[Game Thread] WW49: Wizards and Werewolves

[Lewwyn]

@Bard
Thrawn is an easy voting place for scum. He was in danger to get lynched day1 ww47  and got lynched Day 1WW48. He is the "if you don't know what to do throw dirt on thrawn and vote him" for all bad guys. It is easy play and it is wrong play for town. Why need I explain that to you?

Considering the warlock's now ironic vote
I see your point of the low hanging fruit,
and yet remember that last he was smote,
thrawn's name turned red beneath the boot.
That lynch was earned in blood,
and voting for him was no dud.

This time may indeed be different
but a vote cast for thrawn 
does not mean not innocent.
Easy is not always wrong.

I do not like your broad broad stroke here,
I agree that voting thrawn may be easy.
And there maybe scum among the tier
But that alone is not enough Mr. beefy.

Just to add, I do not know
but your post makes me uneasy.
You are declaring thrawn a no vote go
even if you do not say so clearly.

[Serdoa]

@Bard
Thrawn is an easy voting place for scum. He was in danger to get lynched day1 ww47  and got lynched Day 1WW48. He is the "if you don't know what to do throw dirt on thrawn and vote him" for all bad guys. It is easy play and it is wrong play for town. Why need I explain that to you?

I don't agree on that Rowain. In principle - which you seem to agree, as per your former post

If thrawn doesn't start hunting no problem with voting him off. If he posts one more time how lost he is I'll vote thrawn myself.

- but also because I did not even follow either of these games (the roleplay-game I did read some posts every few days, the other I don't think I looked at more than once if at all). So even if I would agree that someone who knew what you posted above should not pressure thrawn early as he apparently gets easily mislynched, how was I supposed to act upon what you believe the right play, when that right play can only be known to someone who followed the former games? You basically thought I could be a bad guy, because of knowledge I did not possess but you assumed I do.

[AdrienIer]

Just reread Serdoa to find out if his complete mischaracterisation of my first day was just a one time mistake or part of a larger scummy play. My conclusion is that he caught flak for a bad vote on thrawn (he voted for thrawn for an entirely different reason than SD or I), then tried to redirect and pretend to be scumhunting by going after the first person he could find. I agree with the first two parts of his post 129 but they're not really towny. The only analysis he made is the dishonest one against me.

So Serdoa

[AdrienIer]

Ah I crossposted with Serdoa too

[Rowain]

@Bard while his name was written in red he was still a villager for victory-condidtion. Great as it was we got him before he could use his poison he still was a mislynch.

Nope it depends who votes when and with what reason. Serdoa using his first serious vote for thrawn rang alarm-bells. The warlock voting hiim and pressuring him to do reads is something different.

But I see you prefer to waste poem after poem to reiterate the same thing: You unhappy with my vote. So you declare Serdoa sacrosanct?
Will you start scumhunting or is it your plan to use the whole day1 on discussing with me? That is a scumtell you know. Lewwyn


For all others: That Lewwyn votes for me is not the problem but that he wasted many hours and poems by simple reiterating the same : He doesn't like my Serdoa-vote is.

[AdrienIer]

In post 91 (around the time I woke up) I ask thrawn some questions, and specifically call out the lack of participation in actual discussion by some people. Being in the first half of D1 with very little to discuss I figured I might wait on some of those people to post. If there had been some important things happening right afterwards I'd have participated, but I thought there was nothing urgent to add on the "graveyard thread" discussion (BTW my position is that there's likely a "revive a dead person for a day" power) so I prefered to wait for a couple hours. And I didn't wait that long too.
I completely disagree with your last sentence, which is actually a mischaracterisation of my posts so far. I prodded thrawn (who didn't answer BTW), and mentioned several things that I was weary about (in the very post you quote).

Adrien, to break it down: When I posted you had 8 posts so far. 4 at the beginning, 1 post 13 hours later and another 3 at the end, shortly before I wrote mine. The first of those latest 3 included your sentence that you waited for others to post. So your relevant posts to look at are the 5 that happened before you made that statement, and not those you made after or at the same time of that statement. So what do we have:

#3: Saying Hello. Voting Rowain (jokingly obviously at that point)
#20: Meta speculation - though you also add that you refrained to do any research on it
#22: Agreeing that DS should not have jumped around that much - I think. Or preemptively deflecting questions why you didn't tell him not to jump around? I wouldn't even know why anyone would ask those, but to me it reads like defending against something that no one said.
#27: Meta speculation and your answer to the question if you don't want to win, what you only answered by stating that you want to play.
#91: Meta speculation, speculation on Lewwyns role (as I pointed out) and a vote for thrawn, prodding him to post something.
#121: The post I questioned because you state you haven't posted more as you waited for others.

