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

[Xardob]

Oh, look, an alarm is going off. Red light flashing and all. I do believe this is roughly how wolf-Xardob responded to my suspicions last game: dismissal and accusations of extra-game reasons.

I knew you would say that. I guess this doesn't work when you repeatedly try to pull it off. That's why I said I don't like to repeat the same trick in consecutive games.

 

[Phonemelter]

Is that why you changed you style this game? 

 

[Xardob]

That's why I always change it. I get's boring otherwise. 

 

[Moss]

@Llandy:

Spoiler

Before we start, as you seem to have taken my last post pretty personally, I meant no offense and I obviously hold you in pretty damn high esteem in general. I just don't enjoy playing Werewolf with you.

Please don't take this is a slight or me trying to talk down to you, I'm aware that you're more experienced playing this game than I am, but here's my thoughts on your playstyle and why I disagree with it:
a) This is a game. Your posts come across as overly and needlessly aggressive, turning what should be a game into a competition.
b) Walls of Text aren't always bad, take Phonemelter's last post directed at me for an example. Lots of probing questions that forced me to lay out my opinions and show my cards on important issues of discussion. That's good and helpful to the village. But you need to use them in moderation. Every extra line of text and every extra quote you include in a post lowers the amount of players that will do anything but gloss over it. Try to limit yourself to the questions that really matter instead of making a reply to every single last thing a person writes in their post.
c) My main issue with how you play is the aggression and needless antagonism in your posts. You play like you're the only person in the game and everyone else is just an NPC for you to 'beat'. Maybe that's how you enjoy playing, but for me at least it means that every time you respond to one of my posts it makes me want to ignore it because I don't enjoy having a conversation with you in the context of this game. If you asked the same questions with a little more politeness behind the phrasing it'd go a long way.

1) Yes, I went back and read through Adaham's post history. I'm assuming the implication is that because I was vocally opposed to you being in the Mansion I'm said special because the special locked you out?

No, I was just checking your knowledge is up to date. You're no more or less a candidate for room locker than anyone else.

Out of curiosity, why do you use the word "special" here instead of "scum"?

Because we have no indication of their alignment. Though having booted you out of the mansion when I was opposing you being there and now me out of the church after you've struck up our Day 1 opposition again I'm beginning to suspect that their motivation is to attempt to egg on our discussion/argument as they feel that it's a useful distraction, making me lean towards them being scum.

I'm sure yo can see why I misunderstood. You used bolded, centred words to make a title and ask everyone to look at your "case" (which I know obviously know was not actually a case of you thinking me a villain and trying to get other people to read and agree, but was just your attempt to get me to reveal my plans by making up the most outlandish story in the world and hoping I would react to it with anything other than laughter and contempt).

What were you expecting me to say instead? "Hey this is an attempt to pressure another player, but please ignore that I said this so you'll actually pressure them?". And again, at no point have I said that I didn't think you were suspicious, (a.k.a likely a villain), just that the very specific theory was given in order to give people something interesting to pull apart and keep discussion on you going during my absence, which as previously stated, didn't work.

I wanted you hung because I thought you were suspicious as hell and were playing in a fashion so disruptive and distracting for the village that even if you were innocent it'd have been no big loss to hang you regardless. I did what I could with my limited time in the game to try to make that happen.

Thus the:

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

Doesn't the fact that I've changed my behaviour make you at all suspicious? After all, if I am a converter like you think, then I could have realised that my behaviour was attracting too much attention, and changed it appropriately.

And look, it worked! Even the wolves were changing their mind about me! You've dropped your case attempt to get me to explain myself, the people who were borderline about me yesterday are slowly coming to think I might be innocent, and even Whoopin has changed target to Xardob after being uber sure I was scum yesterday.

Doesn't that concern you?

I was willing to back off because I was potentially missing context that might explain your previous behavior and you seemed to no longer be playing in a way directly detrimental to the village. A point you've made yourself several times. I was also considering that my suspicion of you might be tainted by my extreme dislike for your play style and how unfun I feel it is to play alongside, which would be unreasonable and not fair of me to do. With that in mind I decided to put it on the back burner.

Here's what you said last time you were around, about my case on Wolf:

Not only is your post complete bunk, hypocritical and absurd it's also a clear push for a lynch on the person currently receiving suspicion, who's unable to defend himself as he's absent, a point you spend a great deal of your post trying to brush under the table as if it didn't matter.

For reference, here's my post:  http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,320203.msg7598900.html#msg7598900

So, what has changed? My case is very similar to Soot's case (presumably his wasn't absurd by simple virtue of the fact that he's not me). I did mention that Wolf could have used his absence to deflect any heat, but here's the thing you don't know because of your absence -- AW said it first. Melter also said this. The fact that THREE players have considered this doesn't give you reason to pause?

The difference is that now The Wolf is actually here to defend himself so it's not a push on a defenseless player. Your argument seemed to be based entirely around his absence being suspicious and using that as an argument for why he should be lynched. Soots seems to be about his actual active behavior and interactions with a known villain. And no it doesn't give me pause if other players were saying something similair to you, that just means I think they were just as wrong as you were.

So anyway, why would you lynch Wolf now? In your LoS you identify him as no judgement on his alignment yet. Specifically:

"The Wolf: Nothing outwardly suspicious so far."

Why would you support his lynch first and foremost if there is nothing outwardly suspicious about his behaviour? Is "Moose's defense of him" the only reason you can think of for this?

First me not reading back over the entirety of Day 1 means I'm a bad player who can't play effectively and now you're criticizing me for changing my mind about a player based on evidence against them that you yourself pointed out to me. And yes Moose's defense of him is the primary reason I find him suspicious, as is the case I imagine for most of the other people considering voting for him or already voting for him. He's the least worst candidate we have.

@Moss
Anyway, what it looks like, IMHO, is that at the time, Llandy still had a relatively good chance of finding a rope around her neck because she had two votes, and a lot of people expressing moderate to high levels of concern over her. So you thought you could throw together this long wild post, and figured you had nothing to lose because, if people started calling it out as crap, you could back off and say you were just fishing for a reaction, but if you somehow got the wagon rolling again, you could merrily watch her get lynched.

Yes, because I thought she was suspicious and was happy to see her hang as our day 1 pseudo-random lynch kill. Never attempted to deny that.

Whilst you're here, apologies if I've missed your previous responses, but what do you have to say in response to the allegations that this:

You have thoughts, but you want to give things time to ride and see how they progress before diving right in and throwing your two cents. Same reason I waited on the Llandy issue -- I hadn't made up my mind until everyone ganged up on her, if I had thrown in my thoughts before my mind was fully made up I may be in a very different situation right now.

Is something that a wolf would do, rather than an innocent? How did waiting on the 'Llandy issue' help you to develop your thoughts? How would have 'throwing in your thoughts' earlier changed things?

 

[snoopy-91]

As the shadows grew longer, people realized Lord von Hamm had been missing for some time. In fact, he had just been to Vienna and his return trip took him longer than expected. But when he finally arrived at the mansion (where all the discussion was taking place), he had shocking news:

"Has any of you knuckleheads actually looked outside over the last couple of hours? The church has been locked and the grocer collapsed completely! It'll take us at least until tomorrow until we have a new key for the church, but I'm afraid the grocer is lost forever."

And so all people planning to stay in the church and at the grocer were relocated back into the mansion.

The church has been locked.

The grocer has collapsed (like totally).

Everybody who stayed at the church or the grocer has been re-located to the mansion.



Sorry for the uninspired short narration, but I'm really tired but wanted to get this out there tonight so you guys have more time to react to it. Bigger update (with votecount, map-update & prods) tomorrow.

Uh! I hope Hamm has recovered enough for the fight against the wolves 
Bad to hear that the Grocer collapsed. Possibly for a longer time?

As promised I have gone through Twinkles postings as I did not want to vote or judge on him just based on the discussion going around the last pages. All the more, as I had no overview of his contribution.

Twinkles contribution

Part 1

Spoiler: first post

Vote: The Wolf for obvious reasons. :p

Watch: Llandy because he told me to.

On another note -- is there a hot female bartender at this tavern?

~Twinkle, looking for someone to *ahem* pass the time with ~_^

Spoiler: second post

Watch: Llandy because he told me to.

I was going to correct you on Llandy's gender, but as she used to always say, there are no females on the internet, so you are in fact correct.

On another note -- is there a hot female bartender at this tavern?

Spoiler

Soooo... does this mean Llandy is a hot female bartender?

- both post obviously "joking phase"

Spoiler: third post

*low whistle*

Okay, so most of you are jumping down Llandy's throat, from what I gather, for these reasons:

1) Her explanation seems "off". When questioned about this remark you folks argued that it was "too well thought out." Really? Cuzz to me,  the  only thing I see around is this:

So why do you want to be the watchman, Llandy? Early push to prove you're not the werewolf, or is your power only activateable if you're the watchman?

Even if I was a wolf, taking Watch duty wouldn't mean diddly-squat towards proving my innocence, because assuming that Adaham has gone with a standard pack set-up and doesn't have any sort of serial killer role, then my hypothetical packmates could just do the killing allowing me to claim "hey, I'm totally innocent because somebody died whilst I was on watch." Anybody who believed that would be a moron regardless of whether it came from me or anyone else.

As for why I want to be a watchman, it's because this is only my 3rd game, I've never had any sort of special role, and this is the closest I've come to having a special role so far. Also, I'm the only person I can be sure of who is innocent, and if I do see something suspicious at Night it will give me something to think about/possibly share with others depending on what I find.

Plus it will mean I don't have to share a room with any of your perverts.

That seems "thought through" to you guys? It looks to me like she(see? I'm learning ) just whipped that up right then and there. The only thing I agree with is that she's fighting for this way too hard, but I've never played with Llandy (not mention Werewolf) before, so maybe she's like this all the time (although, from what I gather from discussion, she's pretty new). That does not seem thought through at all, IMHO.

2) I don't know how many times I saw this, but someone brought up because "she's so good at tricking people that I don't want her with this role," which is a legitimate fear, but there really isn't anything solid this game to convict Llandy of being a wolf, and you shouldn't limit a player just because of their potential, again, IMHO.

3)

So I will; unvote SootShade; vote The Wolf

Claiming I haven't answered questions when no questions were ever asked seemed like a scummy thing to do. I think Wolf-boy has picked up on the suspicions of Soot, AW and Whoopin because of my play in the last 2 games, and is trying to further suspicion against me using feeble arguments in the hopes of getting the wagon rolling more.

Yeah, I didn't have strong arguments set in stone, but I have to stir with something after all. I've forgotten almost everything about Werewolf games, and about how you people behave, so I just have to go with what I do know about people in general.

Now you're acting very defensively, you're patronising our suspicions by arguing semantics(deliberately misunderstanding the verb 'questioning', and then adding quotation marks to the word "questions"), and you're responding to my, to be honest, fairly transparent provocation, with ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. And more, but I won't bother.

In my experience, if I corner people and make them feel exposed, they compensate by getting defensive and patronising. They lash out and attack because the situation makes them feel insecure. You are lashing out and being defensive, that's not questionable here. I am a bit, too. The question is whether you're behaving more vulnerable, in this context, than I could reasonably expect you to if you were innocent.

I don't know you, I barely remember you from before. I don't know Werewolf games, either. So I'm going with my gut, and my gut says you're acting suspicious. If I end up bandwagoning you, I hope I'm right.

Here, Wolf admits he didn't have strong arguments in stone and then starts point out how she's lashing out, and, I quote "and more, but I won't bother". Why won't you bother? Enlighten me please. In all honesty, she is protecting herself rather much, I agree, but with so many people pointing their fingers over at her I'm pretty sure I would be too. To me it seems like Wolf was just lightly brushing a subject of his mistakes and poor arguments, of which "were not in stone" or what not, but then quickly returns the heat to Llandy, and makes sure to input that "I haven't been here in a while", and I "I'm just getting back into the hang of this", as if that is somehow a valid excuse for a poorly fleshed out accusation that everyone seems to think is so solid.

Also, I'm shocked at the amount of opposition that has risen to keep Llandy from this position, I would imagine that if she was a Werewolf, at least a few of her diabolical little buddies would be here supporting her. I mean, if anything, it seems like Whoopin is the one picking up followers at a rapid rate -- to me that signifies some help from somewhere's else.

Now my vote for Llandy for watch at the begging was just random, but I'm sticking by it even more right now.

~Twinkle, who actually played werewolf once a long time ago, but since has only played a very similar game called Curse of Ne-gok-sa

Post mostly about Llandy and your suspicion about her. At this stage of the game I was totally NOT agreeing with you as it looked to me like an easy way to jump on a wagon without risking anything. That was as well the reason why I said in one of my first postings that this "Llandy and the speculation of roles etc" might be a perfect chance of wolves trying to get people bandwagoning...

Spoiler: fourth post

While I don't forbid or permit anything with regards to post length and/or content, I encourage everybody to take a step back from time to time to check whether the horse you've been beating is dead already (if you catch my drift). Especially early on not every dispute has to be resolved by a 10-page quote war. We've seen those and nobody has enjoyed them. Instead, how about you guys find something else to discuss? There should be plenty of choices.

~Adaham, who doesn't want this to be a pain in the ass to catch up on

I was actually just about to do exactly this!



@Twinkle

As a newcomer here, and someone who isn't familiar with most of the people (or WW in general as opposed to.... Se-Mo-Lina or whatever it was ) have you noticed anything that has caught your attention, or seemed off, or pertinent?

Other than any discussion which has revolved around my alleged nefariousness, I mean.

I'd be interested to hear things from a fresh perspective.

Haha! Qi-Mo-Kay is a lot of fun --  one day I'll make you all try it.  ^_^

As to me -- just a gut feeling, not that that's really worth all that much. Lep is whom is coming up high on my radar right now.

It's amazing how suspicious someone can make themselves on day 1 before anything's happened. Xardob's already trying to run the show, and is making a go of it by using empty promises and completely unsourced statistics.

Worse than a werewolf: he's a politician. Get him in the damn pillory already.

Lurker: Xardob

He seems to be taking a stance, but yet not making enough racket to draw a decent amount of attention to himself. Not to mention he supports Whoopin for watch, which, as I said earlier, looks as if he might have a wolf or two supporting him. Also, throwing a vote for someone with no votes on him he could slip by without being accused as jumping on the banwangon.

Not that that's solid, but that's where I'm getting bad vibes.

~Twinkle, done with the horse, I guess

First part joking with Adagod. After that criticises Leprechaun for voting Xardob and voting Whoopin for watch.
If I remember right, there were and are many people that didn`t like this idea too. Therefore we can say for a moment that Twinkle is in this criticism not alone...

Spoiler: fifth post

As to me -- just a gut feeling, not that that's really worth all that much. Lep is whom is coming up high on my radar right now.
...
He seems to be taking a stance, but yet not making enough racket to draw a decent amount of attention to himself. Not to mention he supports Whoopin for watch, which, as I said earlier, looks as if he might have a wolf or two supporting him. Also, throwing a vote for someone with no votes on him he could slip by without being accused as jumping on the banwangon.

Not that that's solid, but that's where I'm getting bad vibes.

~Twinkle, done with the horse, I guess

Oh no! Heaven forbid I should not take a firm stance on the first day, without any information to base it on! Clearly a CreationistWolf. Looks like it's curtains for me!




Llandy: also posting from a smartphone with low battery at a freezing cold rural railway station in Lincolnshire. Brevity is good for my hands and phone atm

*shrug*
First, you just seem to be dancing in the gray areas, it's not sitting right with me for what I mentioned above. You seem to be trying to be considered "active and contributing," whilst at the same time remaining far enough out of the conflict as to not to draw attention to yourself.

Secondly, sorry you're in the cold, that sux.

~Twinkle, who happens to be in his warm house on his PC

Next discussion between Leprechaun and Twinkle. Twinkle accususes Leprechaun of trying to appeal "active and contributing", although in Twinkles eyes he isn`t.

Spoiler: sixth post

Also, I'm shocked at the amount of opposition that has risen to keep Llandy from this position, I would imagine that if she was a Werewolf, at least a few of her diabolical little buddies would be here supporting her.

*holds up mirror*

Elaboration please?

~Twinkle, not sure where the mirror comes into play

Nothing interesting here.

Spoiler: seventh post

Twinkle - seems mostly sensible. Positioning himself as the voice of reason, not getting too involved in any specific debates. Quite similar to what he's pointing about me, in fact His assessment of me is a reasonable one, just wrong.

Actually, I think I firmly rooted my belief in at least one issue:

Spoiler

*low whistle*

Okay, so most of you are jumping down Llandy's throat, from what I gather, for these reasons:

1) Her explanation seems "off". When questioned about this remark you folks argued that it was "too well thought out." Really? Cuzz to me,  the  only thing I see around is this:

So why do you want to be the watchman, Llandy? Early push to prove you're not the werewolf, or is your power only activateable if you're the watchman?

Even if I was a wolf, taking Watch duty wouldn't mean diddly-squat towards proving my innocence, because assuming that Adaham has gone with a standard pack set-up and doesn't have any sort of serial killer role, then my hypothetical packmates could just do the killing allowing me to claim "hey, I'm totally innocent because somebody died whilst I was on watch." Anybody who believed that would be a moron regardless of whether it came from me or anyone else.

As for why I want to be a watchman, it's because this is only my 3rd game, I've never had any sort of special role, and this is the closest I've come to having a special role so far. Also, I'm the only person I can be sure of who is innocent, and if I do see something suspicious at Night it will give me something to think about/possibly share with others depending on what I find.

Plus it will mean I don't have to share a room with any of your perverts.

That seems "thought through" to you guys? It looks to me like she(see? I'm learning ) just whipped that up right then and there. The only thing I agree with is that she's fighting for this way too hard, but I've never played with Llandy (not mention Werewolf) before, so maybe she's like this all the time (although, from what I gather from discussion, she's pretty new). That does not seem thought through at all, IMHO.

2) I don't know how many times I saw this, but someone brought up because "she's so good at tricking people that I don't want her with this role," which is a legitimate fear, but there really isn't anything solid this game to convict Llandy of being a wolf, and you shouldn't limit a player just because of their potential, again, IMHO.

3)

So I will; unvote SootShade; vote The Wolf

Claiming I haven't answered questions when no questions were ever asked seemed like a scummy thing to do. I think Wolf-boy has picked up on the suspicions of Soot, AW and Whoopin because of my play in the last 2 games, and is trying to further suspicion against me using feeble arguments in the hopes of getting the wagon rolling more.

Yeah, I didn't have strong arguments set in stone, but I have to stir with something after all. I've forgotten almost everything about Werewolf games, and about how you people behave, so I just have to go with what I do know about people in general.

Now you're acting very defensively, you're patronising our suspicions by arguing semantics(deliberately misunderstanding the verb 'questioning', and then adding quotation marks to the word "questions"), and you're responding to my, to be honest, fairly transparent provocation, with ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. And more, but I won't bother.

In my experience, if I corner people and make them feel exposed, they compensate by getting defensive and patronising. They lash out and attack because the situation makes them feel insecure. You are lashing out and being defensive, that's not questionable here. I am a bit, too. The question is whether you're behaving more vulnerable, in this context, than I could reasonably expect you to if you were innocent.

I don't know you, I barely remember you from before. I don't know Werewolf games, either. So I'm going with my gut, and my gut says you're acting suspicious. If I end up bandwagoning you, I hope I'm right.

Here, Wolf admits he didn't have strong arguments in stone and then starts point out how she's lashing out, and, I quote "and more, but I won't bother". Why won't you bother? Enlighten me please. In all honesty, she is protecting herself rather much, I agree, but with so many people pointing their fingers over at her I'm pretty sure I would be too. To me it seems like Wolf was just lightly brushing a subject of his mistakes and poor arguments, of which "were not in stone" or what not, but then quickly returns the heat to Llandy, and makes sure to input that "I haven't been here in a while", and I "I'm just getting back into the hang of this", as if that is somehow a valid excuse for a poorly fleshed out accusation that everyone seems to think is so solid.

Also, I'm shocked at the amount of opposition that has risen to keep Llandy from this position, I would imagine that if she was a Werewolf, at least a few of her diabolical little buddies would be here supporting her. I mean, if anything, it seems like Whoopin is the one picking up followers at a rapid rate -- to me that signifies some help from somewhere's else.

Now my vote for Llandy for watch at the begging was just random, but I'm sticking by it even more right now.

~Twinkle, who actually played werewolf once a long time ago, but since has only played a very similar game called Curse of Ne-gok-sa

Also, I'm shocked at the amount of opposition that has risen to keep Llandy from this position, I would imagine that if she was a Werewolf, at least a few of her diabolical little buddies would be here supporting her.

*holds up mirror*

Elaboration please?

~Twinkle, not sure where the mirror comes into play

He says you're my pack-mate because you're "supporting me" and must therefore be "one of my diabolical little buddies"

Or at least he implies it.

