[Werewolf] Deathfondle - Lurker Victory

Users who are viewing this thread

I'm leaning more towards lynching AWdeV than anyone else. Not because of some crazy meta argument, but because he seems really defensive. It may just be me, but responding after pretty much every post that throws something accusatory at you is too defensive; it's better and looks less panicky to let a few build up before you try and tackle them. The recent vote on Mag seems like it was just the culmination a really long-winded OMGUS. Speaking of Mag, he doesn't strike me as suspicious anymore. He seems too confident in his assertions and reliance on statistics, whereas I feel he would be inclined to use his trademarked logic if he were a wolf. He's smart enough to know that using so much meta isn't really a good play, and if he were a wolf I think he'd be more careful about where he drew his arguments from. Also, for all the complaining about tunnelvision, there was some pretty heavy and focused concentration on him early on in day 2.


 
So he's not a wolf because he's not as logical as he usually is and he's not a wolf because a wolf wouldn't use that much meta and he'd know better?

Have you hit your head recently?

The reason he's dredging up all this meta-dirt isn't because "he'd be more careful as a wolf" it's because he doesn't have anything else to go on and he doesn't want to be seen back-pedalling because he and Nip *****ed entirely too much about that when I did it and they've been trying to use that as an argument against me too!

And why wouldn't I respond to poorly thought-out allegations laid against me? Can't expect anyone else to do it for me, can I? We can't all be blessed with a nipplemelter to defend us. And hell, if you're referring to those last interactions of me with Nip as being defensive; we were having a discussion.

TheFlyingFishy said:
Also, for all the complaining about tunnelvision, there was some pretty heavy and focused concentration on him early on in day 2.

Such as...? The early-on tunnelvision in day2 was, surprise surprise, when every tom, **** and/or harry came jumping at me again with all sorts of utter hogwash. This then decended into an umptillion pages of nitpicking and counter-nitpicking over the whole wolftell baloney. That does not count for a tunnelvision. Tunnelvision is when someone focuses on someone else and completely ignores all other targets or perspectives. None of the people who went after mag at the time had been consistently going after solely mag over a long period of time.


Also, in a very literal sense, my countervote was not an OMGUS. An OMGUS is a vote made in reaction to someone voting for you. Mag never even voted for me. QED. :razz:


I'm glad you're here though. I get that there's a heckuva lot of **** to wade through and that catching up to these things is hard, etcetera etcetera but, and I don't mean to discourage you here, but I'd really like to see more than just "Mag is victim, AWdeV is ebil".

What about anyone else?


Ofcourse, the minute I post this you'll feel vindicated in your "defensiveness" comment but in this case it was simply a matter of me refreshing the werewolf page one last time before ****ing off to bed.
 
TheFlyingFishy said:
I'm leaning more towards lynching AWdeV than anyone else. Not because of some crazy meta argument, but because he seems really defensive. It may just be me, but responding after pretty much every post that throws something accusatory at you is too defensive; it's better and looks less panicky to let a few build up before you try and tackle them.
Certainly he's overly defensive, but why is it important how his defence looks? And why should you be waiting before answering if you have the time and the answers for them? There's no issue with being active, and when I make a case against someone I certainly expect them to react to it so I can judge them. If someone accuses you of doing something they think is scummy all you should be concerned with as an innocent is explaining honestly what and why you are doing.

TheFlyingFishy said:
The recent vote on Mag seems like it was just the culmination a really long-winded OMGUS.
AWdeV expressed serious suspicion and voted on Magorian once already before Mag himself really even started building an actual case on him.

TheFlyingFishy said:
Speaking of Mag, he doesn't strike me as suspicious anymore. He seems too confident in his assertions and reliance on statistics, whereas I feel he would be inclined to use his trademarked logic if he were a wolf. He's smart enough to know that using so much meta isn't really a good play, and if he were a wolf I think he'd be more careful about where he drew his arguments from. Also, for all the complaining about tunnelvision, there was some pretty heavy and focused concentration on him early on in day 2.
Wait, are you assuming that he's playing deliberately illogically and clinging to bad arguments because he's an innocent? And how is drawing on a general wolf tell and constant meta arguments not a show of him being careful with his arguments? To me it appears more like trying to work with things that can't be outright proven wrong, so that he can exclaim about how factual his case is, instead of actively picking out the details from this game itself. And what comes to tunnel vision, I don't think it quite applies when it comes to me and Llandy, his main accusers, seeing as we've both been trying to push for other cases that just don't go anywhere without the suspects actually showing up.

