WW26: The Masquerade [Game Thread]

[Scarlet John]

And the reason it's scummy as hell to demand I mod-kill myself is because the village reaction to players who are low activity is to try and push them into contributing something (which other players had done successfully.) I think they're trying to create a situation where I'm damned no matter what I do. If I don't post anything after being pushed I have to be lynched. If I do post something then I'm faking and have to be lynched. If I modkill myself instantly I'm dead and they can blame me. If not, then I have to be policy lynched. That's not scum hunting, it's trying to lock in a mislynch in such a way that I can't defend myself.

[Widow Edith]

I'm village watcher, Will (and no one else) visited Bert last night, and you two are being completely unsubtle about it by the way.

So you will continue on? good

Assuming you tell the truth: Lady Elizabeth

But how did Bert know that Will visited him and is a villager? and especially why would the GM be a bastard if Will is scum?

Something seems odd here.
But Muriels explanation makes little sense. Given that Bert claimed that Will is innocent - a wolf gambling would have talked about Bert visiting Will (seer Bert scanning Will) but not the other way round.

I would really like an explanation from Bert now.

[Half-Nose Harry]

@ Muriel What you say makes a lot sense. The very open way the connection was brought up in the thread and how it was brought up gave me a read on what I thought was going on, and made me think there couldn't be much harm in asking for clarification; but I can see how John's claim could just be made up based on the obvious connection and he's just fishing for more info on his way out.

@ Scarlet John
Why would you be assumed to be faking if you post something? If the village is pushing people for not contributing, and then they contribute, I don't see how that leads to them being automatically lynched for faking it. The whole point of pushing someone for not posting is to get them to post so we can get a read on them. If you come off as scummy then yes people may stay on you, but it's a fallacious argument to say that you will be lynched just for posting. You're creating a fabricated no-win situation you say you're in and it seems incredibly scummy.

[Muriel The Slow]

For gods sake take the hint and shut up about it. They said they already revealed too much.

[Muriel The Slow]

For gods sake take the hint and shut up about it. They said they already revealed too much.

That was directed at Edith, not Harry.

[Scarlet John]

@ Scarlet John
Why would you be assumed to be faking if you post something? If the village is pushing people for not contributing, and then they contribute, I don't see how that leads to them being automatically lynched for faking it. The whole point of pushing someone for not posting is to get them to post so we can get a read on them. If you come off as scummy then yes people may stay on you, but it's a fallacious argument to say that you will be lynched just for posting. You're creating a fabricated no-win situation you say you're in and it seems incredibly scummy.

Read their posts. Do you have half a brain in addition to half a nose? There's no reference to the content of what I did contribute in terms of reads. At all.

I'm done for tonight.

[Half-Nose Harry]

Speaking of your reads, you don't seem to voice any on Bert. At all. How very curious that you watched him last night then. Why him over one of the players you have voiced suspicion on?

[Know-Nothing Jon]

Presumably he was hoping to catch someone in the act of killing Bert.

[Half-Nose Harry]

He hasn't mentioned Bert as a village lean either. Go and check his posts, the only mention I found of Bert was his first post where he voted Muriel because she had voted Bert due to his "I have a plan". Did you see something on Bert day 1 that I missed? If I was a watcher hoping to catch a wolf in the act of killing, Bert would not have been my first choice of who to watch.

[Know-Nothing Jon]

I'll cut Scarlet John some slack. He didn't post much on day 1 but I liked what he did post. Scum could easily add some non-content to stand out less.

Short Richard's posts:

MJW Courage Lady Elizabeth

Bert the Bard, since I don't see what's scummy about MJW's post.

What makes you two think Lady Elizabeth is MJW?

Three seconds in and we're already metagaming the role PMs...

I also received a last name, but I don't think it matters.

But who cares. Why do you want to debate it?

Curiosity.

Expanding on this, it seems any last names are tied to our roles. We are all called by our first name, nick name, or both. Any last name received would be interchangeable, and they were received specifically in a role-PM. Last names might yet play a part in this game. They might be used by a role or multiple roles, or they could be part of other gameplay at some point. Whatever it is, there's no need to start guessing. Unless someone has more information, they are no help to us, and should be ignored.

I don't like the way Muriel states the obvious in this post either.

The 'last name = role?' connection didn't feel obvious to me. I'm willing to cut Muriel some slack, the post has a bit of a condescending attitude but it does its job as a warning.

Fat Rose's Post #58 feels like he's reading too far into absolutely nothing. 'This list of people who haven't voted is evidence of metagaming and therefore scumminess!' Though it could be an overactive villager...

Now to my vote. Rob, you are very eager to attack someone only a few hours into the game. While I find it hard to believe that a wolf would rather go on an attack like that than stay low, I find it even harder to believe that a villager would be so convinced of someone's guiltiness right off the bat that they would go on such an attack. Especially when I know that the person you are attacking is a villager, and one of the few contributors so far. It's also odd how you describe that my post had an aura of innocence, yet you take this as a reason to lynch me? What kind of screwed up logic is that, to lynch those who you feel are villagers? Yes, a wolf could play you so that you believe it to be a villager, but for gods sake man there's a thing called Occam's razor maybe you should look it up.

