[Werewolf: Archives] Werewolf: In Soviet Russia - Herbalist wins

This post just contains a few comments on the past three pages; later today I will be (hopefully) making another post more focused on the hunt.


So first off, I have looked back and determined that I do not think Whoopin is that suspicious anymore, or rather not a good lynch candidate for today. I still think his reasoning on a few issues is poor, but I now realize that is probably just "Whoopin being Whoopin" more than anything else.

QuailLover said:

But to divide everyone like that it requires more than one person to do that, you got the people with the opposite view points. For example you got both Eternal and Facemelter who are probably the two most visible ones at the moment.

Click to expand...

The thing is, Whoopin did not create a split village; Catholic and I got on Whoopin's case because of the logic he was using. Nobody else was strongly with him because it was Whoopin using Whoopin logic; it was not going to turn into the popular opinion, so why do you think this was an attempt to split the village?

AWdeV said:

Horse hockey. How the hell can you turn one of the best players into an easy target? He looks scummy as hell which either contradicts his best player status or points to him being scum for the first time.

Click to expand...

You answered yourself. If a player looks scummy, it is not hard for them to turn into an easy target, no matter who it is.

Eternal said:

Frisiandude is making me feel a bit better. He admitted fault for being jumpy on the I-replaced-that-dude case, and explained how he'd feel in presumably my situation.

Click to expand...

Why would admitting fault be a sign of innocence? Personally, I find initial reactions to be more telling since you can always go back and correct yourself later on to feign being "good."

theEstonian said:

Ugh, this was more difficult than I thought. I read through the last pages many times during the last 30 minutes and found almost nothing to comment.

Click to expand...

Then why not read through the thread instead of the last few pages? Looking back to make connections and go over the flow of things is never a bad thing.

I am currently composing a long post, it may be some time...

Nipplemelter said:

Then why not read through the thread instead of the last few pages? Looking back to make connections and go over the flow of things is never a bad thing.

Click to expand...

I did actually, I spent 45 minutes just reading the thread and this was all I found.

AWdeV said:

I don't recall/can't find the "Eternal spun it into a "trying to steer village"" part, where can I find it?

Click to expand...

Heres a link to his quote with my reply.

AWdeV said:

Out of the reactions you've gotten from your post, who do you genuinely believe to be a likely villain?
Because to me, both you and Eternal seem pretty neutral/leaning towards iffy.

Click to expand...

Greatsword and Haresus/Frisian based on their interaction with Eternal - if Eternal is a villain. However, if he is innocent then my confidence in their packmate activity is flawed. My other suspects based on recent posts would have be:

Greatsword: His last reply 4 days ago made it clear he was barely paying attention to the Face vs Whoopin duel and even thought we were suspicious for an "abrupt ending". I think he wanted to Face to keep the pressure on me so he didnt have to try to make a case on me himself. That made it easier for him to keep his parked vote on me and not bother hunting wolves or voting other suspects.
Vieira: His gameplay has been empty this entire day, its like he doesnt want to attract attention or say the wrong thing. Truly just lurkin and not helping the village with hunting or making his suspicions clear. It mimics the tactics of the Twilight II Zone wolves that didnt know what to say and barely posted.
Hojo: Mainly due to his suspicious forced post when he seemed to want to get more momentum on my case, it truly came outta nowhere and was "out of character" - its like he thought it would be easy to call me defensive and get all angry/confident about it. Not something I see innocents do and Im really good at recognizing innocent activity, helps me narrow down my choices for wolves.

Now if you look at those three, can you tell me whom they suspect other than me? They have failed to make their views known and havent really tried to help us find wolves. That isnt innocent activity and I think one or more is a villain - will wait for them to read this post and make a reply before I possibly change my vote from Eternal.

AWdeV said:

You a bit more because of your grandiose way of, well, everything and also in part because of the post that you now claim was mainly/merely for drawing attention and stirring up discussion. It looks very much like a baloney explanation for doing something really silly; the fabled list where you excluded yourself, Mag and 'Ham.