Also, might you have anything not related to the two people that are already being discussed the most?
 
In post edit: I know you guys hate this and I don't blame you if you have ignored it so far. This is just a clarification about my stance and you don't have to like/know/embrace math to understand it (hello Llandy!)

Nipplemelterina said:
Also, while I know the argument is as old as time by now, even the Mafia wiki says complaining about how bad a night was is a common tell, in case anyone was wondering.
I reaaally don't want to spend any more time on this than I've done, but let me quote myself if that's about me:

Cativan said:
Magorian Aximand said:
Probability: This is mentioned only as a definitional aspect of a wolf tell. It can't be a wolf tell if it doesn't tell you that the person is likely a wolf. And this was only brought up in response to SootShade (aka Troll, I resort to his shorter name for phone posts), for the reasons I've explained previously. If an action is not statistically more likely to be committed by a wolf, how could it possibly be considered a "wolf tell"? Being not statistically likely would mean that it's the opposite; more often committed by innocents than by wolves. This is what I mean when I say wolf tell. Something that I think, whether justifiably or not, that wolves are more likely to do than innocents.
See the comparison? "more often committed by innocents than by wolves". That is my whole point. You are claiming something and I ask you to back it up. You don't back it up ("I have done my research but I don't have it" doesn't cut it).

While Mag attempts to portray that my point (or Soot's point or both) as simply "wolf tells simply don't exist", that is not true. I didn't say that and I don't think Sood did either. So I have no idea what imaginary adversary Mag is fighting against.

I THINK that they exist. I just don't know how common they are but I don't have a problem with people who think that they are common, or think that a specific action is a common wolf tell. I am only against a DIRECT comparison like "more often committed by innocents than by wolves" because that means a specific action is associated with innocence more than wolfishness (= probability of innocence is higher than 50% while the probability of wolfishness is lower than 50%). That makes it a numerical, calculatable claim and I ask for the supporting evidence instead of believing it just because someone said so.

My final words about the subject: I ask for evidence and he won't show it and I guess this won't change. So I am going to ignore Mag's posts about it to save both your and my mental health.
 
Pharaoh X Llandy said:
Heh, Ativan's most recent post actually makes me more suspicious of him than I originally was. I mean, he accuses Whoopin of dropping into the thread only to provide names of those who voted Hawk and to say that there's probably a wolf or two amongst them. In essence, all Whoopin is doing is pointing out something obvious without drawing conclusions or offering his own POV.

Then Ativan basically just drops into the thread to accuse Whoopin of doing nothing but pointing out the obvious... but at the same time he fails to draw any conclusions from Whoopin's post or offering his own POV, and then ends by dropping names of those who've been inactive.

To me, this seems lazy or suspicious. Or maybe my brain's just gone into paranoia overdrive. Maybe Ativan's post was lazy AND suspicious. The conclusion I would draw is that he's trying to mislead people by appearing to be helpful in pointing out Whoopin's post, and yet at the same time contributing very little because he avoids giving his own opinion on the matter.

But at the same time this doesn't seem 'out of character' for his somewhat conservative play style that I saw in Mengelberg. So I don't know what to think. Definitely more suspicious before, but still not as suspicious as my top 2 or 3 people.
I am not claiming that I am extending the discussion or anything by doing that. It's just that only a handful people are arguing with each other over a couple of subjects (statistics and Awdev mostly) and there are people who haven't even engaged in a serious discussion since the start.

Whoopin said that he was gonna read the thread and post and he did. I just found it ridiculous and I pointed that out. That post didn't even require reading the thread.

More importantly, did I have to draw a conclusion based on that single post? Did you actually draw a conclusion about me in your post? Because immediately after stating your conclusion, you provide a reverse statement based on the previous game and say that you don't know what to think.

