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

[Curiocaueri]

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.

ah okay, only looked through day 2

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

.

No, if they do it on purpose.

Yeah, if they really are under pressure they should not be able to simply ignore your questions. Or how do you define pressure? For me it's feeling compelled to act, because someone put you in an uncomfortable situation (Eternal's post definitly pressured me, for example). Simply sitting it out is a clear sign someone does not feel the pressure at all, unless they're ridiculously ballsy or suicidal

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?

Nope, but it is a good way to do so, and, as mentioned above, apparently your other methods didn't work

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.

Yeah I have a different opinion on that. If you got Soots support on that, good for you.

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.

I expressed that point rather bad, using "we" without any clarification how I mean it in that context and using the same vocabulary that I complained about Eternal using. So, to be more precise, Xardob was commenting on my suspects there, and I do think we can say with as much certainty as we can probably have in this game, that both Xardob and Brutus are innocent. You can of course disagree with that, I disagree with your disagreement.

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.

You want to reduce them, but at the moment, you do have 5 suspects. So do I. I'd prefer fewer suspects as well, but should I magically declare someone innocent without any proper reason just so we can better about our chances?

 

[Curiocaueri]

[quote author=Xardob]
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.
[/quote]You want to reduce them, but at the moment, you do have 5 suspects. So do I. I'd prefer fewer suspects as well, but should I magically declare someone innocent without any proper reason just so we can feel better about our chances?
sry forgot a word there 

 

[Dago Wolfrider]

Yeah, if they really are under pressure they should not be able to simply ignore your questions. Or how do you define pressure? For me it's feeling compelled to act, because someone put you in an uncomfortable situation (Eternal's post definitly pressured me, for example). Simply sitting it out is a clear sign someone does not feel the pressure at all, unless they're ridiculously ballsy or suicidal

You are always able to not answer questions and to not feel pressured. Yet one person's silence, followed by many other silences is an invaluable piece of information too. Don't you thin?

Nope, but it is a good way to do so, and, as mentioned above, apparently your other methods didn't work

Not everytime for sure. It's other metod, and it may have not worked per se, yet you can easily make comparisons.

You can of course disagree with that, I disagree with your disagreement.

I do disagree with you disagreeing with my disagreement and I will disagree with you disagreeing my disagreement disagreeing your disagreement disagreeing my disagreement. And so on.

If you got Soots support on that, good for you.

He doesn't support me, he states his opinion, which I confirm to be true, in this case.

 

[Curiocaueri]

Yeah, if they really are under pressure they should not be able to simply ignore your questions. Or how do you define pressure? For me it's feeling compelled to act, because someone put you in an uncomfortable situation (Eternal's post definitly pressured me, for example). Simply sitting it out is a clear sign someone does not feel the pressure at all, unless they're ridiculously ballsy or suicidal

You are always able to not answer questions and to not feel pressured. Yet one person's silence, followed by many other silences is an invaluable piece of information too. Don't you thin?

Yes, I do think that continuous silence is an invaluable piece of information. Which is why I disagree with your first sentence there.

If you got Soots support on that, good for you.

He doesn't support me, he states his opinion, which I confirm to be true, in this case.

Same difference. If his opinion is that you're innocent, he's supporting you.

 

[Dago Wolfrider]

Yeah, if they really are under pressure they should not be able to simply ignore your questions. Or how do you define pressure? For me it's feeling compelled to act, because someone put you in an uncomfortable situation (Eternal's post definitly pressured me, for example). Simply sitting it out is a clear sign someone does not feel the pressure at all, unless they're ridiculously ballsy or suicidal

You are always able to not answer questions and to not feel pressured. Yet one person's silence, followed by many other silences is an invaluable piece of information too. Don't you think?

Yes, I do think that continuous silence is an invaluable piece of information. Which is why I disagree with your first sentence there.

If you got Soots support on that, good for you.

He doesn't support me, he states his opinion, which I confirm to be true, in this case.

Same difference. If his opinion is that you're innocent, he's supporting you.

