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

[Troll]

Oh, now that you reminded me who else is on this wagon, I feel like jumping right off again.

 

[Moose!]

I'd rather you help me lynch your pack mate, but you do you!

 

[Curiocaueri]

*Honestly, have you guys seen my innocent play? I'm a terrible innocent, no one should follow my enthusiastic lynchings under any circumstances.

Maybe you should tell the new players that at the start of the game, not on day 2 

Oh I definitly want to lynch a wolf  and I'm actually considering moving my vote away from you, but I am a bit unsure about that still (To explain this a bit more, if it were just your posts in a vacuum, I'd be almost 100% convinced you are a wolf. But then there's the thing with you and Rocco as lovers, and while I entertain the possibility that one of you is a wolf, that is definitly not usually the case for lovers. In addition, nobody with the notable exception of Brutus seems to be surprised by your weird posts, so maybe your innocent play is just terrible However, that is a big, strong and honourable exception, which I am not willing to ignore)
I'm definitly more suspicious about Eternal now, will have to check Jock's post again and should also analyse Soot's posts in detail before I decide on another vote. We still have time until the deadline, no need to rush this right now.

 

[Moose!]

Spoiler: My post

Mr. Worf, why don't you join me and Data on this Spock train!

Spoiler: MFW I remember in retrospect that the Big Lebowski is also a hologram

 

[Moose!]

Jock, if you vote for Brutus, I'll take my vote off you and vote for Brutus, solely for the reason that I want him to be a "Wereworf."

 

[Curiocaueri]

Just realised i made a small mistake in the post about Eternal, mixed up names from his LoS, changed to avoid confusion

Spoiler

Therefore one of them has to be a wolf

That's serial appropration, please stick to gifs and pics of your character's series or I'll place my vote on yo-oh, wait


Yes, let's talk about Eternal for a bit 

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."

Flippity floppity.

Also says a lot about all the other stuff you seemingly say with absolute certainty...

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.
What the **** is this? There's not a rush for the wolves to hop on to that, but remember when they rushed to hop onto Arch3r?? I get the point you're trying to say here, but those two statements go in a totally different direction. And more, while you state yourself that the wolves would have no rush to hop onto any train early in the game, you say with absolute certainty (see above for my opinion on that  ) that it was the wolves that carried that vote? We had 10 possible people to vote on Arch3r on day 1, 3 of those wolves. Yet you do not even acknowledge the possibility that maybe one or even two wolves abstained from that specific vote, even though you mentioned that as a tactic earlier on this exact post

Wolves are also cautious of being caught on the same wagon, because it makes them look suspicious and associated.

Might that be because you were lurking during that vote and thus establishing the narrative that the wolves pushed that vote makes you look innocent? 

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.
Unless you were a wolf, which is precisely what he is talking about here . Especially since creating doubts about someone the wolves are likely unable to kill with night attacks benefits the wolves the most. Also, wtf, he's your third most suspicious candidate, together with Dago Jock? That's such a lazy excuse...

@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.
So you "accidentally" misinterpreted posts from me and Brutus, which might of course be, as you said, that you read through a ton of posts at 2am. Doesn't make it look less bad though, tbh.

Jock, if you vote for Brutus, I'll take my vote off you and vote for Brutus, solely for the reason that I want him to be a "Wereworf."

As much as I'd like to see that, I think lynching him will only reveal him as an "Innoworf", which sounds absolutely dumb and isn't funny at all, and thus such a lynch must be avoided at all costs

 

[Jock]

Spoiler: click for lots of broken quotes and why soot is wrong about me

But more importantly, your stance on Xardob is only getting weirder. I was initially just confused by the attention that Xardob was getting. It seemed to me that over any other lurker he was the focus of several player's early suspicions, even though none of them substantiated those suspicions to any real degree. It appeared like an easy suspicion for a lazy wolf, which I called out.