Yesterday I said I needed more from Whoopin to weigh my opinion about him. Days passed and he didn't actually posted anything of significance so I still need more. My conclusion: Definitely more suspicious than day 1. Is this one all right?
 
AWdeV said:
We can't all be blessed with a nipplemelter to defend us.

:lol:

I'm contemplating making this my new sig.


For the sake of me not wanting to bash my head against the wall, I won't bother continuing to reply to your arguments right now.


@Avian: It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but I was just pointing out that there are other sources out there that back up the idea of such being a common "tell" and shouldn't be ignored, if anyone still disagreed with the idea in general.

Sure, Mag can't be arsed to come up with his own statistics, but I honestly don't blame him since it as a pain in the ass to look back through old threads (and because I am biased and already agree with it); I just do it because I've stopped caring about my education.
 
Thanks for the clarification. I don't disagree with the general idea and looking at the specific answers from awdev makes me think that he is scummy, as I've already said. In addition, I really didn't like his recent answers about his reaction (joker vs. seer and setting) but I'm too tired to post in a detailed manner so instead I'll just go to bed but I wanted that out of my system.
 
Alright, I should post some notes/questions/whatevers. This isn't nearly everything I have, but the other things I have might not be worth posting yet:

Questions

1) What makes Frisian’s views of the joker different than CW’s?

2) Whoopin: In this post you speculate that if Hawk turned up innocent AWdeV might have known better and wanted to seem helpful to the village. What is your view on this idea now?

3) Whoopin, you said here that your asking for votes got some stellar results, but didn’t expand on that. What were you referring to?

4) Xardob, you mentioned that you thought Hawk was innocent and you’d rather have a vigilante kill him. That’s fine, but what if there was no vig? We’d still have Hawk as a distraction. Additionally, doesn’t it work both ways? Why not just say “whoever we don’t lynch today, the vig should kill in order to remove the greatest distractions?” I understand you’d rather do it your way because you didn’t suspect Hawk, but isn’t it riskier to leave the more distracting option alive with the potential to not be killed?

5) Avian, are these still your thoughts on voting? Should we still go for a less vocal player?

6) CW, you expressed Whoopin voting for two people who ended up innocent is wolfy. To me, this seems like a cheap way of trying to add suspicion to Whoopin. Is everyone who voted for an innocent player suspicious? Do you think a wolf would avoid voting for Hawk, knowing he would inevitably get lynched, so that they can claim the Hawk voters are wolves?

7) CW, you imply you suggested Hawk was obviously not a wolf, but after having gone through you posts, you actually never commented on what you thought of him between when Aust said there was no joker until the start of Day 2. Are you deliberately lying in order to keep your “hands clean” and **** the blame on others (as people accused Mag of on Day 1)? – This is a rhetorical question, in case you were not sure

Things that are not sitting well with me:

1) Xardob and Whoopin hoppin' on the AWdeV train. Xardob's vote is reasonable since he thought Hawk was probably innocent. K. But Whoopin was all for lynching Hawk earlier, and while he did suggest that his suspicion of CW and Fishy made him dubious of Hawk's guilt, AWdeV is neither CW nor Fishy, so I don't exactly understand it. The reason why I bring Xardob into this is because they have previously voted together. This makes it three times. I might be thinking about it too much, but my gut is tingling.

2) This post by Whoopin. Day 1 is problematic for his hunches, but his whole pack idea was based off his hunches. If you know your Day 1 hunches are not always the best, why put so much weight into them and basically refuse to consider other arguments made for others?

3) Whoopin’s comment here about Hawk. I agree that getting Hawk’s suspicions down is a good idea in case he was to get lynched, but Whoopin seems to take it for granted that Hawk was going to die. He did the same with Magorian, but that one seems more reasonable because it came much later in the day. Preemptive?

4) While I am not super suspicious of Soot, Hulk’s post here, specifically on AWdeV, almost sounds like a wolf coming in after being inactive for a while to distance himself from a packie in order to look helpful (like Pilgrim’s Llandy case last game). This idea is probably a result of me finding AWdeV suspicious, but if we find out he is a wolf, this could be an interpretation. Or I just have mega-tunnelvision.

