[Werewolf] Werewolf: Black Death - Daybreak Day 6 - Crypto-flagellants win!

In the interest of Xardob, I believe that his stance so far has been essentially "Ignore me, I know what I'm doing, I'll just be over here." I feel that's rather concerning and not very helpful. If he's trying to act suspiciously on purpose, there must be a reason why.

I'd like to focus on Moss' post, though. I tend to agree - Llandy's staying in a room by herself doesn't prove anything about the wolves' kill abilities. The only scenario I can think of that would prove anything is if Llandy was alone and got killed specifically by a wolf in the narrative. But if it were ambiguous and just "dead somehow" nothing would be proven and any value of that theory gone to waste.

Now about the accusation of Llandy being a converter, that seems more like speculation to me... but I must remember, this whole damn game is speculation.
I don't think that we can rely too much on meta speculation, especially when it comes to analyzing the trailers. However, the idea is interesting and I will be considering it. I'll need to read through her posts to see if it adds up before I consider voting for sure.

Moss said:

@Llandy:
So the reason you wanted a room to yourself was that you suspected that wolves could only kill people in the room they're in? And you being alone in a room was somehow going to prove something about this?

Click to expand...

No, being in a room to myself is related to my other wacky theory.

I'll get back to you Day 2.

That's the least convincing, most incomprehensible excuse I've ever seen. That doesn't work or make sense in any way, shape or form. The complete lack of sense it makes makes it apparent to me that it's a hastily thought up excuse that has no bearing in reality and that you simply wanted to make something up to shake suspicion off yourself with a 'whoops I was mistaken no one pay me any mind'.

Click to expand...

*shrug*

Whatever you want to think, dude.

Or were you just plain lying completely about actually doing anything and you were just trying to survive to day two for your 'room list' (as if you were the only person who'd notice)? If so then none of your actions make sense, putting yourself in a room on your own doesn't improve your chances over staying in the tavern to an extent that justifies your layers of lies, grandstanding and attention that you drew to yourself to achieve. If you simply wanted to survive another night and nothing more just laying low would have been the obvious and natural course. Especially when taken in light of the fact that any wolf could have just followed you in there under the guise of 'She's up to something and I don't trust her'. Case in point, Shatari.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. You raise an interesting point here. And I'll refer you back to it on Day 2 when I tell you my other theory.

Which brings us to Snoopy. Your acceptance of Snoopy staying in the same room as you can only be interpreted in one of two ways.
a) You're convinced Snoopy can't be a villain because they arrived late to the game and Adaham probably wouldn't let a villain role potentially be unfulfilled (I don't personally buy into this, especially if they're a minion/lesser villain, but I can see the argument for it).
b) Snoopy being infected with the plague means that they won't effect your room ability.

Click to expand...

a) Yes, my reasoning is mostly meta
b) I don't have a room ability, but nice fishing for special (again)
c) I'm am a bit of a cruel Pharaoh. I thought that if a wolf followed me into the room, an innocent might die if they shared the room with me. Snoopy is going to die anyway. And I hoped that this "infection" stuff would scare people away from wanting to be in my room. Since this is no longer the case, I'm not too worried about innocents being in my room. But I still wouldn't mind Snoopy in here, since....
d) I hear she has cookie and hot chocolate!

My Meta sense suggests to me that we have a wolf pack and a separate villain type. Probably a converter (vampire/etc) because that's pretty standard. My assumption is that the converter has something to do with the black death because of Rathyr (a wolf) being killed by the plague (i.e. the villains packs are opposed). Also going off Adaham implying conversion in his OP as has previously been pointed out. Going ultra meta the first trailer features artwork that depicts the victims of the plague walking around murdering people with knives, swords, etc.

Click to expand...

I also agree that we have a converter type, unless Adaham is laying a false trail with his "if you're converted, don't fess up" post.

My conclusion: You're a villain converter, thematically enough your method of conversion is the plague. You convert from any room or randomly. Your conversions dying after a few days is a method of keeping your pack from growing too large (I'm sure I've seen a similar mechanic in a previous game to keep converters under control). For some reason you need an empty room, or having an empty room benefits you more than one with other people (maybe you do some kind of 'summoning of the plague' that has a chance of being discovered by witnesses).