Oh, well that's a legit fear, but it's not as likely as Whoopin's case, IMO.

Also, is Twinkle one of many recently-returned veterans?

No, Twinkle is a brand new person! Who comes from other places! Possible Lancre, I haven't decided yet.

Who Lancre?

~Adaham, who wonders whether Twinkle can keep coming up with those sig-lines

Me too.

~Twinkle, not sure if it's good to be considered a possible Lancre

Spoiler: eighth post

I also noticed that Twinkle, apart from rushing to Llandy's aid, criticized Naridill's approach. Having read up to here in one sitting, I'd mostly agreed with and admired the discussion Naridill had instigated, so I thought it strange that someone else had taken issue with it. After all, it was thus far completely harmless - and I'd found, very helpful; concise among the waffle.

Vote: Twinkle

For now I'm holding on to my room, lurk and watch votes, because to be honest I'm not crystal on the mechanics of all three.

Ummm... who's Naridill? Before I can properly defend myself I need to have everyone's names in place. I don't seem him/her on the list of players.

~Twinkle, is he/she someone from a previous game

Mostly "blabla" here...

Spoiler: ninth post

I also noticed that Twinkle, apart from rushing to Llandy's aid, criticized Naridill's approach. Having read up to here in one sitting, I'd mostly agreed with and admired the discussion Naridill had instigated, so I thought it strange that someone else had taken issue with it. After all, it was thus far completely harmless - and I'd found, very helpful; concise among the waffle.

Jesus Christ, could you look more suspicious? And you're dragging me with you. Knock it off. Admire me silently.

I miss you ;_;

Twinkle, Naridill is The Wolf. I really don't want to call him that. He'll always be Naridill to me.

Ah, gotcha! Thanks for clarifying! ^_^

I guess there's not really much I can say that I haven't already said as to why I supported Llandy. Naridill (as you have named him, or as he was previously named, or whatever) seems to simply restate mainly what he said, adding a little bit more, but nothing really that I can argue with -- he's following his gut. I would point out that Llandy's argument did not seem thought through, which is contrary to what some people believed (why they thought/still think that is beyond me).

Spoiler

Can't it be both? 

Primarily, I was curious. But, I also wanted to hear you make a case against her because I am curious about you too. And in light of her recent posts, I would not disagree.

At least I'm not all abstract fluff, then.

1) Her explanation seems "off". When questioned about this remark you folks argued that it was "too well thought out." Really? Cuzz to me,  the  only thing I see around is this:

That seems "thought through" to you guys? It looks to me like she(see? I'm learning ) just whipped that up right then and there. The only thing I agree with is that she's fighting for this way too hard, but I've never played with Llandy (not mention Werewolf) before, so maybe she's like this all the time (although, from what I gather from discussion, she's pretty new). That does not seem thought through at all, IMHO.

Seems like it's meant to seem thought through. ****, I don't know, it just seems off.

3)Here, Wolf admits he didn't have strong arguments in stone and then starts point out how she's lashing out, and, I quote "and more, but I won't bother". Why won't you bother? Enlighten me please. In all honesty, she is protecting herself rather much, I agree, but with so many people pointing their fingers over at her I'm pretty sure I would be too. To me it seems like Wolf was just lightly brushing a subject of his mistakes and poor arguments, of which "were not in stone" or what not, but then quickly returns the heat to Llandy, and makes sure to input that "I haven't been here in a while", and I "I'm just getting back into the hang of this", as if that is somehow a valid excuse for a poorly fleshed out accusation that everyone seems to think is so solid.

I could include the instance of her referring to me pejoratively as Wolf-boy, or asking me if my feelings were hurt and I needed a band-aid. Honestly, I wanted to point out her tone, not account for every phrase she used. I initially did, but I cut it down to minimise repetition.

My excuse for my poorly fleshed out accusations and poor arguments not set in stone, is that I'm an entirely abstract thinker. For stuff like this, I trust my gut, and I'm not always as good at substantiating before I open my mouth. By something being off, I just meant that her reply wasn't what I would expect from an innocent in that position.

Again, I made my case previously, Wolf just seems to be following his gut, of which I disagree with, so there's nothing really to go over I guess.

My point? I posted to say that I've basically already made my case, and if you want me lynched I really can't change your mind. :p

~Twinkle, who still thinks that most of the arguments thrown against Llandy were, at best, extremely weak and unfounded

Refers to his third post and why he defended Llandy. Same topic, same explanation, but in my eyes naturally and legit.

Spoiler: tenth post

Twinkles asks all the good questions.

Spoiler: Bonus!

When I was reading it I cahnged it from "Excuse me, but who are you?" into "Excuse me, but who the HELL are you?" Funny how I do that.

What about sniffing ones own butt?

Anyway, Locke's right about early-game eagerness being a good tell on wolves. Sadly it can also be a tell on innocents with special roles. But a careful guess is 70% likely to be a wolf.

Locke: It being dumb doesn't mean it can't happen.

Twinkle: Everything's a gut feeling at this point.

Yeah, I pretty much get that, but there is stuff to go off of. I just wasn't too keen on Wolf's that's all. ^_^

~Twinkle, who wasn't denying that gut feelings were fine, but was simply stating that he disagreed with Wolf's gut feeling

Disagrees with "Wolf`s" gut-feeling about Llandy being suspicious and odd, but doesn`t blame Wolf for his opinion.

Spoiler: eleventh post

Locke called my attention back to this:

Also, I'm shocked at the amount of opposition that has risen to keep Llandy from this position, I would imagine that if she was a Werewolf, at least a few of her diabolical little buddies would be here supporting her. I mean, if anything, it seems like Whoopin is the one picking up followers at a rapid rate -- to me that signifies some help from somewhere's else.

I don't want to tell you how to wolf hunt, but I highly doubt the wolves are going to establish such clear ties to their packies.

Seems like a lot more plausible idea than to pick Llandy out all on her own. Really, you're not at all suspicious of the amount of opposition against Llandy and the amount of support for Whoopin?

@Phonemelter

Well first up, my name is Twinkle not Twinkie. (Blah. Hate twinkies) ^_^

Twink votes Wolf “for obvious reasons” and Llandy for watch.

This was part of the joking phase, pretty much, although I'm not sure I want to change it based on things that have transpired since.

Twinkie defends Llandy, says if she was a wolf, her packies would probably come defend her, attacks Wolf for his attack of Llandy – seems very “wolf trying to buddy up to an innocent” esque

If shooting holes in the pathetic argument brought against Llandy, and bringing some common sense to the scene is "a wolf trying to buddy up," then heck, I'm guilty as charged.

Twinkie complains about Lep not drawing enough attention on himself or some **** like that – same can be said for other people, and how does Whoopin picking up followers indicate a wolf? Why would a wolf want one of their packies on watch? What about other players you find suspicious? You could be said to occupy a grey area because Lep and Llandy are all you have really talked about.

I was asked about my thoughts, I said mainly a gut feeling, but I also backed it up. Lep seems to be posting and remaining active, yet has rarely, if ever, given any real opinion on a matter. True, he may just be indecisive; not much to go off of right not, but from my days in CoN, that's where the puppets/wolves like to lurk.

You could be said to occupy a grey area because Lep and Llandy are all you have really talked about.

I would just like to point out this statement particularity -- Really, how much other discussion went on besides Lep, Llandy/Whoopin, and people just randomly pointing fingers, with very little to go off of? I would argue that I've hardly, if at all, played in the grey areas.

Twinkie – still fixated on defending Llandy

So is sticking to my guns when questioned a bad thing? Would yo prefer I jumped from boat to boat?

Why single Lep out for occupying a grey area? Does nobody else occupy that area in your mind? What about me, who has not made a "real" post until now? What about Seff, who has been making (mostly) useless one-liners? Feels a bit forced to me. Additionally, while it has been said, why would you think wolves would support Whoopin and that if Llandy had packies they would support her? Are you saying you two are packies? Of course that wasn't your intention, but it is highly unlikely this would be the case since it would be "too obvious."

In truth, Lep is the one sending my radar up. I've played CoN (a game extremely similar to werewolf) near maybe fifty times, and I've made myself pretty good at hunting puppets/wolves, and Lep strikes me as one. I never said Seff didn't come up on my radar, mainly because I didn't notice until someone pointed out him asking how many people were yet to be active. Lep , however, did come up, and had currently been unadressed, and when asked about my thought, I felt compelled to share what I thought about Lep and why. So no, I really didn't feel that way about anyone else particularly. *shrug* I'm not really sure there are others who are acting like Lep right now, but that could just be how they are doing VS how he is doing it.

Also,

Feels a bit forced to me. Additionally, while it has been said, why would you think wolves would support Whoopin and that if Llandy had packies they would support her? Are you saying you two are packies? Of course that wasn't your intention, but it is highly unlikely this would be the case since it would be "too obvious."

See, Whoopin had been barely brought into question, and had received so far, a good chunk of the votes, while at the same time, Llandy was receiving an earful for basically no good reason whatsoever. So I pointed out that the puppets are more likely on Whoopin's "side"  -- potentially, and if that is the case, most likely Whoopin himself. I do not say that they are, because I have no way of telling, but I doubt if Llandy was a puppet, that her wolf buddies would throw her to the fire so quickly and watch her burn. I realized that upon coming to her "aid" that I would be pinned as a potential wolf ally, but I thought that since I was talking so much sense into the poorly arranged arguments thrown her way, that people would realize that -- wolf or not -- I was at least correct.

~Twinkle, who still wonders who Lancre is

Twinkle wonders why Whoopin get`s supported and Llandy not. Thinks Llandy is criticised for almost "nothing". Says that Leprechaun is on his radar, mostly for his playstyle compared to others games.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

summary:
I like the amount of contribution. Even after the first joking phase Twinkle is posting recently. Have the impression that Twinkle bothers to much about the others opinion.

 

[snoopy-91]

Part 2

Spoiler: sixteenth post

@PhoneMelter

Well I guess to you I'll remain "Twinkie"

1) Gotcha. I'm confident I gave a good answer. I'm sorry you don't like it. ^_^

2)

I wouldn't call stating suspicion on one player with what I see as poor reasoning after having to be prodded to state your thoughts to be "starting something new."

I'm not quite sure I get what you're saying, but if you're saying that I needed to be prodded to tell why I am suspicious of Lep then that is inaccurate. If you don't like my reasoning than fine(you don't like my grey area either ~_^)but again, there's nothing I can do to change that.

I am talking about bring up ideas without having to be prompted to.

Well I can't really say anything to that. You certainly have ground to make a case there, but I think what I alternatively could have done would have been worse -- I could have said nothing. At least by taking the promt and moving forward I've opened the doors for discussion, even if that discussion is used for getting a read on me, it's still helpful for wolf hunting.

3) Fair enough. Could you possibly elaborate on why you feel he wasn't someone you thought I'd pick up on?

4) I think I recall Seff as well -- maybe I should do some re-reading.

5) I agree, I think we do have a few wolves fighting in the open, and a few cowering in the shadows, or maybe one in between(like potentially Lep). If you are spotlight (i.e. Me, you, Llandy, Wolf .etc)  you would have to perform well to not get nailed if you are a wolf. However, if, like Lep, you can slip by quietly with barely any controversy, you don't need to come out and perform as well. Am I making sense? Is there anything particular you need me to elaborate on?

6) That's alright, I've skimmed a few post as well: 

Twinkle - seems mostly sensible. Positioning himself as the voice of reason, not getting too involved in any specific debates. Quite similar to what he's pointing about me, in fact His assessment of me is a reasonable one, just wrong.

He threw me into the same boat as him, although later claims it was a joke, so I dunno. *shurg*

7) Okay, gotcha, I'm pretty certain they'd want it, but no way of knowing for sure.

Also, if you are so suspicious of Lep, why is your (joke) vote still on The Wolf?

I actually just hadn't thought about it, although good point.
Unvote: Wolf; Vote: Lep

And to be clear, wolf doesn't sit right with me either, but Lep makes me more uneasy.

@Whoopin

So my first impression of Twinkle was very good, I agreed with his positions and didnt see any deception in his arguments - I even agree with him that there may be a wolf on my Watchwagon (but for different reasons).

Thanks you, sir.

This was his first "contributing" post and it looks very good

Yes, that was my first contributing post, thank you for saying it looks shiny. ^_^

...so good that it would take an expert wolf to generate this caliber of "psuedo-hunting".

I would thank you for throwing me into the "expert wolf" category, except that's a bad thing. ~_^

To me its as if he knows Llandy is innocent and doing exactly what I have been suspicious of in my on WatchWagon... theres a wolf on it attempting to gain my trust.

In truth, I do not know if Llandy is innocent or not, and I am still weary of her, however, after the all those fellas shouting at her in the beginning, she is the one I trust more than most. I can't dispute a gut feeling, and it is justified, the only thing that I can say is I saw a bunch of poorly made arguments being thrown at Llandy and sought to bring some sense to the situation.

He chose Llandy instead of me because Naridill provided a target that was easy to dissect.

I chose it because the argument was, at best, a gut feeling and unfounded in any other way. The idea that Llandy's argument was well prepared was also nonsense (IMHO), and so I decided someone needed to say something, and since everyone was too busy attacking Llandy to do anything, I jumped in.

That scenario struck me naturally after reading his posts backwards, now the interesting question is what Twinkle thinks of someone that he has conveniently ignored, Ill give this link as a head start.

Look who's calling the kettle black.

You want to know what I think about Xardob? Fair enough, although I will point out that many more have been ignored by me: Moss, Moose, AWdeV...) I thank you for the head start, but I have already organized some thoughts on him. I am suspicious of his lurker vote for eternal because eternal isn't anymore of a lurker really, than Xardob himself. Xardob brings into question Lep's lurker vote for him, and makes a deal about it, not a huge deal, but a deal none the less, whilst at same time being just as deserving of this vote as eternal. I currently don't have a huge itching concern about him, like I have for Lep, but I am suspicious.

More suspicion time. Now Lep.

It's amazing how suspicious someone can make themselves on day 1 before anything's happened. Xardob's already trying to run the show, and is making a go of it by using empty promises and completely unsourced statistics.

Worse than a werewolf: he's a politician. Get him in the damn pillory already.

Lurker: Xardob

I don't know if this post is serious or not. But regardless of this, the lurker vote is suspicious. The problem with the lurker vote is that, if we're not going to use it as intended, it just turns into a more sophisticated FoS (finger of suspicion for those not familiar). You're willing to accuse someone, but not to commit with a vote. The lurker vote throws enough weight behind his suspicious for him to avoid the accusation of just throwing **** around, but it doesn't go so far that he can't easily back down later.

He get's some points for doing an early LoS, though most of the reasons there are very weak, as expected from an early LoS.

I don't like the fact that he complained about the amount of WoT's so far, though I can relate with the sentiment. Complaining about how the hunt is being conducted is a usual wolf tactic, and a handy excuse for wolves to use to stay out of the discussion.

I don't have any strong opinion of his minor quote war with Twinkle.

I also don't like how a pretty inactive player (Whoopin) brings up that I "Ignored" Xardob, while Whoopin has barely contributed anything or discussed anything to the extent that I have, much less to any extent at all really. So Whoopin, how do you feel about Xordob?


~Twinkle, who again, isn't sure how Whoopin has went this far with hardly contributing, (yet also maintaining most watch votes) and not being brought into question

Discussion between Phonemelter and Twinkle.
First of all about Phonemelter, who thinks that Twinkle is mostly not contributing without being forced or being interviewed. Point that repeats...
Like the attitude of Twinkle being independant of the others opinion. Something I don`t like is that I have the feeling that Twinkle is easily influenced by other players and therefore in my eyes feeling pressurised.

Spoiler: twelfth post

@Twinkie:

If shooting holes in the pathetic argument brought against Llandy, and bringing some common sense to the scene is "a wolf trying to buddy up," then heck, I'm guilty as charged.

That in itself isn't the problem (I tend to defend people), but combined with the other things I saw from you led me to think it might not purely be to shoot holes in a "pathetic" argument.

I'm assuming by "other things" you mean everything else you've pointed out? Well, I can't really argue with that if that's how you feel.

There was other discussion on other topics, or you could have moved on to a different topic if you felt like there was already too much on those three.

You're grasping at straws with this one, bud. There have been a few other discussions, but nothing really big or necessary to input on. Most people are just pointing finger with slight suspicion, and there is talk about how long the day should last and the no lynch. All of those are not worth sharing my opinion on because anything I would have said has already been said. I have been quite active, and not dancing in the grey areas, so your suspicion here is rather, well, weak. I have taken stances on two issues already and I'm clearly not doing anything to avoid steering clear of discussion. This argument is extremely weak. And to be clear, I did move discussion to Lep, so your second part of the argument is unfounded.

No. That comment in the notes wasn't an accusation, it was just a reference for myself - I keep notes when playing WW. But you jumping on everything I've said about you in my notes sounds is certainly interesting - are you that worried by my finding of you suspicious?

Seemed like you were knocking me down for that. Apparently you weren't, but hey, I'm just trying to defend myself as best as possible. The only way we're gonna find the Wolves is by asking questions and pointing fingers, and then by getting an explanation to them. I'm trying to be as helpful as possible in sorting out your suspicions, including with myself. I can't help it if you want to lynch me, but I will try and clear my name as best as possible so that we don't waste our first lynch on a villager. Sorry for trying to be thorough in answering all your thoughts on me.

So you have an idea of whether everyone else is innocent or evil? Care to share that?

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I will try and answer it to the best of my ability anyway. I have very few other suspicions, but none as deep as the suspicion for Lep.

You've said you've played a WW-like game a lot in the past - shouldn't you know that wolves are not going to buddy up to each other all willy nilly? I'll say it again: "Why do you think a wolf want one of their packies on watch?"

First, if they are inexperienced wolves, then yes, that's certainly very possible. Second, it all depends on how they're playing the other members in the cave, sometimes that works well. As a matter of fact, the last CoN game I played I was a puppet/wolf, three of us stuck together while I opposed my allies, we landed a perfect game with all four of us surviving. If you are an experienced player, shouldn't you know that expecting the Wolves to play to your rhyme and rhythm isn't always gonna work?

AS to your second point -- Here's a better question -- why wouldn't they want the watch?  From the sounds of it, the watch could be import if the wolves were to get it, they could pick up on roles that work in the villagers favor and then work to undermine, or slay these individuals. And, not to mention, this keeps the villagers from using the watch to help find potential wolves.

You could also say that, because it is early in the game and a lynch isn't going to immediately happen, that would be a distancing attempt between packies - making assumptions about her and Whoopin like that is a bit of a dangerous thing to do.

Isn't making the assumption against Llandy dangerous too? Why is throwing out the possibility of Whoopin being a puppet so touchy for you? What makes my idea so dangerous?

~Twinkle, who once again wants to point out that his name is Twinkle, not Twinkie

Mostly a discussion between Phonemelter and Twinkle. Phonemelter accusing Twinkle of being to much worried about whether someone might suspect him, or not. I agree on the fact, that for an innocent it`s unusual to protect himself easily as an innocent always is aware of the fact that everyone could be a wolf. On the other side: I don`t know how experienced Twinkle is, but in my first game I have been always very upset, if people could imagine ME out of all people being a wolf. So, that can make people nervous, even if they are innocent.

Spoiler: thirteenth post

@Adabob LOL just noticed the poll, nice addition! Voted **** you but don't take it personally, it was the most relevant choice for me

I had chalked down two **** you votes for you (for relevancy) and Locke (just because the option is there). The next **** you I'll take personally. 

*Cue third **** you vote*

---

Edit: Thanks, Seff. I should have anticipated 

*whistle*

~Twinkle, who definitely didn't land a **** you vote ~_^

There is nothing left to be added.

Spoiler: fourteenth post

Right then. Fancy actually addressing the big WoT post you 'pressured' me into posting, in which I explained exactly what my method is and why I'm following it? 'cause right now, you're being all 'oh I'm so reasonable look at me with my gentle but insistent suspicion' but you haven't actually taken the response I gave you and, well, responded to it.

To me, there are three main reasons you could be doing that:
1) You haven't really read it/can't be bothered to reply - ****ty villager. I don't believe that, because you're apparently an experienced player (I wouldn't really know, I've not played WW for about five or six years )
2) You're coming up with a really detailed response and just haven't posted it yet - get on with it
3) You don't really have a good rebuttal but want to keep trying to make me look all wolfy, despite no longer having a reason to - well, hmm.
4) Lep gave a ****ty response which just made him look more like someone trying to remain under the radar and only felt the need to drop one big post to defend himself, which just went on to say that he didn't want to clutter the thread, and then to claim I was doing the same thing he was. (Which, I might add, was inaccurate as I pointed out in a response to him.) So Twinkle only saw the need to respond to the pathetic point brought against him.

