WW21 - The Professor Is Dead [game thread]

[Gazglum]

Gazglum’s paranoia list: in order from most to least scummy

1. Zak: it’s not so much the original post that I already attacked, although I didn’t like it then and don’t like it now. But where is the scumhunting from him since? His posts Day 2 consist of defence, repeatedly calling for claims, or attacking Ryan.
Yes, Ryan needs to be pressured, but I don’t think him calling Zak aggressive is particularly out of character for him. Where is the analysis on Mattimeo? On Novice? Serdoa? Me? Since Zak is under pressure, why isn’t he looking elsewhere? Zak told us,

If Q is scum, I think it's quite likely that all four voting for him here are innocent. If Q is innocent, then one of the Q voters is probably scum, but not necessarily.

But he hasn’t followed this up. It’s just been Ryan since then.

Second, Zak wants everyone to claim, but I don’t see how this necessarily helps town? And he said himself that,

Role claiming may favor scum, or it may favor town. Q just urged it on without considering which it would be. That's what I found scummy.

What has changed to make role claiming so town friendly now? Why does town Zak need to know exactly who has which role? Why is he fishing so hard for that info without taking us through his thought processes as to why it helps more than it hurts?


2. Second pick is Serdoa. I feel like he won’t scum hunt except at the lurkers. I don’t much like how he voted Q so quickly, then me, then Ryan, without much explanation. But that could just be his style, I’ll admit. Still think that of all the possible scum pairings, Zak/Serdoa feels most plausible to me right now. Serdoa, you arbitrarily accused me of being a scum pair, so I'm happy to do the same to you :P.


3. Mattimeo, not committing, definitely not being very helpful to town. In fairness, has made one or two good points when he does crop up.


4. Ryan – reasons others have said. A bit too quick to attack, and I don’t always understand the attacks he makes. But that feels consistent from WW20…where he was scum. Who knows.


5. Novice. I like that he’s been willing to question everybody, which Zak and Serdoa haven’t.


6. Lewwyn. I could be biased because he’s been buddying up to me the most, I recognise that. But I like his points, and although I’m sad he’s switched off Zak, I think the way Lewwyn recognised his argument wasn’t as strong as he’d thought and so changed targets was very gentlemanly, and a big town tell.

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day everyone! Lynch well.

[Serdoa]

Ok, forget about the probabilities. I was responding to Serdoa's question as to why I had dismissed the idea of a Ryan/Mattimeo scum pairing. The reason was, as I was trying to show, that there was a much higher chance of a scum pair in the Q voters than there was among the lurkers. And I didn't like what I saw as Serdoa trying to cloud that issue and focus just on the lurkers.

Hm, am I doing that? Maybe. I do look at Lewwyn though for example. I certainly think about zak (and I agree with your point that he has not analyzed as much, but otoh he never seems to have time on the weekend). novice seems pretty villagery to me, no reason to look there yet. The same is true for you - I think you made too many logical errors in your points that you are a wolf. That might of course me being dumb, because you simply might have not realized them, but I think the other explanation - you being a villager that just is certain that he got zak and want the lynch to go through (I had the same happen to me in WW16 I think) - is as valid.

So, yeah, I might be focussing mostly on Ryan and Mattimeo. But thats because those two are for me the most probable scum.

I know that there has been an element of self-pity from Ryan and me, and maybe we do have a persecution complex. But I think in a setup like this, all the townies should think very carefully before committing to a Day 2 lurker lynch after taking out Q day 1. I agree that Ryan or Mattimeo -could- be scum. But it doesn’t change the fact that it –is- hitting mislynchables two days running. There are people who could have a damn good motivation for encouraging that, and it makes me very uncomfortable to go along with it.

I don't agree Gaz. Sorry, but I will vote for whomever I find most scummy and not exclude someone because he is a lurker. And that is what you basically ask here "We were wrong on Q, so we should not lynch a lurker now because they are lurkers." Thats your argument. And it is not good enough. I am listening to your points on zak and I am considering them. But I won't vote for him on the basis that it is better to vote him than one of the "mislynchables" just because we lynched one of them D1.

And if we lynch one as innocent, I think we’ve learned nothing.

Said before: That is true for everyone we lynch. Therefore lynch whomever you feel is most scummy.

If Zak is innocent, Serdoa looks better. If Lewwyn is innocent, Zak looks a better. If Novice is innocent, Serdoa looks better to me and MAttimeo worse. If Serdoa is innocent, I’m more likely to follow him lead towards Ryan.

If zak is innocent that makes me not look better. I defended him. So what? Maybe I am a wolf and have decided that defending him, buddying up to him is my best bet come D3 and we are at 3-2 because he more likely will listen to me when I push him onto the wrong target? And if Lew is innocent that has no bearing on zaks alignment. As it has no bearing on Ryans alignment if I am innocent or not. I am - that does just mean that I have no information about the alignment of anyone else and therefore if you didn't like my arguments before I was lynched you suddenly shouldn't start to like them, just because I am innocent. If you felt they are flawed before knowing my alignment shouldn't change that, the flaw will still be there.