Click to expand...

Interesting. Interesting. Well, if that's what you believe, then I guess the more I deny it, the more you'll believe it.

Your actions don't make sense as an innocent, not the lies upon lies or the inconsistent excuses. You're either playing terribly as an innocent (in which case we lose little by making our day 1 lynch a player that's consistently created a smokescreen of suspicion and drama for the real villains to hide behind) or you're a villain who's giving their game away by trying to hard.

Click to expand...

Re: villain trying too hard. I'm going to go with "no" on this one. Recently had two pretty good villain plays, not about to ruin my reputation as tricksy, competent scum by purposely "misunderstanding" Adaham's opening post, running around drawing attention to myself, and generally acting like a potato. I have a scummy rep to protect, y'know.

I do admit that I'm not playing brilliantly so far, but I think your "smokescreen" and "drama" claims are a little unfounded. We still have 2+ weeks to deadline and we're barely 5 days into the game. I've said I'll be getting on the hunt this weekend, and even if there HAS been a bit of drama, look at what's come out of it; PLENTY of discussion around me. Twinkle running to my aid for some reason. Lots of discussion about that. Various people chipping in about related subjects.

We're playing the game, man. If you don't like all the drama about me, then talk about something else. Bring us something new to look at or discuss.

Either way, when the lynch comes I'm pretty convinced I want it coming for you.

Click to expand...

*shrug*

Aight, see you at the gallows, I guess. It's a shame Adabob never took me up on that betting pool suggestion

Eternal said:

I'll respond to Nipple and Seff and whoever else when I'm properly awake.

Click to expand...

Im looking forward to your reply too, consider me on your case as well.

Dont have much to add that wasnt already stated by Seff which does have merit regarding Eternals contributions, the two things that seem suspicious in his LoS is when players put their own name in there and call themself innocent and the fact he listed a reasoning on everyone except Xardob, then "Hunts Xardob" with a "just kidding".

Heres a quick reference for your pending replies:

Phonemelter said:

@Cath:

In reference to this post -

2. Moose is wolfy because he had not been suspicious to anyone except you? Does this mean Soot is suspicious too because I am the only person who seems to have had suspicions of him? Why can't there be two (or more) "helper explainers?" Other have acted "helpful" too - what makes him different? I disagree that his questioning seems "fake."

3. Saying "a werewolf wouldn't do that" in that scenario is not the best line of thought to go down. Why would a wolf not jump on someone like that? Don't remember Soot doing so, but jumping on "easy" targets or on people who have said things other find suspicious or probably will sounds like a good way for a wolf to look active in the hunt, don't you think? Are there going to be no wolves in the group of jumpy, accusative people, especially in a game with so many experienced players? It isn't a great assumption to make.

6. Why drop your analysis just because he started to contribute? "Starting to contribute" doesn't make someone any more or less innocent. Shouldn't you alays keep that initial analysis of him in mind?

Regarding Moving: I still do not see why you would have moved - if AWdeV was just being jokey, why did you suddenly get scared and move to a different room? Afraid he was onto something and you didn't want to get caught?
Regarding Watch: Why would this be confusing and reveal a special this early? That would depend a lot on the narration Adaham would give to the player, and the player has the choice whether to share what s/he learned or be more careful with it in the instance it was ambiguous as to what alignment the person is. Also, I don't think using it as a "second lynch" right now is a great option - you run the risk of giving it to a bad guy who can potentially gain information beneficial to themselves. I think the Lurker vote might be slightly better for that purpose.

And what about Whoopin makes you so sure he would know who to follow better than anyone else? Because he has a reputation for claiming to have an all-seeing gut on Day 1 (which didn't work out well for him in the other current game)?

Click to expand...

