Gaspar is either being really crappy town or just resigned wolf.
Assuming the latter, since the first seem rather unlikely, this means he agreed to just let himself die. Which obviously the other wolves know, and presumably have known for a while. Which decreases amount of info we can get off of this.
That's the only play I can figure that makes the resignation sensible: gaspar is scum and decreasing info-content of the votes on him.
How to wifom this with novice's lack of a vote on Gaspar... gah
Gaspar's looking bad but it's just weird to me that you're all voting outside of me, Adrien and Brick. Not going to object too loudly if the alternative is lynching me, but it's especially odd that both Adrien and Brick prefer Gaspar over a 50/50. I mean, we're going to have to get the A/B/N choice right eventually anyway to win.
BRick, you said earlier today that you were starting to have doubts about Adrien - and yet I haven't seen you reevaluating him at all.
If you guys want to procrastinate, lynching Sunrise is again an excellent way of doing so.
It just occured to me - an A/B/N choice is 33% odds for others (although there could be more than one scum there), whereas any lynch is 3/8 odds of hitting scum. So maybe voting outside of ABN isn't so weird after all. I'm still sticking with my 50/50 on BRick though.
(February 27th, 2015, 19:27)Doctor Saul Wrote: If AdrienIer, Novice or Gaspar have anything to reveal now may be the time.
Sleeper in the bed here, sorry.
(February 28th, 2015, 03:00)novice Wrote: Gaspar's looking bad but it's just weird to me that you're all voting outside of me, Adrien and Brick. Not going to object too loudly if the alternative is lynching me, but it's especially odd that both Adrien and Brick prefer Gaspar over a 50/50. I mean, we're going to have to get the A/B/N choice right eventually anyway to win.
BRick, you said earlier today that you were starting to have doubts about Adrien - and yet I haven't seen you reevaluating him at all.
If you guys want to procrastinate, lynching Sunrise is again an excellent way of doing so.
It just occured to me - an A/B/N choice is 33% odds for others (although there could be more than one scum there), whereas any lynch is 3/8 odds of hitting scum. So maybe voting outside of ABN isn't so weird after all. I'm still sticking with my 50/50 on BRick though.
I'm going with Gaspar because it only delays the inevitable decision about us, and I think an additional day of things to analyze will be useful.
I got a lot busier this game day than I anticipated, and I want to give more time to the novice/AdrienIer situation. So that's part of why I'm OK with a Gaspar lynch now, gives me more time to actually get to reread before the crucial lynch.
(February 17th, 2015, 15:09)sunrise089 Wrote: Checking in. Dr. Saul [/color=#FF0000]for the smurf
(February 17th, 2015, 15:10)sunrise089 Wrote: Pro color tagging on phone skills...
(February 17th, 2015, 17:34)AdrienIer Wrote: This day one is going to be super random. At least at the start. So I might as well use random.org for the first vote. I am therefore voting for number 10 [/color]: AdrienIer
Oh...
(February 18th, 2015, 09:20)sunrise089 Wrote:
(February 18th, 2015, 03:23)Mattimeo Wrote:
(February 17th, 2015, 21:51)dtay Wrote: "unfair to the people who are known for being good wolf players" is irrelevant. Why would we care if a strategy is fair?
Why not read the spoiler thread, then?
Also, if you want to play more games, having a policy of "always vote for the best wolf players," also known as "always vote for the same people," is not likely to encourage them to play more games with you.
dtay
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
(February 18th, 2015, 09:31)sunrise089 Wrote:
(February 18th, 2015, 09:23)Lewwyn Wrote: Come on now I don't think he's threatening him. That's a pretty hot take Sunrise...
Matt Wrote:is not likely to encourage them to play more games with you
I'm not saying it's going to make dtay quiver in fear, but I think it's the only 'could have out-of-game consequences' claim made so far, and again it's based on a misreading of dtay's argument, which is suspicious to me.
____
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.
