WW22 - Diaries of the Madmen

[novice]

Qgqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq because policy pinching the miller makes the most sense on day 1.

As opposed to doing it later, or as opposed to lynching someone else? Why do we have to policy lynch the miller?

[Azza]

Ok, I am hear, other than a miller claim all I see before me is random noise.

Random lynch vote of Lewwyn, because he hasnt been early killed recently as I remember, but essentially this could be on anybody

Mayor vote on uberfish who I think has the best track record on playing

I don't like this post at all. It's a lazy vote for contrived reasons, especially coupled with the complaint about a lack of content while adding absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Novice, why do you think Lewwyn's first post is scummy?

Also I have a bad feeling about Ryan for floating this 4 wolf theory, if he's scum he might have made it up just to "show" that he didn't know how many wolves there were

Pushing Ryan for a weak meta reason, even though Mattimeo and Gazglum made similar arguments doesn't sit particularly well with me either.

Im also getting a slight scum read from Mattimeo. His posts have a very similar vibes to normal, but he probably posted as many times in the entirety of the last game as he has so far this game, and I find that to be suspicious.

[Azza]

Qgqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq because policy pinching the miller makes the most sense on day 1.

As opposed to doing it later, or as opposed to lynching someone else? Why do we have to policy lynch the miller?

As opposed to doing it later. It's an unverifiable role for village unless we have the role seer, but that is typically a scum role.

Policy lynxhing the miller is needed because they won't be targeted by mafia, and Q isnt a particularly easy player to read alignment of.

Also if we confirm that the village had a miller, we must have some powerful roles to make up for it.

[Mattimeo]

Qgqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq because policy pinching the miller makes the most sense on day 1.

No, it does not. Azza.

Oh, and I get called out for actually posting, too. Was wondering how long that would take...

[Mattimeo]

Think about his first post and how its addressing several meta aspects from thestick's opening.

I count one reference to meta analysis, and two feeble attempts at jokes. Where are you pulling the other meta aspects you refered to from? Wishful thinking?

I also fail to see how either engaging in meta analysis when lacking other leads, or being reluctant to place a vote with absolutely no reasoning behind it, is atypical methodology for me...

[Azza]

Qgqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq because policy pinching the miller makes the most sense on day 1.

No, it does not. Azza.

Oh, and I get called out for actually posting, too. Was wondering how long that would take...

You're not being called out for posting, it was a comment on your change in play.

Someone who claims miller has to die sooner or later. I refuse to risk losing to someone making such a claim and cruising to victory because everyone just believes his claim.

[Gazglum]

Someone who claims miller has to die sooner or later. I refuse to risk losing to someone making such a claim and cruising to victory because everyone just believes his claim.

Are we really going back to policy lynches, halfway through Day 1? We saw how well that worked out last time.

I refuse to lose half our allowable mislynches on checking Qs miller claim. Obviously, we should not automatically believe Q. But why should we automatically disbelieve him? The situation is no different to before - either he is a lying wolf or an honest town. Well, there is one difference, an investigator can't be sure of their read of him. But there are 10 other players for seers to investigate, so we don't really lose anything there.

Q should be watched, like everyone else, and his miller claim is not a shield. But I would feel a lot better about looking for social scum tells at the moment. If, at the end of today, we really have zero clues on anybody, then maybe I would consider your policy lynch argument. Until then, no.

[Azza]

We almost never policy lynch though. What we do is question people, and inevitably end up on a relatively easy target. That's not a policy lynch. There's talk about policy lynches, but it never pans out.

Also, I know my role, and that makes me think we wouldn't have a miller as well. I am a puppet, which means my puppet master can change my vote. They don't have to do it, but they can. I suspect my master is scum, otherwise what's the point? So having a puppet and a miller, two detrimental town roles, seems unlikely to me.

[Gazglum]

We almost never policy lynch though. What we do is question people, and inevitably end up on a relatively easy target. That's not a policy lynch. There's talk about policy lynches, but it never pans out.

Also, I know my role, and that makes me think we wouldn't have a miller as well. I am a puppet, which means my puppet master can change my vote. They don't have to do it, but they can. I suspect my master is scum, otherwise what's the point? So having a puppet and a miller, two detrimental town roles, seems unlikely to me.

Well that is a different kettle of fish.

How much detail did your pm go into? Will it be public knowledge if your vote is changed? Can your master change your vote to anything, or only to copy their own?

I suppose your master doesn't have to be scum, but even if they're town, I agree that is at best a neutral role. And if we have 3 wolves, 2 non-positive town roles starts to look a little harsh.

And just to fill my paranoia quotient for the day - I've never seen the puppet role before, and the last game you played you fakeclaimed a post restriction. Can anyone verify if a puppet has come up in WW before?

[Lewwyn]

Random lynch vote of Lewwyn, because he hasnt been early killed recently as I remember, but essentially this could be on anybody

I went back and read this and... Random vote isn't random... You say first that this is your random vote, then you say me, then you say because he hasn't been killed early, which is a reason for voting for specifically voting for me and is not random, but then he says this could be on anybody. So we have the declaration that this is a random vote at both the beginning and the end of the statement and yet there is specific reasoning in the middle to justify the vote?

You sir are trying too hard. Jkaen

I also still think Matt is trying hard.