I suspected Xardob as much as I suspected any other lurker at that point in the game. The only differences between Xardob and say Eternal for an example was that Eternal's lurking was in-tune with his style from previous games whereas Xardob had already attracted attention with the early bandwagon on him. The case you're trying to show here is how me being suspicious of Xardob for lurking is somehow much more sinister than being suspicious of anyone else not posting enough, which is actually understandable since I didn't specifically mention other lurkers and agreed with Brutus here:

Sorry, I've been reminiscing about fighting in the Great War, because that's what warriors do.  Actually my power has been out for several hours but that's not as dramatic.  But where is Xardob?  Usually he's called two bad guys by now.  And Marowit has gone back to lurking.  I'm beginning to think my vote is correctly placed.  That's my read, Worf, son of Mogh.

If you look at my interactions with Xardob on day one I was satisfied with what he had to say. It was the amount of posts he was – not – making that was suspicious for both myself and a couple of other players. What Soot is saying is how my whole suspicion of Xardob was completely pulled out of thin air... to seem like a busy wolf, I guess? Is that it? Yet I cleared Xardob pretty much as soon as he became more active.

You then came back to me, with:

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.

None of which explains why you suspected him, but nonetheless you were adamant on the fact that you did for a length of time. That is obviously the suspicion to which I'm referring.

I believe I misunderstood your suspicion of me here. I thought you were speaking about the same thing Curio was, not just my suspicion of Xardob.

But now you are trying your very best to downplay the fact that you were ever suspicious of him? I still stand by my argument that the attention that Xardob specifically got, without anyone bothering to even make a case, was weird. In the first place I did not pick out your suspicion to be any more notable than anyone else, and rather it was almost an afterthought as I was mainly trying to pick out overlap between the Xardob and Arch3r wagons.

This was actually the least important of the arguments against you, not the 'main issue' as you are trying to put it, that I brought up in my conclusion, but you are somehow keep coming back to this point constantly, emphasizing it far more than I ever did, and giving it far more thought than appears relevant, considering how minimal you are now portraying that suspicion to have been. I can't help but think that I must have been right with my original take on your 'suspicion'.

I'm not trying to downplay the fact I was suspicious of Xardob at first. I am trying to explain why I found his lurking to be more suspicious than anyone else's and also how this from your part a pretty far-fetched case, considering what we know from day one and what we have to go on right now.

As I clearly stated in my conclusion, my reread indeed resulted with me having a more innocent read on both you and Crassius, compared to how you were both extremely suspect before I started. As for my other suspects, I've already stated very clearly that I'm looking at specifically Eternal and Rocco as my other primary suspects.

I will have to humbly disagree with lacking strong arguments either of you, since especially you have just completely accepted the validity of at least two of my arguments on you. It appears that you are trying to dismiss, and downplay the overall strength, of my case solely based on the one that you are so oddly insistent on refuting despite its marginal importance. In trying to then even convert this to shift me towards the category of your suspects, I think you are quite overplaying your hand.

sudden aggression towards Jock was reactive

snip

Jock specified you are one of his primary suspects since very early in the game, and the point at which you decided to flip on the aggression was specifically when he took a clearly accusatory tone towards you - he doesn't have to scream out loud that you are wolf to make his suspicion known. It really seems to me that the way he dismissed the value of your answers was what prompted you to become more aggressive towards him. I'd think you'd have got to it a lot sooner if it was actually your own initiative, considering just how long that questioning went on before that point.

To obfuscate a pack connection. And specifically, I'd say that if this was distancing it started with Jock's pressuring you. As for your sudden aggression on him, that seems more like an escalation that you may have been forced to because you felt that the way that Jock was going about it wasn't in your favor.

Are you implying a Dago-Jock pack? Dago's day two has been even more of a mess imo than his day one, with the same recurring theme of blaming others for not hunting and then seemingly doing what everyone else is doing. Our argument was summed up by you very nicely and is also one the reasons why I am trying to move away from it. If I actually suspected Dago more than anyone else I'd vote for him and I believe this to be true for him as well. Since you seem adamant about my guilt it would be in your best interests to write off our discussions as packie-talk of course.

Jock, if you vote for Brutus, I'll take my vote off you and vote for Brutus, solely for the reason that I want him to be a "Wereworf."