(February 18th, 2015, 23:08)sunrise089 Wrote:
(February 18th, 2015, 20:04)Gaspar Wrote: sunrise's collection is the opening nothing vote, a correction to the nothing vote, a very aggressive overreaction to Mattimeo and then dialing back a hair in a follow-up with a nothing question he never followed up on.
I don't think I overreacted to Matt. Matt, I contend, intentionally mischaracterized an argument, and offered a meta-threat. My "dialing back" was only in relation to the threat part, and I don't think I dialed back anyways. What I said was the threat wasn't scary to dtay, but was a suggestion of out-of-game consequences. I'm trying to clarify that Matt wasn't being threatening via tone but via the content of the threat.
To the last part of the quoted sentence above, my question got directly answered. Like two posts after I asked...
(February 18th, 2015, 20:04)Gaspar Wrote: It probably isn't fair to sunrise
We agree on this though
(February 18th, 2015, 23:29)sunrise089 Wrote:
(February 18th, 2015, 18:20)Gazglum Wrote: Do you have any thoughts on anyone else, Sunrise?
I have some, but after falling behind in the thread I've not been able to read as closely as I'd like catching up.
*Matt remains my top suspect for reasons given above. Remove the threat point entirely (which I don't think is fair) and he's still putting the wrong words in someone's mouth for at best very unclear reasons.
*I didn't like dtay in post 96, for making cases and then not voting for any of them, but the change off his policy vote made in that post seemed genuine to me. So town point.
*Gazglum does a similar thing in 122, giving a reason to not vote for Saul and a reason to vote for Matt, but keeping his vote on the former. Interestingly he doesn't vote Matt because he wants to give him a chance to post more. This next vote? Me, for not posting enough...
*Speaking of backing off a position (see my last post above) I don't really like Zak's follow-up to the "scum formula" post. He goes from...
(February 18th, 2015, 13:58)zakalwe Wrote: It seems to include all the obligatory elements of a typical scum post.
to...
(February 18th, 2015, 18:07)zakalwe Wrote: His post contains many elements that are common in scum posts.
to...
(February 18th, 2015, 18:13)zakalwe Wrote: I'm obviously not expecting every scum post to follow the same format.
FYI definition of 'obligatory:' "so customary or routine as to be expected of everyone or on every occasion"
*Finally I don't like the ratio of describing the game:actual analysis in AdrienIer's 141.
*I don't think I have anything new to add to the pindicator discussion. I need to re-read since there's so much said about it compared to other cases, and it doesn't help that it calls back to past games I wasn't a part of.
Also, my unofficial goal for this game is to not post least per day. I'm not going to pull a "lynch me if that's not good enough for you" thing, but it's not realistic for me to contend with post leaders.
(February 18th, 2015, 23:30)sunrise089 Wrote: Thanks Fenn, I'm EST so I won't be up too much longer, but I'll try to re-read the Saul arguments in the a.m.
(February 19th, 2015, 12:40)sunrise089 Wrote: I've very quickly read the thread to try and catch up pre-deadline. I'm off to lunch and will read the Saul posts/attacks while doing so to see where I stand on him as promised.
(February 19th, 2015, 14:19)sunrise089 Wrote: Ok, I finally had a chance to re-read every Saul post, though not enough time to read every attack on him.
I'm not too bothered by the 'formula' post, though I admit it's hard to read it without seeing the formula now that Zak pointed it out, even if it's only an ex-post knowable formula. I'm not too bothered by the like 15 defense posts that follow either since Saul was taking lots of heat.
I WAS a little bothered by the claim that dtay was being aggressive early and throwing out wideranging accusations. I know Saul retracted his memory of dtay in an early game (something I agree would be a bold mistake to gambit as scum) but I didn't notice him correct the actual impression.
That's pretty much the only thing I thought was scummy though. I think his case and Zak is pretty simple and understandable, and he's since been either on Zak or Fenn (and avoided moving on to Matt or, earlier, me.)
I'm not trust-zoning him (or anyone yet) but there are 3-4 folks I'd rather lynch.