Nipplemelter strikes me as an innocent so far. As the only one involved in the whole discussion.
I also have a vague gut-feeling that Mag was a bit too supportive of your ruling him out from his list but not enough so that I actually think he's a villain.

I'm going to Vote: Whoopin.

Because out of everyone here I think you're the most likely wolf. You're an experienced player and bat**** crazy to boot and it looks as if your tactic (one you could pull off very well) is simply to let Eternal make himself look ridiculous/villainous.

Click to expand...

If you read my replies properly, you will see that the first post was not just for drawing attention, it was my Whoopin luck guess and the reasons behind the choice - it was a start for discussion when we had nothing. The conclusion post was my ideas after reading the reactions to that fabled list. I agree with you that Facemelter seems innocent, his battle with me was also trying to understand not just trying to get me killed - unlike Eternal, only thing he agreed with me with was to disagree.

Concerning Magorian, I understood his support and he was really posting objectively and giving other viewpoints on my posts, only thing other than calling me suspicious would be supporting. I actually have started to lose faith in his innocence recently due to the fact he hasnt been himself and posting up a good wolf hunt and trying to convince us to join his wagon. Its something he always does well and its been suspiciously absent.

Your vote on me was kinda odd, even Calodine saw it - with all the data you had to review you choose to vote me? You also only mention who you think is innocent... who else other than Whoopin do you think is a villain? You got my answers now tell us yours.

Finally, I wanted to say that on day two we are gonna have a hard time determining Adaham and Magorian innocence because it usually based on all the day one data combined with night actions. If Adaham continues to be absent and Magorian doesnt provide us with a master debate then we are gonna have a difficult decision.

Vieira said:

That may help, Xardob. It also might help if I actually wasn't so god damn lacking in confidence in my game at the moment.

I don't know what I'm doing anymore, or what I plan on attempting.  vote: Calodine

Click to expand...

Vieira said:

We still have a little while before deadline.

And I tried before. But I end up in a mess. Such as earlier today and in the last game. At the moment, there is no case on Calodine. Yet.

Click to expand...

Thats worse than the two current Unvotes with no vote... the whole point of voting someone is so we can learn from your suspicions and determine if youre trying to make a valid case or mislead us... you even state there is no case on Calodine yet. Nice vote split, it seems you dont want to actually participate or want to join a wagon so we dont question your reasonsing. Lookin forward to a real post from you cause if I vote you right now I can only say its because youre impotent.

Gotta get some sleep, been busy with wife duty while shes on leave.

Whoopin said:

Hojo: Mainly due to his suspicious forced post when he seemed to want to get more momentum on my case, it truly came outta nowhere and was "out of character" - its like he thought it would be easy to call me defensive and get all angry/confident about it. Not something I see innocents do and Im really good at recognizing innocent activity, helps me narrow down my choices for wolves.

Now if you look at those three, can you tell me whom they suspect other than me? They have failed to make their views known and havent really tried to help us find wolves. That isnt innocent activity and I think one or more is a villain - will wait for them to read this post and make a reply before I possibly change my vote from Eternal.

Click to expand...

hm? What's 'forced' about Hojo's post? You are talking about this one, right? I do not get the feeling that it is forced. Nor do I really see how it coming out of nowhere should be grounds for suspicion; almost everything comes out of nowhere since no one posts their full thought processes. You did not expect him to post that, but that's a different matter.

Eternal said:

I'm not suspicious, Calodine's not suspicious, Whoopin's not suspicious, then who is? Probability itself tends to show that one of the three of us is evil.

Click to expand...

You know full well that probability means **** all here.

Face said:

The thing is, Whoopin did not create a split village; Catholic and I got on Whoopin's case because of the logic he was using. Nobody else was strongly with him because it was Whoopin using Whoopin logic; it was not going to turn into the popular opinion, so why do you think this was an attempt to split the village

Click to expand...

