(August 29th, 2013, 06:45)Jowy Wrote: I think you answered your own question by quoting me I've stated that I found Matt's and CH's cases very similar, with of course the difference being that one is a veteran and the other is a newbie. Should a player always vote for lesser of the two evils rather than someone they suspect themselves? I don't know if there is a right or a wrong answer to that question.
So are you saying that you did suspect Zak all the way up to the lynch yesterday?
(August 29th, 2013, 08:28)novice Wrote: So are you saying that you did suspect Zak all the way up to the lynch yesterday?
Yup.
I'm surprised to hear that, as I thought we punched some pretty good holes in your case yesterday (by pointing out how what you portrayed as contradictions weren't), and it seemed like you had come around too:
(August 27th, 2013, 14:13)Jowy Wrote:
(August 27th, 2013, 14:04)novice Wrote: I would say the initial post was an ice-breaker, and the later posts were prompted by our questioning. Much like the Muriel meta discussion on day one in the last game.
I don't think that's a good example. Muriel meta post was a serious post that was aimed to help the village. Zak's post would never help the village because what he suggested was forbidden in the rules. I think it makes a world of difference. But I do acknowledge your point on how the questioning that follows can put the original post in another light, that perhaps Zak's post really was just a joke and unfortunately him defending himself has changed our (or mine) perception of it.
If not Zak, then who? Gaz was my other option, but he is away and I would like to hear him explain himself.
Yeah it made me less suspicious of Zak, but Zak and Gaz were still the two scummiest. Gaz was asleep and wouldn't be there to defend himself, so I did not want to switch to him. I was open to switch from Zak if someone made a better case against someone else.
(August 28th, 2013, 17:24)Azarius Wrote: That was an expected kill, GG Serdoa. Merovech, that blue is a little hard to see on the background, at least for me.
Novice, those are good points about Gazglum, but do you really think he was feeling that pressured from what attention Serdoa had given him? I would really like to hear more from Mattimeo today.
Misread this the first time. Why did you expect Serdoa to die?
I have only played in one other werewolf game (26), but I have read many of the completed games. Village Serdoa almost always stands out to me within the first couple of days. After 26 I posted that I had wanted to lynch him not so much because of any scum tells, but because he hadn't seemed villager to me like he usually does, but felt it was against the spirit of that games rules to push him for that so I hadn't. In his posting on day 1 here I very much got a villager feel from him, and it stands to reason I wouldn't be the only one to think so, therefore he makes sense as a target for scum.
(August 29th, 2013, 09:35)Jowy Wrote: Yeah it made me less suspicious of Zak, but Zak and Gaz were still the two scummiest. Gaz was asleep and wouldn't be there to defend himself, so I did not want to switch to him. I was open to switch from Zak if someone made a better case against someone else.
Well Gazglum has posted a lot since then. What is your opinion on him now? Why haven't you followed up your suspicions while you had the chance to get feedback?
MJW, I can understand wanting to leave your vote on Mattimeo until you hear from him, I did the same thing at the start of today. What I don't get is why can't you take the day seriously until you hear from him? On the surface it seems like a convenient way for a scum to lay low and be quiet until he shows up, but you have definitely not done that, so I'm not entirely certain what you mean by this.
(August 29th, 2013, 05:26)Mattimeo Wrote: ...and apparently I fail at quoting
intended post:
(August 29th, 2013, 03:08)MJW (ya that one) Wrote: Well, everything is finally working...
I think we have to kill Mattimeo today if he does'nt begin to post crap
Well, I was going to post something useful, but I guess I'll have to restrict myself to 'crap' now
(August 28th, 2013, 14:06)MJW (ya that one) Wrote: The people who are don't like are the pack of lurkers (including Mattimeo) and Zak.
And I finally get a mention as part of the lurker pack? I thought you'd forgotten about me all of the last day, talking about policy lynching people who'd posted more than I had for lurking...
(August 29th, 2013, 01:31)Jkaen Wrote: Well losing 2 key power roles this early sucks pretty badly, interseting they went for Serdoa.
Interesting? What are the other targets? novice, I suppose. zak would be similarly high priority, but I'd also think he'd actually be easier to lynch than Serdoa given this D1. The rest of us? Maybe Gazglum would also be worth a kill in a vacuum. Or MJW if you think removing the annoyance is worth also removing the distraction. The rest of us you need a reason, and you don't generally have one N1.
(August 28th, 2013, 23:48)Gazglum Wrote: I’ve said a lot of times that I don’t think scum are the ones talking wild theories or super lurking on Day 1, they’re more likely to play like Mattimeo, Serdoa or Novice were – chiming in without rocking the boat. You may disagree with that, but I have form arguing that in previous games.
quoted in the same post:
(August 27th, 2013, 10:38)Serdoa Wrote: That's pretty much one of the worst posts I've read so far in this game (together with Jkaens). Gazglum completely ignores what several people have listed as reason to vote for MJW, which is exactly that his behaviour in this game is NOT similar to his normal behaviour. Now I don't say he has to agree with that assessment. But not arguing that point, not even mentioning it, is scummy. It might very well be that MJW is a villager, but Gazglums defense here reads more like a wolf finding an easy point to make, hoping to earn village brownie points.
Direct attacks like that aren't 'rocking the boat' now?
(August 28th, 2013, 20:10)Azza Wrote: For someone unlikely to be on at the deadline, it seemed like a clear self-defense vote disguised as scum hunting.