I do note that, having pressured me for more information about what I was thinking, when I actually gave it you just quoted the line that was dedicated to you, graced it with a small 'nah, I don't really agree' and then ignored the rest. It's not consistent with claiming to actually be suspicious of my 'small' contributions if you then go on to ignore it when I make a bigger one. It's even more inconsistent when you later post stuff like the above, telling the whole world how I still have your radar pinging for reasons I've already addressed and you haven't actually replied to.

If you're going to be suspicious of me, fine. It's day one and the hunch is king (long live the king!). But most other people are taking their hunches (check), questioning people about them (check), and then using the results to fuel more questions. You're not doing the last bit, and it's weird - more like you're content to flit in, sow a few seeds of doubt and then move on.

What do I think of your previous post? The whole idea that you don't want to clutter up the thread is a overall poor excuse -- what in the blue blazes is the thread meant for if not to post? You were just trying to justify your overall quietness; not a good sign, I might add. All you did in that post was muddle on about why you shouldn't post, and how you're "clearly willing to post" because of this gigantic post you whipped when your name was called into question. Otherwise you just drift in the wind doing nothing except trying to seem active yet barely speaking on things of worth. I didn't think it necessary to reply to the rest because the whole argument was nonsense. Even to the part which I previously answered. (see quote below)

I definitely answered part of your post, the part where you made a very week argument trying to throw me in the same boat as you. Which, of course, you conveniently didn't respond to either:

Twinkle - seems mostly sensible. Positioning himself as the voice of reason, not getting too involved in any specific debates. Quite similar to what he's pointing about me, in fact His assessment of me is a reasonable one, just wrong.

Actually, I think I firmly rooted my belief in at least one issue:

Spoiler

*low whistle*

Okay, so most of you are jumping down Llandy's throat, from what I gather, for these reasons:

1) Her explanation seems "off". When questioned about this remark you folks argued that it was "too well thought out." Really? Cuzz to me,  the  only thing I see around is this:

So why do you want to be the watchman, Llandy? Early push to prove you're not the werewolf, or is your power only activateable if you're the watchman?

Even if I was a wolf, taking Watch duty wouldn't mean diddly-squat towards proving my innocence, because assuming that Adaham has gone with a standard pack set-up and doesn't have any sort of serial killer role, then my hypothetical packmates could just do the killing allowing me to claim "hey, I'm totally innocent because somebody died whilst I was on watch." Anybody who believed that would be a moron regardless of whether it came from me or anyone else.

As for why I want to be a watchman, it's because this is only my 3rd game, I've never had any sort of special role, and this is the closest I've come to having a special role so far. Also, I'm the only person I can be sure of who is innocent, and if I do see something suspicious at Night it will give me something to think about/possibly share with others depending on what I find.

Plus it will mean I don't have to share a room with any of your perverts.

That seems "thought through" to you guys? It looks to me like she(see? I'm learning ) just whipped that up right then and there. The only thing I agree with is that she's fighting for this way too hard, but I've never played with Llandy (not mention Werewolf) before, so maybe she's like this all the time (although, from what I gather from discussion, she's pretty new). That does not seem thought through at all, IMHO.

2) I don't know how many times I saw this, but someone brought up because "she's so good at tricking people that I don't want her with this role," which is a legitimate fear, but there really isn't anything solid this game to convict Llandy of being a wolf, and you shouldn't limit a player just because of their potential, again, IMHO.

3)

So I will; unvote SootShade; vote The Wolf

Claiming I haven't answered questions when no questions were ever asked seemed like a scummy thing to do. I think Wolf-boy has picked up on the suspicions of Soot, AW and Whoopin because of my play in the last 2 games, and is trying to further suspicion against me using feeble arguments in the hopes of getting the wagon rolling more.

Yeah, I didn't have strong arguments set in stone, but I have to stir with something after all. I've forgotten almost everything about Werewolf games, and about how you people behave, so I just have to go with what I do know about people in general.

Now you're acting very defensively, you're patronising our suspicions by arguing semantics(deliberately misunderstanding the verb 'questioning', and then adding quotation marks to the word "questions"), and you're responding to my, to be honest, fairly transparent provocation, with ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. And more, but I won't bother.

In my experience, if I corner people and make them feel exposed, they compensate by getting defensive and patronising. They lash out and attack because the situation makes them feel insecure. You are lashing out and being defensive, that's not questionable here. I am a bit, too. The question is whether you're behaving more vulnerable, in this context, than I could reasonably expect you to if you were innocent.

I don't know you, I barely remember you from before. I don't know Werewolf games, either. So I'm going with my gut, and my gut says you're acting suspicious. If I end up bandwagoning you, I hope I'm right.

Here, Wolf admits he didn't have strong arguments in stone and then starts point out how she's lashing out, and, I quote "and more, but I won't bother". Why won't you bother? Enlighten me please. In all honesty, she is protecting herself rather much, I agree, but with so many people pointing their fingers over at her I'm pretty sure I would be too. To me it seems like Wolf was just lightly brushing a subject of his mistakes and poor arguments, of which "were not in stone" or what not, but then quickly returns the heat to Llandy, and makes sure to input that "I haven't been here in a while", and I "I'm just getting back into the hang of this", as if that is somehow a valid excuse for a poorly fleshed out accusation that everyone seems to think is so solid.

Also, I'm shocked at the amount of opposition that has risen to keep Llandy from this position, I would imagine that if she was a Werewolf, at least a few of her diabolical little buddies would be here supporting her. I mean, if anything, it seems like Whoopin is the one picking up followers at a rapid rate -- to me that signifies some help from somewhere's else.

Now my vote for Llandy for watch at the begging was just random, but I'm sticking by it even more right now.

~Twinkle, who actually played werewolf once a long time ago, but since has only played a very similar game called Curse of Ne-gok-sa

Accuses again Leprechaun being active by just responding to accusations made up against him and not hunting. Have to read back and see, if that`s right. Probably Twinkle is right, even if I have to add in this posting that until THAT posting of Twinkle only a few postings can be qualified as "active hunting" and the rest is as well the result of answers due to accusations and jokes. So, nothing that strikes me obviously odd, but the fact that Twinkle is making "own weekness" or let`s say his own weak point against Leprechaun is in my eyes here in this point of the game overrated. I think his accusations/ disklike of Leprechaun is mostly based on his gut-feeling mixed with criticism of Leprechaun`s playstyle.

Spoiler: fifteenth post

Seems like a lot more plausible idea than to pick Llandy out all on her own.

Wolf was shaking a tree to see what fell out, Seff did a 'me too' post, and I posted why I felt her post was off.

Really, you're not at all suspicious of the amount of opposition against Llandy and the amount of support for Whoopin?

I find the number of votes for Whoopin a bit odd, but I've not made any judgements on Whoopin himself yet. It's something to watch, but if they're that stupid then we'll be done with this game in no time.

I guess we just have a little different ideas about how to find the Wolves. *shrug*

@Phonemelter

@Twinkie:

Are you intentionally doing this to me? TWINKLE! With an L; not I.

My point was that you basically chose to only comment on what was going on at the time and didn't add anything new. You claimed that there was nothing else going on, so why not try to change that? Who are you to say that you are not dancing in any grey area? Isn't that for the other players to decide? I'm talking about grey area in terms of "I do not know what to think of this person yet" - are you referring to something else? Saying you have been active means nothing if you aren't going to try and bring anything new to the light of day. True, it is unrealistic to think that everyone is going to have new ideas every five seconds, but this behavior (claiming to be active and to not be "dancing in grey areas") sounds a lot like "hey guys, I'm participating and trying to be relevant" without putting much effort into analyzing others. You may have moved some discussion to Lep, but as I said, it seems out of the blue. Lets take a look at it:

Spoiler

He seems to be taking a stance, but yet not making enough racket to draw a decent amount of attention to himself. Not to mention he supports Whoopin for watch, which, as I said earlier, looks as if he might have a wolf or two supporting him. Also, throwing a vote for someone with no votes on him he could slip by without being accused as jumping on the banwangon.

How is this exactly wolf? Do you want everyone to take hard stances on people right now? How is drawing attention to oneself in any way good (or bad)? I've pointed out why if Whoopin was a wolf it wouldn't make sense for packies to support him - too obvious. And you can say many people have been throwing a vote for someone with no votes on them. Do you want everyone to just hop on bandwagons?  Your reasoning is all over the place.

I totally added new stuff. Now you're just blatantly lying. At least argue with some accuracy. K? A lot of people show up shouting a bunch of poorly figured arguments at Llandy, and who shows up with *different* ideas? Me! Hey guys, maybe Llandy isn't a wolf! Let's try looking the other way because these arguments aren't very strong. At the exception of Llandy, no one else was saying anything close to that! So that's definitely adding to the topic.

But maybe that's not what you mean, maybe you mean (what I addressed earlier) that I haven't started anything new, as in a new conversation. Well that's a lie too, and you acknowledge that, because you admit me bringing up Lep. So surely you realize you just spewed off lies, right?

Who are you to say that you are not dancing in any grey area? Isn't that for the other players to decide? I'm talking about grey area in terms of "I do not know what to think of this person yet" - are you referring to something else?

Fine. I concede to this; your definition of "grey" may vary from mine. In which case, you are correct, to many I am probably a plausible target for lynching.

aying you have been active means nothing if you aren't going to try and bring anything new to the light of day. True, it is unrealistic to think that everyone is going to have new ideas every five seconds, but this behavior (claiming to be active and to not be "dancing in grey areas") sounds a lot like "hey guys, I'm participating and trying to be relevant" without putting much effort into analyzing others.

I have been trying to bring things to the light of day (e.g. LEP)

You may have moved some discussion to Lep, but as I said, it seems out of the blue.

You're kidding right? How in the world did you come up with "out of the blue"? 0_o Llandy asked for my thoughts, I didn't just go: YO! HOMIE! I THINK LEP IS WOLF! TOTALLY RANDOM AND OUT OF THE BLUE!

I backed it up with my thoughts.

How is this exactly wolf? Do you want everyone to take hard stances on people right now? How is drawing attention to oneself in any way good (or bad)? I've pointed out why if Whoopin was a wolf it wouldn't make sense for packies to support him - too obvious. And you can say many people have been throwing a vote for someone with no votes on them. Do you want everyone to just hop on bandwagons?  Your reasoning is all over the place.

So this is in reference to my first post proposing Lep as a potential Wolf, for those of you who don't know.

No, I don't think everyone needs to immediately take a firm stance on everything, but in this case he picked sides, but -- wait for -- DIDN'T ADD ANYTHING USEFUL! Sound familiar? It should, bud, because you said it when you were talking about me a minute ago. The difference here, though, is that I actually added useful points, UNLIKE LEP. Drawing attention to onself? Hmmm... I have an idea, look at me for a second. *wave* Or Llandy, we drew attention to ourselves and got people on our back (which I'm still wondering how Whoopin is getting by with hardly posting at all, or adding anything truly USEFUL, which is something you seem so big on). Tell me, as a wolf, out of me, Llandy, and Lep, who would be better to hide as? Food for thought. And no, I don't want everyone to jump on bandwagons, but if you put all the things I've mentioned together, throwing Lep's vote for this one fella starts look a little more wolfy.

It just seemed jumpy to me - you are participating nicely, but then when accused you defend yourself with "hey, I'm active and not occupying grey areas!" which, at least to me, looks like what I think Locke (?) was saying about the "omg why are you accusing me, I'm not doing anything wrong even though I'm actually a wolf!" type of deal.

I brought up the grey area because Lep tried to throw me on that boat, I was addressing a concern. Would you have rather me left that alone?

You said Lep seems to be occupying a grey area, which to me means "neutral." If you think only he is playing neutral, you are suggesting that you have thoughts on how everyone else is playing which are not "neutral."

Okay, I gotcha. Makes sense now. That's not exactly what I meant by "grey", very similar, but not exactly. What I meant by gray is in an area of borderline; not enough to be noticeable. For instance lying is bad, however, murder is worse -- Killing=black, lying=grey (depending on circumstance of course). So he is leaning towards a side, just very shady about the way he's doing it, and trying to seem neutral, while partially doing so. But of course, you can't remain totally neutral without drawing a lot of suspicion. Of course, your grey may vary from my grey, so for all I know this means nothing to you. ^_^

Yes, buddying does work sometimes, but it is not a typical Day 1 thing to do for experienced players since it draws too much attention to the fact. Sure, it could be happening here, but I find it highly unlikely. Do you really think that is what is going on?

From what I'm seeing now, I think it's a very plausible theory.

This is true, but it also would depend on how the mechanics work. As Eternal suggested (iirc), a wolf might not want the role because it can put them in a difficult situation because it could make it harder for them to trick the villager without revealing themselves - i.e. they discover a special, but in order to cover for that fact they might have to lie about who they watched or what they saw. If another player noticed an inconsistency in that, they could think the person on watch is trying to hide something and might be a wolf as a result.

Ummm... okay? You asked me why I thought they might want it, and you admit it's a plausible theory. Sure, they might not want it, but I'm chalking things up right now that I think they want it. Out of curiosity, which do you feel is the more likely choice?

It isn't touchy for me - I keep an open mind when playing WW and do not want to quickly rule out possibilities. I was just saying you need to look at both sides of the coin.

I think a lot of other people need to. I heard argument upon argument against Llandy, and felt otherwise compelled, I looked at both sides, and thought one was more correct. I apologize for thinking that you were getting touchy, it just seemed that way to me.

Oh, please. If you can't tell the difference between not wanting to clutter the thread up, and not wanting to add extra crap to my own picture of what's going on by posting (and then having to reply to) a bunch of half-baked waffle I could pull from anywhere, you're either deliberately being disingenuous or you're just not really trying very hard. If I have a suspicion of someone, I want to put it together into something worth posting. I explicitly don't want to go off half-cocked and wind up in a ten-page argument about the semantics of the word 'question', for example, because as I explained in my post, that's not what I'm looking for. It's simple: if I post loads of walls of text focusing on one person, to my mind I'm either really really suspicious of them (not really gonna happen on day 1), or I'm not doing a good enough job of scrutinising everyone else. If I post loads walls of text but it's just heaps of stuff pointing at everybody else, I'm frankly not taking it seriously, and it subsequently makes it a lot harder for me to actually make my own position clear on things because I've thrown my poo all over the walls.

So yeah, I'll ask questions when I have them, and I'll post at exactly the frequency I need to ask and then chase the questions I want answered, and to answer other people's questions of me. Then, when I have a position on somebody's wolfiness, I'll post it. That way, I'm not spending all my posting time flapping about trying to explain my exact position on whoever's flavour of the moment, because it'll be clear already. I did it once, in response to a couple of people whinging about how I'm being too quiet, to show that I'm paying attention to the proceedings and to try to give some insight into my thought processes, such as they are. That's the only time it'll happen, so read whatever you please into it.

So you're totally guilty of what Phonemelter is trying to throw my way about "not bringing anything up". I just don't get it -- he's pegging me for something I'm not doing, yet doesn't peg you with it.

And that's totally not how you portrayed it last time, and I'm sorry that you come up in my radar the wrong way, but your excuses aren't sitting right with me, and apparently not right with Phonemelter either, because he's yelling at me for doing things that you are doing and I am not.

Whinge whinge whinge. That's not an argument.

I explicitly don't want to go off half-cocked and wind up in a ten-page argument about the semantics of the word 'question'....

I'm sorry, what were you saying?

Yeah, you took one of the facetious bits of my post (invariably denoted with ), made it the focal point of your rebuttal of almost, but not exactly, my not-terribly-serious point, and then dropped the mic expecting a big boom. Great job. I didn't reply at the time because it was a reply to a throwaway bit of post that I really didn't care about.

So you posted your LoS as a joke? Real smart. See, I took it seriously, like I should be, thank you.

I didn't reply at the time because it was a reply to a throwaway bit of post that I really didn't care about.

But when I did this to your earlier post, it was wrong? And you listed three reason as to why I didn't respond? Hmmm...

To be clear, my point wasn't that you didn't express opinions on things. It was that essentially none of the opinions you'd put any force into were about your actual suspicions. Your counterexample was that you expressed a strong opinion about people's logic when they were chasing after Llandy. That's not exactly a huge commitment. If you want to contrast that with something, I've been openly suspicious of SootShade and outlined exactly why in that post (the bit where I caught up on all the post-jumps and found his super-angry reply). No, there wasn't an essay about it, but my suspicion and reasoning were there for all to see, concisely and without ambiguity. That's just how I intend to play.

SO Llandy wasn't enough for you? Fine, how about when I brought up you? That doesn't count because it's against you? Give me a break will you, I totally have been contributing and adding to the conversation.

Of course, now that's all changed. You're expressing very strong opinions, just directed at me 

It's funny how one smiley face changes my whole mood. 

And actually, I've expressed my opinion about you long before you brought that up, so that's another no-go for you, my friend.

At least this quote war isn't about semantics yet (though there seems to be a difference in definitions of "gay area" between the two of us if I am understanding Twinkie correct) - I blame Twinkie for starting it by being overly defensive about my notes.

Again, I thought I was supposed to respond to a theory to help further discussion -- geez, it seems no matter where I go you're on my back. "Too much discussion on my notes", "not enough contributing"

~Twinkle, who apologizes for being seemingly aggressive anywhere -- it's been a long day at work and he needs to go lay down

Discussion between Shatari and Twinkle. At what in my eyes Twinkle seems to step a little bit back. I think that Shatari made a few good points against Twinkle, mostly Shatari`s criticism that Twinkle doesn`t contribute despite the topic of Llandys being suspected and "attacked". Which is the point that comes to my mind, when I read post nr. 14 between Leprechaun and Twinkle....

 

[snoopy-91]

Part 3

Spoiler: seventeenth post

You dont need to reply to every paragraph, cause youll slip up like this one - I already suspected Xardob and listed him as deceptive with a 3 link reference.

I'm not referencing Xardob, although I suppose that wasn't clear. Let me put it this way -- you've conveniently ignored a **** load of people. A lot. Why am I shot down for ignoring a particular individual who I didn't address while you've done the same thing with many others?

This is a lot of fluff to get your point across, you couldve been much less verbose for sure. I actually predicted you would mention that you have ignored more than Xardob, but he is a particular instance because you shouldve already had a case on him. Since youre a "spotlight player" its about time you got around to mentioning it now. Thanks.

Sorry for getting detailed. Apparently making sure you understood me should be frowned upon. Congratulations on predicting my response, not really sure what that does for you exactly, but hey, whatever floats your boat. Also, "spotlight player" is what I was referencing as someone receiving a lot of attention, not exactly "all-start player" FWIW. And I could say it's about time for you to get around to mentioning a lot of other things as well, so I'm not really sure where that last sentence get's you, or why I should have addressed this already.

Dont like it? What dont you like about attention regardless where it comes from - if you think Im inactive then you got a rude awakening enroute. I personally didnt have time to contribute and it had nothing to do with trying to compete with any other players activity.

As soon as I started mentioning your inactivity back when talking to Phonemelter is right when you show up, what a nice surprise, right? I'm not at all in for a rude awakening, because I expected you to show up and try to defend yourself. Sure, I could believe that you didn't have time, but that's a tactic I've pulled in more than one game, and it pulled me out of more than one mess. Lying is the key to wolf success, you very well could be telling the truth, but just as I am sure you don't believe some of the stuff I've said, I do not believe what you are saying. But that's just a hunch. The fact that you showed up when I applied a little pressure is suspicious.

Ive been here the whole time and your ~Twinkle clutter is getting much more clear after youve been read backwards, and youre delay on Xardob can be easily explained if he is your packmate.

Read it backwards? Not exactly what you mean by this, but everything I said is straightforward, whether you buy it or not. As to the bold -- not ****, man. I could easily explain your silence on anyone you haven't commented on by simply sticking you in as that person's puppet buddy. Real solid evidence you got! Congrats!

Glad you delivered on my prediction on counter-asking me about Xardob, you wouldve disappointed me if you didnt cause I wouldve done the same to you. I purposely didnt give details so I could see what your ideas were first before my suspicions changed your perception.

Glad I didn't disappoint you. ^_^

Yes, Xardob and the Lurker incident is an OK start but I guess you failed to read his more pertinent posts. It helps if you read his profile to get a gist of all his posts in a row.

First post = garbage. Conversation with AWdeVs claim = junk. Calling three players wolves = trash. Not only has he not helped any hunting whatsoever he has attempted to steer the village into believing his 70% successful hunts, asked for another players ability, and Lurker votes one of his suspects hypocritically.

I didn't take too much into account with his "70%" thingy because this is the first time playing here, so I have no general read on any of you folks, and I'm just earning how this crowd reacts. For all I know Xardob is frequently a very self-assured person. AS to the others (of which I did read) I guess I was just too caught up in Llandy, and then my argument with Lep and Phonemelter. I did not, however, abandon looking around, I just got more caught up in one thing than the other.

No one else in the roster generates the vibes like him and you apparently got so wrapped up with your ~Twinkles that you got tunnelvision or purposely ignored it.