I think you should take your vote off me and vote Soot.

Vote: SootShade.

 

[Moose!]

I think you should take your vote off me and vote Soot.

Vote: SootShade.

 

[Moose!]

Maybe you should tell the new players that at the start of the game, not on day 2 

Oh I definitly want to lynch a wolf  and I'm actually considering moving my vote away from you, but I am a bit unsure about that still (To explain this a bit more, if it were just your posts in a vacuum, I'd be almost 100% convinced you are a wolf. But then there's the thing with you and Rocco as lovers, and while I entertain the possibility that one of you is a wolf, that is definitly not usually the case for lovers. In addition, nobody with the notable exception of Brutus seems to be surprised by your weird posts, so maybe your innocent play is just terrible However, that is a big, strong and honourable exception, which I am not willing to ignore)
I'm definitly more suspicious about Eternal now, will have to check Jock's post again and should also analyse Soot's posts in detail before I decide on another vote. We still have time until the deadline, no need to rush this right now.

I wonder, are you genuinely cautious, or are you just playing it up for the camera?

 

[Curiocaueri]

I'm not cautious, I just don't want to change my vote everytime I look at a different person I still have my vote on you, so it's not like I'm avoiding to take a stance anyway. Or is that exactly why you would prefer me to change it right now? 

 

[Jock]

I'm not cautious, I just don't want to change my vote everytime I look at a different person I still have my vote on you, so it's not like I'm avoiding to take a stance anyway.

I've had this approach for a long time and although I usually don't see a problem with parking my vote on someone, I have found that saying you suspect someone over and over without actually putting your vote where your suspicions lie tends to end up with people suspecting you for being too cautious.

 

[Curiocaueri]

Brief LoS here

Jock - Feels better than on day 1, there's only few thing in his more recent posts that i dislike, for example how he seems to expect more from others than he delivers himself here, 3. in orange

Moose - Probably the most complicated case. I dislike most of his posts, he goes for the incredibly lazy excuse of "I'm just a bad innocent" and "You should never take me seriously". But then there's the relationship with Rocco, which is weird, but is definitly not enough to convince me of his innocence.

Rocco - Similarly lazy posts, but never seemed to actively work against the innocents, unlike Moose. If one of the lovers is a wolf and the other innocent, I think Rocco is the innocent. However, I definitely think he should start to put a lot more effort into this and start helping, instead of just saying "I'm Brian innocent, and so is Moose!". If he is innocent, he should start to help us find the wolves, not just sit idly by because Moose! is backing his innocence, while the wolves are tearing us apart.

Dago - I agree that he talks a lot about serious hunting without actually doing as much. Talks about putting pressure on people and stuff, but did not place his vote anywhere, so where is the pressure? I still do not like his early "trap", and later after asking about why I used Romulan Spy in my early LoS on day 1, he said it was to test my knowledge on Star Trek, even though that was never a matter of debate and I could not see how it was relevant to the game. "Vote me" is a terrible thing to do, does nothing except get the attention away from potentially more important things. Day 2 was less bad, but still a lot to say and little to show.

Eternal - Do not like. Misinterpreted several posts, speaks with absolute certainty although he cannot be sure about anything he said so far, unless he's a wolf, and changed his mind after previously saying Moose! was "obviously" a wolf. Don't like what he said about the vote on day 1 and today, for more detail here

Sootshade - Honestly hard to tell. His posts are well thought-out, but of course wolves can be smart as well. Interestingly, he was more suspicious of Eternal on day 1, which i wasn't, and now he said that his posts on day 2 "continue to make sense", which I disagree with. His assessment of me was pretty good, as far as I am concerned, there was so little that I had a problem with that I didn't even bother talking about it. I guess some of you will now ask what that was anyway, so  here:

Spoiler

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 defense 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 behavior, 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:

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! 
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.