Look up, that right there is trying to split. 'You don't think any of us are wolves? PROBABILITY DISAGREES, PICK A SIDE *****'

That wasn't the argument, and it is not a split. Nobody was picking sides; it was just Catholic and I going after Whoopin because we disagreed with his logic.

Calo, you know full well it's not good for someone to have no suspicions of anyone. I wasn't asking him to join me or you, I was asking him to have something and show something.

Oh really?

*slips away*

Whoopin said:

Thats worse than the two current Unvotes with no vote... the whole point of voting someone is so we can learn from your suspicions and determine if youre trying to make a valid case or mislead us... you even state there is no case on Calodine yet. Nice vote split, it seems you dont want to actually participate or want to join a wagon so we dont question your reasonsing. Lookin forward to a real post from you cause if I vote you right now I can only say its because youre impotent.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree. I feel impotent. The only strong thoughts I have on anyone is myself, and that I've been ****e both while being active and lurking. I feel tempted to ask Xardob for a replacement, but I feel that would be giving up (if I haven't already done that. I'm not sure  ).

I'll have a re-read through of the entire thread to see if I can find anything to say, since everything I've read in the last 10 pages that aren't to do with myself have completely washed over my head.

Unfortunately I did not find much new, other than a few things to comment on. Basically, my suspicions have stayed the same, except Catholic has fallen in standing.

Magorian Aximand said:

If you want evidence of the fact that I have been through this discussion before, there is ample amount for me to quote from previous games. Games in which I was innocent, by the way.

Click to expand...

Magorian Aximand said:

If it helps, I can provide quotes of my innocent self using meta defenses in the past.

Click to expand...

I know I have mentioned it before, and I know this was posted early on, but this has still been bugging me about Magorian. He has never played a wolf before, so we do not know how much his style would change, if at all. So why would he be pushing the meta-"I'll show you my innocence" when it would not show anything?

Calodine said:

[...]but having everyone know who everyone else is willing to vote for is also pretty damn dangerous.

Click to expand...

Why do you think as much? I would disagree because then it would make last-second bandwagoning harder to justify (So then the "I thought they were suspicious, but never really mentioned it" card could not be played).

Calodine said:

Eternal said:

I'm not suspicious, Calodine's not suspicious, Whoopin's not suspicious, then who is? Probability itself tends to show that one of the three of us is evil.

Click to expand...

You know full well that probability means **** all here.

Click to expand...

But for a balanced game, would Xardob make all three of them innocent? This is a point I had brought up earlier, but it is worth thinking about.

AWdeV said:

John isn't very postative but I don't think he's a villain.

Click to expand...

How could you get the vibe that John is innocent from the little amount of posts that show he has obviously not been reading?


Now, about Catholic (some of this is rehash from myself). On one hand, he is playing similar to last game when he was an innocent and making some decent attempts at wolf-hunting. On the other hand, his reasoning/judgement has been spotty at best; early on he mentioned liking Greatsword's play and said Bgfan seemed intelligent this time around, despite Greatsword's logic being off and Bgfan making lame arguments and adding nothing of intelligence to the conversation. Why did he get angry over Magorian's LoS as well? What was he expecting from an early LoS? His arguments against Whoopin are essentially the same as what I had made, but even I have since realized that what was argued was not necessarily wolfish. What makes you think that he is still obviously a wolf?

Eternal said:

I realized I've been positive about everything that's not NomNom, Grim, or Whoop recently. Need to step it up some.

Click to expand...

Why would you need to step up being negative about more people? Shouldn't you only have to do so if you feel someone is suspicious?

Eternal said:

With our newcomers, I like AWDev immediately. He really makes up for Grimmend's absence, makes up for Grimmend's silence and makes Grimmend look like an innocent who got bored and left.

Click to expand...

Why do you think this about AWDev? When he entered, he just was restating arguments made about Whoopin. I understand that since he came in late, coming up with new material immediately is difficult, but I cannot see why you would immediately like AW, other than because he agrees with you on Whoopin.