Tunnelvisioned -- partially, but that's not to say I didn't notice anything, as I did pick up on his Lurk vote which I found suspicious. And I doubt my sig line had anything to do with this because the least amount of thought goes into that, it's just my moment to spout off whatever **** that needs to be emphasized or for things I don't want to include in the general body of the post.

Finally, to answer your apparently dumb question about why I have so many Watch votes, its because of my reputation and the accuracy of my ego (which is a combination of my gut and epeen feeling). Right now, Xardob has been busted and Im looking for his packies.

I fail to see how that is dumb, as a matter of fact, I think your "explanation" is dumb. Again, I don't know anything about your previous play, although people have expressed trusting you with this role because they know your good..... In all honesty that's stupid, you're a good player, right? Stick you on the wolves side and what does that make you? A good wolf. Trusting you with that tole just because your good is stupid, we have no reason to trust more than other people here, and after how things have gone, I'm in stronger opposition to you taking the watch than ever before. I don't trust you, and if you're as good as everyone seems to be making you out to be, you'll realize that:

A) You can make a potentially very dangerous wolf, and with all the support you're receiving that's not a far fetched idea.
And B) We have no reason to trust you. Actually, I'm more into trusting some other people with that role. Llandy because of all the **** thrown her way, but since she doesn't want it I gotta pick someone else.

@Locke

jumped to Llandy's aid when it wasn't required

In whose opinion? A bunch of people were going after her, and I went brought some sense into the poor arguments. Maybe I should have just sat on the side lines, hmmm? Oh! I got a better idea! Why didn't I join the side opposing Llandy!

Did it ever occur to you that a lot of people jumped on the side against Llandy when their aid wasn't required(as you so put it)? Hmmm? Food for thought.

referring to arguments against Llandy as “pathetic” and “shooting holes” in them to justify his defence of her, far too touchy/concerned about the attention he received

Ummmm.... they really were pathetic. Go back and read my post, and then come back and tell me they weren't crapshoot ideas. All at the exception of how hard she was fighting for the position, of which I do acknowledge in my post.

“people randomly pointing fingers, with very little to go on” - scared of having a finger pointed at him

Ummm... right, yup, damn it, Locke, you caught me! Pfffftt. People have been pointing fingers at me and I've been more than happy to answer them so long as they weren't bull**** arguments. If I didn't want people pointing fingers at me I would have hid in the shadows only slightly scratching the surface of discussion. But I'm happy people are questioning me, otherwise, how are we gonna figure this thing out? I'm not particularly happy when someone throws something my way as "suspicious" when they're guilty of the same thing, or when I actually am not guilty of it, but otherwise, hell, ask away.

far too concerned with disparaging his opponents arguments, calling them “weak, unfounded, pathetic” repeatedly

"Ohhh nose! Llandy is too good at being a wolf! Don't give her the role of watch!" = Pathetic
"Llandy's post was too well thought of! Bad Llandy!" = Ummmm... her post was barely more than a few sentences and looked like she whipped that up in two minutes -- PATHETIC
"Twinkle is doing exactly what he is saying Lep is! HE's not discussing anything or giving solid stance!" = Bull****, lies, pathetic, unfounded
"You didn't add anything new" = Lies, and unfounded (hello! Lep! Lep! Lep!) Phonemelter did say this wasn't what I thought he meant, but still, every time I used those words, I was accurate.

I trust I rest my case, because if that's not clear to you then I'm assuming you have a biased opinion to this whole thing...

contradicts his earlier tone in regards to pointing fingers, now implying that its helpful and a way to start looking for wolves

Never contradicted myself -- in one case I said all's people were doing was pointing fingers randomly, and that me adding would have done no good, and I later mentioned that asking questions and pointing fingers is good. The difference is I had nothing good to add to everyone who was pointing fingers.

constantly on the backfoot, defensive, “if you want to vote me then I can't stop you” type of comments

Ummm... defensive? Locke, do me a favor and look up "defensive"  in the dictionary, and then get back to me, K? “if you want to vote me then I can't stop you” is hardly defending myself (which I will add that I have defend myself in hopes of clearing what's going on and finding the wolves), but that's more of a "Hey! You have a gut feeling, nothing I can do about that!" Because I can't really change your gut feeling on day 1. So while with other thing I have defended myself, that certainly isn't one of them.

So that just looked like a bunch of word-twisting, misunderstanding, and biased crap.

I would like to say this again so that Locke doesn't think I'm trying to run away and be defensive here -- Locke, if you have any questions, or wish for me to elaborate on anything, feel free to ask.

~Twinkle, who can't believe he just spent an hour replying to stuff like that, if narrowed down to the reasonable questions (without Locke's word-twisting an overall misrepresentations of that facts) this would have probably blown over in maybe twenty minutes

Discussion with Whoopin:
Twinkle says that Whoopin is ignoring most of the people`s accusations, and showing up after Twinkle brings his lurkiness up.
Whoopin defends himself and accuses Twinkle of being to much worried about "pointed fingers" and Twinkles postings being without any helpful content ("garbage"  ).

Spoiler: eighteenth post

@Phonemelter

I don't remember saying I wasn't prodded, and looking at the post I say that I was prodded, and that I can't argue with your point, but that what I did was, for what it's worth, not as bad as simply ignoring the prompt.  I said you have ground to stand on with that.

Alright guys, I'm super pissed right now with some RL stuff because some serious **** just went down, and I'm afraid that by answering everything now I would take my anger out on all of you good folks, and of course you guys don't deserve that. So to avoid me getting even more pissed and cussing you guys up a wall, I will take my leave for tonight, and be back tomorrow night to reply to what's been said. Lep, don't let me forget to respond to you, please.

~Twinkle, who's about ready to take someone's head off, so is going to bed

No real content. Discussion about Twinkle being prodded.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
summary:
I don`t lose the idea of Twinkle searching for confirmation and falling into already current discussions. He seems to be motivated and interested to participate. Rest - part 3 and 4- will be more interesting and more informative.

@ Xardob Could you tell me the main points against Twinkle that justify the lynch of Twinkle? You can wait with your answer until my parts and opinion are written down tomorrow, so you can`t worry me copying or bandwagon on anything...

So people! Part 5+6 have to wait until tomorrow. The same counts for the answer to my dear Phonemelter- I won`t forget about this. Here it`s already few hours after midnight and tomorrow work and everything else is waiting for me.

 

[snoopy-91]

Part 4

Spoiler: nineteenth post

First up, I just got back and read *most* of the thread, still need to read Moss' post up there. ^

Secondly, per Adaham's request, and out of general courtesy for the rest of you, I am going to try oh so very hard to shrink my huge post, but please bear  with me here folks, because I'm not used to having tiny post when trying to discuss every little thing. ^_^

Twinkies stalwart defence of the Pharaoh does strike me as suspicious as hell.

Nobody loves me. 


@Lep
Okay, I'm trying to cut out crap that doesn't seem to be important to good discussion -- so that my WoT aren't as big -- but if you see anything that you feel you want a response to, or think is important, yell at me to get over there and respond to you. ^_^

Sorry, I didn't reply to your one little paragraph reply to a facetious and tiny section of a huge post. You, on the other hand, ignored almost the entire contents of a huge post that was specifically in reply to you and Shatari, until I came back and asked you to respond to them properly instead of just going 'oh he's still really suspicious'. I think those two things are very different.

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.

Also, to be clear, the line about you in my fateful LoS was mostly a joke, as were the other bits in the list annotated with a smiley. The rest of it was serious, albeit brief, speculation and musing, intended to be taken seriously if anybody cared. So no, you didn't really need to take it seriously if it had a on it, but the rest was completely up-front.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole section of debate is to do with the fact that at the time I posted that initial comment about you, you hadn't expressed strong opinions about a specific person's guilt, instead focusing on bits of logic other people were using to challenge players. So yes, as far as I'm concerned you can't use the strong opinions you gained about me following my post to challenge my (again, only semi-serious) assertion about you in that post. Because of time.
/quote]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.

But again, see the above. To be fair, you did say something analogous to 'Lep's not really very committed to anything in his posts; it's a bit suspicious' before my big uber-post, but again - that was hardly anything firm at the time (unless I just misread it and you were already properly gunning for me). It's only since then that you've been balls-to-the-wall about anything (n.b. smiley present because I'm immature and still think balls-to-the-wall is funny, not because the general meaning of the sentence is not genuine. Really hope I don't have to put these disclaimers on every smiley).

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?

Spoiler

I really don't think anybody suckered into a TW wolf game is going to be anything like the special princess fairy you're making him out to be. As someone currently on the receiving end of Twinkle's (hmm, fairy metaphor might've been a bad call ) ire, I genuinely can't agree with anything you posted there. In fact, it's so far removed from what I, and I think everyone else, is thinking that it's almost too blatant to be suspicious. Almost. I mean, I'm not going to complain if people disagree with the way Twinkle's singling me out for attention, because I think he's wrong too, but that's not what you're doing - I have no idea what you're doing, and I don't like that.

*sniffle* I'm touched -- Lep agrees with me on something.  (yeah, I know, worthless crap I shouldn't include in my post, I'm sorry)

@Llandy

If you're having a rough time IRL, why not take a day or two off to sort things out? As long as you let Adaham know I'm sure he won't mind.

A tempting offer, which I appreciate, but this is something that has been gong on a while (and tried to have been fixed many times over) another few days won't change it. Not to mention it'd be unsportsmanlike of me to leave you all hanging. 

@Phonemelter

First,

I don't remember saying I wasn't prodded, and looking at the post I say that I was prodded, and that I can't argue with your point, but that what I did was, for what it's worth, not as bad as simply ignoring the prompt.  I said you have ground to stand on with that.

Did this answer your question? If not let me know, and I'll try and dig up that post and explain it.

The two predictions were separate, one would be wolfy and the other not so much. The redirection about what I was concerned about him was almost totally "Im rubber youre glue" defense that started giving me a headache. These were ideas that followed how I thought you were acting packy with Xardob... not how I was acting packy with Xardob.

Not sure what you're getting at, really -- yes, I pointed out that everything you've thrown at me could be reversed. You could possibly be the wolf buddy of someone you've ignored, how is this proof? If it is, then it's proof you're allies with other people here who you have ignored. I'm sorry, but I can't see how putting that into perspective for you was suspicious at all.

Seems like this tactic is his bread and butter however it didnt convince me of his innocence at all because instead of simply giving replies to my ideas he just said Im as guilty as being Xardobs packy too...

Like the way you twisted that --  it almost looks convincing. I did not throw you in as Xardob's packy, because you have addressed him; however, I pointed out that you could be -- allow me to capslock so you don't miss it this time -- THAT WITH THIS WAY OF THINKING YOU COULD POSSIBLY BE WOLF BUDDIES WITH SOMEONE YOU'VE IGNORED. I would like to point out that the word twisting you did -- indicating that I stuck you on Xardob's side --  would make my argument basically inaccurate and ****ty for one big reason, YOU HAVE NOT IGNORED XARDOB. You see, if no one caught this, and simply thought you were accurate, they would probably think of me as a very wolfy person, however, I have pointed out your error and that threat has ended. But good try though, if I hadn't caught it you may have gotten away with it.

Didnt bother to actually read Xardobs posts and give a good analysis of Xardobs deception and just quasi defended himself. Since he failed to do it after I gave him an opportunity and just felt compelled to call my answer dumb, to a dumb question (it was also the right answer and a bunch of other adjectives) I will provide my perspective:

  I gave an analysis of what I saw, which is what I've been doing all game --[sarcastic] I'm soooo sorry it didn't line up with yours. [/sarcastic] You're answer was dumb, as I pointed out (the points which you've conveniently ignored). Why don't you go back and read the points I've offer, and then try and pick them apart, and then come back and tell me how my question was dumb. Okay?

I would also like to say, because you brought it up, I find your argument against Xardob compelling, and at the exception of the lurker vote, had nothing to add. Sorry I didn't give perspective on something I didn't really find, at the time, a problem with -- I was very tunnelvisioned with my debates with everyone(which I previously mentioned).

Calls everyone crazy while later admitting he is crazy himself, nominates himself then distrusts everyone that nominated themselves.

Although this is weird -- how is that evidence at all? I could definitely see that as a gut feeling, but that's nothing in supporting your argument. Other that, I do not disagree really, but this is why I avoided discussing people who didn't really come up on my radar too much -- because I can't really add anything. (Lurker vote being an exception)

@Phonemelter

1) Just on thoughts; same thing he's accusing me of. I personally don't have a problem with it, I just wanted to point out to him that what he's saying about me being buddies with Xardob can be reflected to more than one person (including himself).

2) Didn't know he was a dad. However, saying he's "always active" doesn't mean he won't use the tactic of inactivity, rather, that sounds like a good tactic for him then, as it would catch people (looks like you included) on a blind side. Also, I was just throwing more potential reason out there about "when pressure is applied" because I was partly suspicious about it. However, I admit that I missed the part where Xardob replied to pressure, so I don't know (with Whoppin's reasoning, I am now going back to look at a lot of Xardob's post, and will hopefully find what you are talking about). Seff, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be contributing much more even under pressure, he seems to be trying harder (which makes me very suspicious) almost as if to say: "Look! Don't hurt me, I'm contributing,"  but his "contributions" don't seem to be getting any better, IMO.

3) I really wish I could, but with my job, my life, and this current game I'm not sure it's possible.

4) I'm looking, I guess commenting would be good too, huh? But I definitely made observations which I voiced (e.g. Whoopin, bandwagon in whoopin's favor for Watch, and of course Lep and Llandy, but we went over that a lot haven't we? ^_^)

5) I'm providing a quote:

Oh, please. If you can't tell the difference between not wanting to clutter the thread up, and not wanting to add extra crap to my own picture of what's going on by posting (and then having to reply to) a bunch of half-baked waffle I could pull from anywhere, you're either deliberately being disingenuous or you're just not really trying very hard. If I have a suspicion of someone, I want to put it together into something worth posting. I explicitly don't want to go off half-cocked and wind up in a ten-page argument about the semantics of the word 'question', for example, because as I explained in my post, that's not what I'm looking for. It's simple: if I post loads of walls of text focusing on one person, to my mind I'm either really really suspicious of them (not really gonna happen on day 1), or I'm not doing a good enough job of scrutinising everyone else. If I post loads walls of text but it's just heaps of stuff pointing at everybody else, I'm frankly not taking it seriously, and it subsequently makes it a lot harder for me to actually make my own position clear on things because I've thrown my poo all over the walls.

So yeah, I'll ask questions when I have them, and I'll post at exactly the frequency I need to ask and then chase the questions I want answered, and to answer other people's questions of me. Then, when I have a position on somebody's wolfiness, I'll post it. That way, I'm not spending all my posting time flapping about trying to explain my exact position on whoever's flavour of the moment, because it'll be clear already. I did it once, in response to a couple of people whinging about how I'm being too quiet, to show that I'm paying attention to the proceedings and to try to give some insight into my thought processes, such as they are. That's the only time it'll happen, so read whatever you please into it.

So you're totally guilty of what Phonemelter is trying to throw my way about "not bringing anything up". I just don't get it -- he's pegging me for something I'm not doing, yet doesn't peg you with it.

And that's totally not how you portrayed it last time, and I'm sorry that you come up in my radar the wrong way, but your excuses aren't sitting right with me, and apparently not right with Phonemelter either, because he's yelling at me for doing things that you are doing and I am not.

I'm saying that you're pointing out a fault of mine (which I don't have, or at least I didn't until you narrowed down on what exactly you meant), while at the same time Lep is doing exactly what you're trying to call me out for, so if it applies to me, then it should apply to Lep too, right? I know you didn't come out and say it, but if it's a problem with one person doing it, then it's sorta implied when the other peson is doing it, too.

I suggest you address something other than his jokes (which seem to account for most of the 'contradictions') and that he's annoying. Honestly, by now I've come to think that the more infuriating Xardob is to play with, the more likely he's innocent, and I really don't see what he's doing as directly harmful either. The one valid point you do bring up is that his actual contribution to the hunt has been lacking, which is why I do agree that he's worth keeping an eye on. However, overall your case isn't strong enough to warrant your certainty or dismissing everything he's said out of hand either, so I'm hoping you'll get about to something other than slightly hypocritical tunnel visioning at some point.

Just want to point out that since Whoopin has started to really engage in discussion he does not really appear tunnellvisioned to me, actually, he's done a fine job of bringing up multiple points and managed to engage in multiple discussions.

Alright folks, I tried to not be so trigger happy with the quotes and stuff, please let me know if I did a better job not making a boring and long post. Gotta go now, I don't have time to edit my post before posting, so please try not to be too upset with any mistakes you've found. ^_^

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

@Twinkle: please, if you quote someone or something have a look before you post on the preview-button and check if the names of the one you are refering contain the player`s name. It`s an amount of work while reading back to find out, who posted/asked you something.  thank you very much!!!!

In this case I am not sure, if it`s Leprechaun, or Whoopin who asked you this. I reckon you refer to different posts of different player. At least it`s a discussion in progress about Twinkle and his way of accusing people and defending himself.

Spoiler: twentieth post

@Whoopin

skipped! 

Did you really? I honestly hope this is a joke, because I posted to help in our discussion, and it certainly won't get anywhere until you read my posts. I'm assuming it's a joke, right?

1) I haven't conveniently ignored anyone -- excuse me for not making thirty WoT a day, I have other things to do with my life too, ya know? ~_^ I will answer this, but I ask that you go back and read my post that you "skipped"(if you really did skip it). Not because it has anything to do with what you're asking, but just because it can help in furthering our discussion and trying to sort things out.

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 find it odd that he says "as blue as it gets" but then continues to say that I could possibly be a puppet with Llandy. If he is sure I'm a villager, then he wouldn't need to say that because it wouldn't really be a possibility in his mind. It sounds to me like he may want to keep "a foot in each camp" if you get my meaning. By saying I'm "A-okay", but then throwing out the possibility that I am a wolf with Llandy is counter-productive, IMO. It looks like he is trying to say, "I'm contributing to the Twinkle controversy," but he's not really contributing and he is potentially throwing more fuel in the fire of debate. The Llandy+Twinkle is a fine theory, don't get me wrong, but it's his contradiction that rubs me. His final assessment kinda pushes it all back aside, and goes back to me being innocent, but that blurb in the middle mixed with the rest of the post is slightly odd. He further dedicates his trust (that doesn't seem too trusting based on his comment in the middle) in me by nominating me for the watch.

Locke - I don't have enough to get a read on him. Lurker: Locke

Seems an odd vote for Locke, as I see the Lurker vote as means to punish inactive players, and Locke arrived late in the game, and has been contributing (not a heap, but enough that I'm pretty comfortable with his (?) level contributions). I think his contributions are deceitful, but he's active, that's for sure.


Pharaoh X Llandy - I'm split on her. Not in the sense that I can't get a read, because I can, but because there are both tells that make her appear an innocent and a wolf.

This makes me stop again, if me and Llandy are on the same side, then he should put me down as a "maybe" also, and certainly not trust me with the role of watch.

Phonemelter - Good job, I too can engage in quote wars that nobody will read. I did scan them, however, and I found nothing of value or input to anyone. Sometimes you slip a half-accusation in there and then back off like you're scared. Go on the hunt, damnit, if you're an innocent I want your brain to find wolves, not respond to quotes.

As much as I have disagreed with Phonemelter, I find his point valid in some cases (or at least something someone could think), and even though he has been heavily questioning me -- well heck, that's contributing to the wolf hunt for two possible reasons:

1) If I'm a wolf, it helps to find me and potential allies.

2) If I'm not, then it helps him figure that out, and allows us to narrow down out options.

Again, I found some of Phomelter's arguments poor, and I believe at one point I found it deceitful(of which I believe he just misworded something) , I am pretty assured of his innocence. He has done a fine job of furthering, IMO, useful discussion.

I'm not going to cristize or pick apart every LoS of his, but those are the ones I found odd.

Phonemelter - Good job, I too can engage in quote wars that nobody will read. I did scan them, however, and I found nothing of value or input to anyone. Sometimes you slip a half-accusation in there and then back off like you're scared. Go on the hunt, damnit, if you're an innocent I want your brain to find wolves, not respond to quotes.

What are you on about? Am I not allowed to engage in conversation with someone I find suspicious? You don't have to read the quote wars if you don't want to - the point is to pursue my suspects. Speaking of which, where have I backed off "like I am scared?" You should know having played many games with me that I do not back off like that. Do you think everything I have engaged in is useless? I've been talking about more than just Twinkie, you know.

I'm certain that you didn't read my entire post in that amount of time.

Did you just scan for your name, get insulted and made a pissed-off reply?

Dodged a question. Totally dodged it, doesn't bring any valid point to back this up. None. Zilch. Dodged that question very well and just counter question of which had no real point.

