WW 18 Siege of the Dragon! (Game Thread)

[zakalwe]

3) leading question aimed at role fishing and/or accusing me of bussing

The flip said "The Arsonist", very much implying a solo role (at the time). But you leaped right to saying I must be his buddy.

I do take issue here. You are now accusing Uber of being scum looking to mislynch you by insinuating that his leap indicates hidden knowledge before Tasunke revealed it.

I was defending against Uber's accusation that my question was scummy. Again, please do the "would he do this as town" vs. "would he do this as scum" analysis before concluding that my play is a scum tell. I am innocent, and Q just flipped as "The Arsonist", singular. Yet Uber jumps right on me, accusing me of being scum. Do you just expect me to let that slide, uncontested? I do think it was a leap that he made much too quickly. Since he was innocent, that was due to bias, but it could also have been a scum move. Either way, I wanted to question him about it.

Now I felt parts of Zak's response to Uber were also scummy. Particularly how they "crossposted" with the results. Did Zak fail to post them before the deadline. SO he wasn't worried about getting nightkilled?

I made an earlier post that I checkpointed something like 3 minutes before the deadline. I noted at the time that I would checkpoint on the off chance that I was killed. Uberfish then posted his prepared post one minute before the deadline, so I started on a reply to that. Of course, I could have waited to see if I was killed first, but I didn't really think that would happen, and I was a bit annoyed at Uberfish for being so blatantly biased, so I didn't particularly feel like waiting. Besides, I only had about an hour until bedtime, and I wanted to get a defense out before that.

How is this scummy? And maybe you could take up the challenge that I posed to Uberfish, namely to go through and explain how my play yesterday would make more sense if I'm scum than if I'm town.

[waterbat]

x-post with last few - i fell asleep - which is what im going to try to do again now.

[waterbat]

tbh - i felt like uberfish made that jump too quickly as well, but i think that was mainly because the idea of Qgqqqqq as a solo player was also being used against me.

[Selrahc]

Based on the revealed info I think the scum teams must be of 2 players. That would mean 2-2-1 as the starting figure, along with a mason team of 4(!). That's 9 of 16 before the start of the game. If the scum teams were 3, then there would be 11 of 16. That's a pretty high proportion of people, considering the kills have shown two "regular villagers" die.

If there are scum teams of 3, then we've almost lost this game. Despite our only action being to lynch a scum. With the genocide in the night and day, even with 2 scum kills in 5, there would currently be only 6 out of 11 players as village. In fact... even if we lynch a wolf from that situation, with 3(!) night kills they could easily push the proportion way back in their favour in the night.

Um.

We really need to hope that there are just teams of 2-2-1. That way there are only 3 left in 11, and any scum killed removes a faction. That's a fair situation. SO I'm goiing to choose to believe it's the one I'm in. Hope I'm operating under a warranted assumption that this game is fair for the village!

I was just going back through the old WW SS for fun and realized that wolves have won 9 games and village has won 8... The recent trend towards wolf wins is overwhelming

Yeah. It's interesting because at one point the trend towards villager wins was equally overwhelming.

[zakalwe]

MJW is an interesting target as I feel it is quite obvious by his post why he switched. I'll let him do the explaining though. But still, he is THE mislynching target as well all know AND he certainly gave an opening with his late switch.

Well, maybe I'm dense, but I don't feel it's obvious, so excuse me for asking the question. In relation to your comment for Lewwyn, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to hand out the innocent card to MJW.

In general: I know MJW is a great target because it is easy, just point at his late switch and be done with it. Easy and no work involved. But there are much better cases available right now, not the least the one on zakalwe I already built yesterday which he has defended against with "yeah, well, I thought Q to be innocent". uberfish asked the right question, which I didn't see answered yet: zak, what made you think that Q is innocent, just after 2-3 posts of his in this thread?

Again, I think MJW merits questioning. You're talking as if I parked my vote on him all day, saying the case is obvious and requires no elaboration. I'm not going to let you shout me down Serdoa, just because you think I'm scum. Obviously I need to defend at this point, but I also need to do some scumhunting. Both because I want to catch scum, and because it's my only realistic shot at avoiding the noose, anyway. Otherwise you'll be back here tomorrow, asking me "Why have you only defended all day? You show no interest in actually finding scum." So if you please, can you try to give me a little breathing room today instead of hammering me with the same arguments over and over again? (Not saying that's necessarily what you've been doing so far, but I could easily see you doing that, so please don't.)

