WW 36 - Horrors in Kingsport [Game Thread]

[Jabbz]

Claiming to have played with someone, and giving them a pass based on that information, is pretty big. But hey dtay, you can read into it as you wish, or not as you wish that's ok. Just understand you are now outside my COT. I'm off to meet with some of my cohort before class starts. Back around 9:30 pst.

[Gaspar]

I don't like Brick's tone, so I haven't moved my joke vote.

Just feels a little lady doth protest too much to me.

O

[Qgqqqqq]

Not that Q isn't suspicious (as far as you can be suspicious on D1) but I need to move to an actual vote now.

Why is your vote on me not an actual one if I am "as suspicious as you can be on day 1"? Why do you feel the need to move if that is the case? And why are you detracting from your own vote whilst still keeping suspicions open?

Especially seeing as you openly cast your earlier vote on me as revenge, here.

[Qgqqqqq]

You had two votes. Gazglum had 3. I voted for you, pushing it up to 3v3, which I think will give better tells from players.

Why do you think that evening up the vote count with over half of day 1 left will get better tells? Other than getting lucky with a wolf flipping out ridiculously early, I don't see how that's going to help.

Why do you think it wouldn't? Like honestly, I'm struggling to understand your reasoning here - why would two separate wagons at 3 votes apiece not generate more tells and information on players than one at 4? I'm not saying some wolf is going to be super obvious about it all - but still, there's all kinds of reaction tells that could be pulled from that scenario, especially later on in the game, once we've landed a wolf.

It's no silver bullet, but still it's a situation that, IMO, is worth creating.

Novice, could you explain your Q vote in more detail than one short sentence? The other two votes on him are a joke vote and a counter-vote, so despite him being a leading vote recipient, your vote is the first one based on an actual case.

Basically this

claiming to not be commited yet posting a lot.

And this

Huh, I must've missed this on the way through. If you rerolled anyway, why post it? It only seems to distract from the issue. And if you were going to post it, why reroll? Especially seeing as sticking with your self-vote would also have pushed through the joke vote phase you were so eager to push past.

This all seems a bit weird, IMO.

Idk, because he thought it was funny and didn't want to actually vote for himself? All 3 options (unmentioned reroll, stick to self vote, reroll but mention) seem to make plausible sense to me, reading anything out of it feels so forced.

AdrienIer's behaviour seems weird? It's a forced case and Q doesn't even dare call it scummy.

You think that, what? 3 posts is large activity? Whatever. Personally I think that lying about RL or out of game events in werewolf is always a step too far, and it's one I have no intention of ever crossing. Remind me after the game and I'll affirm this for you.

Eh, his behaviour was weird. That doesn't make it inherently scummy, which is why I didn't call it that. I don't see how that case is forced, either.


Love the graphic, novice

[AdrienIer]

Perhaps I phrased it wrong ? I just meant that you can't really act suspicious on D1, but that even though you're pretty low on an absolute suspiciousness scale you're high on the relative scale. My vote on you was done for the wrong reasons (at least if I intended to stay there till the lynch) and you didn't give me enough reasons to keep it on you, objectively I had to admit you didn't look like the worst in the field.

[Doctor Saul]

Claiming to have played with someone, and giving them a pass based on that information, is pretty big. But hey dtay, you can read into it as you wish, or not as you wish that's ok. Just understand you are now outside my COT. I'm off to meet with some of my cohort before class starts. Back around 9:30 pst.

You realize I was talking about his play to that point, right? You make it sound like I'm giving him a pass for the entire game

[zakalwe]

I was going to elaborate a bit on Saul and then the iPad ate my post. But really, I don't think my case should be so hard to grasp. His post contains many elements that are common in scum posts. As if he's gone through a conscious or subconscious checklist. He signed up as Doctor Paul so he must follow up with some role play. Some town reads are nice to appear wise and reasonable, and gain some friends. Need some brewing suspicions so throw in the part about Brick. And of course a vote - Fenn will do.

The whole is scummier than the individual parts. But if I am to single out anything, it's the town reads. Anything more than a null read on Q is questionable, IMO. And his read on Dtay isn't actually relevant, since he wasn't a very hot lynch candidate. So no actual reason to throw that out if you're town. And obviously, the fact that he wasn't even talking about the right player suggests that he may have been a little too eager to share that read.

Dtay, you certainly don't have to agree with this case, and I'm not claiming that it's great, but I think suspecting me on those grounds is a bit much. You may be overthinking things. You were voting for Saul to make him post, and when he did, many of us found his post scummy and therefore joined you. There doesn't have to be anything sinister about that.

[Gaspar]

Wall of quotes incoming...

Dtay joined our village last game, where he made a lot of meta and maths points in such style before being mislynched by a panicking town.

Adrien was town last game, I'm not sure if he'd played before that.

Thanks... mighty kind of you.