5) Ej’s post here seems a bit out in left field. Sure, if he saw Whoopin reading it would make sense to ask his thoughts, but the beginning “we haven’t interacted much” bit sounds… “forced.” I don’t know how else to explain the vibe it gives me, but it’s there. Same thing with the two posts starting here with Whoopin and Ej.

6) Whoopin’s argument that CW and FF are ”guility by association” with Adaham… who we didn’t even know was guilty of anything at that point. Do I need to further explain?

7) Llandy's obsession with a guy who hasn't been showing up. I get it, and I understand your argument, but I'd like to see more of your thoughts on others if you can provide them. While the wolf hunt might be difficult if your suspects aren't active, you can always still find more reason to believe others are innocent. "Innocent hunting," perhaps. I dunno.

8. Soot’s switching from Mag to Ej to Whoopin. It's like he is willing to bandwagon everyone except AWdeV.  :lol: That is actually unfair to say because he suspects those three anyways, but while he has explained it, I am innately suspicious of anyone who is willing to jump around so easily (see Whoopin).


I'm going to attempt to now look at votes and ****.
 
Oh, and this response:

Pharaoh X Llandy said:
Then Ativan basically just drops into the thread to accuse Whoopin of doing nothing but pointing out the obvious... but at the same time he fails to draw any conclusions from Whoopin's post or offering his own POV, and then ends by dropping names of those who've been inactive.

There really are no conclusions to draw from Whoopin's post, other than the fact he might be trying to "divide the villager" and steer us towards voting for someone purely based off what group they fall in. To be fair, it is worth looking at votes, but I'd prefer to take all of them into account because chances are there are equal wolves in both the "non-Hawk" and "pro-Hawk" groups, or at least I'd assume.
 
AWdeV said:
I'm getting more and more convinced Mag is trying to puppet master the village into doing his bidding while keeping him relatively out of the spotlight.
He's failing pretty hard, if that's his intention.

Nipplemelterina said:
1) What makes Frisian’s views of the joker different than CW’s?
Short answer? The amount of time they spent on it. Or maybe this is the proof that lurking pays off.

4) Xardob, you mentioned that you thought Hawk was innocent and you’d rather have a vigilante kill him. That’s fine, but what if there was no vig? We’d still have Hawk as a distraction. I understand you’d rather do it your way because you didn’t suspect Hawk, but isn’t it riskier to leave the more distracting option alive with the potential to not be killed?
If there was no Vig, I'd pray for the wolves to do us a favor. If Hawk was still alive, it wouldn't make much of a difference. Even distractions can be used to hunt wolves.

Additionally, doesn’t it work both ways? Why not just say “whoever we don’t lynch today, the vig should kill in order to remove the greatest distractions?”
This doesn't work both ways, because suggesting Vig kills is a really bad idea. Hawk is a special case because there's no wolf crazy enough to kill him during the night, and even so, it probably wasn't my brightest moment.

Nipplemelterina said:
1) Xardob and Whoopin hoppin' on the AWdeV train. Xardob's vote is reasonable since he thought Hawk was probably innocent. K. But Whoopin was all for lynching Hawk earlier, and while he did suggest that his suspicion of CW and Fishy made him dubious of Hawk's guilt, AWdeV is neither CW nor Fishy, so I don't exactly understand it. The reason why I bring Xardob into this is because they have previously voted together. This makes it three times. I might be thinking about it too much, but my gut is tingling.
By the time Whoopin voted CW, I had already moved on to Frisian. But you have a good point with Whoopin's refusal to vote Hawk. That also caught my eye.
 
SootShade said:
Is any of this relevant? The Hawk lynch is going to tell us **** all about the wolves, since they would have been free to stay off or to hop on it as they wished. No doubt there's a couple there, but this doesn't help to pin them down. Now, if you can point out cases where someone actually acted strangely regarding it, and seemed to adapt their suspicion of Hawk strangely when choosing their position on this...
More relevant data than info used from outside this game. We actually have something to work with and looking at the lynch votes, and who didnt lynch votes could narrow down our suspects.

Im not very good at identifying someone acting strangely, but I wanted to bring our attention to the wagon and nonwagon. Maybe we have a wolf in the group? Maybe we have a wolf in the nongroup. I actually am more interested in the players that DIDNT vote for Hawk. Since it includes myself there are fewer players in the list and I think one of them can be a wolf. Notice that both FF and CW didnt bother, it was obvious to all that Hawk was doomed so they just waited for it to happen.