Also, sorry, phone.
(February 19th, 2015, 15:17)sunrise089 Wrote: GG Matt
(February 19th, 2015, 15:14)Jabbz Wrote: I told you that switch to Zak looked fishy. Ok, it was actually Matt that looked fishy, but you know what I mean.
I think tomorrow it will be interesting to discuss this view versus those shouting that the Matt lynch was purely a policy lynch...
(February 19th, 2015, 15:34)sunrise089 Wrote:
(February 19th, 2015, 15:25)Jabbz Wrote: As Qg said, what was the non-policy part of his lynch?
I voted for Matt purely on non-policy grounds, for what I thought was an easily understandable bad argument he made. Interestingly I got thrown a bunch of flak for that, calling it an overreaction to him.
Some joined later on policy grounds, with presumably wolves feeling the need to join what was at a point almost a unanimous lynch.
Really though this could be discussed during the daytime.
(February 22nd, 2015, 01:18)sunrise089 Wrote: Ugh. I was sick this past week, started to get better so worked extra to catch up, which got me sick again, which meant I crashed early last night, which meant I woke up to texts from boss wondering why a work assignment wasn't done, which meant I went back in to the office today, still sick, and despite the lovely DC weather we're having.
On the brightside it led to this humorous exchange with the wife, who is vaguely familiar with the concept of RB WW:
sunrise Wrote:Ok, I gotta get out of bed. I haven't posted in the WW game in over a day
sunrisewife Wrote:Oh no, I fear the other players will think you're the wolf
...
sunrisewife Wrote:You are the wolf, I can tell
...
sunrisewife Wrote:Get away from me wolf!
___
Anyways, I'm starting to catch up. Here are replies for action during the night phase...
I went back and checked to see who referred to Matt as a policy lynch.
Matt voters: jabbz, dtay, zak
Zak voters: Q, Dr. Saul, Brick
(Explicitly said it was not a policy lynch: Gazglum, town points)
No idea how the discussion goes from here, but my first impression is Q comes of looking pretty dicey, especially since he was actively pushing the policy lynch angle at others. Smaller dings for Brick (not loving the Rowain feud) and jabbz (right side on the Matt lynch but not loving the defense to some prodding nor his comments at me).
___
Small town point for AdrienIer for noting the Matt power role, surprisingly long after the lynch roll
___
Quick note on my own innocence: I'm happy to defend more vigorously if need be, but while I know scum can bus, to be clear...
*I got on Matt when he had one vote
*I stayed on him for the entire day
*A lot of flak was thrown at me claiming I had non-legit reasons for voting Matt
*I passed up an opportunity to re-assess my vote and potentially move it when asked
*I passed up the opportunity to shift to Zak when I could have made a tying vote
____
Anyways, that's purely a read through the Zak night kill roll. I'll try to post by...10:00am EST tomorrow am to comment on further developments.
(February 22nd, 2015, 11:28)sunrise089 Wrote: I at least liked how lazy the the day was by making me only have to catch up on 13 pages of posts and not 20+
Qqqqqq. I still don't like the comedy of errors involved in not actually knowing who zak voted for when you voted for him based on his vote, while still trying to nudge other votes last-minute. I also don't like his defense in post 423 when he argues a zak night-kill would have a bunch of downsides for for scum-Q but would still be the right call.
I'm not eager to move off Q, but I also have problems with a pair of Jabbz posts.
(February 20th, 2015, 15:40)Jabbz Wrote: Since I know Zak makes good arguments, and I know he was town, I can now give his reads more meaning. If you want to claim that makes me scum, knock yourself out.
That felt like some post-death buddying, since I don't recall the 'good arguments' compliment being thrown around before the flip. I also don't like the counter to Lewwyn's "please make reads" request. I lurked last game pretty carefully jabbz, and you were being complicated in your good reads despite constantly being attacked. You got sympathy from the lurker crowd because you didn't have time to better articulate your reads. Using that recent example as an excuse to not offer reads at all seems sketchy.