Now to answer your bolded question, which is a fair one: My feelings that Q was innocent and that the Q voters were innocent went hand in hand. There was probably a fair amount of rationalization going on, along the lines of "A is voting for Q, that's pretty scummy because I think Q is innocent", and "Q must be innocent, because A, B, and C are all voting for him and they're all scummy". It's a feedback effect, because the two ideas that Q is innocent and that the Q voters are scummy are so closely related. So if you want me to put a timestamp on when I felt Q was innocent, I really can't, but I wouldn't say it was so early as just 2-3 posts in. It was a mounting feeling, for the first half of the day. After I got wrapped up in my quarrel with you, my focus wasn't really so much about Q being innocent or not, but more about trying to understand your angry reaction. (And you were very hard to communicate with, so it took a long time to get past this point.)

Psychologically, why was I so prone to read Q as innocent and his attackers as scum? I think it's because he has a disjointed posting style and seems to be relating his thought processes in a very unfiltered manner. I really couldn't tell the difference between his play yesterday and in the previous games, and he was innocent in those. So what I saw when the more "eloquent" players started poking him was something like a stammering, innocent child being bullied by his elders. It just instinctively made me want to leap to his defense.

That's the best I can do in terms of honestly explaining my feelings and thought processes. If you don't buy my explanations, then fine, there's not much more I can do about it. I'll try to focus now on finding scum, because going in circles about this just isn't productive.

I guess one more thing I can do is appeal for a better methodology, in general. I think my attackers are focusing overly much on showing how my play is consistent with me being scum. That only takes you so far, though. Lots of players have been consistent with their scum MO, so I'm hardly unique in that respect. In order to really build a case, you should also show how my play is inconsistent with my town MO.

[Lewwyn]

I was defending against Uber's accusation that my question was scummy. Again, please do the "would he do this as town" vs. "would he do this as scum" analysis before concluding that my play is a scum tell. I am innocent, and Q just flipped as "The Arsonist", singular. Yet Uber jumps right on me, accusing me of being scum. Do you just expect me to let that slide, uncontested? I do think it was a leap that he made much too quickly. Since he was innocent, that was due to bias, but it could also have been a scum move. Either way, I wanted to question him about it.

Yes you were defending against the accusation. But I thought his reasoning was sound. He said:

1) Q's name appeared up in red (the traditional scum team colour)
2) tasunke's first post says there's already a SK which is the dragon. I doubt we actually have 2 solo killers + a scum team in a 16 player game, and if we do it's a total crap shoot anyway.

And I agree. I had teh benefit of reading everything all at once when I woke up in the morning but, your "what makes you so sure he had any teammates" question stood out to me too.

I will say that because I read everything at once in sort of an info dump I don't get the benefit of seeing it in real time and forming opinion as people say things. Your comment makes more sense I suppose given at the time Uber had said the above yet. But I still feel like it was such a coy response. Like you were testing the waters to try and insinuate the arsonist was working alone. But now we know (GM confirmed) that Qg was on a team. Suffice to say it reminds me of Ichabod's tone in the above post I looked at.

I made an earlier post that I checkpointed something like 3 minutes before the deadline. I noted at the time that I would checkpoint on the off chance that I was killed. Uberfish then posted his prepared post one minute before the deadline, so I started on a reply to that. Of course, I could have waited to see if I was killed first, but I didn't really think that would happen, and I was a bit annoyed at Uberfish for being so blatantly biased, so I didn't particularly feel like waiting. Besides, I only had about an hour until bedtime, and I wanted to get a defense out before that.

How is this scummy? And maybe you could take up the challenge that I posed to Uberfish, namely to go through and explain how my play yesterday would make more sense if I'm scum than if I'm town.

I missed the checkpoint bit being 3 minutes before the deadline. Again, I think the info dump effect with the writeup as a hard line between misled me a bit, because now I can see that your timing isn't as scummy as I originally thought.

I think I will look into the Day 1 again as well. But I do want to say my suspicion is not solely based on the points I brought up in my post, I simply didn't want repeat Uber's and Serdoa's arguments which had come before.

