WW26: The Masquerade [Game Thread]

[Fat Rose]

@Agnes

Your part about Will makes no sense to me. He was already a confirmed villager, knowing his role or not had nothing to do with it. Bert cleared him and Bert was a villager. I have no reason to believe that Will is not a villager at that point. How would he become even more of a target by claiming the role?

@Muriel

I understand that you feel that Will is withholding information without reason, but in that case, I agree with others that it made no difference either way. I don't understand why it had to be withhold (apart from one possibility that I don't want to go while at night), but I don't believe we have a bastard GM, so Will IS village.

@Rob, Agnes

I'm not so certain about Saul. I've made a post on him and his play. Attacks on Muriel D1 and N1, sudden change of tone on D2, claims she is innocent on N2, reveals Kate is a wolf D3 ("What a relieve that I not only found Muriel to be innocent but also could catch a wolf now") and that's it. I guess you feel his play was that of a villager because he attacked Muriel? Because apart from that there really is not much there that let me lean either direction on him.

I think it is definitely good that we discuss tomorrows lynch instead of just going along with Saul. But not lynching a seer that gave a false result doesn't strike me as the right play right now. And what is the plan if Muriel flips village? I mean you seem to be certain that she'll flip scum, but what if not? Do we lynch Saul next? Or do you regard him confirmed villager now despite Kate not flipping wolf?

@Agnes

This

A non-bastard GM by definition NEVER lies to the player. This is why seer results are always "your scan returned the result" or a RP version of that, because the GM is not telling you the alignment, they're telling you the result.

seem very much like a difference in semantics to me. If the GM tells me "Kate is a wolf" or if he tells me "Your result on Kate is that she is a wolf", I would in both cases assume that she is a wolf and that he didn't lie to me. If he tells me later that I'm a hidden fool but he never lied to me as he only talked about the result that wouldn't make it any better to me. It still is a bastard role from a bastard GM.

[Young Will]

wtf muriel. I didn't want to give everyone (including wolves) details of my role so I must be scum? and you must inform everyone who might not have figured it out?

FYI, I did have a plan to use my role to catch a wolf (maybe), but it got interrupted by sauls seer claim. now its interrupted again because clearly we are going to have to lynch you.

[Widow Edith]

Some comments.
a) No matter what is the reason for Saul getting the wrong result it clearly shows Saul's scan are not to be trusted.

b) Given that this is neither a Tasunke-game nor a insane-power-game I think the chances of Will being scum are nearly 0
That he didn't go into greater detail is no problem. With John saying Will visited Bert and Bert telling exactly why he thinks Will is a villager it was clear that Will has a powerrole. There was really no need that he explains it any further. And if he is a neighbour then he has talked with Bert which might give us some more insights about what Bert thought.

[Sir Percival]

i dunno about anyone else, but i rather lynch muriel to test saul's seer whether it random or opposite.

[Agnes The Orphan]

seem very much like a difference in semantics to me. If the GM tells me "Kate is a wolf" or if he tells me "Your result on Kate is that she is a wolf", I would in both cases assume that she is a wolf and that he didn't lie to me. If he tells me later that I'm a hidden fool but he never lied to me as he only talked about the result that wouldn't make it any better to me. It still is a bastard role from a bastard GM.

I'm not saying a fool, a cultist and a jester (for example) aren't bastard roles (though from what I've read, the last too might be defined as more unpopular then true bastard. /aside), but a GM lying is bastard (and also, a fool is, by definition, been lied to, as they have been told they are a seer when they are not).
If we're going to argue semantics, then imagine I get two pms from the GM. If one says, Scarlet John is town." Then I will believe it, and call bastard if it lies. If I get a pm saying something like, "You receive the message that Scarlet John is town." then I don't believe it, and think of a role triggered action.

@Will, have you contacted anyone else?

[Agnes The Orphan]

I think it is definitely good that we discuss tomorrows lynch instead of just going along with Saul. But not lynching a seer that gave a false result doesn't strike me as the right play right now. And what is the plan if Muriel flips village? I mean you seem to be certain that she'll flip scum, but what if not? Do we lynch Saul next? Or do you regard him confirmed villager now despite Kate not flipping wolf?

