Were Trek: Q-re - Game over, INNOCENTS WIN :iamamoron:

Currently viewing this thread:

Moose!

poorly-drawn
Duke
Notably Curio, I don't think the wolves would all suddenly jump on Jock if he were innocent, since we're not at lynch or lose. But seeing as how I think the possible non-Jock wolves are you, Eternal, Soot, and Dago, I imagine one of you might want to jump on.
 

Curiocaueri

Grandmaster Knight
Moose! said:
Notably Curio, I don't think the wolves would all suddenly jump on Jock if he were innocent, since we're not at lynch or lose. But seeing as how I think the possible non-Jock wolves are you, Eternal, Soot, and Dago, I imagine one of you might want to jump on.
Good point, you're right. And yeah, I noticed you hoped I would jump on. :lol:

Moose! said:
Dago Wolfrider said:
I don't think that we are all specials, it's quite unlikely.

Hmmm...

Are you a special, Dago?
My mom always says I'm special.


(I'm sure my terrible ****posts are gonna get me killed sooner or later  :facepalm: :lol: )
 

Moose!

poorly-drawn
Duke
Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
Good point, you're right. And yeah, I noticed you hoped I would jump on. :lol:

Well, if you're an innocent, I can promise you that you'd be voting with two other innocents.

I'd really like Xardob to place a vote, since he is the only other person besides Rocco who I feel very strongly is innocent, reluctantly followed by Brutus.

Xardob said:
Here's what I'm thinking about right now. We already have confirmed an Oracle, a Tracker, a One-Shot Vigilante and a Veteran confirmed. At least three of these roles are innocents, probably all four. It's likely we have a pair of Lovers as well. What do I make of that? We're ****ed. That's a lot of firepower on the innocent team, so it's likely the wolves have just as much.
 

Dago Wolfrider

Sergeant Knight
Moose! said:
Dago Wolfrider said:
First and most important thing, he is refusing to answer my questions.

6pxhulopaey21.jpg

Dago Wolfrider said:
Secondly, he votes without hunting or giving serious reasons to back his votes up.

I mean, I do the same thing. Why don't you vote me?

Dago Wolfrider said:
Finally, contrary to what Curio says I find his ability a possible wolfish one or maybe his survival is connected to Xardob's role being provided with a chance of failure.

I would agree, but Xardob is much smarter than all of us, and he seems pretty sure that Brutus' role must be innocent.

We do not facepalm in Italy(in real life). Usually. At least not me or those I know.

To answer your question it would be probably losing my time. Plus if it's true that you and Rocco are Romeo and Juliet then we would probably lose two Innocents at once. Not the most clever move.

Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
We are currently 9 players, so 5 required to lynch, Jock has already 2 so the 3 wolves count now instantly lynch him. I assume you know that, just clarifying.
Now, my second explanation why they don't do that would be that Jock is a wolf, because they wouldn't push a vote on their own of course.
The third explanation is that one of the 2 votes on Jock (Moose and Rocco) is already from a wolf, so if the two other wolves voted there would only be 4 votes on him, which is not enough.
Quick Maffs!

Maybe Jock is not their target, maybe joining his bandwagon without reasons or while having to change their votes would probably made them suspicious. You missed more than onr case/explanation to why Jock has not been lynched yet.

Moose! said:
Notably Curio, I don't think the wolves would all suddenly jump on Jock if he were innocent, since we're not at lynch or lose. But seeing as how I think the possible non-Jock wolves are you, Eternal, Soot, and Dago, I imagine one of you might want to jump on.

See above. Not me, I have just had dinner, jumping is not an option right now.

Moose! said:
Dago Wolfrider said:
I don't think that we are all specials, it's quite unlikely.

Hmmm...

Are you a special, Dago?

I am special. We are all special. We are single and universal, we are different and the same. We are all humans, ontologically equals, yet different from one another. Fascinating, ah! You should read Levinas or Panikkar.

Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
My mom always says I'm special.


(I'm sure my terrible ****posts are gonna get me killed sooner or later  :facepalm: :lol: )

I saw that coming. :???:
 

Curiocaueri

Grandmaster Knight
Moose! said:
Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
Good point, you're right. And yeah, I noticed you hoped I would jump on. :lol:
Well, if you're an innocent, I can promise you that you'd be voting with two other innocents.
Well, I do not really know if I can trust you. You and Rocco being lovers does make you more likely to be innocent, but aside from that I'd be almost 100% convinced that you're a wolf  :lol:

Dago Wolfrider said:
Maybe Jock is not their target (innocents are generally the target of the wolves, so I'd say I have that covered with the explanation that Jock could be a wolf), maybe joining his bandwagon without reasons or while having to change their votes would probably made them suspicious (Yeah that's kinda what Moose already said, and I did miss that one, I agree. Was too eager to use that situation as evidence there, while it does not have to mean anything).
 

Moose!

poorly-drawn
Duke
Dago Wolfrider said:
if it's true that you and Rocco are Romeo and Juliet then we would probably lose two Innocents at once. Not the most clever move.