 
Nipplemelterina said:
Questions
2) Whoopin: In this post you speculate that if Hawk turned up innocent AWdeV might have known better and wanted to seem helpful to the village. What is your view on this idea now?

3) Whoopin, you said here that your asking for votes got some stellar results, but didn’t expand on that. What were you referring to?

Things that are not sitting well with me:
1) Xardob and Whoopin hoppin' on the AWdeV train. Xardob's vote is reasonable since he thought Hawk was probably innocent. K. But Whoopin was all for lynching Hawk earlier, and while he did suggest that his suspicion of CW and Fishy made him dubious of Hawk's guilt, AWdeV is neither CW nor Fishy, so I don't exactly understand it. The reason why I bring Xardob into this is because they have previously voted together. This makes it three times. I might be thinking about it too much, but my gut is tingling.

2) This post by Whoopin. Day 1 is problematic for his hunches, but his whole pack idea was based off his hunches. If you know your Day 1 hunches are not always the best, why put so much weight into them and basically refuse to consider other arguments made for others?

3) Whoopin’s comment here about Hawk. I agree that getting Hawk’s suspicions down is a good idea in case he was to get lynched, but Whoopin seems to take it for granted that Hawk was going to die. He did the same with Magorian, but that one seems more reasonable because it came much later in the day. Preemptive?

6) Whoopin’s argument that CW and FF are ”guility by association” with Adaham… who we didn’t even know was guilty of anything at that point. Do I need to further explain?

I like this, much better than wall of texts - I can answer questions eznp.

2) I still believe that since knowing how is innocent is just as an advantage for the wolves since they know who is not. I think its good to suspect players that tend to defend innocents without having much non-suspicion built upon the relationship.

3) The results were players asking why I did that, gave their opinion if it was helpful to the hunt or not and also gave another discussion topic when the game went stale. I believe it was a great idea and Im thinking of doing it again soon to really see where players stand on day two cause wow this discussion is getting murky.

1) I was for lynching Hawk to keep the discussion going and to add real pressure to my vote, instead of saying its a placeholder - I made it clear that I was willing to lynch him. Since I suspect FF and CW and their reactions to Hawk seem to hint he was an innocent, also his own defense didnt seem deceptive to me so I didnt pursue a topic that was already whooped to death. AWdeV was in my orange list since I couldnt place him as a good hunter or deceptive so he was a valid person for me vote for a lynch if we needed to consolidate. And its interesting that Xardob and I voted together 3 times? I didnt notice that and gonna review the occurrences.

2) My hunches have been really good to me on day one, a better record than most players. I also believe we should all listen to our gut feelings more often on who you suspect, only problem with that and why its not used much is its been proven IMPOSSIBLE to convince others to have faith in your "gut" even though it is referenced often. One reason I dont really like "dumpster diving" for suspicious posts is be cause Ive seen it happen so many times it targets and innocent player and it all goes wrong (very easy to see when you host a game). We ended up lynching a innocent on day one based on "wolf hunting" and "suspicions" and it was just as wrong as I was with Adaham. I also explained to Llandy before than when you have a hunch, saying maybe, possibly, and could be defeats the purpose, its already hard to convince others and if your gut is telling you something is amiss then believe in it or its pointless.

3) Preemptive? I assume that players reading that they are doomed may bring about some more posts from them - its another pressure vote tool that you just wrecked cause now it has less power when I use it again. Just like saying "this is a pressure vote" it ruins its true "pressure" - thanks bastage.

6) Yep that means if Adaham was guilty or I find out they are wolfy then I will be determined to follow thru with the hunch. Since Adaham has been proven innocent, Ill have to find them deceptive in another way or find it in another target entirely - I refuse to get tunnelvision... I learned the hardway about that and I do try to improve.

Good stuff, other players got questions for me? Hook it up this is a much better format.
 
@Whoopin

1) What are your thoughts on ejnomad?

