WW21 - The Professor Is Dead [game thread]

[Serdoa]

We have room for one more mislynch, as I count it. Right now we're down to the Q-voters (Serdoa, Lewwyn, Zak, NOvice), me, and the lurkers (Ryan/Matt).

I know I'm innocent, and I think it's very unlikely that Ryan and Matt are the wolf pair.

Why? Neither has done anything to make me believe he is not scum. Why do you believe they can't be a pair? Was there some interaction I overlooked?

I would bet my bloomers there is a wolf in the Q-voters, and I think it might actually be both wolves. But let’s say for now it’s just the one, and the other is Ryan/Matt.

Why? I mean don't get me wrong, it might be. But I don't see any reasoning for why this has to be the case. You simply seem to assume it is like that and build everything else around that premise.

If we lynch Ryan/Mattimeo, and we’re wrong, we’re down to Lylo, with some very good wolf players left to catch. Even if we hit a wolf in Ryan/Matt, we’re not much further ahead because of their lack of interaction with others. Well, if Ryan is scum, I would feel much better about Zak, but if Mattimeo is scum, we know nothing.

And thats just plain wrong. If we do hit a wolf we are certainly further ahead, because it is not 3-2 after the night but 4-1. Thats a considerably better position. Also I doubt the logic of "lynch the good players, they are dangerous as wolfs". Because it is as dangerous to get rid of them if they are not the wolves and we are left with lurkers like Mattimeo. So in the end you are again at the point to vote for whomever you believe most to be a wolf.

If they’re not giving us many clues, then isn’t it better to leave them more time to get involved? Or for a watcher/scanner type to follow them at night?

A watcher/scanner can follow zak, Lew or me as well. And while he can clear one the others can clear themselves by talking. Lurkers can't do that. Also we do not have time for them to get involved when they finally feel like it. Because at that point we are probably at Lylo and if I learned one thing it is that I won't trust a lurker like Mattimeo to make the right decision when we are at that point and he finally gets involved. Would have cost us the win in WW18 if it weren't for all the immunities.

Put simply, Ryan and Mattimeo are easier lynches than Zak/Novice/Lewwyn. And I’m suspicious of anyone who wants to keep us focused on lurkers when one or more ‘Super Wolves’ are almost certainly lurking right at the top. And today might be our last chance to get a majority together to stop them.

Why? Again, I don't see what you base your argument on. Of course Ryan and Mattimeo are easier lynches, thats why we don't want them in the endgame because if they are not the wolves they will get easily mislynched. I really don't want to be at Lylo tomorrow with Ryan and Matt still around as they simply can't be read and therefore it will be easy to vote for them and easy to call someone doing that wolf. The whole day will revolve around their lurking and as you have nothing to go on you will simply not have any help in the decision-making. I'd much rather have Lew and zak there for example, as I do have stuff to go on about them.

Serdoa, you say you doubt something better will come up than the lurkers? I don’t agree, I think we have plenty to analyse from what’s happened so far.

Yesterday, we had a 4/4/1 split, and all 4 Pros lined up to protect Zak. We almost had him on the block. Now I’ve lost two of my voting allies.

As I said, I am sure that there is a wolf in the Q voters. Statistically, from my perspective, it wouldn’t be surprising for both of them to be there, and I’m inclined to think they are. Lewwyn, I’m not letting Zak off the hook, I’m still very suspicious of him. But if he –is- guilty, then I think he has a friend among his voting allies. What did they say yesterday?

I don't get that. You started that post with stating you follow a new thought-lline but it is exactly the same you followed in your last post already. And please stop that "all 4 pros voted for...". We don't play "Pros" against "Newbs", we play villagers vs wolfs. I don't care if those voting with me are old or new players. I care what they have done (or not done) so far. And I think that is true for all of novice, Lew, zak and everyone else you might consider "pro" or old player.

To be honest, I was really surprised that Jkaen was eaten. I thought he’d shown given scummy vibes Day 1, he was hardly a cleared villager. And surely the wolves would rather get rid of someone with a track record of hunting scum hard – Zak or Lewwyn, say. So why kill Jkaen?

Jkaen was imo pretty obviously standard Jkaen. Every time I find myself thinking "Fuck Jkaen, think about that twice please" I know he is a villager

Sure, it could have just been to mess with us all, but I think in a 9 player game the simpler answer is more likely to be right. Wolves only have to last a few days. Jkaen had voted for Zak, and shown that he was happy to stick with it. But he’d also cast doubts on almost everyone, so there was no obvious revenge motivation pointing to anybody in particular.

If Zak is scum, he just had a very close shave. But now he’s knocked off 2/4 votes against him. If he’d eaten Lewwyn or me, it would be very clear that he had benefitted from the night kill. Jkaen was a potential danger to him, and killing him helps muddy the waters.

Nice theory. The same way though you could say that it was a frame-job and that you are the wolf that now tries to make the lynch happen. It is very easy to explain night actions in many different ways and without knowing anyones alignment is gets kinda pointless. zak simply will say he can't defend against this accusation. And he is right in this case.

