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

Currently viewing this thread:

Troll

Duke
M&BWB
So my starting point for the reread on Crassius and Jock is roughly this:

For the beginning day 1 I had both of them as mild innocent reads, but with the progress of the Xardob and Arch3r wagons both of them started looking a lot worse to me, so that they both continued to occupy a similar space in my thoughts. Wanting to better distinguish them is the main reason why I want to do this reread in the first place.

I'll admit that I've been sort of skimming through their posts thus far on day 2, pending my reread, but I will note that their play has still been a lot more distinct to me. Mainly because of the circumstance of the game putting them at the center of negative attention, and the fact that some people (myself included) are thinking there is likely one wolf between the two of them, thus putting them naturally at opposition towards each other. I'm not sure that that's a situation that is very fruitful, as there's no real certainty to based this dichotomy on in the first place.

It feels like Jock is interested in keeping as many scenarios open as possible, which is what a wolf probably would like to do in a situation where targets have been narrowed down to this degree. Not that he's the only one insisting on scenarios that I myself consider quite unlikely. Crassius on the other hand is very focused on explaining himself, and whilst his defence in itself doesn't strike me as off, his focus on this front is giving me the impression that he's happy as long as it's not him that hangs. Pretty standard scummy behaviour, if not uncommon in newer innocent players as well. Whilst Jock has also spent effort defending himself, he's also been engaging the game more actively in other ways, which gives me a better impression.



Crassius:
Obviously started with a lot of roleplaying and jokes. In general it gave me an innocent gut feeling, probably by the virtue of how relaxed he appeared. He also didn't waste time starting more or less serious discussions in the mix, which I would also take as a good sign.

He happily jumped on the early Xardob wagon without any reasoning, but that doesn't stand out from everyone else who did.

He objected to Dago's 'trap', stating the obvious. I still don't know why this would give Dago an innocent read. Didn't really stand out to me otherwise, but the next one on the subject did:
Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
I thought a bit more about Dago's "trap" during the night, and that whole thing does not seem right to me.
First of all, he knows from his own game that just ended that players sometimes do not read the introduction/narration that carefully, yet his supposed trap was based on that very assumption.
Then he very quickly relented when Soot said he just ignored it, which seemed a bit weird to me.
This looks very fishy to me, but Fishy isn't even playing!  :shock:
Now, I have no idea how all that is in any way related to Dago being a traitor, especially when we consider that we almost certainly have 3 traitors, not 2 as Dago mentioned in the "trap", but I definitly have a bad feeling about all this.
Still strikes me as him trying a bit too hard on this, when he doesn't come to any conclusion.

He then declared Jock and Xardob as his primary suspects quite early on. Looking back from this situation, that's probably a good look for him, in that it makes his part in the Xardob wagon look a bit better. The fact that it seems to be based on a presumption of a pack connection between the two makes it seem flimsy, but I'm the first to admit that it's very tempting to look for such things.

Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
SootShade said:
Crass's been active and is giving me a nice gut feeling generally, though this post leans in the other direction:
Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
I thought a bit more about Dago's "trap" during the night, and that whole thing does not seem right to me.
First of all, he knows from his own game that just ended that players sometimes do not read the introduction/narration that carefully, yet his supposed trap was based on that very assumption.
Then he very quickly relented when Soot said he just ignored it, which seemed a bit weird to me.
This looks very fishy to me, but Fishy isn't even playing!  :shock:
Now, I have no idea how all that is in any way related to Dago being a traitor, especially when we consider that we almost certainly have 3 traitors, not 2 as Dago mentioned in the "trap", but I definitly have a bad feeling about all this.
Seems like a bit too much 'suggesting' rather than 'accusing', as wolf might do to test the waters.
Well you're right, I was mostly suggesting there, as for me that was a weird post that did not make a lot for a wolf in my opinion. Sure, it would've created confusion about other's being guilty, but also painted a target on Dago himself. So yeah, that was never intended to accuse Dago of being a wolf (as shown in the part of the quote that i just bolded, though maybe that sentence was a bit weird  :???:), just that i did not like that trap and his explanations. And, after all, I hoped posting that made other's comment on it or lead to Dago explaining his reasoning in more detail.
Maybe you are right tho and I should use a more accusatory tone in my posts to get stronger reactions  :wink:
Now, I actually have no idea why I originally didn't push him further on this part. Looking at it again, this is probably his scummiest post up until this point in the game. What the heck's with having a 'bad feeling' about what Dago did, but in no way (even on a gut level) suspecting him for it? And what sort of reaction is he looking for, if he doesn't think that it made sense for a wolf?