Overdefensive, Muriel?

First impression, I'm feeling conflicted on Muriel, the wine says that (s?)he's too confrontational and aggressive to be a wolf.

Please point to where I stated that it is scummy. Because I most certainly did not.

Apart from that, this is just a small part of the actual post and I'm kinda curious why you just focus on that small part instead of commenting on the other 9/10s of my post.

I don't get that. You agree that this whole metagaming isn't fun and not what this game should be about and than you post a list who hasn't posted yet, which is just another way of metagaming who is most likely in which timezone and therefore who is who. Doesn't really add up for me.

I thought that you pointing out a contradiction implied you thought they were scum. Oops. Didn't have a clue what you were saying in the rest of your post, you lost me with that much text.

I'm starting to believe that the case on Muriel is a huge misunderstanding, that Muriel's assertion that name-roles may or may not exist was taken by Saul to be that name-roles do exist. I'm willing to believe this:

Yes, I said they could be used by a role. That does not mean that every single power role has a last name, or that any power role has a last name, or that a role who does use the last names has a last name himself. All it says is that there might be a role or more out there who have information on how the gameplay mechanic works.

Sir Percival for his rambling?

I really don't like the "too angry" argument, here. As Gaspar said earlier it is easy to fake anger as wolf. Just tap into something that makes you angry. It is very easy here because dieing because of using the word "role" incorrectly is BS. Gaspar in ww6 couldn't tap into angry as nothing silly was happening besides people attacking him for be wolfish (because he was a wolf).

Short Richard's response to LE's post above:

You drink one cup, I drink the other.

Can you elaborate on your case on Sir Percival please?

It was more of a 'policy lynch the incoherent' thing. I don't read him as confrontational, but I can't get a read better than 'hates meta and talks strangely.'

I would also like to hear Sister Mary's response.

Perci is for me dubious because of his offensive style he uses towards everyone not a poor widow. It is an act and given past experience acting rather helps scum. The dialog between Perci and the friar is so weird that it gives me uneasy feelings. And it was IMO unique. Example Muriel and the Doctor had a discussion and came to the conclusion they are both villagers. Me and Will have a discussion and think each other rather scummy. But Perci and the Friar had no discussion at all. It went - A: you scum; P: FO; A: you village - . That's as unhelpful as it gets. And while it rather indicates the Friar it is possible that it was an act in case one of them gets caught

The afterforementioned conversation:

Sir Percival, for being more influential than me.

haha suck it fatty

Fair enough.

unvote

Strange that you read it as more than random first-day banter.

Looks like my laptop charger's dead

Made it just in time. Friar Andrew, rather lynch lower-content.

Foo!

Really came back just in time, helped grandmother with groceries.

Wow, that's a lot of waffling on Muriel:

First:
The 'last name = role?' connection didn't feel obvious to me. I'm willing to cut Muriel some slack, the post has a bit of a condescending attitude but it does its job as a warning.
In the same post (!):
Overdefensive, Muriel?
Then:
First impression, I'm feeling conflicted on Muriel, the wine says that (s?)he's too confrontational and aggressive to be a wolf.
Then:
I'm starting to believe that the case on Muriel is a huge misunderstanding, that Muriel's assertion that name-roles may or may not exist was taken by Saul to be that name-roles do exist.
(I don't know why but I get the feeling Short Richard knew what Muriel meant all along, and just now sees fit to point out the misunderstanding.)
Finally:
Made it just in time. Friar Andrew, rather lynch lower-content [than Muriel].

Also, as pointed out on day 1 by Widow Edith and Fat Rose, it's odd that Short Richard votes Percy when he uses "too angry" as a town tell on Muriel. Richard does retort that he does not view Percy as angry, but Percy did accuse town of throwing the game and called Short Richard "Tiny Dick".

Other general scum tells on Short Richard is the attempt to start off topic discussions (why do you think LL is MJW?) and the need to point out when he's online and offline, and rushing to get a vote in. Feels like scum striving for all the activity points he can get. At the same time, he dismissed Percy as "rambling" and said that he "didn't have a clue what you [Fat Rose] were saying in the rest of your post, you lost me with that much text." So he is maybe more interested in appearing active than in actually doing his job.

So tentatively, Short Richard.
---
TBH, this feels like a tenuous case though, so I'm interested in what others think.

I've taken a closer look at this now.

The post that really stands out as bad is the one ending in "Overdefensive, Muriel?", voting for Muriel, since it's such a blatant contradiction of what he said earlier in the same post. Your summary of his play and the general scum tells also has me nodding along and I don't think you are misrepresenting him. I can't say that I find his general tone very scummy, but tone reading isn't exactly reliable anyway. So yeah, I think it's a good case and worth pursuing, but at the same time I can see where that tenuous feeling is coming from.

@Half-Nose Harry. I had a pretty strong village lean on Bert after day 1 and I doubt that I was the only one. Also, he's a popular night kill target in general.