Crass's been active and is giving me a nice gut feeling generally, though this post leans in the other direction:

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! 
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 

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 I agreed with his target, not his reasoning, but that misunderstanding is my own fault because I just lazily copied Jock's post for comedic effect and did not state what exactly I agreed with. 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 Not sure if you can speak of a remarkable lack of proactive hunting when you also mention that i definitly pushed Moose. Also ignoring that I'm a new player that cannot base his hunting on experience with the other player's behavior, which is what most hunting on day 1, and even early day 2, was. That applies to many others as well, though, 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:

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  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 Several people disagreed with me on that though. And, although in this case it was about innocence rather than someone being guilty, which I guess is why you call it "easy", I definitly took a hard stance on this matter, 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.

Brutus - Innocent. I think I talked enough about this

Xardob - Innocent as well, his killing ability makes no sense for a wolf and I his posts

Curio - Incredibly sexy, intelligent, charismatic and extraordinarily humble. 10/10 would be this guy again.


NOW, THE ORDER OF SUSPECTS:

1. Eternal
2. Moose!
3. Dago
4. Sootshade
5. Jock (not much difference between Soot and Jock, but I wanted to avoid putting my suspects on the same level)
6. Rocco
7. Brutus, Xardob, and obviously Curio


Unvote: Moose!
Vote: Marowit

 

[Dago Wolfrider]

I'd rather you help me lynch your pack mate, but you do you!

Are you implying that Jock and SootShade are packies?

If I actually suspected Dago more than anyone else I'd vote for him and I believe this to be true for him as well.

Yes and no. Yet, it is true in this case. I was question hammering you to see check Roccoflipside's, Moose!'s and yours reactions to see which case was most probanle: two innocents voting one innocent, two innocents voting one traitor or viceversa: two traitors voting one innocent. I did not get much. It is hard to reasonably attack a defensive, controlled and quite cautious player as Jock. It was worth the effort: yes, yet I should have probably used another strategy. It worked really well with Roccoflipside though.

Jock's reaction to SootShade's post seem the one of a betrayed traitor, doesn't it? Check Jock's reactions to my posts, to Moose! and Roccoflipside's votes and compare it with the one he had to SootShade's post. Moreover SootShade is now trying to have me look like Jock's packie, while his first post, the analysis on Jock, was more like: Jock is innocent, Dago is the traitor. Guess you failed to bring the attention away from your packie on me. Not to count his flip flopping. Xardob and Marowit, what di you think of all this situation?

seemingly doing what everyone else is doing.

You saved yourself from saying a lie with that seemingly.

Jock, if you vote for Brutus, I'll take my vote off you and vote for Brutus, solely for the reason that I want him to be a "Wereworf."

Interesting. Yet I can't help, but see it as a trap or are you honest about your lack of accuse against Brutus, the "the Wereworf" ?

I feel like jumping right off again

What about Arch3r? You had not the same thought yesterday, had you?

his complaining about being "the only hunter"

It wasn't just complaining. I used it to annoy/put pressure on people and study their feedbacks.

his early innocent parking vote

Well, he was my main suspect and he happened to be lurking at the beginning of day 1. Your bandwagon on him is at least three times scummier.

his challenge to vote for him.

SootShade's post concerning why he thought that I was innocent is the right way to read it and it can be applied today too.

when he took a clearly accusatory tone towards you - he doesn't have to scream out loud that you are wolf to make his suspicion known.

Come on, don't make me laugh.

that seems more like an escalation that you may have been forced to because you felt that the way that Jock was going about it wasn't in your favor.

Why does this describe perfectly your reaction to Jock's answer to your analysis of him?

he dismissed the value of your answers was what prompted you to become more aggressive towards him

Nope. Check my hammering on Roccoflipside. It must always be a climax. You always have to add more pressure, to be more aggressive, to have your target feel your breathe on his neck, otherwise it is doomed to fail.

without actually doing as much.

Doing my best since 2012, more or less. It's quite hard with people that do not answer you, roleplay or keep talking about other stuff.

but did not place his vote anywhere, so where is the pressure?