Next Crassius started shifting his attention towards Brutus, but nothing that amounted to more than remarking on his own suspicion in that direction.

After that he did nothing interesting except marking out his preferred lynching order, until many pages later Xardob and Brutus did their thing. At that point he showed up to interpret their roles as innocent specials, but not forgetting to bring up the possibility that they are scum after all.

He then rather easily backed off from his point against Jock, accepting the explanation that the rather gave for apparently trying to stop the Xardob wagon. Perhaps reasonable, considering how Xardob's special action seemed to mark him as an innocent. In the same post Dago was marked up as more suspicious than previous; he didn't like Dago campaigning for votes on himself.

He then continued the discussion regarding Xardob and Brutus's roles for quite some time. I agree with what he said there, but it's really not hard to be correct on this part; unless you are Moose, apparently, who he argued with until they were both voting each other. Notably, I'm not opposed to the case Crassius is making here, though I'm leaning towards Moose again just being a bit nuts rather than particularly scummy, on this point.

And then Moose took an idea from me and started a sudden Arch3r wagon, which Crassius was very quick to join - after Rocco and Jock already had. Apparently because he reluctantly agreed with Moose's (minimal) reasoning. Yeah, this part is definitely a bit weird to me, with him so easily joining the wagon started by his apparent primary suspect; he didn't stop wanting to lynch Moose before he did, either.

In conclusion, Crassius's day 1 didn't show many bad signs until very late, but it had a remarkable lack of proactive hunting throughout. He was happy to remark about several suspects he had, but I don't see a strong push on any of them, except maybe Moose, but he'd barely got started there before suddenly jumping on the Arch3r wagon instead. Really starting to look like a wolf trying to just lynch anyone.

On day 2, he started by explaining the previous:
Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
Dago Wolfrider said:
Agreed on Arch3r's bandwagon. People jumped on it with no effort and I doubt that the few, yet concrete reasons I highlighted were enough to convince them to join it.
I'd like to point out that Arch3r has already been high on my list (number four), and given that after Xardob tried to shoot Brutus I was pretty convinced of them both being innocent( Xardob 99% and Brutus 90% while Jock finally gave me a better explanation for the post of his that I didn't like, he would've been number one if Moose himself did not take that place  :iamamoron: Absolutely nobody seemed to agree with me on Moose though, so I went for the second best option.
It's quite consistent, actually. I'd still think he should be more careful about jumping on a wagon started by his primary suspect though.

After that he went on the offense against Moose again, which is also consistent behaviour, though him bringing up the Arch3r wagon here doesn't necessarily do him any favours. This mixes with a continued discussion on Xardob and Brutus's roles, which is still valid but easy, though this time he was more engaging Dago.

All in all, it's actually not nearly the type of defensive behaviour that I was reading it as initially. Starting off by explaining his part in the Arch3r lynch is the notable exception.

He was on board with Xardob's read of the game, which I also can't object to.

He did 'defend' himself against Eternal then, but that was mainly just repeating his previous explanation and correcting a misinterpretation by Eternal.

He's actually not commented all that much on Jock as a suspect, aside jokingly remarking that it'd make for a preferable lynch to himself. Thus he isn't really showing the kind of 'anyone but me' signs that I was somehow reading to him previously.

He again explains himself, but not in a particularly defensive manner, rather seeming to want to correct misinterpretations of his play.



Huh. So I went from a mild innocent read on Crassius to deep in the red by the end of day 1, but properly reading day 2 has him slowly climbing back into the blue. Notably, an adjustment for the better happens very easily for a wolf between days, but on the other hand everything he says seems to check out, and there isn't actually a particular qualitative difference in his play for each day, that I can see. The opposite of what I was reading, he's not focused on defending himself, but rather explaining himself in the process objecting to other players.

I kinda feel like flopping right back to an Eternal vote now, but I should get to doing the Jock reread first as well.
 

