WW27 Game Thread: Once there were 12

[Qgqqqqq]

What??

[MJW (ya that one)]

TIME OVER

My official goodbye post if I'm dead:

[Gazglum]

Zak, please switch. Trust your Glumbuddy.

[novice]

Woot!

[Qgqqqqq]

GG MJW

My what?? xpost was about you Gazglum. I'm really not sure what you were saying in the last few posts.

[novice]

Merovech, can we get an official vote count too?

[Gazglum]

I guess that'll be one tall glass of regret and a side of crow for me then. Well done guys, especially Q. GG MJW, your spam had clearly hypnotised me.

[Qgqqqqq]

Azzas posts BTW:

classical_hero

Played a few games with him on CFC, and he barely contributes by those standards, let alone RB's mammoth spamalot games. Happy to change if he shows signs of being able to contribute sufficiently though.

If your interpretation of Zak's plan is correct that means that zak said for the town to no-lynch on the first day for no reason. That is so bad for town that I feel Zak could not have made those statements sincerely. So he is insincere and a wolf.

I was sincere about wanting to suggest no lynch. That doesn't mean that I was certain it would be the optimal play, but I genuinely thought it would be worth considering. I don't get why it would self-evidently be so bad for town. Even if there are various power roles in play, expecting an average of one kill per night isn't unreasonable. And that means we could afford a no lynch. If you would be willing to do a no lynch in the endgame to set up more favorable numbers, why couldn't you do the same on day one?

Lynching is the only reliable way to catch scum. Foregoing that for a cleaner endgame is not a good trade. Furthermore, it's the most reliable source of information on alignments.

He said that he was going to suggest the idea but then saw it was an illegal move. I'm saying that if he was being sincere he would have not even thought of suggesting it.

This would be a good point if the idea was suggested by someone more careful with their posts, but my impression of zak is that he's more interested in creating discussion than scum hunting on day one, at least for the first 24 hours. From that, it gives him a read depending on how they react. It's an idea I've tried to emulate at times, so I'm not interested in lynching zak given the evidence so far.

@Mattimeo

Because it can lead to situation in which both parties would rather not lynch/kill anyone. 3-1 endgame for example. Town doesn't want to lynch (if wrong they will lose), but scum doesn't want to kill either (makes it easier for town to choose the correct player).

hm, point. Though in the vast majority of situations I'd think the scum would bring it to LyLo after a no-lynch at MyLo. Not killing gives almost as much information as killing someone, at that point.

But since Q's explained his classical_hero pressure, I'll try Mattimeo. The short meta post is in character, but that semi-rhetorical question at the end feels a bit oh so casual.

...and how exactly does casual == scum, again? Or even, how are you defining 'casual' here? I certainly wouldn't have pulled that question out as a demonstration of a casual attitude to this game...

MJW is just harping on too much about zak's initial suggestion, which is honestly not a terrible idea in a mountainous even-numbered game. Not that this is likely to be mountainous, but no-lynching is also not a legal option. I just don't see how spending the entire day talking about only that and policy lynching a new player is remotely helpful.

Mattimeo, at least be honest that you're voting MJW to save yourself.

Oh for fucks sake, that was an awful lynch. For a start, he was highly unlikely to be online at the end of the day since he's in the same timezone as Lewwyn. Trying to pressure him into contributing in the early hours of the morning (his time) is never going to work. Secondly, his logic was terrible, that I agree on, but it wasn't scummy. I can only assume that he was working on the assumption that a majority was needed to lynch, so splitting the vote would've meant no lynch; otherwise his comments make no sense. Someone playing scum is highly unlikely to make such a huge misjudgment of the rules. Finally, of all the people who voted for c_h, Qgqqqqq is the only one who'd played with him before on CFC. So I can give the rest of them some leeway, but Q should've known that there was nothing unusual about c_h's play. But he seemed mixed up between policy lynching based on his CFC play, and voting based on questionable logic. I think it's telling that the closing line of his eventual vote for c_h is based entirely on his past play. It suggests that it was because he knows that the logic that generated the wagon was highly dubious, so he needs to add other aspects to his vote.

Oh for fucks sake, that was an awful lynch. For a start, he was highly unlikely to be online at the end of the day since he's in the same timezone as Lewwyn. Trying to pressure him into contributing in the early hours of the morning (his time) is never going to work. Secondly, his logic was terrible, that I agree on, but it wasn't scummy. I can only assume that he was working on the assumption that a majority was needed to lynch, so splitting the vote would've meant no lynch; otherwise his comments make no sense. Someone playing scum is highly unlikely to make such a huge misjudgment of the rules. Finally, of all the people who voted for c_h, Qgqqqqq is the only one who'd played with him before on CFC. So I can give the rest of them some leeway, but Q should've known that there was nothing unusual about c_h's play. But he seemed mixed up between policy lynching based on his CFC play, and voting based on questionable logic. I think it's telling that the closing line of his eventual vote for c_h is based entirely on his past play. It suggests that it was because he knows that the logic that generated the wagon was highly dubious, so he needs to add other aspects to his vote.