Now Zak can rely on his scum-buddy’s vote, so all he needs to do is keep one of the town Pros onside and he’s suddenly looking a whole lot safer. Especially if he can get said scum-buddy to start building a case on Ryan, Lewwyn or me. Hmm, so far, Zak’s voted Ryan, Serdoa’s voted Ryan and me, and Novice has voted Lewwyn.

So what you basically say is that everyone could be a wolf if zak is a wolf. And if he is not everyone could be a wolf as well. What exactly does your whole theory tell us? That Jkaens kill could be done to get rid of zak-voters and that now everyone who actually played today and voted could be zaks scum-buddy? Thanks, I hadn't noticed that everyone could be a wolf before you posted

I know I could be wrong on Zak, I’ll admit that. But I’m damn sure I’m not wrong that there is a stench of scum coming from his inner circle. And I think today might be our last chance to crack them, if only because I may not be around tomorrow. Zak/Serdoa/Novice/Lewwyn. That’s where the pressure needs to be at the moment.

Translation: I needed two long posts to tell you all that I believe that at least one of zak, Serdoa, novice and Lew is a wolf. I have no evidence to back anything I stated up and my only "leads" are that Jkaen had voted yesterday for zak and was killed in the night.

Btw: Gazglum, if zak is also innocent, lynching him will tell us nothing at all about D1.

[Serdoa]

And Lewwyn, I hope you have really have something meaningful to add to your zak-vote, otherwise I consider voting for you because you are a good enough player that you should imo see through Gazglums post.

[Lewwyn]

And Lewwyn, I hope you have really have something meaningful to add to your zak-vote, otherwise I consider voting for you because you are a good enough player that you should imo see through Gazglums post.

Yeah because thats the best way to get someone to agree with you.

Serdoa I disagree with your idea that Gaz's post is something to "see through". First I will say that there are things he says that I don't agree with particularly about "Super Wolves" and the like. But I think Zak is scummy and I think Gaz makes good points. I don't think you should dismiss the idea straight out that Zak is scum. You said earlier that you would vote for Zak, but honestly I don't see it. I don't think you will vote for him. I think you are convinced that he is innocent, and no matter what Zaks alignment I think that the refusal to vote Zak while saying you would vote for him is suspect. I think either you are a hardline villager who believes Zak is innocent but refuses to admit he believes it because there isn't really any evidence for it, or scum who either wants to keep scum buddy Zak safe or buddy up to innocent Zak. I'm having a difficult time deciding.

In particular this is what I was referring to with 100% yes:

Zakalwe. If nothing else, finally knowing his alignment would tell us a lot about the others, given how close Day 1s vote was.

I think lynching Zak, who I think is scummy, also nets us the most information. Serdoa you say we learn nothing if Zak is innocent. If he's guilty and we never lynch him, don't we lose?

Now what was I going to add about the case against Zak? Go back and look at his attack on me. I'm going to refer to this post because I think, as I have said before that it is the scummiest. Put don't look at the post itself look at when it was written and think about what Zak was trying to achieve. Just before the post, Ryan has voted for Zak and then Gaz wrote an attack post on Zak as well. Zak then responds with:

Alright, let's do a little analysis, then.

He then proceeds to rehash what has happened and then "look for Q's scum buddy" he's not looking for scum, he's looking for the scum buddy of the person he's voting for. He doesn't know Q's alignment! Do you think Village Zak would be "so sure"? Do you think he'd start throwing suspicion on people based on an alignment he doesn't know? But what does this achieve? It creates the aura of scumhunting. It also allows Zak to throw suspicion on me without voting for me because he's "still got to reaffirm Q's alignment". This way he gets to shed suspicion on himself, throw some on me and he doesn't have to take his vote of Q thereby endangering himself to a vote. He was under pressure and I think this was his response.

Anyway I agree that a bunch of Gazglum's posts are not as well reasoned or thought fully through, but he did say that it was his thought-line and I think its very clear that he sat down and just wrote out his thoughts as he sat there. I don't think he was trying to construct a full argument or anything. Stream of consciousness does not promise to have a point or end goal. But I agree with the conclusion that Zak is suspicious and that lynching him is our best bet.

One thing Gaz does that I'm not particularly fond of is analyze Jkaen's death. You criticized that Serdoa, but I think you missed the main reason its useless is because wolf kills are naturally going to be confusing because maybe they're trying to frame or reverse frame someone, who knows. If you look at Jkaen's list of suspects he actually ranks Mattimeo as his first suspect followed by Zak and myself. Does that mean Mattimeo killed Jkaen so that he wouldn't attack him Day 2? Or is it a frame up of Zak? You can't know. And personally I think it is distracting. I will say that Jkaen's death and Q's death means there are less Zak voters now, which is troubling.

I want to see what Ryan does as well.

[novice]

I'm not sure I understand. Like you say yourself, I voted Q for calling his character "something" instead of "someone". I wasn't giving Q heat for suggesting a [mass] claim, I was giving him heat for the way he claimed his own character. One of the reasons I want people to claim is we can catch on to (admittedly a red herring in this case) clues like that.