Eternal said:

I'd rather take down a villain at a greater risk than take down an innocent. Not to mention, an inactive innocent could also have special abilities that a wolf hunter does not, hence invalidating the idea that it's 'less harm'.

Click to expand...

But how would you know if you are taking down a villain rather than an innocent if you were innocent yourself? You would have no idea who the villains are. An active innocent could have special abilities as well; being inactive does not change anything or mean someone is a special.


Hojo is interesting because prior to making his post about Whoopin, he was doing quite fine. However, the arguments he made in his post about Whoopin were poor. How does defending yourself when people see you as suspicious, suspicious? He did not divide the village into "Pro-Whoopin" and "Anti-Whoopin" either; he only created an "Anti-Whoopin" group. He did later on explain himself in his responses to me as well. This makes it seem like you have not been reading and was an attempt to hop onto the train.

Bulle said:

*slips away*

Click to expand...

No way. You posted in the thread, I'm drafting you to play the game. 

Internet has been crap all day.


Bgfan seems to me to be a problem. He was foolish in previous games, but this game seems to have manifested a new MO. He's posting even less, and he's not even trying to make points like he was when he was innocent. The very best he has come up with (beyond useless commentary) is that he thinks Vieira was lying about having internet troubles. Seriously. I think this new found struggle to come up with anything at all to say is a product of the fact that he already knows who all the bad guys are, and he's having trouble making something up on everyone else, so he feels content to hide. Especially because his initial attempt at criticism was received so poorly.

Vote: Bgfan

AWdeV said:

Some might say this is because you have a vested interest.

Click to expand...

Some would be wrong. I see the smiley, but it bears pointing out that I've addressed this.

Nipplemelter said:

I know I have mentioned it before, and I know this was posted early on, but this has still been bugging me about Magorian. He has never played a wolf before, so we do not know how much his style would change, if at all. So why would he be pushing the meta-"I'll show you my innocence" when it would not show anything?

Click to expand...

I've addressed this too. "It wasn't an attempt to show that I'm behaving like an innocent. It was an attempt to show that the line of reasoning that was about to be followed could not show that I was a wolf. Those are two different things. I very well could be a villain, but that line of discussion would simply be mute on the matter. No point in letting people dig into ultimately fruitless discussions." Remember that?

Nipplemelter said:

And how exactly did the narrations give us information about who the wolves were if the names used were random in Orj's game? I do not recall any time where the narrations pointed to Vieira, Locke, or myself being baddies.

...

And I have been in games where narration meant nothing; narrations are just there for to spice up the game. There is no reason to look deeply into the narration for finding specific wolves, you should know that. Yes, there isn't any harm to it per se, but it is a weak argument to make; there are much better things to be looking at, like actual posts and behaviours of players.

Click to expand...

In Orj's game, the narration gave us both the number of villains, and clues into how they functioned. The night narrations gave us even more specific information. Clearly, if clues are embedded in Xardob's narration, they're less obvious. We won't know if there is anything to be gleaned from it until we see more, obviously. And it is for that very reason that I haven't looked deeply into the opening narration myself, but again I see no reason not to speculate if someone feels the urge. Further still, the case in question follows your reasoning perfectly. Whoopin only posted thoughts based in the narration when there were virtually no posts to read or behaviors to analyze. Since that time, his analysis has shifted primarily to the reactions to his opening ideas. Just like you'd want. But you already know that, judging by your recent posts on the matter.



I could get into addressing, further, the concerns Face and Eternal have about Whoopin's opening play, but I feel like that would be beating a dead horse's fossilized remains.



Something is bugging me about one of the brothers. Problem is, I can't remember which. I need to look back to see if I can get them straight in my head.

Magorian Aximand said:

"It wasn't an attempt to show that I'm behaving like an innocent. It was an attempt to show that the line of reasoning that was about to be followed could not show that I was a wolf. Those are two different things.

Click to expand...

They are one in the same. I know where you are coming from, but because you have not played wolf before, we do not know if you would play the same from the start, so that line of reasoning could be a factor in showing you may be a wolf.