I guess you and your pack will just have to find out the hard way.  :razz:
 

Dago Wolfrider

Sergeant Knight
Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
Moose! said:
Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
Good point, you're right. And yeah, I noticed you hoped I would jump on. :lol:
Well, if you're an innocent, I can promise you that you'd be voting with two other innocents.
Well, I do not really know if I can trust you. You and Rocco being lovers does make you more likely to be innocent, but aside from that I'd be almost 100% convinced that you're a wolf  :lol:

Dago Wolfrider said:
Maybe Jock is not their target (innocents are generally the target of the wolves, so I'd say I have that covered with the explanation that Jock could be a wolf), maybe joining his bandwagon without reasons or while having to change their votes would probably made them suspicious (Yeah that's kinda what Moose already said, and I did miss that one, I agree. Was too eager to use that situation as evidence there, while it does not have to mean anything).

What I wanted to sau is that maybe they do not want to have Jock lynched. Because he trusts them or maybe they have a better target in mind.

Moose! said:
Dago Wolfrider said:
if it's true that you and Rocco are Romeo and Juliet then we would probably lose two Innocents at once. Not the most clever move.

I guess the traitors will just have to find out the easy way.  :razz:

Fixed that.
Lynching=hard; lunching=easy. I think that we can agree on this.
 
My dear Marowit, I have not jumped on Xardob again, as you suggest.  https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,383873.msg9110993.html#msg9110993
 

Moose!

poorly-drawn
Duke
Dago Wolfrider said:
Lynching=hard; lunching=easy. I think that we can agree on this.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  :wink:

Brutus, you're voting for an innocent. Can I convince you to at least speculate that someone else besides me/Rocco are guilty?
 
Klingons have honor and with your overall scummy behavior and Rocco moving to protect you, I don't think it likely.  sayeth Worf, son of Mogh.
 

Moose!

poorly-drawn
Duke
Brutus, would you say it's normal behavior for wolves to consistently and vocally protect each other as much as Rocco and I have done?
 

Catholic

Duke
WBWF&SNW
Alright, I'm back from my date. So many people asking me so many questions.

SootShade said:
What the actual ****. I was bracing myself for some complete horse**** when I saw you looking at the thread, and then you just come out with entirely reasonable reads all around? Is this how you try to buddy up with me, making sense? Got to admit, it's a pretty good way. :lol:
Uhhhh

Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
Literally the opposite of an "I told you so", when i talk about how I considered him suspicious and he came up as innocent. And you may notice that this post is directed at the accusation that I lazily jumped on the Arch3r bandwagon (same accusation that you also made) which I did, yes, because 1. I thought he was a wolf, duh, and 2. because I thought it was a fun way to join the vote, apparently everyone disagrees witht that though  :lol:

So if you vote me, please for a better reason than that, or you'll make me sad :iamamoron:

But... Moose! started the Arch3r wagon? Why did you lazy join a wagon started by someone you were the most suspicious of?

Moose! said:
Eternal if you think it’s not me and it is Rocco your dumb.

no u

Moose! said:
Why do you guys have such a strong innocent read on Dago again?

Re-read the middle part of the first day. Nothing is happening. The wolves have an easy time flying under the radar. Dago is the only one making significant noise and trying to rally a hunt. It's incredibly village behavior.

Moose! said:
The odds that both Curio and jock are wolves seems totally low. If dago isn’t a wolf as well then both Soot and Eternal are probably wolves. If Dago is a wolf than it’s probably Soot or eternal.

Literally none of those are true.

Dago Wolfrider said:
Both SootShade and Marowit being traitors would be rather strange. I mean Arch3r was lynched mostly because of his flip flopping. At least that's what mostly made him suspicious to me. And then what do you do? You try to start a bandwagon on your teammate to then change your vote midair once he show up with a LoS? Moreover you forgot that Marowit parked a vote on me last day. You do not vote one of your teammates if you know that you may be unable to change it and while he is under pressure. All in all I am not denying the possibility that SootShade or Marowit or both may be wolves, yet that's quite unlikely to me. I do not trust them, but their posts are reasonable and well thought, unlike many others.

Okay guys, I realize it's funny for me to say this, but there's been a lot of "oh if it's X then it can't be Y" arguments this game. Almost all of those arguments are worthless. Wolves go after each other all the time. Wolves frequently vote together, especially if they can get on a bandwagon lead by an innocent (Arch3r, anyone?). Wolves are also cautious of being caught on the same wagon, because it makes them look suspicious and associated. My past experience with analyzing packs is that it's usually not very successful and in my last few games where I used it as my primary criterion I ended up being dead wrong on a lot of people. I don't think it's a scummy argument, I just think it's a bad one. I'm much more confident in lynching Curio and/or Rocco because of their incredibly scummy behavior than I am about lynching Curio because of his associations to any other scummy people.

Lastly, I did not expect to be completely useless Day 1 - I very genuinely promised an LoS I was intending to deliver before life became busy. I wouldn't use it as evidence of me being innocent and/or somehow tied in your innocence.