So you think that Brutus is innocent because he is silent or I misread that?

Well, you haven't read his last posts, haven't you?

 

[Curiocaueri]

Yeah you misread that, I'm saying he doesn't feel pressured. In fact, I'd even say it is exactly the other way around, he is silent because most of us are already convinced of his innocence (I know you disagree with that).
And I have read his last posts, they weren't that many and thus easy to follow, after all.

 

[Dago Wolfrider]

Yeah you misread that, I'm saying he doesn't feel pressured. In fact, I'd even say it is exactly the other way around, he is silent because most of us are already convinced of his innocence (I know you disagree with that).
And I have read his last posts, they weren't that many and thus easy to follow, after all.

Yeah, I am not that sure about Brutus's innocence.

SootShade's ones, right?

 

[Roccoflipside]

Dago, your question hammering of me was what brought up my comment about the "echo chamber", meaning that it amounted to you and I going "no you, "no you" back and forth for a page or two. That's mostly what gave me a scummy read on you day one, which you changed at the beginning of day two. Other people may have read more into that exchange, but tbh it felt more like a waste of time to me, I was mostly answering because I was bored at work.

All in all, this is my second game here, and last time I was scum. Trying to get a hang on "interrogation techniques" on here is a little difficult, so I apologize if I have seemed passive a bit, but keep in mind that may have to do with the fact I have info on a player, which changes the way I look at the game. At the end of the day, I would contest the the insinuation that I have been "lazy", rather I have been learning and observing.

 

[Curiocaueri]

Oh, I thought you meant Brutus' last posts, sorry 

Are you talking about this one?

Why do you guys have such a strong innocent read on Dago again?

He doesn't seem to give a **** about if he dies. I know you can act that out, and you might suspect it with his 'vote for me' campaign, but I'm talking more generally about how he's focused his attention and gone strongly against various prevailing stances in the village. This is almost always a innocents's behaviour, and the exceptions are not cases that occur on day 1.

Yeah he definitely supports you here. Doesn't mean that he doesn't have a point, you are after all not my prime suspect, and that is one of the reasons why. I do not think it makes you an innocent, however.

 

[Dago Wolfrider]

Oh, I thought you meant Brutus' last posts, sorry 

Are you talking about this one?

Why do you guys have such a strong innocent read on Dago again?

He doesn't seem to give a **** about if he dies. I know you can act that out, and you might suspect it with his 'vote for me' campaign, but I'm talking more generally about how he's focused his attention and gone strongly against various prevailing stances in the village. This is almost always a innocents's behaviour, and the exceptions are not cases that occur on day 1.

Yeah he definitely supports you here. Doesn't mean that he doesn't have a point, you are after all not my prime suspect, and that is one of the reasons why. I do not think it makes you an innocent, however.

Yes. Never said thr last sentence. Late for university. Bye.

 

[Curiocaueri]

My sincerest condolences for having to go to uni on a friday at 7pm 

 

[Jock]

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

Understandable. Looking back I went with the narrative about you way too easily, I'm partially blaming my skewed opinion of you on your strange suspicion of me on day one.

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.

I'm thinking Rocco is actually the more suspicious of the two. His posts have been very, very haphazard and he's been even more flip-floppy than Moose, despite the excuse that just following his partner gives him. The issue with Rocco's play is that he's trying to mimic what Moose is doing, without being Moose (meta), while still posting proper LoS's and trying to justify his suspicions. Look at his vote on me for an example.

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.

I agree with this. I'd like to write Dago off as an innocent who is trying a different approach, but a part of me also questions whether I'd think the same of this type of behaviour if it was anyone else but him.

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.

Well Eternal didn't post anything day one. I'm a bit confused about why Soot was so suspicious of him and condemned most of the people who found Xardob suspicious for lurking though.