...there was an attempt to make it look anything like scum-hunting?
Certainly wasn't any attempt to pretend I was scum hunting D1. More putting my vote where it would do the least harm, given a need to actually put it somewhere. I seem to recall already spelling that out in justification, too.
The bolded part of this I very much dislike. It certainly makes me feel better about leaving my vote where it is.
Novice seems like a good lynch today. Yesterday he was all about policy lynching and punishing bad play, plus a bandwagon attempt on me. I now know that out of four of his targets, three are villagers. Villagers obviously do target villagers all the time on Day 1, but what makes it worse is that he didn't have any good reasons to target these people, only easy-to-hide-behind policy crap. I find it strange that Mattimeo got a free pass despite being one that would fit a policy lynch. Novice tried twice to start something against Serdoa, but could not get it going. Serdoa dies the next night. Coincidence? If it was scum trying to set-up novice for a miss-lynch by killing Serdoa, I think they would have already tried to get the bandwagon going 20 hours into the day. It could still be a pure coincidence, of course. Novice has also said that he didn't find anything scummy Day 1 and that's why he went with policy lynches, but as soon as night 1 had ended, he pointed out multiple plays that he found scummy from Day 1, and also voted to lynch Gazglum based on those "scum points" as he calls them. Perhaps he read my post analyzing his play and realized that he's been too cautious and might be in trouble soon? And the final point is that he asks questions that have been answered before or have obvious answers, which can be an attempt to bolster his post count and make it look like he is contributing more than he is.
(August 29th, 2013, 09:35)Jowy Wrote: Yeah it made me less suspicious of Zak, but Zak and Gaz were still the two scummiest. Gaz was asleep and wouldn't be there to defend himself, so I did not want to switch to him. I was open to switch from Zak if someone made a better case against someone else.
Well Gazglum has posted a lot since then. What is your opinion on him now? Why haven't you followed up your suspicions while you had the chance to get feedback?
I don't think these questions have been answered before or have obvious answers.
No, Jowy, they are not obvious questions. I'm trying to piece together what went on with you yesterday. One uncharitable interpretation is this:
- when deadline neared and it was time for everybody to take a stance, you made a highly dubious case against Zak with multiple logical flaws.
- you acknowledged the flaws as they were pointed out but still didn't move your vote
- your backup candidate was Gazglum, which he conveniently became after he had gone to sleep
- when Gazglum came back online you were uninterested in pursuing him. Or Zak for that matter.
- when questioned by me you vote for me instead of answering my questions
So forgive me if I seem to be faking activity, I'm just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. After all, I have not come to expect brilliant logic from you. If Serdoa and not you had made that post against Zak yesterday I would have voted for him in a heartbeat.
Let's answer your post point by point.
(August 29th, 2013, 12:13)Jowy Wrote: Novice seems like a good lynch today. Yesterday he was all about policy lynching and punishing bad play, plus a bandwagon attempt on me. I now know that out of four of his targets, three are villagers. Villagers obviously do target villagers all the time on Day 1, but what makes it worse is that he didn't have any good reasons to target these people, only easy-to-hide-behind policy crap. I find it strange that Mattimeo got a free pass despite being one that would fit a policy lynch.
I can't policy lynch everyone. I picked CH for his bad play and because I strongly suspected that he wouldn't contribute in any meaningful way if we let him live. The fact that he apparently didn't even read the rules seems to confirm that.
(August 29th, 2013, 12:13)Jowy Wrote: Novice tried twice to start something against Serdoa, but could not get it going.
I did? I only remember one thing, and that was a suggestion that Serdoa would make a good policy lynch as long as he only had the one vote.
If I'm questioning someone that doesn't mean I'm trying to get "something started". I may as well be trying to stop suspecting someone.
(August 29th, 2013, 12:13)Jowy Wrote: Serdoa dies the next night. Coincidence? If it was scum trying to set-up novice for a miss-lynch by killing Serdoa, I think they would have already tried to get the bandwagon going 20 hours into the day.
You lost me. If scum wanted to set me up for a mislynch by killing Serdoa, why would they try to get a bandwagon going on Serdoa on day one?
(August 29th, 2013, 12:13)Jowy Wrote: It could still be a pure coincidence, of course. Novice has also said that he didn't find anything scummy Day 1 and that's why he went with policy lynches, but as soon as night 1 had ended, he pointed out multiple plays that he found scummy from Day 1, and also voted to lynch Gazglum based on those "scum points" as he calls them.
I voted Gazglum after rereading and after night one added additional (albeit weak) evidence. The case felt too weak for a lynch on day one, and like you, I was reluctant to vote him when he was offline. Immediately after night one was a good time to attack him because I knew he was coming online and could defend. That reminds me, unvote.
(August 29th, 2013, 12:13)Jowy Wrote: Perhaps he read my post analyzing his play and realized that he's been too cautious and might be in trouble soon?
I actually did realize that I might be in trouble soon. Does that make me scum? If scumhunting makes me scummy, should I not do it?
(August 29th, 2013, 12:13)Jowy Wrote: And the final point is that he asks questions that have been answered before or have obvious answers, which can be an attempt to bolster his post count and make it look like he is contributing more than he is.
I've stated that I found Matt's and CH's cases very similar, with of course the difference being that one is a veteran and the other is a newbie. Should a player always vote for lesser of the two evils rather than someone they suspect themselves? I don't know if there is a right or a wrong answer to that question.