REGARDING WATCH: This is actually fascinating the more I think about it. Remember that in addition to the Watch position giving us information about movements, it also roleblocks the player. That's the crucial part. Interestingly, the movement part is actually not that worthwhile, because we could very well target an innocent and we all know there's quite a few roles in this game. I imagine later in the game, this role might prove more useful, but at the beginning it's really just going to be confusing and/or reveal an innocent special. The roleblocking aspect, though, is substantially more powerful. Here's a radical idea - what if we give it to someone we find completely suspicious as part of a "second lynch" so to speak? We essentially completely demobilize a villain from being able to do anything. Then we can just deliberately ignore whatever they find on the watch.

I initially chose Whoopin because he'd know who to follow better than anyone else and what conclusions to draw.

Totally disagree with this, as I have said, if I was a wolf I would pounce (pun intended) on the chance to take the watch. With this said, why would Whoopin be the choice? If you go with the logic of a "second lynch" this makes no sense based on your reasoning because he isn't really super suspicious on your LoS. However, the reason you give is "because he'll know who to track and how to use the information" -- like I've said before, you have him as slightly suspicious, so why would we entrust the role to that kind of person? One who has not gained our trust? Now I know you've changed your vote, but then we come to the same problem again -- me!

Again, you have me in your LoS as certainly a villager, but as you elaborate, you express that I am on Llandy's side and Llandy is an either or, so I'm confused as to why you trust me. Happy, but confused and suspicious. Also, it's not accurate that I am certainly on Llandy's side, as others have pointed out, these are our options:

1) Llandy and Twinkle are wolves (as you said)
2) Llandy and Twinkle are innocent (as you said)
3) Llandy wolf, Twinkle innocent
4) Llandy innocent, Twinkle wolf

@ Eternal

Where do you weigh on on this lurker vote stuff? I know lurkers were a plague in Caravan as well as Dwarfcraft. Are you going to lurker vote people you find suspicious, or will you use it for its intended purpose?

I don't know. If I find a good enough reason to lurker vote a particular non-lurker, I'll go for it, but so far I'm not really convinced to do that for any person.

Idk about anyone else, but I do not feel as though Locke has been lurking.

He later posts this:

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.

The **** are you talking about? Nobody looked at Seff until my hunt that nobody seemed to read, and what possible meaningful contributions could you be referring to?

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

And fails, as far as I can tell, to respond to this:

Define "looked at Seff." If you mean "make a post-by-post" analysis (which is somewhat risky to do because you might see "what you want to see" if you have a strong opinion about the person), then yes, you were the only person to do so. However, you aren't the first person to have criticized Seff's behavior.

I would like to point out that I feel very solidly about Phonemelter's contributions, and disagree with Eternal's analysis of him, so much right now, that I trust him quite a bit: Watch Un-vote: Llandy; Vote: Phonemelter

And that's what I got for you Whoopin, I admit I paid little heed to him earlier in the game, but have been keeping track of him since his LoS. Your thoughts, Whoopin?

It means youre food for a Cybernetic Jabberwocky 

Cool. Always wondered what it looked like from the inside of a Cybernetic Jabberwocky. ^_^

@Llandy
Okay, seems like a good idea to remove it (which looks as though it has already been done) just to avoid anyone thinking as you have pointed out.

@Phonemelter
3) Yes, it is, but I came back swiftly and replied to what I missed. Guess that's not much for you, and true, you do not need to believe me. It is true, but you're totally justified in not believing it. Although, I would point out that I have pointed out that Whoopin has brought up hypocritical points, of which he has not found the time to reply to. Stuff of which he thought was pretty solid to prove me as a wolf, no less.

5) I think I get what you're saying -- I was offended that you didn't think I was contributing (and this is simply built on a level of pride, which is probably something I should work on) because to me, all my post seemed to contribute a lot. But following your gut isn't something I can criticize. I can see the difference now of what your saying about me VS. Lep on contribution level thingy. Bottom line is that I have contributed, it just wasn't the contribution you found a villager would give or how they would give it, am I correct? Or am I still not understand? (bear with me here, bud ~_^)

Out of curiosity, does Lep seem suspicious to you now, rather than as to previously?

@Lep

1) I agree, I think we've tuckered out that argument.

2) I guess it feels late because of all the serious discussion going on and how many pages we've burned through. By this point I personally would have cut the jokes in something that I find important, but that's just me. It feels like we're at the serious stage to me.

@Locke

Okay, so you say I'm getting way too worked up over arguments that can't convict someone --  honestly, if you're innocent and getting convicted of something you're not guilty of, and on top of it on the grounds of something not worth getting convicted on, aren't you going to feel frustrated? I should think a villager would be frustrated to see a poorly hatched argument, with no real reason to find these claims accurate, thrown at him and hammered in as "facts".

Wait? How the **** are bull**** arguments ever good? Wouldn't anyone be frustrated if inaccurate and dumb arguments are thrown at them? I mean, bull**** arguments aren't even real arguments to begin with; they're inaccurate lying pieces of crap thrown together. Why would you want to debate that? How is asking for non-bull**** at all bad? Because I want to bring things back into my control? Give me a break, I've shot ****en holes in every bull**** argument brought my way, why would I be scared of them? The only thing they do is clutter the thread with worthless lies and nonsense that get thrown to the trash as soon as I post and destroy them all.

Next, I did go on the offense in this way: I made your arguments look like the biased lying crap they were, and then pointed out that your reasoning for this biased **** was most likely because you were biased, what more do I need to say? Honestly, you seem to be looking too hard to convict me on grounds that don't even exist, you're grasping at straws pathetically in hopes of attaining some shred of argument (that really isn't even an argument) in hopes of hanging me. Unvote: Lep; Vote: Locke.

I would like people's thoughts on this, and I'm confident enough in this line of reasoning to request the knife be used on him.

Really? Reasoning? Oh Good Lord! Delivery me from this ****! I just showed how pathetic your "reasoning" is.

If you want to fight fairly, bring up some real evidence and not this other **** you're throwing my way. Try asking me question about previous posts, or thoughts on others.

@AWdeV

Locke already has me down for a lynch, just wants to make sure that her main suspect doesn't get away, that's all.


~Twinkle, who was looking forward to posting all day

Twinkle first refer to Whoopins LoS and the fact that he is totally ignoring him. First of all: that`s not very friendly, even if Twinkles first steps and accusations might seem artificially to someone being experienced.
Twinkle thinks Whoopins theory of the pairing "Twinke-Llandy" has been made to raise some discussion without any hint or logic behind it.

Twinkle agrees on Phonemelter being probably innocent and votes him for watch. Criticises Eternal due to none answering questions and his thoughts about Locke being a lurker.
At least answers to the criticism of Locke and votes him for his "bad" arguments.

Spoiler: twenty-first post

@Locke

How does who you are have to do with why I would get angry? Who are you to say that knowing you are a wolf wouldn't make me angry? I'm getting mad, not based on who you are, but rather because of the stupid arguments and assessments you are trying to relentlessly throw my way. When does the stupidity end??? Innocent or wolf, it's going to get me frustrated, and as I said, who are you to decide why I would get frustrated?

As to why I did not immediately vote for you, there are two reasons:

1) I was still waiting for a reply from Lep, and wanted to see his response in case there was anything that would greatly further my suspicion.

And 2) I wanted to see your reply and find out whether you would stick to your guns and grasp pathetically at straws, or whether you would realize how dumb your arguments were, and perhaps acknowledge that.

As to me using the word "suspect" --  really? Are we going to turn this into a word game? Based on my previous post, do you really think that's what I meant? I didn't, and you and I both know that.

As to the questions that you actually asked this time:

1) Ones that are helpful in furthering useful conversation.

2) I'm going to capslock why I am mad so that you don't miss it this time: BECAUSE YOU KEEP THROWING BULL**** ARGUMENTS AT ME. And I don't feel in danger at all of being lynched with your stupid reasoning because I am very confident I have brought to the light just how pathetic and biased they are.

3) Again I'm not angry because of who you are, but rather how stupid you are being. It's frustrating fighting against pathetic assessments after you've shot them down again and again, and yet they keep coming.

4)

Why did you not launch into suspicions against Locke despite having believed his arguments against you were "biased" and "deceitful" for some time?

I thought shooting holes in your argument and pointing out how they are biased was offensive. What would you have had me done? Unlike you, I'm not going to bring up pointless or non-existent stuff to try and convict someone.

5)

Why does your vote fall when you still believe Locke actually just "suspects" you?

*sigh* Locke, you're killing me, read the damn posts. I am not voting for you because you are suspecting me (otherwise I have many people I should be voting for), but because of all the crapshoot arguments you've thrown at me, and despite me proving them wrong and utterly destroying them, you're still sticking to them and throwing even more **** my way, not to mention saying stuff like "if he knew I was a wolf he wouldn't be acting this way"(which I might add is just a heap of horse ****, again, who are you to make that call?) And then saying I haven't gone on the offensive-- yeah, I didn't jump down your throat and make up stuff and bring up "argument" that had no real ground like you did --  but I called you biased, and your arguments were biased, why would I need to go any further?

~Twinkle, who just can't see a innocent standing by something so pathetic

Quote-war between Locke and Twinkle. Twinkle accusing and suspecting Locke for raising unreasonable accusations against him, Locke otherwise stating those suspicions as kind of OMGUS (Twinkle votes Locke for criticising him).

Spoiler: twenty-second post

Sorry for the double post, I got so caught up with Locke that I forgot to comment on Phonemelter.

With that having been said, you might find the answer to your question is going to be unsatisfying - still on the fence since I do not have a good read, but I agree that there are a few iffy spots.

I'm actually pretty happy with your answer, and you pointed out some things I over looked. I am surprised you are still on the fence, but I really can't expect you to be sure of everyone, because I myself am still on the fence with quite a few as well.

which I guess means he finds small questioning to be suspicious, whereas a one-person inquisition is better (please correct me if I am wrong)? If this is his view, I'm surprised he hasn't employed it.

What I would like to talk about is this ^. I do feel as though you are right in the sense that he hasn't been asking a lot of questions, but in his defense, I feel as though since I did engage him he has at least started dropping more thoughts, such as can be seen here: here.

Out of curiosity, in regards to Lep's regular play --  is he usually a sort of "leap forward and start discussing very actively," or is this normal play for him?

~Twinkle, who apologizes again for the double post

Twinkle agrees totally with Phonemelter on Leprechauns behaviour- who finds as well some iffy points-  asks, if Leprechauns behaviour might be based on his normal playstyle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As promised Part 5+6 and other answers will follow tomorrow. Good night everyone!

 

[Xardob]

@ Xardob Could you tell me the main points against Twinkle that justify the lynch of Twinkle? You can wait with your answer until my parts and opinion are written down tomorrow, so you can`t worry me copying or bandwagon on anything...

I'm copying everything so I wouldn't hold against you if you also did so.

I'm suspicious of Twinkle because of Locke's case, you can find it here, here, here and here.

 

[snoopy-91]

@ Xardob Could you tell me the main points against Twinkle that justify the lynch of Twinkle? You can wait with your answer until my parts and opinion are written down tomorrow, so you can`t worry me copying or bandwagon on anything...

I'm copying everything so I wouldn't hold against you if you also did so.

I'm suspicious of Twinkle because of Locke's case, you can find it here, here, here and here.

sarcasm? 
thanks for the links!

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

@Llandy:
Before we start, as you seem to have taken my last post pretty personally, I meant no offense and I obviously hold you in pretty damn high esteem in general. I just don't enjoy playing Werewolf with you.

And I've noted it for future.

Please don't take this is a slight or me trying to talk down to you, I'm aware that you're more experienced playing this game than I am

Probably not, this is my third game.

but here's my thoughts on your playstyle and why I disagree with it:
a) This is a game. Your posts come across as overly and needlessly aggressive, turning what should be a game into a competition.

Interesting. I wonder what other people think about this.

@Other people: what do you think about this?

Try to limit yourself to the questions that really matter instead of making a reply to every single last thing a person writes in their post.

I DID limit myself to the important bits.

c) My main issue with how you play is the aggression and needless antagonism in your posts. You play like you're the only person in the game and everyone else is just an NPC for you to 'beat'. Maybe that's how you enjoy playing, but for me at least it means that every time you respond to one of my posts it makes me want to ignore it because I don't enjoy having a conversation with you in the context of this game. If you asked the same questions with a little more politeness behind the phrasing it'd go a long way.

Noted, but I doubt I'll change this.

Because we have no indication of their alignment. Though having booted you out of the mansion when I was opposing you being there and now me out of the church after you've struck up our Day 1 opposition again I'm beginning to suspect that their motivation is to attempt to egg on our discussion/argument as they feel that it's a useful distraction, making me lean towards them being scum.

Interesting. Any thoughts yet as to who the room-locker might be? Do you believe that our discussion is the sole reason why the Church was locked, or just an added "bonus" ?

What were you expecting me to say instead? "Hey this is an attempt to pressure another player, but please ignore that I said this so you'll actually pressure them?". And again, at no point have I said that I didn't think you were suspicious, (a.k.a likely a villain), just that the very specific theory was given in order to give people something interesting to pull apart and keep discussion on you going during my absence, which as previously stated, didn't work.

Here is the massive flaw with your plan.

1) The theory was mad. Too mad for anybody to tackle. Automatic fail right there because nobody would touch it with a ten foot pole.

2) As you have stated, my play style in this game appears "overly and needlessly aggressive". As well, I am here, every day, posting. A lot. Making discussion and generating it. Never at any point in this game has there been a potential issue of people NOT "keeping the discussion on me going". You could have contributed some suspicion onto a wide range of people but you targeted me for some reason which, correct me if I'm wrong, amounts to: your suspicions about my changing my plans after campaigning for Watch, claiming I have some theories I want to test but then not divulging them, trying to get me to slip up by attempting to get me to engage in WoT regarding your accusation, and now also to keep discussion on me going in your absence.

You've backed off from me now because you "lack the context of Day 1" but if I had responded to your Big Case in such a way that actually allowed you to further push for a lynch of me, instead of basically ignoring it, would you also still be backing off?

Your argument seemed to be based entirely around his absence being suspicious and using that as an argument for why he should be lynched.

"So Llandy, I've missed 35 pages of Day 1 but I note your case on Wolf seems to be based entirely around his absence. Can you point out where you raise an actual case against him with some valid points?"

"Yes, as a matter of fact, here is my Day 1 LoS on him, including a post-by-post analysis of the things he has said, and my overall thoughts on aspects of his play which I have found suspicious."

"Oh, fair enough."

Soots seems to be about his actual active behavior and interactions with a known villain.

Huh?? Soot's case on Wolf did NOT include anything at all about his "interactions with a known villain" because we didn't know Moose was a villain until the end of Day 1, and Soot died at the beginning of Day 2 with no posts in between.

Why would you support his lynch first and foremost if there is nothing outwardly suspicious about his behaviour? Is "Moose's defense of him" the only reason you can think of for this?

First me not reading back over the entirety of Day 1 means I'm a bad player who can't play effectively and now you're criticizing me for changing my mind about a player based on evidence against them that you yourself pointed out to me.

Pretty much, yeah. But I'm going to assume, however, that you've already weighed up a possible packmate defence vs suspicion-generating play on Moose's behalf and think it more likely that Moose was defending his packmate rather than trying to 1) make himself look better if Wolf was lynched blue, or 2) make Wolf look more suspicious if Moose was lynched red. And if you've considered those things and dismissed them in favour of a Wolf/Moose pack connection, that's fine. You just hadn't mentioned anything like this as a potential so I was trying to gauge how much you had read into Moose's posts, and what angles you were looking at this from.

And yes Moose's defense of him is the primary reason I find him suspicious, as is the case I imagine for most of the other people considering voting for him or already voting for him. He's the least worst candidate we have.

If you're considering Moose's interactions as primary reasons why somebody should be lynched, what do you think about the following:

• Moose's vote on Seff. What does this say to you? Easy vote on an innocent? Easy vote on a packmate knowing it probably won't go anywhere? Something else? What do you think about Seff in general?

• In his LoS, Moose states of Whoopin that perhaps his desire to be watch is indicative of some sort of special role. When I pointed out the huge mistake Moose made in pointing a Special-FoS at Whoopin, he admitted it was a bad thing he did. But why do you think he did it? Do you think he was just careless in his out-loud speculation? Or maybe he was pointing his finger at his packmate, to try and make Whoopin look more innocent? Or pointing his finger at an innocent to try and indicate to his packmates that they should watch Whoopin carefully, or maybe attempt to follow him into a room for some purpose? Something else? What do you think about Whoopin in general?

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

@Melter

It's taken me until now to realise that MaHuD's "Llandy and Melter were trying to gather a bunch of people and charge at Xardob" post was actually referring to our half-hearted threats to potentially try to force Xardob to post some of his cases on his suspects by throwing some votes at him.



MaHuD

You should not put so much weight into the banter of three very bored players. If Melter or I were actually completely serious about what we threatened, we would have done it then, since there was bugger all to do at the time. But like Melter said, if you have some concerns with Xardob's play, then why should some players discussing putting pressure on him be of such concern to you, especially since neither of us actually went ahead and did what we talked about?

Have you read enough of the Day 2 posts yet to get be able to post some solid suspicions/hunting?



@Eternal

Still waiting that LoS you mentioned three (?) days ago.



@Lep

Still waiting for a meat-free post from you about your suspects and thoughts today.



@AwdeV

Hope you got your school work finished. Contribute thoughts/suspicions soon?



@Wolf

Your thoughts/suspicions would be useful too, and sooner rather than later.



@Velmu

Deadline is in 3 days. Do you have anything at all to contribute today?



@Everyone

Did any of you, upon learning of the "room locker" on Day 1, entertain the idea that this was anything other than a scum role?



YOUR LYNCH COUNTDOWN!

I wish that could be embedded into a post...

 

[Lost-Lamb]

@Everyone

Did any of you, upon learning of the "room locker" on Day 1, entertain the idea that this was anything other than a scum role?

Clearly scum trying to keep me from my precious communion wine... I mean I guess it could be Adagod rolling dice, but I highly doubt it.

Room: Tavern, ah well. Back to drinking with the plebs.

 

[Phonemelter]

Room: WhoreGuardhouse

 

[Whoopin]

Gonna take the 70-410 Exam with my students tomorrow, after that Ill be free to play that evening and this weekend,

 

[CryoNomad]

Vote: Eternal

 

[snoopy-91]

Part 5

Spoiler: twenty-third post

Back after the weekend. Read through the whole nine pages I missed and was shocked to see no reply from Whoopin or Locke to me. I know I saw Whoopin post once, but it was only very small, so he may be busy. Locke, on the other hand, I saw active a few hours after my last post, and am surprised he/she hasn't said anything in regards to our discussion. I still have to read Llandy's insight on Wolf, but for the moment I must depart.

~Twinkle, who will be back later to read Llandy's Great Wall of Text

Nothing important.

Spoiler: twenty-fourth post

Heads up, Adaham. I won't be around over the next three days unless I find time enough to get away from the relatives at some point.

Now to read the post I haven't read today...

~Twinkle, who wishes all fellow players happy holidays

Holiday wishes!

Spoiler: twenty-fifth post

Okat, got some stuff here.

@Phone

I noticed you totally left yourself off of your "Suspicion meter" hmmmm..... ~_^

Twinkie - Loves getting into quote wars more than me. Had problems with him earlier on, but made good points and reasonable responses. However, his frustration and dismissing of arguments with "NO YOU" and overreactions, while potentially due to having to respond to similar points over and over, is a red flag for me. Hasn't really make cases on people unless asked for his thoughts, mostly attacks the people who find him suspicious. A bit torn, maybe slightly innocent.

Can I get elaboration on the bolded please? If you meant I got very worked up over people who were attacking me with (insert whatever words I used to describe their arguments) then yes, yes I did. If you mean I actually started pointing fingers at them, well, not really. Locke is the only exception to that rule simply because his/her arguments were crap and unfounded and he/she spent much time playing word games with me. To further elaborate -- you found me suspicious, but I think you're very genuine. I went and attacked people's arguments on Llandy without anyone first finding me suspicious. I went after Lep even though he said nothing about me, and I named Whoopin long before he went at me. So I'm assuming you mean I got worked up, right?

@Xardob

AWdeV, are you sure you don't want to give me that knife? I didn't want to keep pushing you into acting, but I think at this point we kind need to. We need something to move this game past the point of speculating on possible scum, and a death would be the perfect thing. So, if you're not willing to use it, pass it to someone who is. It doesn't even need to be me, though I don't know if there's someone else who would use it right away.

Noooottt sure I like this. Why does he need you to knife someone to get things moving? Why can't he knife someone, or why shouldn't he give it to someone else to knife? And further, can you elaborate on how killing someone will get things moving? (I'm new to Werewolf, so if there's something I'm unaware of let me know) This is how I see it going down if AwdeV gives you the Knife:

Xardob: *guts someone*
Everyone else: Why did you stab X and not Y or Z?
Xardob: Names reason he feels X is the proper target.
Everyone: Some pick apart his reasoning and others agree. Votes are re-cast.
Summary: Not much to go off of but who you knifed and why, and I don't see that being too helpful because you'll just be going off of hunch, and then we'll be left deciding whether that hunch is actually a hunch, or whether you have outside knowledge and wanted to get rid of an innocent with an easy excuse (e.g. "gut feeling") to cover your butt. The only possible purpose I see for this at all being useful is to see if AWdeV actually does posses the knife, because right now we really don't know for sure.