I feel like Soot is suspecting you and I for very similar reasons which is making me vary, as I know my own alignment. Going for two innocents and then singling one of them out also makes it seem like he's cautious and thorough enough, but his whole case on me falls flat, especially considering how Moose and Rocco had already voted for me for no other reason than 'feels scummy' and Soot followed with a thorough post which seemed to conclude with 'hasn't shown enough innocent behaviour'. I know I'm probably going to get called out for oversimplifying this and I'm not doing it to diminish his already flimsy case on me, but this is how I generally view the current Soot-Curio-Jock situation. Soot's behaviour also made me change my stance on Curio, since I was heavily relying on Eternal's opinion – and Soot's opinion of Eternal – for that part. Now that I've re-read and seen what Soot is actually coming at me and Curio with I'm quite convinced Soot's not on the villagers' side.

Going away for some time now, will – hopefully – return with an alignment chart. I'm still very unsure about some folk here but I should hopefully find it in me to name at least four innocents here.

Brutus, my man. What is your take on all of this? I've left you out of pretty much all of my posts because I still have no clue about you, mate. Care to shed a light into that klingon brain of yours?


Warning - while you were typing 5 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Spoiler

 

[Moose!]

Guise it’s not Rocco

 

[Jock]

How. Do. You. Know?

 

[Moose!]

I've. Told. You. Dozens. Of. Times.

 

[Moose!]

Y'know what's interesting? Everyone has been talking about how scummy Rocco is, but no one seems to want to vote for him.

 

[Moose!]

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.

I think I've done it, though. You, me, Rocco, Brutus, and Curio. Will you bite on that?

Curio just feels good to me, and I really don't like both Soot and Eternal voting for him early on in quick succession, one of those votes felt like a wolf vote, although I'm not sure which one.

 

[Jock]

Why do you suspect me, Moose?

 

[Moose!]

Because no one wanted to join me and Rocco, and I know we're both dumb innocents. I am notoriously bad at hunting, and Rocco seems similarly terrible (great wolf tho), so it looked like a great opportunity for a wolf to join us if you were innocent. Certainly the wolfy rationale to join that wagon is obvious - your vote on an innocent Arch3r.

Also, I challenged you to vote for Brutus and I would take my vote off of you. You decided to vote for Soot instead. I think that's more scummy than not. You may say you voted for Soot because of your convictions or whatever, but I think it reflects an unwillingness to look guilty to others. Personally, I don't care if I look guilty or not, because I know I'm an innocent.

 

[Troll]

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.

It's definitely a possibility that occurs to me, and the way that the both of you are acting isn't convincing me otherwise. It's pretty convenient how your heated discussion just didn't justify a vote either way, and the second that I stepped in to put some scrutiny on it - and you again acknowledge the validity of my argument that it was a whole lot of hot air in the first place - you've both very quickly become convinced that I'm scum instead.

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.

Well Eternal didn't post anything day one. I'm a bit confused about why Soot was so suspicious of him and condemned most of the people who found Xardob suspicious for lurking though.

I feel like Soot is suspecting you and I for very similar reasons which is making me vary, as I know my own alignment. Going for two innocents and then singling one of them out also makes it seem like he's cautious and thorough enough, but his whole case on me falls flat, especially considering how Moose and Rocco had already voted for me for no other reason than 'feels scummy' and Soot followed with a thorough post which seemed to conclude with 'hasn't shown enough innocent behaviour'. I know I'm probably going to get called out for oversimplifying this and I'm not doing it to diminish his already flimsy case on me, but this is how I generally view the current Soot-Curio-Jock situation. Soot's behaviour also made me change my stance on Curio, since I was heavily relying on Eternal's opinion – and Soot's opinion of Eternal – for that part. Now that I've re-read and seen what Soot is actually coming at me and Curio with I'm quite convinced Soot's not on the villagers' side.

I'm not going to keep waffling on about the least of the four arguments in my case against you, Jock. The fact is that you've already completely acknowledged the validity of another two of them, so it really doesn't matter how many times you repeat how supposedly weak my case is, or get hung up on particular distinctions that I brought up specifically to differentiate you from Crassius. Everything about the way you are responding here stinks of scum.