And if we hit a guilty Q-voter, I think we’re a whole lot closer to victory, whereas even a wolf Mattimeo/Ryan doesn’t give us as much to go on yet.

I explained before why this logic is flawed. If we hit a wolf we are always further ahead. If we don't hit one we are always in a dire situation.

In general, I think we have simply a completely different take on the situation: You believe that lynching a Q-voter will always be in some way beneficial for the village while hitting a lurker will always be non-beneficial. While I believe that hitting a wolf will always be beneficial and hitting an innocent will always be non-beneficial. Now, look at those two statements and tell me which is more likely to be true

I still don’t trust Zak or Serdoa, though I’m not saying they are necessarily a scum pair. But they are voting with each other and defending each other. So let’s say we mislynch a lurker, and the wolves get an innocent in the night. Then a WolfZak/Serdoa only has to keep the other one convinced, plus their scumbuddy’s vote, and that’s 3 votes to 2.

If we are at 3 players tomorrow, lets say zak, Lew, me, you and Mattimeo then two of those are wolves and I know it is not me. Leaves therefore zak, Lew, you and Matt. Now you seem to believe I would vote certainly with zak. Thats not true. I might not vote for him - and even that is far from a given tbh, as I said, I do look at him, I just see no reason to vote him yet and I do think that the arguments against him feel more like "we want to lynch zak" and less like "we believe zak is a wolf" (and as I said I stumbled myself in that trap in another game and try not to do the same mistake twice). But I might very well come around to vote him in the end if I see something that warrants the vote. Anyhow, even if not, we would have two wolves to catch tomorrow if we mislynch today. So even if I exclude zak I have a 1 in 3 chance to vote for the other wolf. As of now I would exclude you too, so make that a 1 in 2 chance (assuming you are innocent). If I would not exclude anyone it would be a 2 in 4 chance. No difference at all.

[Mattimeo]

So you vote for me just 'cause in Day 1, and then vote for me again today because??

I... what? How does that follow, in any way? Even if it *didn't* ping your sarcasm detector, your conclusions appear to be a complete non-sequitur .

I believe that during the last hour and a half the vote was tied at 4 each.

Which, with the tie-breaking rules we were understood to be using, would have lead to Qgqqqqq being lynched by the countback. Hence not voting being functionally equivalent to placing a vote on Qgqqqqq, but with more washing of hands involved.

You could have chosen either to vote for Qg or Zak. Or you could have posted during the hour leading up to lynch stating why you disliked either candidate.

The post where I'd voted for you included reasoning as to why I disliked the candidates that were up there at the time. Looking back on it now, it's possible that it was stated rather obliquely, for which I apologise.

[Ryan]

Again I did not post anything emotion related this game and to be honest good play to use game to show me like that. All I did was 2 people joke voted Zak. He said I'm a lier then I joke voted him. He then made a post about we shouldn't take his verse as insults right after mine. I wrote a joke insult verse. He then immediately connected that to last game. A confront happened and Serdoa just came in defended him and stated something wrong. The normal Zak vs Serdoa fight every game didn't happen. Instead we get Serdoa defending him on wrong basis while gang jumping Q. Serdoa said Q and Gagzulm are scum without any reasoning. Didn't flug auto get lynched for that ? Day 2 , both Zak and Serdoa vote me within a few posts of each other. Again a very clear link between the two of them. I state that they are trying to get mislynchables lynched everyday as a scum plan. I am pretty easy to lynch after last game and so is Q. I did not use a single dot of pity. Serdoa in the meanwhile goes on a tangent about his wife , how people in the world are bad. If you guys still don't believe me very well. I don't have the time to read wall of texts or respond. I stated that pre game and pre roles. Here are my 2 cents and I still think its Serdoa and Zak. Who are trying to lead TOGETHER another lynch. Zak and Serdoa agreeing together twice on a lynch target without discussion. Think about that.

[novice]

Current tally;

Mattimeo (2.5) - novice, Lewwyn
zakalwe (2) - Gazglum, Ryan
Ryan (2) - Serdoa, zakalwe
Lewwyn (1) - Mattimeo

2.5 hours to deadline

Matt, what's your case on Lewwyn?

[Azza]

Current tally;

Mattimeo (2.5) - novice, Lewwyn
zakalwe (2) - Gazglum, Ryan
Ryan (2) - Serdoa, zakalwe
Lewwyn (1) - Mattimeo

2.5 hours to deadline

This is correct.


I'm sorry to have to do this, but I'm almost certain to fall asleep before it reaches the deadline. So the deadline will remain at 1200GMT March 17th, but the resolution will be when I wake up, probably between 1900-2200GMT. So to take this into account, I'll be extending the next night (night 2) by 24 hours because I want to make sure all timezones have time to discuss the resoultion.

So, in bullet point form...