@Locke

Be surprised; time to skim new posts =/= time and effort to write this post. You made no new points, and seemed to miss mine, continuing in your diatribe of how "bull****" and "pathetic" my accusations were. My response would be to copy and paste my last posts concerning you. Though I have my doubts, they're mainly along the lines of "maybe he's just like this..."

Are you ******** kidding? Please tell me your kidding....

I totally dissmised your argument, pointed out why it was wrong, told you what kind of question to ask (because you asked) and you won't give me the time of the day to say anything other than  "I'm right"?  Just to make sure I'm not the only one who thinks this (because maybe I'm just too frustrated with you) does anyone else feel like Locke could do some more elaboration, or provide further explanation for his/her word twisting? Anyone?

@Llandy
Ohhhh, someone is gonna give a huge in-depth post just on me! Sounds exciting, can't wait! ^_^

~Twinkle, who only got up to Locke's post and now has gotta go to bed

Twinkle is answering and defending himself against Phonemelter, Xardob, and Locke. Clarifies that he isn`t as implied suspecting everyone, who is attacking him, but just facing the accusations being made and defending himself. The question is, if the fact that - as many people mention- his way of reacting nervous or let`s say upset to the people, who question him, is understandable or not. As the discussion about him came into being quite early in the game, it is in my eyes strangely that every word/ even question towards him is critically observed AND moreover is taken seriously as if it comes to a all-or nothing showdown. Don`t get me wrong, but an innocent is aware of wolves being around him and trying to drag him into discussion, but even here villagers have many options to react in a hunting way. By finding hints and inconsistencies within the wolf`s attack. Your reactions often sound like OMGUS-reactions than analysing why he/she criticises you for good/bad reasons.

Spoiler: twenty-sixth post

Well, I'm back from the endless hoard of relatives whom only seem to like you because of the many deserts you serve at your house. I really do dislike this season.

Well, well, a **** load of post to read..... this outta be fun. *sigh*

~Twinkle, stepping back ten or so pages

Short post after absence without real content.

Spoiler: twenty-seventh post

@Llandy's Analysis of Twinkle (that's me!^_^)

As others have pointed out, Twinkle has done very little else except defend himself and answer questions/posts aimed at him. He commented on very little else to date (exception being his recent questioning of Xardob’s knife campaign, and pointing out some bits of Eternal’s LoS which were rather iffy). I’ve found that when Twinkle does comment on things, he does offer some good insights and it helps me get a feel for where he’s coming from with his observations.

I suppose that's all based on how much you feel is a comfortable amount of contributions. I haven't really saw the need to comment on much else, because I feel that most has either already been said, or I can't make up my own mind. But 'tis true, I have commented on little else that hasn't been addressed to me. I would like to point out that I didn't even bring up Eternal, if it wasn't for Whoopin prodding me, I probably would have held in my thoughts for a little while longer, perhaps even waiting until Day 2 to get a better read...... Guess that didn't help my case any, but still, I didn't even bring that up; it was addressed to me. So yes, at the exception of Xardob's knife idea, when you were getting attacked at the beginning, and the Whoopin Wagon, I have talked little about things that have not been addressed to me.

Is their anything particular you would like me to respond to, or would you just prefer I voice my opinions a more in the future without being first asked to do so?

Unfortunately, his lack of commenting on much else/defending himself too much has had a rather detrimental effect on my view of him. In a way he’s a sort of tabula rasa analysis for me, because he’s not only new to WW’ing (and WW’ing with me) but also pretty new to the forum and unlike a lot of the veteran (speaking of longevity, not WW experience) players who I know personally, or the players who I’ve been in WW games with more recently, I have absolutely no experience of Twinkle, his personality, habits, or any meta to call upon. But I don’t feel that this is the play of somebody who says he’s played “maybe fifty” games of something that is “very similar” to Werewolf.

I'm probably in the low forties, but still, general concept. So I don't seem very experienced to you, eh? Fair enough, but what does this make you to lean towards with you feelings to me? More wolfy? More innocent?

Although I can see Twinkle as an offended innocent, due to the vehemence of his arguments with Locke, I can’t rule out that this could be a “newbie” wolf play. Because NOBODY here has any experience of how Twinkle plays WW, he can basically play however he likes and nobody will come along and say “Hey, Twinkle never plays like this when he’s innocent!” or “Twinkle always plays like this as an innocent!”

I'll give you this -- I'm not new to tricking people. Been there and done that for a good amount of games, so I'm not any newbie wolf play. However, the alternative option is that I am an experienced wolf trying to come across as a newb to justify my play. However, this is not the case as this is how I usually play, but I can't expect you to take my word for it, so you'll just have to find out. ~_^

Furthermore, he’s given an example of a game he plays, in which he and his other packmates banded together whilst he went on the offensive, and they had such a good game that all four of them survived to the end, presumably through clever use of WIFOM, strategy and deception. He comments on Whoopin having “a potential Watch bandwagon” (which would fit with his “we did this because it was obvious and nodbody was expecting the obvious” game in which he and his buddies won) but then uses “I can’t be a wolf because I’m doing this, and a wolf wouldn’t do this because it’s too obvious” type of excuses when accused by others of defending me.

Legitimate point. I believe I said something along the lines of "I'm a spotlight player right now, it would suit the wolves better to be in Lep's 'grey area' position rather than my front line position." More or less, that is what I said, if you are convinced of this, then the question is: to whom am I aligned? Like I said, on the Whopin Wagon I could pick out a few allies for Whoopin (among whom I feel Lep would be one). If you can find some people you think I am aligned with you can make a good case, and even if you can't, you can still make a case for it(just not as good).

I’m listing Twinkle as orange right now, simply because of his heavily defensive style. I’m not saying defending yourself is a bad thing, especially since I do it a lot too, and so do others. It’s just that right now there’s TOO much defending and not enough commenting on other things. I’d rather take a “wait and see” approach with Twinkle, because he might just be an innocent having a bad first game with us, so for the moment I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. Now that he’s caught up with the thread I want to see a wider range of contributions for him.

I want to point out the bolded --  yeah, I did catch up, but you will also notice my post where I said I was gonna be absent for the next three days or so, so just incase you're further disappointed with my contribution, it is only fair to say that I did give a heads up. Next, I do not believe I am having a bad first game, true, it is a little bumpy, and most people are pretty suspicious of me because I am that unknown, but I'm enjoying myself and feel I've done a fairly good job of presenting my cases. Here are my thoughts on this: I am an unknown and a new person, so some of you may feel bad lynching me simply because you don't like/understand my play. And by all means, if I'm soaring on you're radar in the wrong way, you should follow your gut. For instance, I've never seen any of you play before, yet I went after Lep because I didn't like his play, can you blame me for that? Perhaps this is how Lep always plays, but I had no way of knowing, so I followed my instinct. Following your instinct on day one is very important.

So don't feel timid about voting for me if you don't like my play, because while it very well could be the way I usually play, it very well may not be.

Now just to shoot down an accusation I feel is coming -- Why do I feel Locke is a Wolf? Because according to what I said above "following you gut is good"? Simple, because Locke brought up what he/she portrayed as facts, and mixed with a little bit of word-twisting, tried to make an argument. A gut feeling on Day 1 is justified, if it is only that. As soon as you throw details in, I can argue, and I did argue with Locke and basically shot down his/her arguments, yet he/she couldn't dispute them to a manner of which I found compelling(or accurate) and so I found him/her very suspicious.

I also find his posts hard to read, as he replies to many people in one long post but doesn’t make it clear with quotes which posts he’s referring to. Twinkle, when you read this, please consider just replying to one or two people at a time. We’d rather see five or six shorter posts from you (don’t worry about multi-posting, it’s fine here and in fact sometimes preferred) than one long post with different numbered points ignored/addressed with with non-linkable quotes.

Gotcha. So with that I will end this post(following Llandy's advice) and continuing reading, although I can't promise a second post until tomorrow. But who knows, maybe we'll get lucky.

~Twinkle, page by page

I really don`t like your way of requesting assistance for participating. Why do you aks others what to answer? That`s pointless in my eyes. That`s not the contribution of someone hunting - finding people making weird questions/argumentations/speculation and then searching for the clues behind it. You are mostly being asked, or refering to a few topics already in discussion - like Llandy, Xardob-knife so on....

" I have talked little about things that have not been addressed to me I have talked little about things that have not been addressed to me" --> but why? you admit it, without explaining the reasons behind it.

I have the feeling that you have a hard time on finding topics/ formulating suspicions on someone else due to the fact that you don`t know how to hunt. Can be an innocent, who is nervous and unsure, or a unexperienced wolf, who doesn`t know where to start. Mh, quite hard to tell. If you were an unsure innocent your insecurity is contrary to the outrage of your defence. Isn`t it?

Spoiler: twenty-eight post

@Phonemelter
1) You want an LoS then I'll give it to you, but because I have to go to a party within the hour I doubt I will have time atm.

2)

I'm really tempted to vote for you because this sentence feels sketchy as hell.

Eh, sorry you don't like it, but that's how it is whether you like it or not.

3)

Except now you've fallen back into a "grey area" because since the defense of Llandy, you haven't been proactive in taking a stance on much of anything from what I can remember.

Okay, that is wrong, but I'm assuming you just misworded that... Of course, that could also just be from your perspective. Since Llandy's defense, I took a firm stance on Lep, and since had to counter and comment with others, I believe I expressed suspicion with Xardob's knife campaign, and had some thoughts on Eternal which were expressed.

I'm assuming what you *actually* meant to say was this, "Except you haven't commented on much unless someone asked you to." Which, as I have already admitted time and time again, is pretty much true.

3)

What does it matter who you are aligned with? A lot of times a good wolf will make it difficult to find out who they are connected to - purely making a case based off who might be your packies is not a good way of trying to implicate someone. Sure, I think about that kind of speculation a lot and have a few pages written in my personal notes about potential packies, but I will only act on those if one of the top candidates ends up a wolf and makes those situations more likely - who someone might be aligned with doesn't matter as much as how they have played on Day 1 in terms of finding wolves on Day 1 in my opinion. Saying "try to find my allies if I am a wolf" is not a good way of trying to defend yourself.

*shrug* Fair, enough, she can make a case either way, it just seems to be stronger if you throw in some allies (of which I apparently have in short supply this game).

@Llandy

So far you come across as neither innocent or wolfy but I am suspicious of your lack of input overall. I've found little that I dislike in what you've said but it's the things that you haven't said which I am more concerned with. I know you're suspicious of Locke, and that's fine, but you risk falling into the same problem as Moss -- you're too fixated on one player and not spreading enough suspicion around. That doesn't help me to get a read on you, and in itself is somewhat concerning to me.

Fair enough, as I have said, I have withheld my thoughts. As of tomorrow, before the New Year's Eve party, I promise I will have my LoS up, and my thoughts at your disposal, at which point you can choose whether I deserve to do the hangman's dance or not.

One thing I will say is that, yes, I have become very tunnelvisioned. I did the same with Lep, yes it's bad, but it's just the way things grate me and then I just stick to 'em like glue. Something I will try to stop.

I don't have to find some people I think you're aligned with. I don't have to find some people for Moss to be aligned with, or Whoopin, or Wolf-boy, or any of my suspects. All I have to do is present enough questionable behaviour to make a case for lynching ONE wolf, and take it from there after that. I'm already concerned about my ability to find even ONE wolf, so why would I waste my time trying to nail three, or four, or five, all on Day 1?

There are one or two players for whom I've said "I could see this person having a connection to this person or being packmates with that person because of XYZ" but it's all very WIFOM and as I have said -- several times -- in this thread, I will speculate my ass off about rooms, or potential villain roles, or the mechanics of the Watch and Lurker votes, but I don't want to speculate about pack setups so soon, nor to start forming elaborate but potentially imaginary connections between people. I feel that is the most unhelpful thing to do in the entire game.

BTW, are you aware that this statement came of as an "I dare you to find some of my packmates (because I have covered my tracks so well that you'll never be able to pick us all out, muahahahah)" type post?   Possibly just my imagination, of course, but that's how it sounded to me.

*shrug* I do get that, but in my personal preference I like to start speculating the teams, as well. Apparently you think it is the most worthless thing to do on day 1(to each their own, I suppose ~_^) but that's usually how I like to roll. Maybe you don't have to share your speculations, but I prefer to make them nonetheless.

And I totally see what you're saying with the "covered my tracks" comment after it's been pointed out. So yeah, go ahead, I dare you. But seriously, that's not how I meant it --  as if you have any reason to believe me. 

As to your questions:

What do you think of Snoopy and her Infection?

Adagod, may he live forever, threw her as infected. Why? ****, I don't know, but I do know he wouldn't do it without giving us a way to try and cure her. I think she's made a good choice to search for that "cure" in the Dr. office. Does this guarantee Snoop's innocence? Certainly not, but I am more at ease with her than with others, and not to mention if she doesn't find a cure, then she'll be dead anyway, and we won't have too much to worry about. But I do't think Adagod (this is solely from my experience with other Storytellers) would throw a wolf in with an infection.

What do you think about my speculation of a Thief role?

I suppose it's a start. I could see Adagod giving the thief the option of stealing key from a house to limit the amount of buildings in the area, or maybe steal the cure  (if there is one). Heck, maybe Adagod has items lying all over the place that we can discover and use to our advantage... or disadvantage.

What do you think about Moss accusing me of being a Converter?

Unfounded. (my favorite word ) Sure, you certainly could be the converter, as a matter of fact, I could be the converter, Whoopin, Phone, or anyone really. It is a theory, I'll give it that much, but it's stretched, and I don't find it very compelling.

What do you think about the Mansion being locked and the circumstances surrounding that?

I don't think it's fluff. It's gotta be some role doing something, and I suspect whomever it was didn't want you preforming whatever experiment you were planning. I don't find the thought of you stealing the key very good, because I believe your whole idea about the "experiment" (whether real or not) would have bought you at least another day.

What do you think of AW stabbing Velmu, and him turning out to be an innocent/special?

I think it's damned unfortunate.

I don't know what to do with Lamb, Seff, Shatari or Velpu (been a while since any of them said anything).

I'm most suspicious actually of Whoopin and I feel either Ejnomad or Eternal are scum too. Perhaps both, perhaps none but they're both acting erratic and hatey-lovey with eachother which makes me vaguely think they're trying to distance from eachother.

This is where things get... erm... a bit sketchy for me.

Because I suspected him.

I should probably have paid better attention to the vote counts as he was probably the one most likely to be lynched and then I should've picked a different target.

Like Wolf, or something.

He clearly states his main suspects, and Velmu is "undecided" so I don't see why he'd nail him. Before I go any further, though, it is possible for him to be a wolf with a knife, correct? If that is possible, I must say I find this an unlikely case, for if a wolf possessed the knife, there is a great risk at bringing his knife to the public. If I had possession of the knife, and I was a wolf, I would knife someone without letting anyone known, and then watch the innocents scramble around in a mad attempt to make heads or tails of the situation. With that said, this could also possibly be a ploy for trust, and he's just hoping to squeak by with the extra kill and hope he doesn't get too much heat because it was simply a "day 1 hunch".  Another option could be that he wants Llandy fitted for the noose, but he doesn't want to knife her because he may feel that that would draw too much attention and suspicion his way. By getting rid of the #1 lynch, he is setting up the #2 lynch for the hangings, which is a way he could effectively remove someone he considers a threat.

And like Nipple said, it's helpful when people talk, so I too would like to hear your suspicions and reasons. Maybe not a full LoS if you're short on time, but your most suspicious people and reasons for thinking them so would be a nice start.

And I will get a full LoS up tomorrow, but for now, a minor summary is yours:

Locke: For reasons already expressed.
Lep: Not sold on his innocence, but I'm moving further from nailing him as a suspect since he's been adding more than he had previously, and for jumping off the Whoopin Wagon. This could, of course, all be a ploy, but I'm not as suspicious as before.
Eternal: Things just aren't adding up with his LoS and me for watch(which he has still yet to answer).
Llandy: I dunno, just receiving too much heat for stuff that I don't warrant as solid stuff. Not to mention, if she was a wolf I  think she'd leave me well enough alone because I seem to be getting heat for siding with her, and she most likely(unless she has something very devious in mind) wouldn't want lose a possible innocent whom she has believing she is Innocent. I'm pretty convinced.
AWdeV: Weird knifing choice, but I'm leaning towards innocent just cuase his actions seem a little on the risky side for a Wolf

The rest will come tomorrow as I have got to go, and I still have to read from page 75 or whatever it was.

Quick question though,after seeing Velmu's death, I'm assuming that the role of the person is revealed upon their lynching? If so, I didn't know that(which is good to know now), because we play it differently in Curse of Ne-Gok-Sa.

~Twinkle, who notes he isn't of age to drink, and thinks that should be a a poll option

Short conversation between Phonemelter and Twinkle. Phonemelter disliking Twinkles contribution due to same topics.
Mostly answering questions of Llandy depending on Llandy opinion about Twinkle himself and Llandy explaining her way of hunting. Besides that discussion about me being infected, thief-role, converter-role and the Mansion being locked.

Twinkle making short subsumption how he sees the knife-problematic with AWceV and why he thinks a wolf wouldn`t claim.

At least Twinkle gives us a short LoS stating only Llandy as being innocent and Locke/Eternal as his main suspects. Only his point against Eternal I can`t find in previous postings. Maybe I have overlooked it.
Locke seems "legit" to Twinkles way of thinking, although I think his criticism and reaction to Lockes not that quallenging questions odd.

Spoiler: twenty-ninth post

Room: Dr. Office Oops, almost forgot that I'm almost out of time.

@Adagod
I will try and help Snoop look for a cure, I'm assuming if there is one the chances of finding it will improve with the amount of people searching?

~Twinkle, who has gotta go

Nothing to add. Don`t think it`s possible to analyze anything here. Not necessary...

Spoiler: thirtieth post

@Llandy

Not always revealed. For example, in the last game we played, only the name of the role was revealed, and not its function. And sometimes not even the role name, just whether they were innocent or not. Adaham seems to be revealing this info upon death, however that could be due to the speculation it received and there's nothing (so far) to say that he'll reveal future role functions.

Okay, just different in CoN because we don't know anything about who has what role until the end.

This doesn't make me feel any more comfortable about you. There were rooms which had only 2 people in them, and you picked one that already had 3. I don't think your reasoning (the more people looking for the cure, the better?) is particularly compelling, and about as believable as Wolf-boy's "I start to treat the young girl" attempt.

Allow me to point out why I think moving to the Doc's office is good:

There are currently Snoop and Lep there, I'm pretty positive Snoop is an innocent, and that leaves me and Lep. Now, granted that a wolf can only lunch in the house they are in, that leaves either me or Lep, if Lep lunches me then we know who the wolf is, if I lunch Lep, then we know who the wolf is. Alternatively, one of us could lunch Snoop, but that's not really too effective because she seems to be on her way to death anyway, but if one of us does, then it's an either-or decision. And then if Wolves aren't limited to the room that they are in, well then it really doesn't matter which room I stay in. Is this making sense so far?

Further, the way the game is going so far (e.g. key goes missing, Snoop shows up infected) I wouldn't place it beyond Adagod to throw a cure into a room, and give a % chance of finding it. And what better place to find that in the Doc's office? I'm sorry you don't feel comfortable with it, but the way I see it there's no harm done with my move. Is there an alternative idea you have that I over-looked in my reasoning up there^? If there is, point it out, and I'll change rooms, but so far I really don't see the problem.

@Phonemelter

That is what I said, hence "proactive."

My bad, don't know how I didn't catch that.

How so? It can help once you know the role of a player, but wolves tend to be less obvious in showing support for packies - trying to find relations between people can lead you astray if you get hung up on it.

Am I the only one who *always* finds at least two wolves/puppets on the same side of an argument? Seriously, I always find (unless there is only two in the game) at least two puppets on the same side of something. I mean, they might not be: 1, 2, 3, 4 because that usually doesn't work, but 1+2, or 2+4..... Basically is that I'm saying I've never played a game were they all spread out -- I've seen one, but that was long before I actually started playing. True, it can lead you astray if you get hung up on it, but don't ignore because you're afraid you'll get hung up on it. Really, I don't think anyone(including myself) is hung up on it.

Why would you ever withhold your thoughts?

Multiple reasons really:

1) Already engaged in three monster quote wars.