Lewwyn and Rowain also get -points from my read.
(February 22nd, 2015, 11:28)sunrise089 Wrote: Oh, I should be generally online, minus perhaps a trip out for lunch, through the lynch.
(February 22nd, 2015, 14:25)sunrise089 Wrote: Q, am I missing a discussion on you claiming previously? I'm trying to make sense of your post immediately above.
(February 22nd, 2015, 15:12)sunrise089 Wrote:
(February 22nd, 2015, 15:01)Commodore Wrote: Tally as of post 614:
Um...I didn't vote Fenn, not sure what's up here....
(February 22nd, 2015, 15:13)sunrise089 Wrote:
(February 22nd, 2015, 14:55)Gazglum Wrote: Hah! I do and I did. I bodyguarded Rowain.
Why pick me?
Interesting. Does that mean you die if someone tries to kill him?
(February 22nd, 2015, 14:57)Qgqqqqq Wrote: Back 5 minutes to go. What happened please summarize?
We're policy-lynching Matt
(February 22nd, 2015, 14:59)Fenn Wrote: Roles and alignment are separately randomized and handed out, so scum could have powers that aren't useful to them.
Do we know if this, strictly read, is true?
(February 22nd, 2015, 15:17)sunrise089 Wrote:
(February 22nd, 2015, 15:14)Commodore Wrote:
(February 22nd, 2015, 15:12)sunrise089 Wrote: Um...I didn't vote Fenn, not sure what's up here....
Yeah, fixed it, you misspelled Qgqqqqq.
You actually fixed it before I could even properly quote the error it seems
Sucky outcome, sorry Fenn, thanks for revealing your info pre-death though.
Gazglum, why the switch at the deadline to Novice. It had no ability to change the lynch...
(February 22nd, 2015, 15:27)sunrise089 Wrote:
(February 22nd, 2015, 15:23)Gazglum Wrote: Fenn was right though, checking Commodore's first post - alignment and roles are given out separately.
All I see is "-Alignment and roles are separated, so scum might have a more village role and vice versa."
Fenn said "Roles and alignment are separately randomized," emphasis mine.
I think the point about a "towny" role being able to be on anyone is true regardless, so I'm not quibbling on that. My reading of Fenn's post though was that scum could have anyone from all to no power roles, which felt unlikely.
(February 25th, 2015, 11:39)sunrise089 Wrote: Ugh, clearly I didn't factor in downside risk at all when signing up. I lurked 35 so well that I felt I could play in 36 easily...and apparently I was an idiot and didn't consider how much went right to let me do that last game.
Qgqqqqq . I'm also willing to consider Lewwyn, though I prefer Q barring new information. I don't like the novice case based on what I've seen, though I'm also not fully caught up. I'm going to try to stay engaged through vote via phone, but I don't honestly know how many of the pages I'm behind I'll be able to read.
(February 25th, 2015, 13:07)sunrise089 Wrote: Saul was still the leading vote getter with 5 hours to go b day 1, but by the time the last-minute Zak drama started he was down to 1 vote.
(February 25th, 2015, 13:28)sunrise089 Wrote: Does anyone have a post number where novice moved on to me from Q? I know policy lynch sunrise etc, but that seems odd doing from his post-day-two-vote view...
(February 25th, 2015, 14:13)sunrise089 Wrote: Cross post talley dtay?
(February 25th, 2015, 14:24)sunrise089 Wrote: Dtay, sorry for being 'prodding guy' but are you willing to switch should Lewwyn not prove viable?
You say novice looks like indecisive town...I think the anti-novice point is that he's usially quite decisive as town.
(February 25th, 2015, 14:28)sunrise089 Wrote: Novice, you not like Lewwyn with 1 vote better than Q who you pushed all game?!
(February 26th, 2015, 15:55)sunrise089 Wrote: GG Gazglum. I understand a lot of the Novice case and I sure like him a lot less after the last hour of Day 3, but I'll read the Gaspar argument and reply.