Never rolled scum yet, but when I'll eventually do my first wolf game my first post in the wolf thread will be to ask for advice, in order to stay low and not to attract attention

Mattimeo's post above seems to deliberately misunderstand/misstate an argument more than any other so far, and so earns my vote. I don't find it believable that dtay's argument could honestly be read as ""always vote for the same people." IMHO he's pretty clearly arguing that Day 1 votes are pretty meaningless (a position I'm favorably inclined towards) and that ignoring Day 1 entirely while lynching non-randomly is a superior play. There was already a rebuttal with "no, it's more useful to prod people Day 1...the info gleamed is actually useful" so I don't know why Matt decided to go so far down the rabbit hole and end up threatening dtay with not being able to play in future games

I didn't like Mattimeo's post either but this sunrise post definitely has a hint of scum watching villager screw up and then pouring gas on the fire to it. My recollection of sunrise's scum game is intermittent but aggressive posting. Unfortunately, I don't have real recollection of his village style to contrast it with. But I really don't like this post.

What about the people who claim they are too busy to post much? Do they get a pass, or do they still face some suspicion for being quiet?

This sequence of Jabbz posts really tweaked me. (Only quoted the closing entry for brevity.) The four quick posts has a bit of the boost the post-count, nobody will remember on day 3 to it. And I really dislike appeal to authority questions like this, they're a newbish form of sucking up.

Oh, rest assured, I've been questioning your motives, Jabbz.

So anyway... when should we all move our votes to Gaspar? Perhaps we should agree on some kind of signal or code word, for coordination. Something like "I have a bad feeling about this".

I took this as a "we'd like to hear more from you Gaspar" and am not going to overreact to it. Which is fair enough.

Just out of curiousity Gaz, when he is acting scummy, why did you feel it necessary to throw him a lifeline?

I feel like this is a normal scum argument - OMG NO DEFENSES. Mostly because scum are a lot more sensitive to defending because they fear doing it.

So I was still kinda joking, while also cognizant that if people did follow dtay's idea, I'd logically be the first to be killed. And I'm tired of all my villager games resulting in me lynched or nightkilled by day 2.

My record for the last few games as real villager: Killed Night 2 twice(35 & 33) , killed night 1 (32), vigshotted by a wolf-vig Day 1 (30) . Don't ask me for sympathy because you got nightkilled early in one of the few games you played and found as scum but let live on Day 1 in another one.

Okay um, congrats for getting killed early as a villager, you're usually a solid one so that's probably why. But you're also really misinterpreting my statement here. The nightkilled as villager isn't as big a point, and as I explained elsewhere was due to a game of bad play by me. What I'm saying is my more well known history is as a wolf, and therefore if dtay's plan was serious, I'd be a policy lynch almost, and naturally, I don't like that, since I'm town and am tired of getting extra pressure due to my previous outings. Am I not allowed sympathy for lucking into a bad rep that seems to always result in this same old circus every game?

So thanks for bringing it up right off the bat, I always enjoy defending myself against what I did 20 games ago.

You brought your scum play up yourself with

Also if people listen to him remember my good wolf games are a result of lunacy and luck rather than me actually having any skill.

Well if that's your main read on me then you're full of crap. Sure I 'brought it up', but mainly as a joke. I was thinking of something funny to say while waiting on my noodles to boil, not trying to give myself an out or something. You're the one that took the opening barter and turned it into:

That sounds a bit overly defensive too me.

BRick has used "A scum would never do that" with great success when he claimed a clear anti-town-power and managed to get 3 night-kill-immune villagers lynched by town before.

In short I currently find BRick more scummy than you (or any other). (emphasis mine)

So you're the one who's made a big deal of all this and tried to fling it in my face before I could even respond, don't go turning about and accuse me of being the one to make a big deal out of it.

I really don't like this interaction at all. Not sure if its a personality clash between these two (certainly Rowain and I have had our moments) but the gentle sucking up/chest-puffing interspersed between mudslinging tweaks my scum-o-meter.

That's the stuff that stuck out to me from the first day-ish.

[zakalwe]

One addendum/clarification. Saul's post looks like the kind of post a scum might make when he sits down to produce a "good" post, designed to sway votes away from himself. I'm obviously not expecting every scum post to follow the same format.

[Gaspar]

TL;DR:

• I think dtay is trying too hard. Is that scum or trying to make up for past failures? Can't say, haven't read recent games.
  
• I think AdrianIer fits the profile of a first-time scum or day 1 screwup.
  
• I'm ambivalent about Jabbz's content but think his style is scummy.
  
• I think sunrise or Mattimeo or both could be lurker scum, particularly since they've both done it before.
  
• I don't like Brick & Rowain's interaction. Brick comes off scummier of the two but could definitely be scumbuddies making noise for funsies.
  
• The Sauldicator stuff just reads like every Pindicator game ever, where he puts his foot in his mouth and then gets annoyed, or basically the Gaspar starter kit. I'd rather hear his reads in a day or two than hang him now for basically being himself.
  

Generally speaking, I prefer lynching quieter players early in absence of a smoking gun because their departure hurts the village less down the road. So on that note, dtay, Brick and Rowain, and Saul should all get a little bit more time to hang prove themselves.

For the moment, I think sunrise's overreaction to Mattimeo is slightly scummier than Mattimeo's overreaction to dtay.

sunrise089