Seff said:

Eternal:

Post1: Joke vote.
Post2-3-4: Game mechanics talk. Rooms, specifically.
Post5: Voted Whoopin for watch, the reason being that it'd disable any wolfy tendencies he might have.
Post6: Defending his room-jumping and asking Soot and me if we're really affected by meta-knowledge of other players (yes, yes we are. All of us).
Post7: Talks about how appointing Whoopin to watch again. Assume it's an example, and that he doesn't really want it to be Whoop over someone else.
Post8: More room talk - game mechanics. Short comments about Wolf, Llandy, me, Moss, Shatari, AW and Moose. Voted for me, no explanation.
Post9: Gif.
Post10: Telling Wolf and Llandy that they're beating a dead horse with semantics.
Post11: The huge-ass LoS. Nice formatting. He criticizes people for "stirring the pot", which I disagree with. He ignores the outburst of Soot, for example. What I'm gathering more than anything is that he thinks talking=wolf-hunting, so everyone who isn't engaging in quote-wars is trying to hide, and MUST be a wolf. This fits nicely into my perception that wolves are generally quite verbose, trying to gain trust. The logical conclusion there is that he's trying to throw suspicion off the verbose wolves. The one exception is Phone, who he suspects.
Another point is that he's yakking about people not investigating, but none of his previous points have a shred of questioning, of any sort. The closest we get is observations, and then BAM, a LoS with all sorts of conclusions. Now, I'm not asking a lot of questions, but then I'm not claiming to be. He goes on to add depth to his suspicion of Xardob and me, generally criticizing everything. His comment of "He's rolling around with what the majority of the village says and that's about it." doesn't really ring true when I'm being targeted for agreeing with Wolf about Llandy, and for commenting on Orj and Soot. So yeah. He then unvotes me and votes for me again.

Post11: Talking about how he's stubborn once he suspects someone of being a wolf. It's essentially him defending himself from not having contributed, by saying he wants to gather evidence. The kind of stuff that makes the rest of us highly suspicious, apparently. If this was really how he felt, wouldn't my saying that I do the same have made him understand why I don't contribute more? Apparently not.
Post12: Replying to Phone being pissed off that he's being suspected by Eternal.
Post13: Defending his LoS to Phonemelter.
Post14: Talking about getting ideas of moving rooms ahead of Llandy, and whether to vote for a possible villain for the lurker role or not.


For better or for worse, I'm inclined to agree with Ejnomad that Eternal is trying to seem genuine.

Click to expand...

@Twinkle

An interesting question is what you think of someone you have conveniently ignored, what is your opinion on Eternal?

Heres a quick reference of what Eternal thinks of you for your pending reply:

Eternal said:

Twinkle - Blue as it gets, but what I find interesting is that I'm almost certain Twinkle and Llandy are on the same team, whether wolf or innocent. If Llandy is innocent, as my gut feeling and above analysis tells me, Twinkle correctly identified that she was getting far too much pressure than warranted long before I did and got a lot of heat for it, which he took in stride. He took it in so much stride that I didn't read half of his quote wars. Nevertheless, all that I have read from him so far is a genuine dedication towards finding the wolves and an even more genuine and objective goal to not lynch innocents.

Watch: Twinkle

I trust him with that nonsense.

Click to expand...

Twinkle said:

~Twinkle, who notes that he has a title, and if anyone could elaborate on what exactly the title means, he would appreciate it

Click to expand...

It means youre food for a Cybernetic Jabberwocky 

@ Twinkle

I've asked the person who gave you the custom title to remove it, as there has already been speculation that I put it there to indicate you are scum (in the other current game, bears are the scum team and I was a bear).

Your title isn't important. If the person who put it there wants to tell you by PM why he added it, he can. It's not relevant to the game.

Finished first part of my trip, I should have time to catch up on, ask, and answer any questions later tonight.

Pharaoh X Llandy said:

@ Twinkle

I've asked the person who gave you the custom title to remove it, as there has already been speculation that I put it there to indicate you are scum (in the other current game, bears are the scum team and I was a bear).

Your title isn't important. If the person who put it there wants to tell you by PM why he added it, he can. It's not relevant to the game.

Click to expand...

Never even crossed my mind. Let him keep it. Has to be one of that fastest custom title gains I've seen in a while.

@ejnomad

It's up to him, I just don't want the more paranoid/suspicious players think I'm trying to implicate Twinkle in some way. I've been asked already if Twinkle's title has some ulterior scum-related meaning so the best thing to do seemed to be to ask the title-giver to remove it for the duration of the game.