2) On this handy Scale o'Suspicion, where would you put ejnomad right now? Insert an asterisk where appropriate:

Not suspicious [----------------------] Very suspicious

3) Would you be willing to lynch ejnomad right now? If not, why not?

4) How useful do you think this whole "probability/commonness" argument has been?

5) In your first Day 2 post, you listed the names of the Hawk-voters and said you suspected at least 1 or 2 wolves being in there. Who would be your top suspects in this case?

6) Neither Fishy or CW voted for Hawk. How does this fit in with number 5)?

 
Cativan said:
More importantly, did I have to draw a conclusion based on that single post? Did you actually draw a conclusion about me in your post? Because immediately after stating your conclusion, you provide a reverse statement based on the previous game and say that you don't know what to think.

You don't have to draw a conclusion, no. It would just help me, personally, to understand where you're coming from if you did. In hindsight, I guess it was a little much to ask you to draw a conclusion based off one post, given that I've made similar comments about CW and Fishy without drawing any (or at least, many) conclusions.

But like I said, I was in a rather paranoid frame of mind coming right out of my WoT @ Magorian and seeing suspicion in things that probably weren't all that suspicious.

Yesterday I said I needed more from Whoopin to weigh my opinion about him. Days passed and he didn't actually posted anything of significance so I still need more. My conclusion: Definitely more suspicious than day 1. Is this one all right?

Yeah yeah, I deserve a bit of mocking for my comment. When I'm tired and rambly I don't always make sense, and by the time I'd finished my WoT my brain was just spitting out the first thoughts that crossed my mind regardless of how they sounded.


So, because I don't recall asking you yet.... what are your thoughts on ejnomad? Here's the Scale o' Suspiciousness:

Not suspicious [-------------------] Very suspicious

Lynch, y/n?

And now that Whoopin's posted, what are your thoughts on his posts?



@Nipple

You want my thoughts on other players? Okie dokie. But first I have a Fishy post to respond to and then must do caffeine. Mini-analysis of Day 2 so far coming up shortly.
 
Pharaoh X Llandy said:
@Whoopin

1) What are your thoughts on ejnomad?

2) On this handy Scale o'Suspicion, where would you put ejnomad right now? Insert an asterisk where appropriate:

Not suspicious [----------------------] Very suspicious

3) Would you be willing to lynch ejnomad right now? If not, why not?

4) How useful do you think this whole "probability/commonness" argument has been?

5) In your first Day 2 post, you listed the names of the Hawk-voters and said you suspected at least 1 or 2 wolves being in there. Who would be your top suspects in this case?

6) Neither Fishy or CW voted for Hawk. How does this fit in with number 5)?
I was coming up with my own questions and a new post arrived from lovely Llandy!

1) Not much, havent found him deceptive yet - kinda hard to say and havent played with him before to measure if he is acting the same or different.

2) [----------*----------]

3) Not compared to some other players however if it came down to a nolynch situation I would assist, I dont find him particularly exceptional at wolfhutning this game, but to be fair Im not doing a wonderful job either compared to Facemelter (BTW hes doing great and appreciate his work - reminds me how Captain Calodine really did well in Twilight II Zone).

4) Reading ejnomads post history now - will have to return to this question.

5) My brain works backwards to narrow it down, its not who I suspect but who I dont. To answer your question directly instead of opposite it would be between FrisianDude, Magorian, AWdeV could be a wagonwolf.

6) I think they knew Hawk was innocent since they didnt really give a reason to not suspect him. As I mentioned my reasons to lose suspicion was because they did when I thought they were packies with Adaham - also Hawks later defensive posts didnt seem deceptive to me - which is 2 reasons more than they gave.
 
@Llandy Can you link to the post containing the "probability/commonness" argument? I looked at his post history and it was riddled with RESISTANCE and BOP posts.

ejnomad said:
@Pharaoh X Llandy

Just to be clear I'm not ignoring you. I'll come back for you later.  :grin: Thursday and Friday are not my best days for posting, but I will go ahead and be clear Whoopin is in my top 3 I just haven't had the time to drill him but I'm very happy to see Nipple already mentioned the 2+1=3 bit. So thanks for that Nipple. I mean it's like he thinks Adaham can't count of something... :lol:

Would have a much better idea about ejnomad once he follows thru with "drilling" me thoroughly. Players askin questions are doing it right.
 