I'm by no means certain that he is village, and you actually raise some good points there. My feeling from his posts was village, and I didn't see anyone suspecting him before the whole Kate thing so I perhaps was reacting too strongly to that move.
I should probably reread really... (anyone got a scrape? novice said they were easy to set up once IIR?)

[Muriel The Slow]

This is so fucking dumb villager play. Just because I posted a case on Will that you do not agree with (which in itself I could understand), you want to lynch me over a supposed Seer that gave us a wrong result and made us lynch a villager? Percival wants to fucking kill our REAL power role, the double voter, you know the role that actually fucking works, over the possibly fool but most likely wolf. I knew that this game was about to get hard and frustrating again once I realized what the possible wolf gambit would be if Kate flipped a villager, but I didn't expect it to be this bad. I was going to make more cases based on my re-read, but now I'm thinking should I even bother? If people are just going to dismiss them because they are made by me, and then use those cases as "proof" to lynch me, then what's the point in making them? It's not like people are going to go back and re-read them after I'm dead, a very few of you do that, and those few are the ones who know that I'm a villager because they actually take the time to look at the big picture and know that my actions in this game would not make sense if I was a wolf. And even if you would go re-read my cases and start taking them seriously, we can't exactly afford lynching our double vote villager at this point in the game, so if you are going to act like this, the best way for me to help the village would be to not make any more cases since they would just be used to fuel the fire to lynch me.

Answer truthfully, which scenarios make the most sense:
1) The wolves pulled a gambit that exchanges two wolves for one villager (Saul and Muriel wolves for Kate villager)
2) The wolves pulled a gambit that exchanges one wolf for two villagers (Saul wolf for Muriel and Kate villagers)
3) The mod is a bastard, and Saul is the fool, and we also have the worst luck in the world.

And btw if you pick three, then why the fuck are you willing to believe that the mod would include a fool role without a real seer to balance it out, but the mod would not in any case include a scum friendly neighbor which is the same kind of bastard role? I'm not saying that if you believe one you have to believe both, but why completely refuse the possibility of one based on the fact that the mod would never do it, then completely accept the possibility of the other?

[Muriel The Slow]

Oh there is another scenario I didn't put in:
4) The wolves pulled a gambit that exchanges zero wolves for two villagers (Saul lives, Muriel and Kate villagers)

Wanna know why I didn't put in? Because I'm quite confident that the wolves wouldn't believe that we are stupid enough to let Saul walk free. So I don't think that scenario was what they were aiming for, but now it's starting to look like a possibility and they must be having a big fucking party in the wolf thread.

[Muriel The Slow]

And if you guys really are confident that Saul is a villager and must live, and I'm a wolf and must die, then all I can ask is that you guys try to catch the other wolves before me. You will have to catch them anyway, please catch them first. We need to keep me and the double vote alive. If you postpone lynching me, the wolves will have to kill me in the night. They can't afford letting me go to the end game with my double vote. And I know that we have to start catching the scum if we want to win, we can't afford to spend the next three real life days going back and forth Muriel versus the world. I'm sorry that I'm mad, but you need a kick in the butt to get you started on catching scum. You were playing bad, and that's my honest opinion. Now you need to start playing good if we want to win. I will not argue with you guys after this message, because it would be counter-productive for the village. All that needs to be said has been said.

[Know-Nothing Jon]

Young Will, please answer the following. In the morning, if you prefer.

1. Why did you choose to visit Bert on night 1?
2. Did you visit anyone on night 2?

Muriel, it's pointless to argue at this point about who has the best reads, and that will be resolved soon enough. Regardless of that, throwing a tantrum because nobody agrees with your case does not constitute good villager play. You sound desperate, perhaps because you think that either you or Saul must hang, but clearly those are not our only options.

In general, it would be nice if you could distinguish properly between assumptions and facts. For example, simply stating that Saul is most likely a wolf does not make it so. You applaud the "big picture" players who can tell you are innocent because your play would make no sense as a wolf. Shouldn't you be asking yourself if Saul's play makes sense as a wolf?

Anyway, my truthful answer to your rhetorical question is 3).