Three votes on Jock would have probably meant his early demise. Still searching data before voting, since 2012, more or less. Check my last game, if I vote someone I do it once I am quite positive about my suspicions or to put pressure on them, in certain cases it is not that wise and I can do it even without it, exception done for the first vote or lurker votes at the beginning of the day.

even though that was never a matter of debate and I could not see how it was relevant to the game

As you know I always read the narration, rules,...to gather information. Someone who knows more about the lore may possibly have the upper hand and use it at his own advantage in a certain situation. So, yes, it was important to check that out, for me at least.

get the attention away from potentially more important things

Such as? For the part of the sentence before this section, read what I have already written.

 

[Curiocaueri]

Nope. Check my hammering on Roccoflipside. It must always be a climax. You always have to add more pressure, to be more aggressive, to have your target feel your breathe on his neck, otherwise it is doomed to fail.

Can you link me to where you have been hammering on Rocco? Unless you're referring to something on day 1 I think you didn't really go hard on him at all, this maybe being the closest to "hammering"

Spoiler

everyone hates me! 

Marowit, don't let the fact we have opposite reads (and that I've been trying to lynch you since Xardob shot at Brutus) blind you! Other than those two things, you seem to think I'm a wolf because... Why again? I'm having fun playing the game?

I'm not gonna lie, I'm really not sold on Curio yet. His reasoning so far isnt so bad, and other than jumping on the Archer bandwagon in a weird way, hasn't really done anything that sticks out. Proved the point about "I told you so" (which would have been super scummy) wrong.

I honestly don't like Jocks play, but then that just might be Jock's play. Would like to hear from others on him.

Still down o these three for me right now. While Dago's lamenting that he was the only one doing anything did seem scummy to me, I'm not ready to get that wagon rolling as he also has potential for good hunting... If he ends up not being a wolf.

Vote: Jock? (3rd time the charm?)

Potential. Strange to hear it from the guy who contractited himself because of my "potential" good hunting. What do you have against Jock? Don't tell me that's gut or because of traditions.

We are bad and inconsistent hunters, but at least we may be innocently bad and inconsistent.

Corrected that for you.

without actually doing as much.

Doing my best since 2012, more or less. It's quite hard with people that do not answer you, roleplay or keep talking about other stuff.

If people just ignore you, you clearly failed to put on enough pressure

but did not place his vote anywhere, so where is the pressure?

Three votes on Jock would have probably meant his early demise. Still searching data before voting, since 2012, more or less. Check my last game, if I vote someone I do it once I am quite positive about my suspicions or to put pressure on them, in certain cases it is not that wise and I can do it even without it, exception done for the first vote or lurker votes at the beginning of the day.

Not saying you have to place votes early or anything similar, I don't complain about Xardob not having placed a vote yet (although I hope he will do so), but he wasn't complaining about the lack of serious hunting and pressure from other players, you were.

even though that was never a matter of debate and I could not see how it was relevant to the game

As you know I always read the narration, rules,...to gather information. Someone who knows more about the lore may possibly have the upper hand and use it at his own advantage in a certain situation. So, yes, it was important to check that out, for me at least.

I guess I can accept that.

get the attention away from potentially more important things

Such as? For the part of the sentence before this section, read what I have already written.

Literally anything is more important than someone saying "vote me", it's stupid for both innocents and wolves, it's just a big attention grab.

 

[Xardob]

1. Eternal
2. Moose!
3. Dago
4. Sootshade
5. Jock (not much difference between Soot and Jock, but I wanted to avoid putting my suspects on the same level)

That's a lot of red for not a lot of wolves.

Dago, between Curio and Jock, who do you think is more likely to be a wolf?

 

[Dago Wolfrider]

Can you link me to where you have been question hammering on Rocco?

Here you go:

Spoiler

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,383873.msg9109525.html#msg9109525

Read till page 20.

If people just ignore you, you clearly failed to put on enough pressure

.

No, if they do it on purpose.

but he wasn't complaining about the lack of serious hunting and pressure from other players, you were.

I don't need to vote people to put pressure on them everytime, do I? Is iy a rule I have missed?

Literally anything is more important than someone saying "vote me", it's stupid for both innocents and wolves, it's just a big attention grab.

Again, check SootShade's post aboyt the reasons he thinks that I was, I presume, innocent. That's true.