@Moss:

Moss said:

Role-phishing isn't wrong if the role you suspect is a villain one.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but is a villain going to give up and tell you what role they have?  This is why it is dangerous to dwell on - you could accidentally mistake her "try hard" attitude as an attempt to control things when it really is because she hasn't had to "actually wolfhunt" before.

In any case, I'm going to be meta and say given Llandy's past two wolf performances, unless she is playing some sort of mindgame with the people she has previously played with, I see her play as more of an "excited first-time innocent." I've been in the same boat before, so I can see where she'd be coming from. Reading back through parts of the Twilight Zone game, I apparently campaigned a bit for myself to be on watch Day 1 as an innocent for reasons somewhat similar to what Llandy had suggested, so I understand why she would want to do as much.

Also, if you think she has been "throwing up a smokescreen of suspicion" for the wolves to hide behind, why continue to expand the smokescreen by making a big fuss about it? Wouldn't it make more sense to make a smaller accusation to get your suspicion out there and then start to focus on other people?


@Velup:

Way to dismiss Soot's reasonable explanation with a sarcastic comment. I'm not going to say "wolf tell" because I used that phrase too much last game ( ), but you seem awfully comfortable - he is not the only one who seems to think you are a bit suspicious.

You are also use this "we" word again - "we" are not accepting Xardob's stats listed on wolf watching success. I don't know why you are assuming that. And what was the point of saying "see how right I am" when there was nothing that he said (unless I am not understanding your point) that would have prompted that response?


@Xardob:

I won't push you to further explain your game theory method if it would ruin anything you are trying to do, but unless you are trying out a new form of playing as an innocent, I just find your strategy to be different than usual and less helpful to everyone aside from yourself.


@Twinkie:

3. That's fine, but if you are going to use real life as a way of defending you only having time to respond to posts about you right now, then isn't your criticism of Whoopin using real life as a way of defending his partial inactivity a bit hypocritical?

5. In my opinion, the suspicion I have on one person does not always apply equally in weight to another even if it might be viewed as "the same." Yes, Lep wasn't exactly contributing a lot (as were a bunch of people). I'm having a hard way of thinking how to describe the difference, but it has to do with Lep actively realizing he hasn't had time to really contribute, whereas you seemed more offended when questioned about the... contribution-ness of your contributions (yeah, still not a good way to describe it, but I hope it helps).

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,57654.0.html

Moss lied again.  He won this game too.

This one also finished and Moss was in it. 

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,44468.0.html

He's a slippery one that Moss!

Now if only I could catch actual wolves in lies so easy. 

Small side note: I'm using tonight to start going over the thread and properly reading everything. Regrettably there are posts I've only skimmed and not taken onboard at all, and I need to rectify that.

You probably won't hear from me tomorrow as it's my last (half) day of work followed by Xmas party/meal, and I intend to be at least half (preferably fully) baked by the time I get home. I'll be picking things up on Saturday.

Also, I've been using a spreadsheet to keep track of where votes have been placed (Watch, Lurker, Lynch and Room) and I know not everybody has time to make comprehensive notes due to that pesky RL thing, but if anyone wants to see a tally of the vote placements so far in table form, just let me know. I'll need tonight to update my sheet but after that I'll keep on top of it. This is just pure data, no assumptions or speculations attached.

In fact... if I'm so inclined I might even make a shareable googledocs table out of this, when I get a spare moment. Even if I die I can keep the table up to date so players have a way of tracking who's voted for things (if not the context in which the votes came in). Or if @Adaham isn't happy with eliminated players doing this I could pass the torch to another player who's willing to keep it up.

I'll only do that if people think it will be useful, though. No sense wasting my time if nobody's going to look at it. Thoughts?!?

Pharaoh X Llandy said:

Also, I've been using a spreadsheet to keep track of where votes have been placed (Watch, Lurker, Lynch and Room)

Click to expand...

Woah, stop stealing my thunder! You do realized Face's Visual Voting GuideTM is patented, right? 

I've been doing the same thing too, but if your format is nicer than mine, I guess I can let it slide. 

That sounds dandy, llandy, could be handy.

as for me, Im read up on the game but I'm absotively knackered so can't say or do much.

