that there was not reason to question them about it. Would anyone not believe that Q meant with "Azza for last game" for his play last game. Which was fooling the village? And would someone not agree that Rowain voting for Pindicator with "and of course pindicator" is a vote "just because pindicator is pindicator"? So yes, for me that constitutes adding wrong evidence. Because he never did interpret peoples intentions and stated them as facts. He did simply state what he had read in his own words. Difference.

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.

Again, if you got that feeling early on, why did you never ask me about the case? Why did you never try to take it apart?

[uberfish]

I'll admit to being slightly swayed by waterbat's tracker; I think if he's scum there'd be some value to NOT putting a tool that helps village more online. No proof of innocence but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for today.

azza

[Qgqqqqq]

I feel no obligation to post here. I did feel some obligation to spend 2:00-6:00am working on the skimmer.

I think I'm in the lead now as far as mislynch goes. There doesn't seem to be an easy self defense vote. I feel Serdoa is following a pattern I did before in previous game. Tired of zak's latching onto me without abating, I finally convinced myself he had to be scum.

Can someone do a tally? I'm phone restricted all day ( not as badly as qgq thank god )

While we are all very thankful for the scraper, its still more important to respond to suspiscions (you posted more so I'll address it later).

...

@Ichabod what I thought was weird about your play is specifically your exchange with Pind in the early part of the day, I don't understand why you would single Pind out for not voting you for mayor when in general people weren't voting you for mayor anyway.

@Waterbat who do you suspect? You've said Q was a random vote, then a real vote, then an information vote, and then said "I'm willing to explore other targets" without, you know, mentioning other targets.

Agree with first point, that felt very off (though not enough for me).
Secondly I agree with this,wb you seem to be mostly just riding in Serdoa's slipstream, but when you are responding you aren't really addresing this well. Also that string of posts around p180 mark were very bad.l

People have been a little too heated for my tastes today. Can we simmer down a little? I don't think insults are ever a justifiable part of the game. We're all here to have fun.

Agree. Peace people?

I never said qgqqqqq was a random vote or specifically an information vote.

I felt a gut reaction reading his play as scum. Noted it for later. I did not vote in that post.

Serdoa comes on and has similar reaction. Firms up my suspicion, so then I followed Serdoa.

It's as simple as that. After a few more followed I made the comment that we'll get some info out of it. In fact I'm happy still with that. I never said the reason was informational. My reason was gut + a decent case by someone who comes off villagers to me.

But Serdoa's wasn't gut. He posted some specific things (which I disagree with) and then has argued those decently.
You aren't really making any points. Say for yourself what you found suspicios (don't just say gut), and what has reinforced that top be better then the other cases.

Right, Ive skimmed the thread. First impressions;

1) No specific wolftells really stand out, with everybody pretty much playing in the style I'd imagine them to.
2)Only slight expception to this is Lewwyn appears to be on the sidelines less than usual, when I've played with him and he's been villager he's tended to lay very low on the first day and then build up a head of steam through the 2nd and 3rd days then get nightkilled. Not necessarily a wolftell, but in this meta he could have a unique role.

I had a more thorough look back through and this post interested me:
Lewwyn post 222:

waterbat Wrote: 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.


Who brought up that idea? I don't remember. Serdoa as SK would make sense because he's definitely reacting strange.

Lewwyn wrote:

Just a mild point but it's interesting that Lewwyn kept this in the limelight. Trying to subtly reinforce suspicion.

3) Selrahc's lurker play makes sense if the lurker play was designed to draw me out (I would have actually accepted the challenge, but I couldn't think of a game Id be able to win at :P)

4) The Zak, Serdoa, Azza, Qgqqqq malarky is awash with anger and hasn't wrung through my brain properly yet. However, the main suspects probably come from there.

5) As I remember, Azza hasn't made a single case, or done anything aside from question his attackers. As a lurker lynch he looks the best option on a day with few tells.

Azza

Now to reread and try and wring some further sense.

I don't really think lewwyn would be trying to reinforce Serdoa as SK. He has felt a bit off the norm though - especially with the meta.

Lol. I'm Loki!

Err what??

Two things:
Somewhere serdoa you posted I've been angry right since Azza attacked me - which patently isn't true, when I said "lol same" I meant it. I didn't actually get angry until the "your posts sucked!" one, and have been pretty much floating on that since.
Also novice for mayor!
Yeah thats pretty much just because he's the only one being nice to me...

[Serdoa]

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.

If I believe my case is good enough, no I won't question it. Of course if I take your viewpoint and believe the case is really bad, I will question it. Thats one of my points about zak. If he thinks the case on you is bad, why does he take so long to question the one who made the case? Because you won't get someone lynched if you attack him on the first day of a day?

As for your second part. I made the error yesterday to walk right into this trap. Distracted my play, let me overlook unexplicable plays by zak and so on. Won't happen today. If you really mean what you wrote yesterday and now, just take a big step back from this game. Thats better for your health (and mine as well).

[Bigger]

sigh. can someone post a vote count (including mayor). I'm a little confused.

waterbat, considering how tight the vote is and who I'm voting for it seems like it would be a good idea for you to switch your mayor vote to me

#campaigning

[novice]

I'll admit to being slightly swayed by waterbat's tracker; I think if he's scum there'd be some value to NOT putting a tool that helps village more online. No proof of innocence but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for today.

azza

Eh, making a tracker is fun. I made a really basic one myself today. I'll put it up if we lynch Waterbat.

It looks like I'll have to say this now -
don't lynch Azza, I know that he's innocent.

novice

[Tasunke]

I'm back ... will attempt a vote count shortly

[MJW (ya that one)]

Holy crap that is so much text.

Bigger, I think Serdoa is a lock of mayor for some reason still, that being said I would want a tally.

I don't have enough conviction to deride the lych to someone other than waterbat or azza. I'll go with azza before reading the thread. The players who I think are better (zak, lewwyn, uberfish) are voting azza over waterbat and I don't think azza can live untill the end of the game; because of what happened last game and the fact that he is a lurker.

[Serdoa]

Can you elaborate novice? Or does that put you or someone else in danger or is prohibited by the rules or whatever?

And also, did you mean with "I'll have to say this now -" that you are forced to write this or that you do it to prevent a mislynch?