TheFlyingFishy said:
It may just be me, but responding after pretty much every post that throws something accusatory at you is too defensive; it's better and looks less panicky to let a few build up before you try and tackle them.

I actually like AW looking "panicky." His swift responses have an immediacy to them which makes them feel like calculated. And, best of all, he's not actually avoiding accusations. He's tackling them head on. Granted, his responses don't always make sense, and I don't always agree with them (for example, he appears to have only just acknowledged the difference between his innocent "OMG WE LOST A SPECIAL!" and his furry "OMG WE LOST A SPECIAL" type of posts).

But at least he's trying. If you're going to pick on a player for being defensive and not particularly pushing the hunt forward, might I suggest you start with Magorian? See my Day 1 LoS on him. And my WoT post a couple of pages ago.

Or is it simply that Magorian looks "better" because he's letting a bit of time pass before responding to accusations? Example, he's still "planning" a long explanatory post at Soot (I assume it will be along the same lines/length that he gave to me) and my problem with this is that it's taking him so long to put out a lengthy response that by the time the conversation has moved on a little he will STILL be responding to somewhat older accusations, thereby dragging the conversation backwards to an earlier state.

What are your thoughts on that? I am asking for your direct input and involvement here so please do not go absent again for days. Right now, if you're innocent, you're as much a liability as Hawk because your absence is going to become more and more of a focal point for discussion, so please start to contribute more.

The recent vote on Mag seems like it was just the culmination a really long-winded OMGUS.

Que?

AWdeV and Mag have been on-and-off since early Day 1 when that whole "Minefield" and "Relevance of early vote analysis" discussion came up. You know, the discussion you largely avoided because you like to leave it to the more experienced (or whatever term you used) players?

Convenient, that.

Speaking of Mag, he doesn't strike me as suspicious anymore. He seems too confident in his assertions and reliance on statistics, whereas I feel he would be inclined to use his trademarked logic if he were a wolf.

I can't say anything about this that hasn't already been covered by AW and Soot. So, see their posts for a summation of my thoughts.

He's smart enough to know that using so much meta isn't really a good play, and if he were a wolf I think he'd be more careful about where he drew his arguments from.

So much WIFOM here that it's actually making me thirsty.

Also, for all the complaining about tunnelvision, there was some pretty heavy and focused concentration on him early on in day 2.

Did you actually read the arguments for and against Magorian? Did you read the other posts in Day 2? The ones which didn't relate to Magorian? For example, CW's arrival and my (and yes, Soot's too) posts to her? Do you feel we were "tunnelling" on her because we were pointing out things which looked suspicious? What do you think about her posts, and now her disappearance (again)?

Again these are actual non-rhetorical questions for which I would like your input.

And speaking of input, what are your thoughts on the other players in this game? I won't eve ask you to give your impressions of the "lurky" players of Day 2. So, what do you think of:

Nipplemelter
SootShade
Ativan
Magorian
Xardob
(and now) Whoopin

??
 
Whoopin said:
@Llandy Can you link to the post containing the "probability/commonness" argument? I looked at his post history and it was riddled with RESISTANCE and BOP posts.

Sorry, I should have made it clearer in my questions: The probability/commonness argument refers to the whole Magorian vs AW situation with Me/Nipple/Soot/Ativan chipping in.

My main point about ejnomad is here:  http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,316244.msg7510668.html#msg7510668

Back from Day 1, but also involves his posts relating to Orj's misread of Adaham's LoS (I can dig up the posts for you if you want)
 
Pharaoh X Llandy said:
TheFlyingFishy said:
It may just be me, but responding after pretty much every post that throws something accusatory at you is too defensive; it's better and looks less panicky to let a few build up before you try and tackle them.

I actually like AW looking "panicky." His swift responses have an immediacy to them which makes them feel like calculated.

Oops, this part here where I say "...LIKE calculated" should say "...LESS calculated."  :oops:

Massive proof-reading fail means I really am in serious need of caffeine. Back shortly following some brief Resistance-host upkeep, then I'll make that post for Nipple that I promised him.
 
Back
Top Bottom