[Lewwyn]

Again, I think MJW merits questioning. You're talking as if I parked my vote on him all day, saying the case is obvious and requires no elaboration. I'm not going to let you shout me down Serdoa, just because you think I'm scum. Obviously I need to defend at this point, but I also need to do some scumhunting. Both because I want to catch scum, and because it's my only realistic shot at avoiding the noose, anyway. Otherwise you'll be back here tomorrow, asking me "Why have you only defended all day? You show no interest in actually finding scum." So if you please, can you try to give me a little breathing room today instead of hammering me with the same arguments over and over again? (Not saying that's necessarily what you've been doing so far, but I could easily see you doing that, so please don't.)

Given that there are 3 scum factions scumhunting is no longer a great defense I think. That makes it seem like there's nothing a villager can do to prove oneself and thus unfair, but it's kind of the truth.

I will say though that I'm willing to let you go scumhunting because even if you are scum, you still want to scumhunt. And technically MJW is in the lead to be lynched anyway so hunt away. I also will attempt not to focus on you.


I would love to hear from Mattimeo and his thoughts on who is scum and if not that then at least on both the lynch and the kills.

[Rowain]

Apparently Tasunke wanted this game to end well before christmas. 1/3rd dead at start of day 2 is a bit too much.

Some thoughts:

waterbat: I'm not really a fan of moving him into innocent land. I think he could be the partner of Qg. Afterall he didn't really defend which reminds me of the Mattimeo-thestick situation in WW16. And Qg put his vote on him when it seemed clear that Qg hangs. so maybe him suddenly beeing runner-up might have come as an unpleasant surprise for those 2.
this reaction from Qg is also interesting:

OMFG
Waterbat

Qg had just moved from waterbat to Azza and novice has just made his announcement that Azza is innocent.

OTOH waterbat claimed he might be usefull. In a normal game I would wait to see what he can do and judge him again at say day 3 or 4 but in this game with this mortality-rate we can't really afford to wait for long. So waterbat if you are villager please not only talk about (like here ) but do. Show us your villager

zakalwe: I don't believe him to be on team Qg. He wouldn't have started such an heavy fight with the full knowledge of knowing Qg-scumminess. He might have tried to derail in that case but backed off before there were too much bad blood. So I do believe that he really thought Qg to be innocent.
But, besides for novice, I can't remember him beeing so up in arms to defend percieved innocence either. I do think he saw an opening to get alot of credit and to line up several mislynches once Qg is shown innocent. I can imagine him planning to save Qg , then nightkill him and bolstered with his rightfullness start a crusade vs the Qg-voters. Of course that pushes zak either into the WW-camp or as the Dragon.

Of course I don't forget MJW or Mattimeo but before I form an opinion on those 2 I prefer to see what they offer for this day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And now on a more serious note: I'm now out of town to attend a funeral of a friend so I will be off for the next ~24 hours.

[Serdoa]

And maybe you could take up the challenge that I posed to Uberfish, namely to go through and explain how my play yesterday would make more sense if I'm scum than if I'm town.

"Please, go ahead and tell me how I should defend best against your accusations."

But zak, to be fair, an answer to your question: There is only one player you know is not against you, and thats your teammate. So in general your scum-play will be exactly like your town-play, except for that one player. And that is exactly what we were shown D1. So, there is your answer: Your play makes more sense for scum because you defended valiantly scum the whole day.

Btw: There is more stuff in here that makes not much sense:

- Lewwyn playing much too soft imo
- Selrahc only talking about meta and old games
- Bigger also has some reputation to live up to and I still wait him to do it

And of course, it is interesting to get an answer from MJW why he switched so late (nonwithstanding that I think I know why, it still is important to ask). On that note, I never stated he is innocent. So I'm not sure what to make of this zak

In relation to your comment for Lewwyn, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to hand out the innocent card to MJW.

It is a difference if I call him innocent or if I just say that I think that you choose an interesting target. As in a target that is telling, for the fact that it is very easy to point to something he did and call it scummy. Doesn't mean he is innocent, but means that I get the feeling that you are deliberately not attacking those which do show scum-signs but could fight back much more than MJW probably will.

[waterbat]

sorry to hear about your friend, Rowain.


As to my guilt - i think in an 11-2-2-1 setup, it would be a 1/60 chance or so that one of the two-man teams were setup 1-2 on day 1. Its not, hit by lightning odds, but its not that likely. I mean - I parked my vote on him all day even when it started to become unreasonable from a survival standpoint to do so. it looked like Azza and Mattimeo (people I didnt suspect as much) would be the best self-defense votes i had.