• the day 2 deadline will remain at 1200GMT on March 17th (2 hours, 15 minutes from now)
  
• the night 2 deadline will be moved to 1200GMT on March 19th (2 day, 2 hours and 15 minutes from now)
  

[Serdoa]

Again I did not post anything emotion related this game and to be honest good play to use game to show me like that. All I did was 2 people joke voted Zak. He said I'm a lier then I joke voted him. He then made a post about we shouldn't take his verse as insults right after mine. I wrote a joke insult verse. He then immediately connected that to last game. A confront happened and Serdoa just came in defended him and stated something wrong.

I did state something "wrong" because I didn't check what you had written Ryan. To be exact, you wrote

So are the other 2 people who voted you too hard to mislynch ?

what I interpreted as you telling us that he tries to get you lynched (=votes for you) because the other two voting for him are too hard to mislynch. You tried to make it appear as if he was trying to mislynch you since the start of this game Ryan and he even wasn't. And then you tried to attack me because I didn't check if what you had written was actually the truth.

At that point you also defended yourself against him with the explanation that your "zak calling me a liar, unacceptable"-post was just a joke and that you can't understand him not catching up to that especially because you also wrote two joke verses. Now looking back, what I told you at that point was:

You wrote your joke verses AFTER zak had voted you, so if he explains why he voted you at that time, of course he can't have taken into account something that you posted later...

And your answer was to attack me for believing that he voted you. Which he never did, but I believed because see explanation above. But you actually never explained why he should have understood your "liar"-post as a joke. And I still agree with him that it wasn't. He is imo spot on that you are just using offense as defense this game.

The normal Zak vs Serdoa fight every game didn't happen.

Probably because there is no such thing as a "normal zak vs serdoa fight". Yes we do disagree, but we seldomly fight. Imo zak is one of the few players that I can actually disagree with without getting into a fight over it because he is very calm and never tries to force his views onto me and tries to at least give thought to mine, even if he isn't agreeing.

Instead we get Serdoa defending him on wrong basis while gang jumping Q.

I did not defend him on a wrong basis. I might have been wrong that he voted you, but that was hardly a defense of zak. It was a try to help you (yet again) along in a game and give you a hint that you might overlook something in the timing of what happened.

Serdoa said Q and Gagzulm are scum without any reasoning. Didn't flug auto get lynched for that ?

So your point is? Oh right, we mislynched flug_auto with some help from you last game...

Day 2 , both Zak and Serdoa vote me within a few posts of each other. Again a very clear link between the two of them.

Or a very clear sign that you are playing scummy. But apart from that this is again not true. zak voted you over 4 hours before I voted you. And in between the target I had voted for initially (Gazglum) provided a post that made me reconsider him. What I explained in this thread already btw.

I state that they are trying to get mislynchables lynched everyday as a scum plan. I am pretty easy to lynch after last game and so is Q.

And so is Mattimeo and probably Gazglum. And even Lewwyn. Whats your point besides "Oh, I must be innocent because they try to lynch me"? Because that seems your sole defense.

I did not use a single dot of pity. Serdoa in the meanwhile goes on a tangent about his wife , how people in the world are bad.

And SC2, though you happily joined that tangent.

If you guys still don't believe me very well. I don't have the time to read wall of texts or respond.

Not trying to be an ass here, but it seems your defense is therefore now "I am innocent because they try to lynch me and I don't defend against what the write because I have no time for that". Sorry if that is not enough to convince me.

I stated that pre game and pre roles. Here are my 2 cents and I still think its Serdoa and Zak. Who are trying to lead TOGETHER another lynch. Zak and Serdoa agreeing together twice on a lynch target without discussion. Think about that.

Thought about it. Whats your point? I believe chances are higher that we are agreeing because you play scummy than that we are wolves who give themselves away just to get you lynched. Quite honestly, your whole play this second day is just screaming wolf. Your try to get in a fight with me yesterday, your try to get me to switch my lynch-target, your try to bully me into giving up pursuing you by telling me that you would vote for me... I feel confident voting you.

[zakalwe]

I think both Ryan and Mattimeo make decent lynches. Slight preference towards Ryan. Attacking Serdoa for the SC2 tangent is weak, since that was a response to a direct question from Ryan.

Don't like Mattimeo criticizing my call for claims. Like I said, I have breadcrumbed my role, and there is nothing vague about it. If I am lynched, you will be able to deduce my role.

[novice]

I think both Ryan and Mattimeo make decent lynches. Slight preference towards Ryan. Attacking Serdoa for the SC2 tangent is weak, since that was a response to a direct question from Ryan.

Don't like Mattimeo criticizing my call for claims. Like I said, I have breadcrumbed my role, and there is nothing vague about it. If I am lynched, you will be able to deduce my role.

Yeah I like Serdoa's post 187 on Ryan.
Ryan didn't attack Serdoa for the SC2 tangent though, he attacked him for his "this is what's wrong with the world" and "my wife doesn't understand me" tangents. I agree it's hypocritical though.

[zakalwe]

Mattimeo in case I get distracted. Let me know if you prefer Ryan.