I've seen a lot of intdresting things in the posts and I'm even somewhat tempted to up and stab my main suspect but I'm continually second-guessing myself as usual so I daren't really commit. I'll need to investigate and theorise the chap more but it won't be today.

Phonemelter said:

Pharaoh X Llandy said:

Also, I've been using a spreadsheet to keep track of where votes have been placed (Watch, Lurker, Lynch and Room)

Click to expand...

Woah, stop stealing my thunder! You do realized Face's Visual Voting GuideTM is patented, right? 

I've been doing the same thing too, but if your format is nicer than mine, I guess I can let it slide. 

Click to expand...

Hah! Sorry. This isn't so much a visual guide as the raw data in a table. You could still visualise it. To be honest, I didn't pay much attention to your charts (except to point out that you gave me a crappy colour) as I find things easier to digest in table format.

AWdeV said:

That sounds dandy, llandy, could be handy.

as for me, Im read up on the game but I'm absotively knackered so can't say or do much.

I've seen a lot of intdresting things in the posts and I'm even somewhat tempted to up and stab my main suspect but I'm continually second-guessing myself as usual so I daren't really commit. I'll need to investigate and theorise the chap more but it won't be today.

Click to expand...

I'll do the googledocs thing, then. Even if only one player gets some use out of it, that's enough for me.

As for stabbing your main suspect, can I ask a couple of questions? Not about who you stab, that's up to you. But your knife... did your narration mention whether it's a one-use only item? Ie, if you stab somebody with it now, is it "gone" by night? And if someone attacks you tonight and you "defend" yourself with it, is it gone tomorrow? Since (if you're telling the truth, which I believe you are) you're more likely innocent this would then leave you a prime candidate for a Night kill, as by stabbing someone (even if you guess wrong) your innocence would essentially be confirmed (I can't see a need for the scum to have weapons).

I'm going to be honest here and say that your judgement does, at times, suck. Like you said, you believed I was innocent in Dwarffondle (you shouldn't feel bad about it, I'm a Bard). But on the other hand you were right about Soot being innocent, too, so you've shown that even when you're wrong about some things you're right about others. So, here is what I propose:

If you want to stab someone, stab them. It's your knife, and I'm not going to tell you what to do with it. If you stab someone then regardless of whether you hit scum or not, I'm going to vote you for Watch (my vote's already on you anyway) and I believe other innocents should vote you for Watch too, as this seems to be the safest place for you to stay overnight if you are undefended.

If you aren't going to stab someone, then I still think you should pick a room to stay in right before Deadline, because even if I'm pulling this out of my ass, I'm still very concerned about a potential Thief, and the last thing we need is for a scum to have the ability to stab one of us during the day, as well as kill/convert during the night. Now that you've admitted to owning the knife, I don't think any scum would be foolish enough to attack you unless they're sure you're no longer armed. By keeping hold of your knife for as long as possible you do at least ensure that you're relatively safe from a standard night-kill (or so I assume...)

Oh, I just noticed your rhyme, haha

Got out of work on time today! Happy days.

Right. P32-34 were basically just three pages of NO U. Lots of inter-player whinging, no real content. The NO U role's kinda passed on to Whoopin now, but there's at least a bit of content coming out of his multi-posts. Hoping that posting spree has ended long enough for the rest of us to actually read the damn thing.

@Twinkle

Twinkle said:

Spoiler: First bit, skips to later quotes

I didn't think the blob of text something to reply to. You say "this is how I meant it", and either I can believe you or not; there's nothing I can do to prove that you meant what I thought you meant or the other way around. It was something that couldn't really go either way. Personally I didn't like your response, but everyone one knows I'm suspicous of you, so I didn't see the point in a response.
...
I think I can. But tell me how useful you were up to that point, at least now you're actively hunting (even if you think it's me). I actually dug my heels in and tried to do something (and I consider bringing up you as bringing up a topic because I assumed you would respond to my post and we would have discussion.
...
Well, I would like to point out that you were my biggest suspicion even up to my first post on you. I did get more into it when you respond because now I had stuff about you to get into. Not sure *exactly* what balls to the wall actually means, but I'm assuming it means actually really getting into discussion and fighting hard. I can agree with that, except for the fact that I posted about Llandy, and it was at that point that I think I really went (as you put it) balls to the wall. Does that answer your question?