Moose! said:
Marowit said:
I lurked last game I played in and I was innocent. I am lurking now. My lurking behavior has everything to do with how much time I have and nothing to do with my alignment. I love Werewolf. If I'm an innocent, I like thinking of what packs exist and how dynamics between players can give away who is evil. If I'm a wolf, I like to pretend to do the same. I'm sure there's things that give me away as a wolf in the games where I am a wolf, but lurkishness is not one of them.

Shouldn't you know whether you're an innocent or a wolf?

This kind of defense falls totally flat for me, and is totally akin to Adaham's defense of himself in the last game when he was scum and I rightly called it out (albeit an uninformed scum)

I'm saying that across all Werewolf games, regardless of which affiliation I am my lurking behavior does not influence how I play. I'm not saying that in this particular game I could be either.

Jock said:
Marowit said:
Xardob's post on page 15 is so flimsy... So is Jock's...

Bunch of "do we vote lurkers or not" discussion. I think it's an interesting talk; I think trying to draw allegiances based on where people fall on this argument is useless. Sootshade and I seem to be in agreement here.
Marowit said:
Jock posts some wishy-washy garbage.
What does this mean? Do you have any actual reasons or are you just trying to fill the space to look like you're actually doing something?

No, that's what I'm accusing you of doing. You make posts that defend yourself or make some half-assed "maybe wolf maybe not" arguments without ever committing to anything. My stream of consciousness was wishy-washy, because that's what posting while reading is, but I'm committed to a Curio lynch. So far you've made no efforts to start or support a train and have just jumped on a bandwagon to lynch an innocent.

Moose! said:
I know for a fact that two innocents are voting for Jock right now.

Spicy.

Moose! said:
Smart players like Arch3r and Xardob and Soot (I think?) have floated the stupid idea that I am in a cupid role with Rocco, and that one of us is innocent and the other one is a wolf.

I concur with you that this is a stupid idea, and therefore think Rocco being a wolf and you being innocent (or vice versa) is entirely plausible.

Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
@Eternal my previous comment on the "told you so" accusation in case you missed it. I really want to see where you got that from, because if you really just pulled those accusations out of your arse, I know who I'm gonna change my vote to.

I read thirty pages at 2am. Forgive my misinterpretation. You're still scummy.

Moose! said:
Eternal in your first post you were like “Moose is obviously scum” and I your second you were like “well maybe not and I have tunnel vision.” Why the change of heart?

Because I read the other two-thirds of the game after I said "Moose is obviously scum."

Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
We are currently 9 players, so 5 required to lynch, Jock has already 2 so the 3 wolves count now instantly lynch him. I assume you know that, just clarifying.
Now, my second explanation why they don't do that would be that Jock is a wolf, because they wouldn't push a vote on their own of course.
The third explanation is that one of the 2 votes on Jock (Moose and Rocco) is already from a wolf, so if the two other wolves voted there would only be 4 votes on him, which is not enough.
Quick Maffs!

There's four days to lynch. Really not a rush for the wolves to hop on that train. Wolves lynched Arch3r in the span of a few hours day 1.

Lord Brutus said:
Of course with Marowit's misinterpretation of my assessment of Xardob, possibly deliberate, he may be wolf no. 3.

I pretty much skimmed through the first Day 2 pages because role analysis makes a boring game. Not much sense in me doing it deliberately since I really don't care for lynching you.
 

Catholic

Duke
WBWF&SNW
Moose! said:
Brutus, would you say it's normal behavior for wolves to consistently and vocally protect each other as much as Rocco and I have done?

Dude we get it you're a special and know that Rocco is innocent. Can we lynch Curio now?
 

Curiocaueri

Grandmaster Knight
Marowit said:
Alright, I'm back from my date. So many people asking me so many questions.

Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
Literally the opposite of an "I told you so", when i talk about how I considered him suspicious and he came up as innocent. And you may notice that this post is directed at the accusation that I lazily jumped on the Arch3r bandwagon (same accusation that you also made) which I did, yes, because 1. I thought he was a wolf, duh, and 2. because I thought it was a fun way to join the vote, apparently everyone disagrees witht that though  :lol:

So if you vote me, please for a better reason than that, or you'll make me sad :iamamoron:

But... Moose! started the Arch3r wagon? Why did you lazy join a wagon started by someone you were the most suspicious of?
Because I'm aware I might be wrong about my suspicions as I am not omniscient, and I consider lynching someone I'm 80% sure is a wolf is better than wasting my vote on someone I'm 90% sure is a wolf, because nobody agrees with me. I would probably not have joined if it wasn't close to the deadline
Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
@Eternal my previous comment on the "told you so" accusation in case you missed it. I really want to see where you got that from, because if you really just pulled those accusations out of your arse, I know who I'm gonna change my vote to.

I read thirty pages at 2am. Forgive my misinterpretation ( No  :razz:). You're still scummy.
 
Top Bottom