Now, looking at those, are you really surprised that I'm puzzled by that sentence of yours? With over a hundred posts written, you have, besides meta speculation, only awkwardly agreed on the DS vote-jumping and asked thrawn to post some thoughts. That's not much - so it was pointed out by WK too. Which you seemed to agree with and defended by giving an explanation: That you waited for others to post something.

I agree that I probably cut short what you posted in #91, but that wasn't the point why I was puzzled either. It was your actual sentence about waiting for others, while other did indeed write 100+ posts. You've by now explained that with exactly what I would have expected in the first place.

Basically my issue is with the way you explain things when you get questioned. The way you defend before being attacked and the way you counter-attack, missing the actual point of the accusation (deliberately?). Like your next post:

That last sentence leaves me puzzled. You waited for more people to post before you yourself would post? But if we all did that, wouldn't no one post at all?

I'm actually bothered about the bolded part. It's not like I was hiding for the entire game and then explaining it by waiting for others to post. I participated early, then participated as I woke up, then waited a bit while there was very little to discuss (due to some people being absent).

Why are you bothered? What do you mean by that? Do you think I could be scum? Then just say it, stand by what you think. This instead feels like you test the waters, try to find out if anyone would agree but if not, you can still go back on it and state "oh no, I never said he is scum, I just said that sentence bothered me".

And as for your actual point here: You answer to some accusation, implying that I accuse you of hiding, but I never made that accusation. I don't care if you call what you do hiding or participating or roleplaying. I'm bothered by the words you use and the sentences you craft and I believe you could be scum.

AdrienIer

Ok so you accuse me of... Having the style that I have ?? I choose my words and don't throw accusations around if I don't feel strongly about them. I usually take time to rethink, and put things in context, instead of reacting too much to one specific thing. So first I point out that something bothers me (forcing myself to do things like that because if I never do that then I'm barely ever going to post), then reread you, then if I can connect some dots I go the extra mile.

[Serdoa]

Just reread Serdoa to find out if his complete mischaracterisation of my first day was just a one time mistake or part of a larger scummy play. My conclusion is that he caught flak for a bad vote on thrawn (he voted for thrawn for an entirely different reason than SD or I), then tried to redirect and pretend to be scumhunting by going after the first person he could find. I agree with the first two parts of his post 129 but they're not really towny. The only analysis he made is the dishonest one against me.

So Serdoa

And with "caught flak" you mean Rowain expecting me to know things I can't know and to play in a way that is not even making sense if you do? Ohhhh-k, feeling good with my vote here

I also find it amusing that you accuse me of pretending to scumhunt by going after the first person I could find. That still means you are the person that was scummiest. I'm glad we agree on that at least.

What I don't understand though: If you agree that your play could be interpreted as scummy, why attack me for pointing that out? Why don't you simply explain it? I've discussed with Rowain quite a bit back and forth, I never felt a reason to counter-vote him. Why do you?

[Serdoa]

For all others: That Lewwyn votes for me is not the problem but that he wasted many hours and poems by simple reiterating the same : He doesn't like my Serdoa-vote is.

Ok, could we stop that please? From our interaction, you seem your stubborn-self Rowain and Lewwyn is also doing what he always does, trying to get an answer that is satisfactory. Right now, I would put neither of us down for wolf, at least not for how we played up to now.

So, maybe let me know if you agree with me feeling on Adrien, if you disagree (and why) instead? Same goes for Lewwyn btw.

[AdrienIer]

What I don't understand though: If you agree that your play could be interpreted as scummy, why attack me for pointing that out? Why don't you simply explain it? I've discussed with Rowain quite a bit back and forth, I never felt a reason to counter-vote him. Why do you?

Huh ? I never said I was scummy, you just found someone whose play you could construe as scummy and went with it.

[Tarkeel]

Gaz, while I am willing to let some suspicious behavior slide from new players today, giving them a free pass for the day is a bit much. I'm probably not going to vote for a new player today but I will if the situation calls for it. Care to elaborate on why voting new players is a complete non-option for you?

I would not expect any mercy just because I'm new. I hope my actions themselves will help convince you of my honest intentions.


As we approach the halfway point of the first day my feelings thus far are:

• Where is our illustrious cleric hiding?
  
• I wonder if our ranger captain got lost while tracking their prey.
  
• The wizzard sourcerer is still bambling about without any clear content.
  
• Our warlock is spouting accusations without responding to discussion.
  
• A monk that might be feigning something?
  

@Bard
Thrawn is an easy voting place for scum. He was in danger to get lynched day1 ww47  and got lynched Day 1WW48. He is the "if you don't know what to do throw dirt on thrawn and vote him" for all bad guys. It is easy play and it is wrong play for town. Why need I explain that to you?

This reasoning is similar to why I didn't want to pile on the first and best target earlier on, but I am now willing to jump the warlock that did take the easy bait, although I'm open to being persuaded to go for someone else, preferably on my list.