2) RL

...and most importantly 3) You have thoughts, but you want to give things time to ride and see how they progress before diving right in and throwing your two cents. Same reason I waited on the Llandy issue -- I hadn't made up my mind until everyone ganged up on her, if I had thrown in my thoughts before my mind was fully made up I may be in a very different situation right now.

Then let's hear it - you haven't said much on the subject so far. Who do you think are packies? Eternal and Locke, since you have them as red?

Possibly. I've been thinking more of Lep and Whoopin, or Lep and Locke, or Whoopin and Locke. I really feel so solidly on Locke's position as a wolf that I'm willing to bet he/she is certainly a wolf

The way I see red in my LoS (correct me if this isn't how it's done) is that red=highly likely; not "I'm dead sure of it". So while I have eternal down as red I have "made a case on him," but since I don't have his packies down, I haven't made a "better case". Make sense? And it is entirely possible for Eternal and Locke to be packies (as you have put it: tend to be less obvious in showing support for packies -- or in this case, not at all showing support), so it is possible, just not jumping out at me ATM.

@Locke
Just skimmed, because I have to leave for a party soon, but picked this up:

classifies me as red without having made a case stemming from his vote

Gosh damnit, Locke! I made a case right before my ******** vote. Geez, it's like talking with a brick wall. Go back and read the freaking post.


Los Per Request(got a nice ring to it, don't it?)


Ejnomad: His back and forth with Eternal was interesting, in which Eternal got very frustrated. I want to see his reasoning for putting Moose as the best vote before I make a solid decision on him. His activity recently picked up, which I like to see, but his earlier inactivity does make me a little uneasy.
Velpulus I.: Dead and is innocent. RIP.
Velpulus II: *shrug* Nothing to go off of really.
Moose!: Not too big on anyone going after Llandy with "Solid facts" as he did, mainly because they weren't very solid, and not to mention I'm almost totally sold on Llandy's innocence. His activity is sporadic, but he seems to be fairly engaged in discussion and is straight to the point with his answers and doesn't dodge the questions thrown his way. I find his vote on Seff strange from my perspective, just because I find Seff to be legitimately disinterested, but I can see as to why he wishes to vote for him: lack of participation, useless comments and such)

Moss: Seriously? Llandy converter? Sure, it's possible, but too wild and (wait for it)....unfounded atm. Can't see it and don't like it.
Orj: Seemed genuinely mixed up and tired at the beginning, and since has added a good amount of which I like. 
Phonemelter: What's to say? I really think he's innocent. Do I agree with everything he's said? No. But I think he's been a driving force in the hunt so far, and his points are fair, so my watch vote remains for him.
Reverend L. Lamb: Really, I'm not too sure. He hasn't given much to go off of, and admits to not having time to post and stuff because of all the worthless speculation. I disagree that most of this is worthless, rather, I find it all quite interesting until it hits the point where you're just repeating things. Not sure I get his reasoning for voting for me, as I've already shown how poor Locke's argument was, and that's what he based his vote off of. However, that said, maybe he's just not really paying enough attention, but his original reason for voting for me doesn't sit right with me.
Seff:Originally wasn't very fond of him, not very good or useful points. LoS sucked. And a lot of "I agree" posts. However, I feel that his recent outburst is legit, and that he just genuinly doesn't like the game. Can anyone who has played with Seff previously confirm this?
Shatari: Leaning towards innocent right now. He discussed quite a bit of game mechanics at the beginning, but his reason (probing Moss) sits well with me, and so far I'm content. He's been fairly active, and now is dropping out due to a family incident. My condolence, Shatari. 
Snoopy-91: I've liked some of her points, and she's infected, and I'm not big on the idea that Adagod is going to throw in a wolf with an infection.
SootShade: I tend to agree with a lot of what Shoot Shade has to say, and I think he/she is an avid hunter so far.
The Wolf: Leaning strongly towards Wolf because of his early wagon on Llandy which seemed odd, also granted how weak his argument was. Haven't heard too much from him since, which is a pitty because I would like a stronger read. From what other stuff I've read is that he's got a lot of crap posts, with nothing of real interest, and spends a lot of time discussing.... Idk, what's the proper word? Speculating on how the game *might* work, and less on the hunt.
Twinkle: Bolding this one becuase this guy is freaking awesome.... oh, and not to mention innocent. 
Whoopin: His arguments just aren't sticking with me as good, and not to mention I found his arguments against me to be fairly... odd, as if somehow me not commenting on a certain individual was likely to line me up as a wolf. Potentially, that might be true, but that could have been said for many people. And not to mention he denied going at me for going to Llandy's defense, which he actually did do.
Xardob: Didn't like his Knife campaign and I don't like not seeing him around that much. Lurker Vote: Xardob

~Twinkle, who is off to the party, but will be happy to answer any questions presented to him upon his return

Llandy criticising Twinkle for switching to the Doctor`s room, where already three people are staying. Twinkle explains his reason and due to the fact that eight people didn`t spread before night 1, I think it`s more harmless than the others, who didn`t move out of the Tavern.

Spoiler: thirty-first post

Alright, gonna read everything I missed from page 77 and up... let's if I'll have time to post too.

~Twinkle, who is going to see Unbroken today.... yay!

Spoiler: thirty-second post

Oh for ****'s sake -- another nine pages to read...

~Twinkle, who think he hath much catching up to do

Twinkle just posting to post without content. Probably due to lack of time.

Spoiler: thirty-third post

Damnit, I liked reading Sootshade's posts.

~Twinkle, reporting for duty

aw! Well, still no "real" reaction, who could/would have wolfed him.

 

[snoopy-91]

Part 6

Spoiler: thirty-fourth post

@Twinkie

Why do you think he was killed? Any ideas on who did it? Anything weird happen to you last night? You didn't give us your thoughts on packies yesterday - care to do it now?


Xardob post

Why do I think he was nailed? -- he was a good contributor and wasn't receiving much heat, people seemed to think he was innocent, I myself found his ideas pretty blue. That seems like a good reason for the Wolves to want to nail him -- take out someone (who is innocent) that everyone thinks is innocent. If they took out someone like me, Llandy, or Whoopin, they wouldn't be doing themselves as big of a favor, because in that case they're taking out people who are already possible day lynch targets. By taking out Sootshade they get the most from their vote.

Any ideas as to who did it? -- As much as can gather is that I'm leaning towards Xardob or Wolf, can't say who really. As you can see in my LoS, I didn't like Xardob's Knife campaign, and for a good portion of the game he made himself scarce. Wolf I've been leaning towards being a wolf since very early on for his weak wagon on Llandy, and the fact that he went scarce for quite a while too. Since those are the only two I strongly suspect in that room, plus the fact that I haven't heard anything new from you, leaves me still rather in the dark.

Nothing weird last night, would have mentioned that if anything had happened.

Packies -- yes I did. But if you want more, I'll try and do so. So we know Moose is a wolf, and now we've got Soot dead, Seff infected, and Snoop cured. Let's say that Wolves can only nail in there room (which is what I suspect) that narrows down possible allies for that room to: Xardob, Velup, and Wolf.

This is what's currently really grinding me as suspicious -- Wolf + Locke, as I've said, I'm convinced Locke's a wolf, and the fact that he/she found Wolf's earlier argument against Llandy compelling, and his "fishing" to be useful, I'm thinking we might have a part team there. In all honesty though, for me to get a good read on a puppet team with Moose!, Locke, and Wolf I'd need to go back and look at Locke+Wolf+Moose! interaction with eachother. But correct me if I'm wrong -- hasn't Moose been ignored by Locke?

I know I've made a case against Locke before, but @Locke in your LoS you have Moose! down as blue, yet leave no reason as to why you have him as such, could you possibly elaborate for me? Actually, could you post a small blurb on why you feel certain ways about everyone, because just throwing up an LoS without elaborating on why everyone is the way they are kinda leaves us in the dark.

~Twinkle, who hath done his deed and is off to bed

Maybe I overread it, but until now there was no comment from you on SootShade, nor that you think he was innocent. Maybe I missed that. I know such questions are kind of dumb as of course NO wolf would ever say after that he was thinking SootShade suspecting. Would kind of self-defeating. Even though a wolf, who would have had the plan to lynch a person f.e. SootShade during the next days, wouldn`t change his mind and admit how "wrong" his suspicions were.
Despite all that I don`t like that you act like if you already knew so well that SootShade was innocent. Why have you never pointed his innocence out as you did clearly on Llandy in your LoS? Just don`t make the mistake of answering the "right" and "expectable" answer, just out of the fear of stepping into the middle of discussion. Being in and into discussion is nothing we should avoid. The village gains from it.

Spoiler: thirty-fifth post

It's been a long day, so cut me some slack on the many typos and ****, and for the record, I wrote "puppet" instead of wolf because puppets are the bad guys in CoN; basically equivalent to a werewolf. So I called 'em a puppet out of habit.

~Twinkle, now off to dream land

After absence makes short posts without content.

Spoiler: thirty-sixth post

I don't remember you talking about packies - you just said "thinking about packies is good" but never elaborated on how your suspects (Locke with Whoopin and Moss, judging by your LoS) are linked together.

Also, why are you still assuming that wolf kills are only limited to the room a player is in? Wouldn't it make sense for wolves to push that idea in order to put suspicion onto the "wrong" players?

I did write some stuff about Locke + Whoopin and such in my LoS post. I did say something about "looking for packies is good," but I did take it a step further with a little speculation.

As to "why are you still assuming" -- why aren't you assuming that?

Wouldn't it make sense for wolves to push that idea in order to put suspicion onto the "wrong" players?

That would be the case only if I'm wrong. If I'm correct, then assuming otherwise would be what they are trying to push. Allow me to elaborate -- if they can only lunch in a room they are in, then they would want to push the idea that they can lunch in any room, no matter where they are. If they can lunch in any room, then they want to push my theory of "only lunch in room they're in". But anyway, it's not something they'd necessarily want to push; it all depends on how it really works. So, no, it's not something they'd exactly want to push for.

~Twinkle, who is very eager to hear what what Phone has to say, but is also wondering why we must wait for everyone if they are all capable of reading it at one point or another anyway

Phonemelter asks Twinkle to elaborate the thoughts on "packie-connection" between Locke/Whoopin/Moss. Doesn`t answer and refers to his previous LoS.

Just making counter question towards Phonemelter due to the "room-related-powers" of the wolves. Insofar not answering. Quite odd to me.
Twinkle elaborates his thoughts on the rooms and the wolves` tactic. At this point I agree on his idea and do think that`s smart thinking. Even if I don`t agree with it.

Spoiler: firty-seventh post

Want to point out something that is currently going around and is not something I said -- I never tied Moss to the same team as Whoopin and Locke, I may have said it was possible, but I didn't say I thought those three were on the same team.

Next, I'm not voting for you, Locke, because I want to hear what Phone has to say first. I personally don't think it's wrong to wait for further information.

~Twinkle, who has to go play sports now, but will reply in further depth hopefully tonight

Have you been voting Locke to lynch him, or to cause pressure within the village, to certain players? Most of the time people use their vote to put people under pressure. Can be a tactic of an innocent, or of a wolf testing, who would be willing to join bandwagon on certain people, or not.

Spoiler: thirty-eight post

Ohhhh... Moose! not Moss. Okay, gotcha, yes, I am tying Locke to wolf and Moose.

~Twinkle, who understands now

Mah! 

Spoiler: thirty-ninth post

@Locke

Damnit, I liked reading Sootshade's posts.

~Twinkle, reporting for duty

This is fairly typical post-murder behavior, isn't it?

In reply to Twinkle: You're convinced I'm a wolf? The last I saw - of the case you say you've already made against me - you voted me in nothing more than self-defence. How that's developed into being convinced I'm a wolf, I can't see. Your vote doesn't come with this pronouncement also. If you're convinced I'm a wolf I'd expect a vote. But this comes down to my earlier assessment, that you know I'm not a wolf - in which case, it would be easy to forget to add a vote. After all, you're busy tying me to Moose and The Wolf, with some half-truths along the way: I don't recall adding my support for role fishing - a deceptive statement, and the most I recall in supporting The Wolf's argument is that I made clear that I thought there was nothing wrong with pressuring Llandy. I've found a lot suspicious about Llandy throughout most of Day-1, but you somehow manage tie it all to someone most of the village finds suspicious.

In reply to my view of Moose, as I said when I mentioned him (possibly the only time I mentioned him), I'd liked his posts in a general sort of way, but mostly he hadn't piqued my interest. He was inoffensive white-noise. Evidence of my sincerity is in my choosing a room with him in it. As it happened, I ended up in a room by myself.

Vote: Twinkle

Since I survived the night, I feel like Twinkle feels like he has to add more to the "case" against me. I might have tunnel vision, but it's hard to see his posts in a positive light any more. That said, even I'm not convinced.


Phonemelter, out with it, there's no telling when everyone will have checked in.

Lurker: The Wolf

Damnit, I liked reading Sootshade's posts.

~Twinkle, reporting for duty

This is fairly typical post-murder behavior, isn't it?

Damn, Locke, real solid. Nice bringing that up -- hey every, Locke pegged me, go ahead and nail it. ****, why'd I post such and obvious reveal? But seriously, whatever.

In reply to Twinkle: You're convinced I'm a wolf? The last I saw - of the case you say you've already made against me - you voted me in nothing more than self-defence. How that's developed into being convinced I'm a wolf, I can't see. Your vote doesn't come with this pronouncement also. If you're convinced I'm a wolf I'd expect a vote. But this comes down to my earlier assessment, that you know I'm not a wolf - in which case, it would be easy to forget to add a vote. After all, you're busy tying me to Moose and The Wolf, with some half-truths along the way: I don't recall adding my support for role fishing - a deceptive statement, and the most I recall in supporting The Wolf's argument is that I made clear that I thought there was nothing wrong with pressuring Llandy. I've found a lot suspicious about Llandy throughout most of Day-1, but you somehow manage tie it all to someone most of the village finds suspicious.

Sorry, I meant "stirring the pot" rather than "fishing". My point is is that his excuse to "stirring the pot to see what happens" was so week and void (because he clearly wasn't just trying to see what happened; he totally thought he was on to something big), and the fact that, as I showed, just how week his points were that he claimed were "solid". I think I made a case that was better than "self defense" the crapshoot arguments you threw at me (which you admitted were crapshoot, and said you were really just looking for a reaction) I shot to pieces. The thing is, to me, the whole "looking for a reaction" was the last leg of your argument you had to stand on, so you fell back to that and pretended you're whole argument was based on it.

Again, I hadn't voted for you because I wanted to see what Phone had to say before jumping the gun.

but you somehow manage tie it all to someone most of the village finds suspicious.

Drawing a blank here -- what are you trying to say?

Since I survived the night, I feel like Twinkle feels like he has to add more to the "case" against me. I might have tunnel vision, but it's hard to see his posts in a positive light any more. That said, even I'm not convinced.

*chuckle* I don't think surviving gives me more of case.

@Phone's Watch Results

Now I'm confused. I guess this is what we're looking at:

Locke is innocent along with Orj, and Locke just said some really stupid **** early on, and really does believe I'm a wolf. I could make a case for Locke + Orj + Phone or some such argument, but just feels too stretched. It's possible, I suppose, for Locke to be a wolf who is a lover as well, but the choice of his location yesterday, plus the fact that he did nothing diabolical, and just how his role played out -- eh I don't think he's a wolf anymore.

Of course, he could have just decided to lay low last night, trying to hide (although he wasn't receiving too much pressure except from me, so I don't find this probable) and the wolves may have decided he wasn't need to lunch last night, so he stayed low, but I just don't find any of this probable.

As much as I hate to admit that I am likely wrong -- I think I'm likely wrong, and that Locke is, in fact, innocent. And I still think his argument against me was ****ed up, and possibly the worst thing I've ever had thrown my way, I'm just not seeing an incredibly likely wolf here, I think he's a bright yellow for me right now, not totally convinced because it is possible for him to be involved in some complex wolf scheme, but it just seems to be a stretch.

Curious to see Phone's reply to Orj.

@Phone
Are you leaning more towards wolves being limited to their room to lunch or the other way?

~Twinkle, who apologizes for any incoherence; it's been a long day and he's off to bed

A pity. The last- most important part- of your posts is really hitting me. Quite hard to get what you think/want...
Your problem is in my eyes that you feel that you have lost every basis of your previous suspicions and that`s bothering either being a wolf, who now has lost any logic in his thrown accusations, or an innocent, which the wolves have taken every foundation. Still have to add that even wolves speculate and take the risk of taking their own basis - killing someone they have accused so strongly, that they probably are save of being suspected placing themself in such a bad position.
Everythings possible.

Then the question to Phonemelter, what he thinks the wolves can/can`t do within their room.

Spoiler: fortieth post

Gotta go to school, but before I go -- Llandy, yes, I did consider the possibility of Locke being a wolf and a lover. I actually mentioned that in my post. I trust you read it, but that you didn't fully understand? When I get back from school I'll be sure to post why I find the instance of Locke as a wolf so unlikely.

~Twinkle, who is off to shower and school

Refers to Llandy and his consideration that Locke might be a wolf. As before Twinkle wants to explain why he now really can`t imagine Locke being bad.

Spoiler: forty-first post

@Xardob

Twinkie keeps saying things that make me generally more suspicious of him. What do you think of him?

He's a wolf. That should be rather obvious.

Then vote for me, for the love of -- 

Twinkle Locke already covered, and I agree with his case. I still need to do a more in depth analysis before I'm read to lynch him.

Okay, at least get this in depth analysis up since you're so sure of me.

As much as I hate to admit that I am likely wrong -- I think I'm likely wrong, and that Locke is, in fact, innocent.

Smart wolf. Backing down from an innocent claim before any more damage can be done.

Ohhhhhh.... so if I was an innocent, and I started to believe that Locke is innocent, I should still keep attacking him because that is sooooo freaking helpful for our cause! Put on your damn thinking cap, Xardob! If I find Locke so much less likely to be a wolf, and if I don't have anything left to add to our discussion, why in ****'s name would it make sense for me to keep going at it??

By your assumption, Locke and I would have a roughly 50% chance of avoiding an attack, if only one of us were to be targeted, else one or perhaps both of us die. How is that better than guaranteed protection for one of us, based on the information you had at the time you responded to Shatari's suggestion to put Locke on watch duty?

It's not, but I was hoping I could convince the wolves you were invulnerable to attacks.

Hoping to convince the wolves he was invulnerable? What kind of wolves do you think we're dealing with, do you think they're gonna be dumb enough to just say, "Oh yeah, they must be invulnerable because they can switch rooms. Let's not target them!" When I saw you saying they're already protected I sat there scratching my head like "WHHHATTTT?" Yeah, they are semi protected, but no wolf(nobody at all) is gonna buy the garbage of "they're invulnerable".

@Phone
Still waiting...

@Phone
Are you leaning more towards wolves being limited to their room to lunch or the other way around?

@Llandy

The wiki says it's not impossible for Lovers to be scum. Have you considered that?

Have you also considered that we may have a converter? And a successful conversion might account for the sole night kill? Or it could be a combination, of scum lovers in the game to balance a possible converter:

Gah, ****, never thought about the converter. So it's entirely possible that Orj was the target of a conversion last night, is that what you're saying? Hadn't really thought of that.

@Twinkle

I read your post but it was confusing. You bring up Orj and Melter as a link to Locke and then say that it's too far stretched and drop it immediately. So why mention it at all?

You say Locke might be a wolf and a lover yet don't follow this to its natural conclusion that in this scenario Orj would aalso be a wolf. In fact you don't mention Orj after that except in passing.

Then again you mention he could be involved in a complex wolf scheme then immediately dismiss it again as a stretch. It feels like you're pre-emptive covering all angles and trying to show solid reasoning for dropping Locke, but it feels staged.

Yeah, pretty much this:

Of course, I'm also assuming that Melter is innocent here, and not packmates with Orj and Locke, setting them up as lovers to make them unlynchable following the death of their other packmate Moose I think that is where Twinkle was trying to go with his "Melter/Locke/Orj" connection (he just didn't explain it very well) but if this is actually what has happened then it's the best wolf team play I've ever seen and my hat's off to all three.

I just found that theory to be too far of stretch. This was actually the first idea that popped into my head upon seeing the exchange, but it just seems like such a long shot.

My other thoughts were that Locke could be a wolf, while Orj is not. The thing about this though, is while I found Locke's offense against me very disturbing (and, yes, twisting) his choice of his room for last night (after actually taking a good look at the room selection) just doesn't seem like a good location for someone who could possibly want a snack in the middle of the night. If Locke was a wolf I think he would have been fine trying to lunch someone rather than lying low because most people weren't giving him too much heat, so he wasn't a likely watch candidate(clearly I'm wrong, but if I was Locke in that situation, and I was a wolf, I wouldn't have tried to lay low and avoid any hostile action)

Am I making sense? I'm really sorry my posts have been unclear, just really tired and a lot of family **** going on.

@Adagod
I want to thank you for the invite to the game, btw. It gives me time to just kick back and get away from life, which is something I need.