Jock

Count
M&BWBWF&SNW
Right. Let's go down this rabbit hole to prove my balls then. :iamamoron:

Dago Wolfrider said:
Already answered this.
My suspicions arose with your lurker-talk, hence my questions about your most likely suspects – it was mostly the style of the response that mattered at that point of the game. Then you pulled the whole 'vote-for-me'-move after a bit more pressure was applied, which in my case didn't instantly give you a free pass to the innocents' section.
So, why not writing it before, why now, if you really wanted to lynch me.
I explained my suspicions about you as soon as they were formed here on day one.
Constantly talking about game mechanics or telling everyone to hunt. Basically speaking more about things you're doing instead of doing them.
So, I am not since I am doing both things contemporary. If you haven't noticed.
I was hinting at this post here: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,383873.msg9109528.html#msg9109528
Rocco also explained it here:
Roccoflipside said:
Basically what I was trying to say day 1 was that there were a limited amount of people posting, and each post said pretty much the same thing. I said let's vote a lurker, Dago said no one else was hunting enough, Soot said don't vote lurkers vote me. Then it was rinse/repeat. I wouldn't say we're in an echo chamber anymore as there is actual genuine discussion to analyze, while in the middle of day 1 we all sounded like broken records because there wasn't enough discussion. Probably why we ended up lynching an innocent too.
This aggressive style doesn't fit you – you come off too hypocritical.
Just an opinion. That's all you've got?
...what? I'm talking about how you accuse me of doing nothing but commenting on other people's posts and not doing real, manly, barechested wolf hunting, but in the next sentence you explain how you're doing 'real hunting', which is eerily similar to what my understanding and current approach to hunting is.
When I respond to accusations about myself I'm suddenly not hunting and simply commenting everyone else's posts. I believe I've also gone over the 'he voted for someone who turned out blue'-argument.
In day 1 you were not under accuse, were you? Yet, what did you do?
Suspected you. :grin:
You're not even oversimplifying, you're fabricating.
Fabricating what, what you said yourself?
Fabricating as in making up **** about my hunting. You make it sound like you're the master of the hunt right now and how my puny questions directed at you on day one can't even be considered worthy of a goosehunt.

it was mostly the style of the response that mattered at that point of the game.

How do you think a wolf would have answered? The way I did? You should be clever than this.
:facepalm:
Dago Wolfrider said:
I'm 'commenting posts' because that's what this game essentially is.

Wrong game man. That's not that easy.
It is, actually. There's a bit more involved than just hunting here too. You can be the best hunter in the world but if you can't convince the villagers of your innocence you can still end up like our oracle Arch3r on day one. That's why responding to accusations and commenting on things that might not be 100% related to hunting is still relevant and necessary at times.
Dago Wolfrider said:
Yet, what have you done so far? 0 effort.
Name someone I should vote for then since I'm obviously incapable of reaching my own conclusions. This is a chance for you to lead a successful bandwagon – no wait, those are bad, right? – on someone you think is guilty. If it happens to be me, well, then we're going to keep this discussion going for even longer. :razz:

Xardob said:
Marowit said:
Vieira is a strange night kill. There's no information there. Vieira just kind of did ****all.
I'm usually against drawing conclusions based on night kills, but this is a good point. This is a Xardob like night kill. Soot, was that you?

Dago Wolfrider said:
Both SootShade and Marowit being traitors would be rather strange.
Soot's suspicion on Marowit so far is exactly what I would expect from Soot on a lurker packmate. The fact that he seem to have dropped the suspicion one Marowit became more active does not invalidate this.

Moose! said:
Which I get is a real thing in Werewolf I guess, but I don't see how the incentives work out... if I'm the innocent and Rocco is the wolf, am I trying to win with Rocco? Or do I win if the innocents win? Likewise, how does Rocco win? With me, or with the wolves?

Either way, if I was innocent and Rocco was a wolf, I don't think I would tell everyone that I know Rocco is innocent for sure (although I do like to role claim, you never know with me).
Usually, the innocent in the pair doesn't know the allegiance of the wolf and his win condition is the same as the rest of the village. The wolf does know the allegiance of his partner, but the win condition is the same as all the wolves. As a twist, I gave both the wolf and innocent a bonus as long as their significant other was alive on Village of the Dead.

Moose! said:
Hey I was ready to lynch Brutus yesterday, but Xardob and Soot day it makes no sense for his role to be a wolfy one.
If Brutus is a wolf and his ability only protects against killing, that's basically a protection against me, a one-shot role. That's a really useless ability.
Moose! said:
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.
I'm open to the possibility that Brutus may still be a wolf if someone uses a non lethal ability on him and fails.

About Moose/Rocco relationship: that is the sort of arrangement I imagine they might have going on as well and also why I don't believe both of them to be innocent 'just because'.

Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
Oh wait, that was directed at Dago? In that case, my bad, I actually failed to understand thatpost, and sorry for this spammy posting as well  :facepalm:
My bad too, kinda. You posted twice before I managed to post, so it seemed like I was responding to your first post. But yeah, it was directed at Dago.

I'm going to wait for what Soot has to say about me and then take it from there. ( :

Moose! said:
Nice try, Soot, but the game is up.
what about my game, bro?
 

Dago Wolfrider

Sergeant Knight
Jock said:
Right. Let's go down this rabbit hole to prove my balls then. :iamamoron:

Dago Wolfrider said:
Already answered this.
My suspicions arose with your lurker-talk, hence my questions about your most likely suspects – it was mostly the style of the response that mattered at that point of the game. Then you pulled the whole 'vote-for-me'-move after a bit more pressure was applied, which in my case didn't instantly give you a free pass to the innocents' section.
So, why not writing it before, why now, if you really wanted to lynch me.
I explained my suspicions about you as soon as they were formed here on day one.
Constantly talking about game mechanics or telling everyone to hunt. Basically speaking more about things you're doing instead of doing them.
So, I am not since I am doing both things contemporary. If you haven't noticed.
I was hinting at this post here: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,383873.msg9109528.html#msg9109528
Rocco also explained it here:
Roccoflipside said:
Basically what I was trying to say day 1 was that there were a limited amount of people posting, and each post said pretty much the same thing. I said let's vote a lurker, Dago said no one else was hunting enough, Soot said don't vote lurkers vote me. Then it was rinse/repeat. I wouldn't say we're in an echo chamber anymore as there is actual genuine discussion to analyze, while in the middle of day 1 we all sounded like broken records because there wasn't enough discussion. Probably why we ended up lynching an innocent too.
This aggressive style doesn't fit you – you come off too hypocritical.
Just an opinion. That's all you've got?
...what? I'm talking about how you accuse me of doing nothing but commenting on other people's posts and not doing real, manly, barechested wolf hunting, but in the next sentence you explain how you're doing 'real hunting', which is eerily similar to what my understanding and current approach to hunting is.
When I respond to accusations about myself I'm suddenly not hunting and simply commenting everyone else's posts. I believe I've also gone over the 'he voted for someone who turned out blue'-argument.
In day 1 you were not under accuse, were you? Yet, what did you do?
Suspected you. :grin:
You're not even oversimplifying, you're fabricating.
Fabricating what, what you said yourself?
Fabricating as in making up **** about my hunting. You make it sound like you're the master of the hunt right now and how my puny questions directed at you on day one can't even be considered worthy of a goosehunt.

it was mostly the style of the response that mattered at that point of the game.

How do you think a wolf would have answered? The way I did? You should be clever than this.
:facepalm:
Dago Wolfrider said:
I'm 'commenting posts' because that's what this game essentially is.

Wrong game man. That's not that easy.
It is, actually. There's a bit more involved than just hunting here too. You can be the best hunter in the world but if you can't convince the villagers of your innocence you can still end up like our oracle Arch3r on day one. That's why responding to accusations and commenting on things that might not be 100% related to hunting is still relevant and necessary at times.
Dago Wolfrider said:
Yet, what have you done so far? 0 effort.
Name someone I should vote for then since I'm obviously incapable of reaching my own conclusions. This is a chance for you to lead a successful bandwagon – no wait, those are bad, right? – on someone you think is guilty. If it happens to be me, well, then we're going to keep this discussion going for even longer. :razz:

Xardob said:
Marowit said:
Vieira is a strange night kill. There's no information there. Vieira just kind of did ****all.
I'm usually against drawing conclusions based on night kills, but this is a good point. This is a Xardob like night kill. Soot, was that you?

Dago Wolfrider said:
Both SootShade and Marowit being traitors would be rather strange.
Soot's suspicion on Marowit so far is exactly what I would expect from Soot on a lurker packmate. The fact that he seem to have dropped the suspicion one Marowit became more active does not invalidate this.

Moose! said:
Which I get is a real thing in Werewolf I guess, but I don't see how the incentives work out... if I'm the innocent and Rocco is the wolf, am I trying to win with Rocco? Or do I win if the innocents win? Likewise, how does Rocco win? With me, or with the wolves?

Either way, if I was innocent and Rocco was a wolf, I don't think I would tell everyone that I know Rocco is innocent for sure (although I do like to role claim, you never know with me).
Usually, the innocent in the pair doesn't know the allegiance of the wolf and his win condition is the same as the rest of the village. The wolf does know the allegiance of his partner, but the win condition is the same as all the wolves. As a twist, I gave both the wolf and innocent a bonus as long as their significant other was alive on Village of the Dead.