I just don't get the logic Novice - why would being a wolf make Q more likely to be casual/dismissive about naming his character? In general, wouldn't a wolf be more careful with his words? More careful to study his Role PM?

My initial theory was that Q had Scruffy as a safe claim, but without the biography you would get for your real role, and hadn't done his research.

It was pretty weak, I wish I had had more time before the deadline to consider alternatives, but I was busy at work.

I'm not caught up now either, but no time now to fix that yet.

[zakalwe]

More claims, please.

[Ryan]

Thanks for starting this, Azza, I needed a new avatar.

Zak is back.

More claims, please.

Im doctor Zoid Berg . Now Zak since yesterdays lynch didnt go through and Serdoa has been protecting you pretty aggresively , gets angry when I tell him. He is acting wierdly and now I am getting double lynched by you and him . I am really looking at a Zak + Serdoa scum team here.

[Ryan]

The way the lynches are happening are : Q into me and then Prob Gagzulm next. Better kill all the mislynchables

[Serdoa]

[quote='Serdoa' pid='352362' dateline='1363433142']
And Lewwyn, I hope you have really have something meaningful to add to your zak-vote, otherwise I consider voting for you because you are a good enough player that you should imo see through Gazglums post.

Yeah because thats the best way to get someone to agree with you.[/quote.]

I don't try to get anyone to agree with me.

I think either you are a hardline villager who believes Zak is innocent but refuses to admit he believes it because there isn't really any evidence for it, or scum who either wants to keep scum buddy Zak safe or buddy up to innocent Zak. I'm having a difficult time deciding.

I believe that there is no good reason to vote for him right now and that we are better off voting for lurkers whom we can't read at all because they don't post.

In particular this is what I was referring to with 100% yes:

Zakalwe. If nothing else, finally knowing his alignment would tell us a lot about the others, given how close Day 1s vote was.

I think lynching Zak, who I think is scummy, also nets us the most information. Serdoa you say we learn nothing if Zak is innocent. If he's guilty and we never lynch him, don't we lose?

What you two say is basically that lynching zak is even beneficial if a mislynch because we know more afterwards. That is not true, because obviously in case of a mislynch we don't know more than before.

Also the second sentence of yours makes no sense at all. Of course we have to lynch him if he is guilty. And? What has that to do with my point? Nothing at all. You guys argued that even a mislynch is good for us (basically the least worse option) and I don't agree with this faulty logic.

He then proceeds to rehash what has happened and then "look for Q's scum buddy" he's not looking for scum, he's looking for the scum buddy of the person he's voting for. He doesn't know Q's alignment! Do you think Village Zak would be "so sure"? Do you think he'd start throwing suspicion on people based on an alignment he doesn't know? But what does this achieve? It creates the aura of scumhunting. It also allows Zak to throw suspicion on me without voting for me because he's "still got to reaffirm Q's alignment". This way he gets to shed suspicion on himself, throw some on me and he doesn't have to take his vote of Q thereby endangering himself to a vote. He was under pressure and I think this was his response.

I think it would have been completely in line for a villager to keep his vote on Q to not get himself lynched. After all he only knows his alignment for certain and I would expect every villager to save himself. So that argument of yours makes imo not much sense, as he could have kept his vote on Q with much less hassle as well.

As for the part of being certain: You seem very certain that he is scum too, don't you?

[Serdoa]

The way the lynches are happening are : Q into me and then Prob Gagzulm next. Better kill all the mislynchables

I can't hear this self-pity anymore. Oh, we are so easily mislynchable, oh, save us please, don't lynch us, we've done noting. Quite right, you did nothing. Thats why you are up for lynch. You've not even tried to give reasons for why you are innocent or even add anything to the zak-case. You just lament that you are so easily mislynchable and that you are set up by the wolves. Honestly, if I was a wolf you would have died last night so I wouldn't have to suffer through this.

So, with that out of my system: Have you actually any arguments for your innocence? I mean there is a reason that people are voting you and your last posts are not doing anything actually. You kept silent for a long time and now just made a 2-sentence post which did not provide any reasons except for "I'll vote zak because he votes for me". I'm sure revenge-voting will win us this game...

[Ryan]

There was no self pity in this. You have given me nothing to defend against lol. I have given enough reasons to attack Zak and you. Your self pity with "I CANT BE ARSED TO WRITE LONGER POSTS AND CHANGE TOPIC TO SC2". Made me stop the aggression. I voted for Zak since day 1. Firstly as a joke then the way he reacted made me keep that vote. The way you and him are reacting is more than enough for me to vote him then you. Also , The aggression you two are trying by refrencing to me using emotions is bullshit . I did not lament , all I did was mention that you two are going for mislynchables in order to waste days. Here , I repeat myself again, all you and Zak are doing are trying to make whatever I write into emotional and self pity? Can you attack my posts not use emotions as attacks? Ad Homina gets annoying. I am still convinced that Zak and you are good enough lynches. Keep reactign the way you two are reacting and I am not changing my votes.