As far as the narration thing goes, yes, Orj's did show the number of wolves and a general idea of how they functioned, but we cannot see that here so far. That is why I got on Whoopin's case at the start; there are no noticeable hints and he seemed to be trying too hard to find some.

I could get into addressing, further, the concerns Face and Eternal have about Whoopin's opening play, but I feel like that would be beating a dead horse's fossilized remains.

Click to expand...

You were somewhat misunderstanding my concerns about Whoopin's opening way in the first place, but it doesn't matter at this point.

Magorian Aximand said:

AWdeV said:

Some might say this is because you have a vested interest.

Click to expand...

Some would be wrong. I see the smiley, but it bears pointing out that I've addressed this.

Click to expand...

I must say I wanted to point this out before, but just thought it was AWdeV being himself. Truly, what are you trying to say with this comment, other than the obvious? Why the smiley?

Nipplemelter said:

Magorian Aximand said:

"It wasn't an attempt to show that I'm behaving like an innocent. It was an attempt to show that the line of reasoning that was about to be followed could not show that I was a wolf. Those are two different things.

Click to expand...

They are one in the same. I know where you are coming from, but because you have not played wolf before, we do not know if you would play the same from the start, so that line of reasoning could be a factor in showing you may be a wolf.

Click to expand...

How exactly would the fact that I am demonstrably playing the same way I have in the past be in any way indicative of me being a wolf? If I were playing differently, something could be said. If I'm playing the same, it doesn't mean I'm innocent, but it can't be inferred (from the fact that I'm playing the same way) that I'm a wolf. Further, the discussion was more specific than that. How could a specific action, the abstaining from a random initial vote, be construed to be a wolfish act when I've never put stock in the idea of an initial random vote in the first place? Attempting to demonstrate innocence and attempting to show why an argument can't show that I'm a villain are quite clearly different things. Why in the world would I allow such a fruitless discussion to materialize when there is a good deal of much more useful discussion to be had? And yes, that includes discussion about me. Refer to my early replies to Adaham here, when I expressed exactly this sentiment.

Nipplemelter said:

As far as the narration thing goes, yes, Orj's did show the number of wolves and a general idea of how they functioned, but we cannot see that here so far. That is why I got on Whoopin's case at the start; there are no noticeable hints and he seemed to be trying too hard to find some.

Click to expand...

AGAIN, I've made it clear in the past that if the narration is showing any clues, it is not in the same way as Orj's game and we won't know the manner of the clues, should there even be any, until we see another narration. Orj's game was just an example of a game in which the narration did matter, and it was brought up only to demonstrate the point that speculating about the narration (while it is still possible that the narration holds any relevant material at all) is not a problematic venture. And again, Whoopin's analysis was posted in the absence of anything else to investigate.

Nipplemelter said:

I could get into addressing, further, the concerns Face and Eternal have about Whoopin's opening play, but I feel like that would be beating a dead horse's fossilized remains.

Click to expand...

You were somewhat misunderstanding my concerns about Whoopin's opening way in the first place, but it doesn't matter at this point.

Click to expand...

I'd reckon that your goalposts moved, but I had plenty to say about the plethora of posts that followed our discussion.

Bulle replaces John.

Sorry for the delay in finding a replacement, but it's not like I can force people to play.

And that's what I get for slipping away.

Ok, guys, I am on page 8 now. Why do you write sooooo looooooong posts? What's the deal with that really? It makes my eyes soooo tired. Anyway, thoughts about what's been going on here up to page 8.

Cathernical totally NAILED it with Whoopin, I mean, common Whoopin! What were you thiiiinking with? BUT, what is the deelio with Hojo-Schmojo? Was it just me or did he only support Cathernal because Cathernal was going against Whoopin and Whoopin was going against Hojo? A bit of my enemies enemies are my friends sort of deal?

Yeah, I'm not going to bother responding, Magorian; you are simply misunderstanding me, again.