Moose! said:
Hey I was ready to lynch Brutus yesterday, but Xardob and Soot day it makes no sense for his role to be a wolfy one.
If Brutus is a wolf and his ability only protects against killing, that's basically a protection against me, a one-shot role. That's a really useless ability.
Moose! said:
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.
I'm open to the possibility that Brutus may still be a wolf if someone uses a non lethal ability on him and fails.

About Moose/Rocco relationship: that is the sort of arrangement I imagine they might have going on as well and also why I don't believe both of them to be innocent 'just because'.

Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
Oh wait, that was directed at Dago? In that case, my bad, I actually failed to understand thatpost, and sorry for this spammy posting as well  :facepalm:
My bad too, kinda. You posted twice before I managed to post, so it seemed like I was responding to your first post. But yeah, it was directed at Dago.

I'm going to wait for what Soot has to say about me and then take it from there. ( :

Moose! said:
Nice try, Soot, but the game is up.
what about my game, bro?

I can name you someone you should hunt:
your main suspects. You think that Rocco and Moose! are traitors, why don't you pressure them? Ask questions, contest their posts, vote for one of them and check their reactions, do something. By the way I am not your shepherd.

I'm going to wait for what Soot has to say about me and then take it from there.

Usual Jock. Waiting idle while other players write their analysis. Only ready to comment them. Completely passive or subservient.

then we're going to keep this discussion going for even longer.

Is it supposed to frighten me?

P. S. You haven't answered all of my questions.

Moose! said:
I dunno, I just like being provocative.

Not that much from what I have read so far. Last game and your clash with Biggie, there you were provocative. This game = :meh:
 

Dago Wolfrider

Sergeant Knight
Moose! said:
Dago, when are you going to vote?

Once I am done with Jock and Brutus. Even if I may pressure vote the latter, just to see if he will answer me. So far I wouldn't vote Xardob and SootShade. I like what they post and I am looking forward to read SootShade's analysis on Jock. Marowit and Curio are in the Limbo right now. I would like to read more from Marowit and Xardob in general. Last, but not least I would really like to read one LoS from Xardob and  Brutus's one of course.
 

Catholic

Duke
WBWF&SNW
SootShade said:
Huh. So I went from a mild innocent read on Crassius to deep in the red by the end of day 1, but properly reading day 2 has him slowly climbing back into the blue. Notably, an adjustment for the better happens very easily for a wolf between days, but on the other hand everything he says seems to check out, and there isn't actually a particular qualitative difference in his play for each day, that I can see. The opposite of what I was reading, he's not focused on defending himself, but rather explaining himself in the process objecting to other players.

I kinda feel like flopping right back to an Eternal vote now, but I should get to doing the Jock reread first as well.

Flippity floppity.
 

Moose!

poorly-drawn
Duke
You should consider the myriad of struggles that holograms have to endure, in a world controlled by organics.
 

Troll

Duke
M&BWB
Jock:

First notable thing is Jock's so called 'defence' of Xardob. I guess I can see why Crassius might have a problem with it, but, even as I did try to scrutinize it early on, it looks entirely standard in the light of two games of meta on Jock.

That was pretty much his only contribution for 15 pages though, but at that point he came up with a solid larger post, where he talked about a lot of people and seemed to mark Dago as his primary suspect. Xardob, Moose and Rocco featured somewhat, but I can't really get a clear sense of whether any of them were suspects to him at the time.

In the next post he clearly marked Xardob, Dago, and Eternal as his choices for a lynch. I find his reasoning passable, but to me it still feels weird that Dago and Xardob were appearing him as the strongest scum reads. Maybe because that just completely didn't match my reads at the time.

Next is when he starts getting into discussions regarding lurker-lynching and Arch3r with Dago. He notes Arch3r being 'rope-happy', but doesn't come to a particular conclusion based on that.

After Xardob tried to shoot Brutus, Jock immediately agreed with Crassius. And then started confusing himself by second-guessing, apparently.

He was just on Moose and Rocco's heels onto the Arch3r wagon. He'd taken Xardob off of his list due to what happened, and noted that Dago and Eternal did not look likely to hang, thus presumably justifying being swayed by the more recent occurrences onto the Arch3r wagon.

