[Game Thread] WW49: Wizards and Werewolves

[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?

I have to side with AdrienIer here. "Dishonest" is exactly how your analysis comes across. I don't know if you're just scum or if you think you've found scum and are hammering with everything you can find, but every single sentence AdrienIer is posting, you're twisting into the scummiest light you can muster. If you're town you would do better service to your case by presenting it in a more level headed way.

I'd rather you point out how you believe I am twisting them, instead of simply declaring it to be so. (This is an actual request for you to explain your accusation novice.) I did write quite a few posts back and forth with Adrien and explained in them what I disliked about his posts. If you believe my reads are not simply wrong but indeed suspicious, then explain why they are suspicious.

For example, what is dishonest about questioning why AdrienIer felt it necessary to counter-vote me? Or is it dishonest that I point out how Adrien himself said I was under fire and searched a target to latch onto and he was the first I found? That's exactly what he said, I've not interpreted anything there. I don't agree with it, as I didn't feel under fire in the first place, but if he felt that was my reasoning, it still means that we have to agree that he presented himself as a target to me. So again, I don't see how I'm dishonest. Now, you can say he didn't mean to imply that he was scummy but I made it sound like he did - that's the statement he made afterwards. But what exactly did he (and apparently you) try to imply about my thought process then? That I searched a target and instead of using one of the many players that have not showed up, instead of going for one of those I already pointed out, I jumped on him because ... what? He is special to me?

I really don't get what was dishonest here. Or do you mean my first analysis? What was dishonest there? The only point I see is that I did not point out his prodding of thrawn. I'd say as my actual point is not about that, it doesn't really change the case at all if he did or not.

Really curious. Currently your whole post reads to me like "lets keep this mislynch warm". Together with your earlier questioning while giving the answer at the same time I start to doubt which side you are on. Guess we can both put the other in the suspicious camp then.

[Serdoa]

Lots of accusations flying back and forth suddenly, and I agree with little of what I read. Happy to see the activity though. I'll weigh in more completely at a more opportune time.

Oh, also, let me say I did expect some more from you after the quoted post. We had several pairings of accusations flying around (Adrien - I, Rowain - I, Lewwyn - Rowain, thrawn - many from the top of my head). But while you made 3 posts in quick succession they all lack substance imo. It feels like you made them just so you could defend Adrien. Else we have

1) Something being a funny observation by thrawn - which does not comment on the actual accusation at all
2) Meta speculation
3) Rowain voting Lewwyn and accusing him of wasting time raising your eyebrows (that's the only disagreement about cases other than Adrien and I and even that is blurred with a "Admittedly the discussion didn't seem very productive", more or less agreeing with both sides)
4) Pindi showed up, his post was hard to read

For "Lots of accusation" which you "agree with little of what I read" that's actually not much you don't seem to agree with. More or less just me attacking Adrien actually.

[novice]

It’s still not an opportune time. "Admittedly the discussion didn't seem very productive", is me more or less disagreeing with both sides.

[novice]

I’m not going to enter a quote war with you on mobile. If you want a full on dissection of your dishonesty that will have to wait until I have time in front of a computer.

[Rowain]

@pindi
While I find your vote for me strange especially your statement:

With all tha said, I think Rowain does nay sound like Rowain.  He sounds too carefree before delvin inta tha attack on Serdoa in #92.  Then his defense of Thrawn seems to ignore there were clear differences between Thrawn in 47 & Thrawn in 48.

And darn it, I've dropped tha accent.

I read everything but admit I am lost. In 47 I got lucky to get on a thread from the start and it resolved itself. And in 48 I was totally wrong about who the wolves were. Now no idea where to begin.

Tha first day be rough, laddie.  Take yer time, dinnae let tha rascals here push ya ta vote befer ye get yer footin.  I always get heat fer not participatin enough day 1 yet as ye get farther in there be more ta work with!

I did not defend thrawn in any way or form. No matter how he played he was a top-lynchtaget in both games. And he could be it now. That you find his post not suspect but rather help him should make you side with me and not vote for me.
But I can't vote off someone who loves OotS enough to have Durkon as avatar and try his accent. I only hope you are original recipe durkon and not the spawn of hel.

@novice: He spent 4 posts reiterating the same: 127130 134138
Nothing else from him in that time. But the highlight is:

You characterize my use of hours
as focused alone on you
but your the one who responds so dour
and draw me in to stew.