@Locke

I feel like you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting, not some, but all, of my suspicions regarding yourself. I think I need a long break from you to get my bearings, and reassess you at a later date. And yes, I think saying "aww I liked him #sadface" after an innocent is murdered is a pretty typical guilty-party thing to do.

I don't get how I'm doing either of those. I just don't get it. When you're done taking a break from me, can you please come back and show me how exactly I was misrepresenting your arguments?

Re: "Awww..." *shrug* Can't argue with your gut, I'm afraid.

Further on targeting me in an empty room: You say you didn't target someone more suspicious or higher in priorities because they might take no action just in case you Watched one of them... I don't really believe this at all. You expected a wolf to not use their abilities on the off-chance you targeted one of them, out of several choices, the most prominent of which would have been someone like Twinkle, who, if I remember rightly, you've voted and seconded a few times.

Anyone would have rolled the dice on this slim possibility! Especially when some of your suspects, or the village's top suspects, have received nowhere near the amount of suspicion you've put on Twinkle. If anyone was going to lay low in fear of your Watchful eye, it would be him.

Gotta word this. I definitely thought I would have been watched; going after Locke, who was alone and of no real threat from what we understood (and apparently Phone found other people more suspicious) just doesn't sit as a good move to me.

Let me ask you this, Phonemelter-- out of curiosity, do(did) you in anyway feel that Locke was linked to Moose?

~Twinkle, who is once again sorry for any incoherent parts of his post

First Xardob suspects Twinkle being a wolf. The way Xardob does this- STILL- strikes my gut-feeling being odd. I am sorry, but that`s so indescribable. If I now look back on Twinkles posts I can see many people having quote-wars, discussions with Twinkle for example Llandy, Phonemelter, Leprechaun (at the beginning). You seem mostly being annoyed by his postings and very confident about you being the one, who is going to find the next wolf. Just that I am not trusting you fully and neither should the others do. You are jumping on conlusion in my eyes other people have made and worked for.
I am not telling you that I am trustworthy and follow my votes.

Spoiler: forty-second post

@Llandy

@Twinkle

Do you have an opinion about anything other than Locke or what people think of you?

Shatari's suggestion, for example. Or who may have killed SootShade. How you think wolves may kill, or who is our best choice for a lynch today.

Please contribute to the hunt.

Quick stuff before I go --

Re: "Who may have killed Soot?" -- already answered what I thought. Said Wolf or Xardob.

Re: "How you may think wolves kill? -- already answered this.

Re: "Best choice of lynch for today?" -- Not sure right now, leaning towards Wolf or Xardob.

Re: Shatari -- have to further analyze the idea.

But seriously, the "please contribute to the hunt" is unwarranted there. I've done more than just comment on myself, and you're asking me questions of which most I've already answered. I can get if I was just defending myself (which everyone yelled at me about on day 1), but that's just not the case right now.

@Lamb

Look at Adaham's narration. "Nobody in his right mind could imagine that this was anything else but the work of werewolves."

To make sure I'm understanding you correctly -- you're saying that sounds (based on the description) like it had to be a wolf, and not some other special role? Simply because of the description?

@Phone

@Twinkie:

Yea, I believe wolves can either attack anywhere or can attack anywhere a packed is locusts as with the last room-based game. This is why I didn't care what room my target was in because if room doesn't matter, the wolves might kill someone in the largest room in order to push that train of thought to cover their tracks.

Okay, that's pretty much the answer I was looking for.

~Twinkle, who will be back later

That`s the main problem with you Twinkle. You do contribute, you do aks questions and you answer everything that is given to you. BUT: there is no self-initiative. No innocent is interested to participate into discussion people have, who might be wolves, who are in the knowledge of the groups within the village and do have the safety of their packmates being in the background. Therefore every innocent benefits from his own ideas and suspects.

Spoiler: forty-third post

@Lamb

Look at Adaham's narration. "Nobody in his right mind could imagine that this was anything else but the work of werewolves."

To make sure I'm understanding you correctly -- you're saying that sounds (based on the description) like it had to be a wolf, and not some other special role? Simply because of the description?

Misquoting Me/Llandy about a post she told us to disregard, she misunderstood my post where I said one death does not automatically equal one killer. Tons of other explanations for only one death, many of which were pointed out by Llandy in the following posts.

Ummm... I'm not misquoting anything, at least not as far as I'm aware. I think I did disregard her post. I'm still not quite sure what you're saying, could you please dumb it down for me?

~Twinkle, who apologizes, but just doesn't get it

Misunderstanding between different questions are made. That`s the way I see it:
Some talk about wherever one dead person means you have one killer instead of a pack of wolves, others (Twinkle) talk about the murderer being a wolf.

I think that Adagod - who is of course always paying attention to detail- has reasons why he wrote that there is noone, who can imagine anything else being the murderer than a wolf. It has been a wolf. Basta. That`s what I read out of it.

Spoiler: forty-fourth post

@Whoopin
I think at the time I had only partly read the thread, and had assumed that with Shatiri's personal problems that he wouldn't be participating anymore, so I left him out of the mix. I also did the the same with Seff, although more because he seems so disinterested that it was convincing, plus the fact that he was he was infected last night. Now with Seff's case, he could just be putting up a real good show, and the infection is used to gain him trust, and maybe hep the wolves narrow down the potential healer-

Btw, just so that you don't have any unnecessary digging, here is my LoS:

Shatari: Leaning towards innocent right now. He discussed quite a bit of game mechanics at the beginning, but his reason (probing Moss) sits well with me, and so far I'm content. He's been fairly active, and now is dropping out due to a family incident. My condolence, Shatari. 

Again, I thought he was dropping out, and I was going off of that when I left him out, since then it has apparently changed.

@Xardob

@Twinkle
Its obvious you conveniently ignored Shatari...

He's not willing to throw his packmate in the mix, that's why he left Shatari out.

Since you're so convinced, could you please go back and look at http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,320203.msg7626171.html#msg7626171 and then give us the in depth analysis you have on me? And whatever else -- such as to why backing off of Locke with the logic I had in mind was such a bad idea. Wouldn't have sticking on him have been worse for us since I'm no longer convinced he's a wolf? Now since Llandy has pointed out the idea of a converter, I suppose it is possible that Locke is a bad guy, but still.

@Llandy

But the fact is, Wolf didn’t claim his points were solid. He said that his ‘stirring’ of me was based mostly on uneasiness about my desire to be Watch, and a gut feeling that my explanation seemed well thought-out. Wolf admitted that he didn’t actually have anything solid to go on, and implied that his stirring was an attempt to dislodge something more solid by questioning me.

Hmmm. I thought he was all solid on his points, and then backed down at some point, and then I came in and pointed out how he backed down (the first real post I had). I really have to go back and re-read the entire first 15 pages to be sure, but I'm pretty sure he was solidly grounded in his belief?

Why do you discount Seff and Shatari? And why do you mention Velmu as a possible ally but then not present a case for him, too?

Right, well, I could see how that comes off wolfy, and those are valid question. I trust I answered why I left out Seff and Shatiri up there ^ when I was answering Whoop. As to Velmu -- it's kinda hard to present a case on someone who barely says ****, however, the reason I mentioned him is because he could be a wolf, in all likely hood. I mean, we don't really know anything about him because he hasn't really spoke much. Not really much of a case to push there.

I’m not sure your “went scarce” arguments have any weight here. Wolf confirmed in advance that he wouldn’t be around. Xardob had a few quiet days, but no more than Snoopy, or Seff, or Lamb, or you.

Wolf did confirm he would be missing, but as I recall he kinda pushed his deadline further than he said it would be, and we still haven't heard too much from him now that it's over. As to Xardob, I don't think he had a few, as I recall, but rather a string of about a one week period, and you are right, that's not really a heck of a lot, by any means, for evidence, but it's still something to keep in mind. My main thing with Xardob is basically his knife campaign, which just seems like a red flag for me. The fact that he was in the Tavern (and I'm still thinking that wolves can only nail in a room one of their packies is in). The fact that he solidly believes I'm a wolf, yet doesn't feel like voting for me or providing the analysis of me that he said he would.

I think we'll find my vote on either Wolf or Xardob today, but I want to see a some more from Wolf before I make up my mind.

@Locke

Distorting info? Kettle, meet Tea Cup. In all honesty, I may be wrong in this instance, if so I'll come back and apologize and you can all laugh it all up and tell me I'm so wolfy. I will go back and read Wolf's posts. However, I would like to revive from the dead a little twisting you did yourself, and the fact that you really don't have any "twisting" that you could say I did:

Read all about it here: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,320203.msg7577102.html#msg7577102

"Twinkle always on the defensive" = Locke twisting the word "defensive" or just plain doesn't understand what it means

"Jumped to Llandy's aid when wasn't required" = A type of twisting, trying to shape things to Locke's point of view.

"Scared of having peole point fingers at him" = Locke misrepresenting things, because Twinkle has more than once asked people to feel free to ask him question.

In all honesty Locke, can you not see the twisting you yourself are doing?

@Seff/Llandy

Regarding a healer and me, and that ability being confined to a special room - should we be 3 or 4 guys in whatever room I end up in, so the wolves can't pinpoint the Healer if he bunks with me to heal me tonight?

No, I think it should be you on your own hoping that just being there helps. Sorry, but even with Orj/Locke providing a juicy target for tonight due to a possible 2 for 1 kill, I still think it's too much of a risk.

On the flip side, if you're innocent, you can pretty much guarantee you'll be alive tonight and tomorrow, since the scum won't waste a kill on someone who's going to auto-die by the end of Night 3.

But in the case that a healer does exist, and in the case that they can only operate on an infected target in the same room as them, then leaving Seff alone would be a bad idea, as he would die the next day, and we could possibly be losing an innocent. If we do stick a bunch of people in the same room as Seff, we make it easier for the potential healer to cure him. But otherwise, we could have Seff perish at night. But at least we increase the chances of saving Seff.


@PhoneMelter

I've stated my problems with Twinkie's post here, but I have another bone to pick with it - he says "I always find at least puppets on the same side of an argument," but there is no clean indication that he has used any of that reasoning in linking his suspects together. Where had a combination of Locke, Whoopin, Moss, and Lep ended up on the same side of some major argument? He also says the most important part of the reason he has withheld his thoughts is because he likes to wait for things to ride a bit before commenting on them. To me, it seems like this would be a good idea for a wolf to hide behind (i.e. waiting to see what the village thinks before diving in headfirst). However, this sort of contradicts his earlier play of "omg I totally am bringing up new things without being prompted - look at my case on Lep!"

Just threw-upm guys, im gonna leave it at this and go lay down.

Twinkle answers Xardob that he has dropped Seff and Shatari- due to their absence- out of any consideration. Understandable on Shatari, who has already been replaced, not really understandable on Seff- as I already stated in previous posts. Doesn`t matter if you think that Seff`s absence has been suspicious there is still the question what is your conclusion due to his infection. You elaborate us your thoughts on it, but forget to determine it at the end.

Too much speculation about the healer and the consequences for Seff. Sorry, but we really have no clue at all how and where the healer works, if there is one. So any discussion about it is useless. If there`s a healer he/she probably knows what to do and how to stays in a safe place and avoids of taking too much risk.

 

[snoopy-91]

Part 7

Spoiler: forty-fifth post

Oh lord! Being sick is like having your legs turned into jelly, your head turned into a bowling ball, and your stomach into a churning sea.

I came back just to read before I went back to sleep, but I'll post briefly because I see that I'm probably one of the more likely lynch targets, and it makes more sense for you guys to choose who to wagon on with everything in mind, not just some stuff.

@Llandy

Okay, let me ask you this: do you know if there is a healer? Do you know if the cure is reliant on finding it in the Office? Hell, maybe there's something else -- maybe it moves everyday. Maybe it's in the tavern! But the question is, do you know? Well if you do, you have some sort of outside knowledge which I do not possess, but this is my way of seeing this:

1) If the cure can be found in the Dr. Office, and if chance increases with the number of players searching/in the office, then by throwing more people in there, the better off we are, because the chance of finding the cure increases.

2) If the case is that we have a healer, then by throwing a bunch of people in the room we create a smoke screen for him/her, and make his/her job of hiding easier. Either way, we have a method of strengthening the chance of Seff getting cured.

You may have Seff already written off as a Wolf or what not, but I think there's a good chance he's innocent, and by the looks of my analysis, I think it makes sense for us to crowd the room with Seff. Room: Dr. Office 

@Xardob
But... but... you said you were going to give an analysis of me. Why are you backing off on that now? Why did you post that earlier and shy off now? Was it because *then* there were less people avidly against me, so to buy yourself time on an explanation you said "I'll do it later." But now that there are a lot of people against me you figure you can just slink by without owning up to your analysis? I think I can make a damn good case on you right now, if I wasn't sick, but since I am I'll make my case when I'm good and well. Own of to what you said.

However, as Phone said, which also struck me as odd, why did you need a suggestion for a lynch?  Why couldn't you throw out your thoughts -- why didn't you choose me? I am clearly someone you're so sure of, and there are a lot out there who agree, so why didn't you just say "I suggest Twinkle"? Is it because you don't want to have an innocent's blood on your hand? Is it because you don't want to be caught bringing up the name of an innocent? But by heading this, if someone as obvious a choice of Wolf was chosen, and if he is a wolf(which I strongly believe), you could take credit for this, and be an almost assured innocent. It wouldn't surprise me if the wolves threw a wolf already under so much pressure to the gallows just to boost another's (damnit, what's the word?) just to boost another wolf's.... I guess I'll go with reputation, but there's another word I'm looking for. (I remember! Credibility!!!)

Xardob, I didn't like your Knife campaign, I don't like your unwillingness to provide the analysis of me you said you would provide, and I don't like the fact that you didn't have the guts to suggest your own target.

Speaking of which:

It worked so well yesterday, why change it now. Besides, we're still a long time from the deadline for me to offer my own target.

I thought Ejnomad came up with his own target? Am I mistaken?

Xardob Don't like it. If we need to reach a majority, then I"ll change to Wolf because I'd be content with either of you swinging from the gallows, but I think you're the best choice.

~Twinkle, back to bed

Oh,oh Twinkle. Your tactic within the Doctor`s room seem solid, BUT:

1. Could be right. Have never been in a game with items. Probably a good idea.

2. Good "smoke screen". The more people we throw into the Doctor`s room the more we do have problem of wolves, who can kill the doctor they suspect being one and bam! Same situation like at the end of day 1. We can reduce the number of possible wolves, but maybe lose one of our most important roles. If we lose him AND a bunch of people are within the doctor`s room we have no hints at all. Or let`s say: not more than without the death of the doctor. --> Depends on the number of people within the room.

I don`t blame you for going into the Doctor`s room, but I don`t think your speculations are right.

Twinkle refering to Xardob backing off:
Well, you know I do have problems with the way Xardob contributes sometimes AND his way to force the village. Besides that I want you to clarify where you stand. This time in my eyes no typical OMGUS-reaction towards Xardob. Like his reaction more than the earlier ones.

So Twinkle you say you want to make a case against Xardob, but your LAST sentence due to the lynch is that you would nevertheless swing to "The Wolf" and join Xardob?
That`s unbelievable. Sorry. But that is unstable and that makes your suspicion on Xardob wishy-washy.
You know Xardob wants or searches for people willing to lynch you - you start defending yourself and saying that Xardob is odd due to reasons you will tell us later.
Otherwise you are willing to switch your vote to someone Xardob wants to lynch besides you.
Can sound like someone willing to stand up and bandwagon to avoid being lynched. Or someone just criticising Xardob, not because you really find him odd- then you obviously wouldn`t follow his vote, aren`t you?-, moreover because he wants to lynch you.
That`s just odd. Sorry Twinkle.

Spoiler: forty-sixth post

@Xardob

I did? I really don't remember that. Well, if I did, I lied to you. Sorry.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,320203.msg7592641.html#msg7592641

And lying is usually detrimental to the innocents, unless you're lying to keep an innocent role undetected, but that's not what you're doing. Why would you lie?

Because it's too much work getting a lynch underway. I'd rather sit back and yell using someone else reasoning.

....I'm baffled. It's really easy to just sit back and quote someone and use their reasoning and just be like "This person is right, listen to 'em! I agree! Lynch!", but if that's all you're gonna do then you're not really hunting, it's a cheap cover-up to make it look like you're contributing. If you're too scared/lazy/wolfy to bring a case against someone.... well I don't know, but that screams damn wolfy if you ask me.

That would be the second wolf I throw under the bus then. A weird tactic for a wolf.

That's actually pretty funny.

Can I ask you why throwing away a wolf under so much controversy simply to strengthen the credibility of another is such a strange tactic?

You keep repeating this, but I don't think you actually explained why you thought it was a wolfy move.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/board,367.0.html

I don't think I specifically said how wolfy it was, but I just don't see any other way around it.

He did, and I followed. Someone else chose a target for me and we lynched a wolf, that's what I meant by this tactic having worked well yesterday.

That, to me, is a very weak answer. I don't think he chose the target "for you", you make it sound like you hauled off and accomplished some amazing feat. The only way I see it is that you followed along with "I agree" or whatever, and cast your vote. And now you're not really doing anything either, all you did was just ask for one person to throw a target up and then you voted for 'em. This is an easy way to avoid any suspicion, and not take a huge amount of blame if the voting goes against an innocent. But then with your wording "chose a target for me" makes it sound like, if a wolf was hit, you could try and turn this into a Xardob is legit innocent maneuver.

I just don't get why you needed to have someone else pick a target. I'm not buying the "lazy" crap because you're definitely active and it just doesn't make much sense for you to not bring up someone you feel is a top lynch, UNLESS you're a wolf who really just wants to survive, and doesn't really care too much about who get's lynched as long as you benefits.

@Llandy

Did you get some sort of narrative last night that you had found a cure? Did you send order to Adaham to look for a cure?

No, but that doesn't mean that that's how it has to function.

Well I do hope that a couple of other people at random join you tonight and we see how that goes.

As do I.

YO, CAN I GET A FEW MORE PEOPLE IN THE DR. OFFICE?

Okay, maybe you forgot how solid Wolf's suspicions were back at the start of the game, but there's no way you could forget what I said one page ago.

I have written Seff off as a CASUALTY. I clearly elaborate in my next paragraph that it's UNFORTUNATE if he's innocent but helps us after Day 3 night if he's a wolf, which should tell you that I don't KNOW what Seff's alignment is. If I thought ht was a wolf, I would have said "he's totally a wolf and he should be left to die" instead of including the whole part about his potential innocence.

I've noted that you think he's innocent, though.

You'll be surprised what you misread/forget/how ****ed up you're thinking get's when you spend the better part of the day throwing-up everything you've tried to consume. I am sorry I didn't properly comprehend what you were saying/read properly/I'm throwing up.

And I don't know if Seff's innocent, but I definitely think he is.

@Moss

As I'm pretty sure I said before the very specific accusation was an attempt to get you to react to it, not some delusional belief that I figured out the game mechanics and your precise role on day 1.

The funny thing is, I took it as basically the same half-assed  argument that Locke threw at me. After which, Locke admitted that it was all an "attempt to get my reaction." The only difference is that despite agreeing that his arguments were weak, he went on to say stuff about my behavior that was false. 

Anyway, what it looks like, IMHO, is that at the time, Llandy still had a relatively good chance of finding a rope around her neck because she had two votes, and a lot of people expressing moderate to high levels of concern over her. So you thought you could throw together this long wild post, and figured you had nothing to lose because, if people started calling it out as crap, you could back off and say you were just fishing for a reaction, but if you somehow got the wagon rolling again, you could merrily watch her get lynched.

I mean, just to reiterate what Llandy said:

The more discussion about it (including them having a chance to say something in their defense) the better for the village. Lynching is for killing wolves, talking is for finding them.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/board,367.0.html

Your post really do speak for themselves, atm.

~Twinkle, who is going to complain bout being sick until he is better.... and then a few more days after that

Ah! Xardob I really don`t like it, if you posts like this. I think it`s the way I privately discuss with people that you way of acting "unaffected" and "untouchable" makes me sick. Sorry. I you would try to formulate your thoughts more objective that would be nicer. For me and maybe for some other people here.

You already stated before that you assume Seff being innocent. So nothing new.
Nothing strikes me important here.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

@ Adagod proud of me? Eh? 
I`m competing with Llandy`s posts...

 

[Seff]

Adaham: I'll be leading the 9th graders for a week, that's work from 0600 to 2200, at least. So between Monday around noon and Friday around noon I really won't be around much.


@Snoopy: I agree that Twinkle is hiding - or at least being very dodgy, now that scrutiny is turning his way.

I will say that my suggestion to crowd whatever room I'm in as a smokescreen for the doctor to save me hinges on two things:
1) Wolves can kill in any/every room (this seems the most balanced to me),
2) Specials can only work within the room they're in (this has been stated by Adagod).