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I think that we're basically done on those points now, then - you have your suspicions, I've said what I have to say about them. Obviously if I'm wrong come back and we can argue some more, got unlimited ones and zeroes over here

And yeah, you got the meaning right. I was using it more in terms of with your suspicions of someone rather than any kind of opinion, but fine - I get where you're coming from.

Twinkle said:

Spoiler: Joke LoS Stuff

I don't think it is a good idea to throw a"joke" into your LoS this late in the game, especially something that is inaccurate. Of course I was gonna shoot down an argument that had no reasoning behind it. But you say it is a joke, and a joke it may be, but I ask that from this point forward you say: "Twinkle, you monkey brained goose, this is a joke." Just in case I don't pick up on it.

Click to expand...

Late in the game? It's really early in the game, and I would have thought that the only time it was appropriate, possible typo notwithstanding
Oh well, I don't really have anything else to say about that bit tbh - I'll try to make my jokes more obvious, though.



Onwards!

The Velpulus and Sootshade thing just keeps on running for me. They've had their big flameup early, now it's just sniping about tiny pissy things, just enough to keep the 'animosity' alive but never actually scoring any real hits (yeah, Velp voted for Shade a page or two ago, but it just feels like faked OMGUS to me). To me, they need to either move on to some proper targets, or come up with something a bit more substantial than this to justify the amount of time they're spending on each other, instead of the rest of the group. While they're just pinging insults off each other on the sidelines, they're not really joining in that much with the rest of us, but they still get to pretend-hunt.

Velpulus said:

My suggestion to Shatari would be to either start convincing us or letting the case rest. You've gotten about as much out of Llandy as you're going get at this point. It'd be difficult to call your latest posts contribution (look who's talking) and once I backtrack the thread, I have a guess I'm going to find your actions more suspicious than I've identified them so far.

I find it disheartening that Seff is quickly becoming the common scapegoat of the village, at whom it seems everyone's free to take cheap shots at. What he contributes, I have found to be insightful. This is to address his accusers, because I don't know how to advice him. Post with more flavor? That would be insincere from me.

Click to expand...

This whole thing just feels weird to me. Firstly, it's not a very comprehensive reason given to get Shatari to stop. Just a 'oh I think that's enough, sorry'. Then what (to me) feels like a thinly-veiled threat to leave off or else.

(Just to pre-empt any efforts to accuse me of hypocrisy given the paragraph I wrote above that quote, I'm not suggesting that either of Velp/Shade should stop doing what they're doing: I'm suggesting that they're doing it because they're wolves, and explaining why I think that. Difference.)

And THEN ignoring Eternal's list of all Seff's posts, calling him insightful? I dunno. The Seff thing feels too obvious to be packmate support on Day 1, but at the same time of course it does. The question's not whether or not it's weird, but what level of recursive bluffing I'm prepared to let my paranoia get to. So far it's at wolf but not approaching stack overflow.

Plus, still not really any content in that post.



This does all dovetail nicely with Moss' suspicion of a wolfpack and converter - with SootShade, Velpulus and Seff as the wolves, and Llandy as the converter - but I frankly don't feel confident I could have got that all down on Day 1, especially as the support has just been a bit too blunt in a lot of cases. I'm also still trying to figure Moss out, too, so I'm not sure how much weight I put on his theory yet. Hard to read Llandy's response, though. It's suspicious but also standard Llandy-in-a-big-post-war to get angry and post big WoTs, and then flip to 'oh well I don't even care anyway' when it doesn't go away/comes back again.

Pharaoh X Llandy said:

It's up to him, I just don't want the more paranoid/suspicious players think I'm trying to implicate Twinkle in some way.

Click to expand...

Nah, if we wanted to do that we could just quote you instead:

Pharaoh X Llandy said:

I've said I'll be getting on the hunt this weekend, and even if there HAS been a bit of drama, look at what's come out of it; PLENTY of discussion around me. Twinkle running to my aid for some reason. Lots of discussion about that. Various people chipping in about related subjects.

Click to expand...