He then defended himself, after I noted my suspicion arising from the overlap of the Xardob and Arch3r wagons:
Jock said:
That's a ****ty reason, Soot. I was against lynching a guy straight off the bat day one and I dislike early bandwagons because of how easy it is for people to 'merge' into the game like that. I was never NOT suspicious of Xardob until he pulled off his blank shot, which somewhat calmed me.
To me, on the reread, this is probably the strangest point thus far. I don't exactly know how the first part of his defense even really relates to my accusation. Maybe it's just written in a confusing way though. And I still haven't figured out what reason Jock had to suspect Xardob in the first place, except the latter's lack of motivation, which to me kinda just stinks of a wolf trying to prep for to jump on an easy target at an opportune time.

That's it for day 1. Like with Crassius, I'm not exactly impressed by Jock's hunting, but in this case it's maybe a bit less conspicuous because he was somewhat more proactive.

On day 2 Jock showed rather late, but the post was again rather solid. He noted that he's not convinced of Moose and Rocco's innocence, and specifically said that he's grown suspicious of Moose. He also remarked that he was still suspicious of Dago.

Next he responded to Eternal's entry to day 2, with a pretty much opposite reaction compared to me and Dago, though he also thought it looked more like 'misguided innocent' than a wolf. He did like the part about Crassius specifically, and it seems that this is the first point where he started shifting his attention in that direction. For a wolf it would certainly be a convenient time do so, with how the situation was looking. In the same post he also got confused by Moose and Rocco's case (or the lack of), and vote, on him.

He continued to press on Moose and Rocco further in his next post. He also defended himself from Eternal's accusation, with some length. Since I'm comparing him and Crassius here, Jock actually looks more defensive. He also finally votes Crassius, citing the amount of mechanics talk. Furthermore, he remarked on Brutus in a way that does appear to me like he wants to just keep the option of going in that direction open, though he's not willing to commit yet. This being in the context of him self-admittedly trying to look for various alternatives, however, it's perhaps not as bad as it initially looked.

Next he continued to press Dago, at which point Dago in turn started getting more aggressive towards him, claiming that Jock hadn't been hunting. Jock rebutted in what I'd consider a rather reasonable way, by referring again to his cases on Moose&Rocco and Dago himself. Dago came back again with dismissing Jock's efforts as minimal. And so on and so forth. Honestly, I tried to think about how to analyze this argument in an intelligent way, but it seems to really come down to just 'no u' in the main part. Overall, looking back at what I've written down in this post regarding Jock thus far, I'd have to say that Dago's accusations don't really ring true to me. It also does appear like this sudden aggression towards Jock was reactive. One part I can agree with Dago on was that Jock's efforts to lynch him on day 1 weren't spectacular, but at the same time I feel like that's also something Jock was more active on day 2 as well.

In fact, I would even say that Dago comes off looking a lot worse from this argument with Jock, especially with how it appears to have started reactive on his part. But it seems just contrived enough that I could see this whole thing as distancing between the two of them. Heck, I'm even starting to toy with the idea of a Dago/Eternal pack right now. Probably best I stop right now, pack theories admittedly don't work out, especially when you don't have a confirmed villain to base them on. That said, I'm starting to feel like I need to reread Dago and Eternal right now as well.

I've got a few notable issues with Jock. I'm still uneasy about his suspicion on Xardob, and though the turn on Arch3r seems better than Crassius it's still not a great look in my book. I'm not a fan of how widely he's theorizing, apparently refusing to use the information we have right now, as that would be in a villain's interest, but at the same time I'm still quite torn on Moose and Rocco myself. Most notably the way Jock turned on Crassius on day 2 stinks of him trying to save his own hide, even though it was done rather smoothly. Still, since this was supposed to be something of a comparison, I don't Jock think at any point he's looked as bad as Crassius did at the end of day 1. But on the other there's nothing in his behaviour that I'm reading as particularly innocent either, unlike how some parts of Crassius's play read to me, and right now I'm actually thinking that Jock is the more suspect of the two.
 

Troll

Duke
M&BWB
To be honest, I'm too tired to make a real conclusion right now, and both of the rereads ended up with more of an innocent read than I expected. It all felt pretty clear near the start of the day, but I think this is the point in the game that I need to take another look at various other players as well. For the time being my top three haven't changed, but I'm having some nagging doubts.
 

Moose!

poorly-drawn
Duke
SootShade said:
Most notably the way Jock turned on Crassius on day 2 stinks of him trying to save his own hide, even though it was done rather smoothly.

tumblr_ocxqa6M3fd1qmob6ro1_400.gif
 
Top Bottom