So he would prefer if I don't answer him? Since when does Lewwyn prefer those he accuses to not answer him? That doesn't raise your eyebrows?

Curious but I find myself in agreement with Serdoa here.

[AdrienIer]

Hmmm I'm starting to feel like Serdoa is just tunneling on me. Novice taking my side would have probably prompted a wolf to be more cautious, not to go all out and start implying that it's probably because Novice and I are scumbuddies.
Out of the other players Dark Savant is the one that stands out : coming in, voting for two different people then disappearing as people question it.
Thrawn is also rather low-content so far, he could be having my vote.

[Rowain]

It’s still not an opportune time. "Admittedly the discussion didn't seem very productive", is me more or less disagreeing with both sides.

You are disagreeing with Lewwyn and me but my point was Serdoa is suspicious which you just said yourself .
And me pointing out to Lewwyn that he is unproductive raises your eyebrown while you agree that it was not very productive

[Serdoa]

I’m not going to enter a quote war with you on mobile. If you want a full on dissection of your dishonesty that will have to wait until I have time in front of a computer.

Yes I would. I mean that honestly. I want to be able to defend if I find something unfair, explain if I feel something misunderstood and accept if I indeed did misrepresent something. But as it is right now, I can't and therefore I also can't assess what to think of this accusation and therefore of you (in this game of course). 

And the same I would expect is true for others. I'm not sure there needs to be a quote war though novice, what I want is to understand what exactly is considered dishonest by you.

[Lewwyn]

Some things here to comment on
let's see if I can get it done.

 And before you try to get a gotcha moment by pointing at my "I want to play !" post, I didn't think looking up the various uses of the term "grognard" in WW would necessarily help town as much as starting a discussion early on D1 would, so I chose the one that prompted more interaction.

Interesting that you say this now,
when you are under fire.
The intentionality of your words
was mean then to inspire?

What kind of inspiration did you seek?
It seems that only suspicion you would bring
Did you mean to make yourself a target?
And see who would look for your neck to wring?

Because I do not understand your thought
if you believed this phrase activity begot?

I'm only under fire by one person though...

I didn't necessarily want to make myself a target, but not everyone reacts equally to a discussion on a third party. The grognard himself both knows too much about the role, and might not want to talk about it for too long. The wolves might be interested in the notion of a survivor or a SK. Only the town starts with a blank mind on that subject.

So while I don't conclude much from the responses to the initial prompt right now, they could be useful later on.

I am confused as to your meaning
it seems that you want to draw out the grognad?
or that you want to draw out scum who are hunting
the Grognad? The play seems bad.
If it yielded fruit it would be good,
but it seems more like content food.

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.

Admittedly the discussion didn't seem very productive, but saying that he wasted many hours is a bit much. And voting Lewwyn over it certainly raises my eyebrow.

Apparently the discussion was productive,
just not from his point of view.
His overreaction is instructive
the entire vote reasoning sprung from the blue.

@novice: He spent 4 posts reiterating the same: 127130 134138
Nothing else from him in that time. But the highlight is:

You characterize my use of hours
as focused alone on you
but your the one who responds so dour
and draw me in to stew.

So he would prefer if I don't answer him? Since when does Lewwyn prefer those he accuses to not answer him? That doesn't raise your eyebrows?

Curious but I find myself in agreement with Serdoa here.

You are twisting the words to suit your needs,
who said I was not happy to engage with you?
I was making clear that you drew my response
Again here you see that is again true!

If someone talks to you
it is only polite
to respond and acknowledge
even when they're not right.

Also Rowain
it seems you refrain
from acknowledging my post
from first half the day.

I spent much of my time poking round other people
but you deign to say I never started hunting scum.
I started my work on the previous day
my investigation of you only another picture in my album.

You are twisting my words
and your accusation's for the birds.

[Lewwyn]

Hmmm I'm starting to feel like Serdoa is just tunneling on me. Novice taking my side would have probably prompted a wolf to be more cautious, not to go all out and start implying that it's probably because Novice and I are scumbuddies.
Out of the other players Dark Savant is the one that stands out : coming in, voting for two different people then disappearing as people question it.
Thrawn is also rather low-content so far, he could be having my vote.

Dark Savant is my number two
If no one agrees on Rowain, 
I might vote with you.