Okay…I disagree strongly. What is the alternative? No-one is being particularly scummy. Like I said, this was primarily a policy lynch, and I don’t see anything better. Consider it this way: based off what he said, and the fact that he didn’t actually contribute anything to the discussion tells me that he wasn’t planning to contribute. I have played with him before, and that’s half the reason I voted him – because I knew from past behaviour that he wasn’t going to contribute AT ALL, which is okay on CFC, where WoG are the norm, but not in a game here, and certainly not in a 12-player one. I gave him a chance to contribute (and contrary to what you said, people had been pressuring him all day, to no avail), and he didn’t, so I thought it was much better to get rid of him day 1 then have this be a topic for the rest of the game, and likely take up a better lynch.
I knew he was likely to play like that, so I voted him first to try and get something early – you did the same. As he didn’t change his play to actually respond to the thread, he was lynched.
Speaking of which, why did you jump off him? You said you would only do so if he changed his style which…he didn’t. What made you want to vote mattimeo (apart from the weak “Call a spade a spade” reasoning provided)?
My last line is not based entirely off past play...but from your (greater) experience with classical_hero, would you disagree with this:

Yeah it is a policy lynch, but based off what he's said so far, and previous experience, I don't think classical_hero has any interest in contributing to the game, and only intends to avoid getting modkilled.

That was my impression from my previous game with classical_hero (which was, admittedly, 3 months ago) and what he said in the thread.

I also had no idea as to classical_hero's timezone, and for me it was definitely a policy lynch, the logic was more trying to get him to actually contribute to the game, and a comment on how he wasn't contributing and didn't sem likely to change.
I don't think that was his assumption, as he's definitely played in games of RB's style and his posts don't seem to suggest that.

My problem is you're taking what'd be a perfectly valid reason to want to policy lynch (not contributing all that much, expecting it to continue), and tacking on some rather poor arguments to try to paint him as scummy to make sure of the mislynch. I don't know what he was thinking, but even if his posts make almost no sense as village, they make even less sense as scum. The goal isn't to punish bad play, it's to catch the wolves. My impression is your vote was to punish bad play, but making sure you at least appeared to try to hunt wolves.

I moved off c_h because his posts didn't give me anything that resembled a scummy vibe, while Mattimeo's post that I quoted in my vote did.

I've done a quick reskim and two posts that stand out as strange/opportunistic are Mattimeo's post #75 and Jowy's post #92. Both seem to break with the natural "flow" of the game.

Azza hopped on the Mattimeo wagon with a very contrived reason -- allegedly not being dishonest about his self-preservation vote for MJW -- as his final post of the day, and Jowy suddenly made a complete reversal on me and decided that I was our best bet, on dubious grounds.

Azza's post in particular is very weak, because Mattimeo didn't actually need to save himself when he voted for MJW, as he only had two votes then. Only after that did Jkaen vote for Mattimeo, which was then followed by Azza's vote. So if Mattimeo needed to save himself, it was mainly because Azza turned it into a self-fulfilling prophesy.

For someone unlikely to be on at the deadline, it seemed like a clear self-defense vote disguised as scum hunting.

Incidentally, isn't that how Ichabod plays the opening of every game?

Could be, but what's your point?

I would guess his point is that to achieve a D1 lynch you have to portray a confidence in your read that will inspire people to follow.

Q, I feel your attack on MJW is because he's being anti-town rather than scummy. If this is an incorrect assumption, could you please explain how his play indicates he's scum rather than just crazy old MJW?

Q, I feel your attack on MJW is because he's being anti-town rather than scummy. If this is an incorrect assumption, could you please explain how his play indicates he's scum rather than just crazy old MJW?

No, that's not what I was getting at. In general, MJW says weird meta stuff, and makes odd votes, but generally he does contribute. He does give his own thoughts on a bunch of issues, and IMO he does push his suspicions and thoughts on a bunch of people.
But I'm not seeing that at all this game. What I see as suspicious is that he seems to be using his weird meta as a smoke screen for posting a lot, but nor actually contributing. The whole fixation with zaks opening post, is something I feel he is using to allow himself to sit back and not contribute, not actually scumhunt. The same thing with the "I'll not help until matt turns up" posts, I feel he is deliberately avoiding contributing as a player.
I suppose the difference lies in my perceived intention of the action - the whole thing looks deliberate, unlike his normal spam, and I feel his contributing less then normal is a scum factor, not just MJW playing badly.

To me, it feels extremely similar to the way he posted in the masquerade game where I wanted to lynch him for being anti-town (even after he was as good as confirmed town, I still wanted to lynch him, but the whole Muriel thing overrode that).

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The main reason I'm avoiding jumping on you at this point is because I always think you're scummy, so I'm not confident in my read here.