1. Eternal
2. Moose!
3. Dago
4. Sootshade
5. Jock (not much difference between Soot and Jock, but I wanted to avoid putting my suspects on the same level)

That's a lot of red for not a lot of wolves.

Dago, between Curio and Jock, who do you think is more likely to be a wolf?

Jock and SootShade. After their exchange. Curio is in the Limbo right now, with Eternal.

 

[Curiocaueri]

1. Eternal
2. Moose!
3. Dago
4. Sootshade
5. Jock (not much difference between Soot and Jock, but I wanted to avoid putting my suspects on the same level)

That's a lot of red for not a lot of wolves.

Dago, between Curio and Jock, who do you think is more likely to be a wolf?

Yes, they're all red because I'm not convinced of anyone of them being an innocent, unlike you and Brutus, who I view as guaranteed innocents, and Rocco, who i just cannot imagine playing like this as a wolf. The likelyhood of those 5 being wolfs is indicated by the number.
Also, it's literally the same amount of suspects you pointed out here:  It's almost like we cannot say with certainty which of us except Brutus and you are wolves.

The good news is that if you believe all four known specials currently alive are innocent, the remaining innocents have a won game in their hands. So Soot, this is your time to shine.

I can believe that!

Then find an innocent between Soot, Dago, Jock, Biggus Dickus and Eternal and we lynch the rest.

Only difference being that I'm not convinced of Moose! being innocent, whereas you have me as a suspect which I obviously don't.

 

[Dago Wolfrider]

Can you link me to where you have been question hammering on Rocco?

Here you go:

Spoiler

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,383873.msg9109525.html#msg9109525

Read till page 21.

If people just ignore you, you clearly failed to put on enough pressure

.

No, if they do it on purpose.

but he wasn't complaining about the lack of serious hunting and pressure from other players, you were.

I don't need to vote people to put pressure on them everytime, do I? Is iy a rule I have missed?

Literally anything is more important than someone saying "vote me", it's stupid for both innocents and wolves, it's just a big attention grab.

Again, check SootShade's post aboyt the reasons he thinks that I was, I presume, innocent. That's true.

1. Eternal
2. Moose!
3. Dago
4. Sootshade
5. Jock (not much difference between Soot and Jock, but I wanted to avoid putting my suspects on the same level)

That's a lot of red for not a lot of wolves.

Dago, between Curio and Jock, who do you think is more likely to be a wolf?

Jock and SootShade. After their exchange. Curio is in the Limbo right now, with Eternal and Brutus.

Corrected.

 

[Dago Wolfrider]

say with certainty which of us except Brutus and you are wolves.

Then, I am the blind one. Aren't you exaggerating? I don't want to go back to Roles-talking, I understand your points, but they are reasonable, likely true, but not certain.

 

[Xardob]

Spoiler

1. Eternal
2. Moose!
3. Dago
4. Sootshade
5. Jock (not much difference between Soot and Jock, but I wanted to avoid putting my suspects on the same level)

That's a lot of red for not a lot of wolves.

Dago, between Curio and Jock, who do you think is more likely to be a wolf?

Yes, they're all red because I'm not convinced of anyone of them being an innocent, unlike you and Brutus, who I view as guaranteed innocents, and Rocco, who i just cannot imagine playing like this as a wolf. The likelyhood of those 5 being wolfs is indicated by the number.
Also, it's literally the same amount of suspects you pointed out here:  It's almost like we cannot say with certainty which of us except Brutus and you are wolves.

The good news is that if you believe all four known specials currently alive are innocent, the remaining innocents have a won game in their hands. So Soot, this is your time to shine.

I can believe that!

Then find an innocent between Soot, Dago, Jock, Biggus Dickus and Eternal and we lynch the rest.

Only difference being that I'm not convinced of Moose! being innocent, whereas you have me as a suspect which I obviously don't.

The point there isn't that all five of those were suspects. The point is that if you get more than half of the village as innocent, you win the game. The aim is to specifically reduce the number of suspects from five to four. With five suspects, the village loses the game. With four, we win.