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.

I didn't reread your post, I was going off what I thought I'd remembered. However upon rereading, it looks like the same sort of anti-town = scum fallacy that others (notably Q) are using. So I'm not going to withdraw my accusation.

Q, I feel your attack on MJW is because he's being anti-town rather than scummy. If this is an incorrect assumption, could you please explain how his play indicates he's scum rather than just crazy old MJW?

In the absence of an any actual scum-tells, why not default to anti-town tells? Even if someone generally gives off such tells, I'd still say killing them is better than killing someone who is likely to contribute usefully in the future.

Because bad town play doesn't indicate that they're scum, and the goal of the game is to catch the scum, not punish bad town play.

With what I assume is our only doctor down then going for standards such as Novice especially I would have thought likely, especially since Serdoas got a bit of heat to none for Novice, as a wolf I would have seen if Serdoa's posting dropped off again, or if the still seemed to be interest in lynching him before going for the kill

Just to preemptively defend against the "why is Novice alive?" attack: Serdoa didn't give the impression that he was going to lurk. And I did catch some heat, from Serdoa. Additionally, I didn't scumhunt well on day one, and scum may have taken Serdoa's alleged overreaction to the policy lynch suggestion as a power role tell.

That quote was Jkaen's, not mine. Just thought I should clarify that.

While I definitely agree, do you have anything useful to add to the thread azza?
What do you think on novice/Jowy or zakalwe/MJW, for example?

Not really. My gut feel is that you're scummy, but that's always my gut feel on you. Gazglum's post about it being awfully convenient that Mattimeo couldn't be online all day resonated with me a bit, so right now I'd be choosing between him and you.

I have no idea what either Jowy or MJW are on about, but I'm not going to label Zak or novice as town because of it.

Jowy, have you considered that you may have been causing this "same old road" by being just as arrogant and non communicative as you were before?
Azza, I don't think I've ever heard you say you always find me scummy before. Is it just a feel off my posts, or am I doing something you could actually point out?

I'm pretty sure I've said it before in other games. It's mostly a feel from your posts, I can't pin point exactly what it is.

...

I'm pretty sure I've said it before in other games. It's mostly a feel from your posts, I can't pin point exactly what it is.

Wow okay, I've never noticed that before. Out of curiosity, did you feel the same about Agnes?
Also, if you always feel the same about me, why do you think I'm scummy for giving the same read this time? Or has no one else been scummy enough this game?

I don't recall thinking that Agnes was scum, but I was deliberately trying to ignore any thoughts about who was who in that game and was preoccupied with Muriel most of that game.

I have to admit I'm having trouble picking up scum tells this game because I've been glazing over most posts made by or responding to Jowy and MJW. It's just too much of a headache. I do find myself agreeing with Gazlgum's points, so in absence of a better read I'm favouring going with his logic.

Zak, this hasn't been replied to yet:

Zak, at the start of the day you said that you were going to vote Azza, but then went with me instead. Why Azza, and do you still suspect him?

I believe he did in post #282.

Why do you play these games practically intending to get lynched? Yes, your best response to people asking you questions is to let them lynch you so you can laugh at us through your (likely arrogant) final thoughts.

Might have found a slip up. Does that not sound like he knows I'm a villager? That's how it sounds to me, and in the very same post he said he is inclined to kill me tonight.

I saw no such thing.

Voting for you is a day action. I'm not sure how you're getting he's going to night kill you out of that.

Voting for you is a day action. I'm not sure how you're getting he's going to night kill you out of that.

Who said anything about a night kill?
Perhaps I worded that wrong though, I meant the lynch that happens at the end of Day 2.
What do you think of the actual slip?

Your posting style both this game and the masquerade game has been highly abrasive. I wouldn't go so far as to say you're trying to get lynched, but I do actually agree with Q's general idea.

Mattimeo unless he has a good reason I shouldn't vote for him in the next 50 minutes.

So, my vote is pretty much process of elimination. Gazglum I strongly lean town, Jkaen slight town lean, Azarius no current suspicion. Zak and novice I can't get a read on so far because the arguments exchanged with MJW and Jowy are a chore to try to read. At this stage, I can't distinguish between which of those two is more likely to be disruptive scum and disruptive villager. Don't like Qgqqqqq, but can't justify voting for him, particularly when there's no clear support. So that leaves Mattimeo, who hasn't sat right with the things he's been saying.

Not great logic, but it seems the best way to go today.

I might have missed one or two.

[Qgqqqqq]

I posted those because I looked through them about an hour ago and have been trying to post them ever since
On review azza comes off better than I thought, he had certainly commented on more then I thought he had.

[zakalwe]

Nice.

Thanks for playing, MJW.

Zak, please switch. Trust your Glumbuddy.

Merovech, can you please post the write-ups in a new post instead of editing an existing one? That is very confusing and also breaks the chronology of the thread.