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

[Dago Wolfrider]

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

Last time for this year of university. Next one will be my last week. Then exams.

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

Probably more.

it felt more like a waste of time to me

Just what I wanted to achieve.You lower your guard and you start contraddicting yourself. You don't pay enough attention and so on and so forth.

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

Funny, ah!

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

So Jock how is the pressure? Never seen Jock so active and quite agressive.

a different approach

Last time was a different approach, this way of playing is more similar to my usual way of playing, quite more aggressive and provocative and I have already explained why. Your way of playing has changed drastically after SootShade's analysis of you instead. I am going to reread your second day in SootShade's game later.

Soot was so suspicious of him and condemned most of the people who found Xardob suspicious for lurking though.

What posts are you talking about? For what I remember SootShade voted for Xardob, at least at the beginning and after unvoting me. I may be wrong though.

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.

Guess I was the blind here, I wear glasses, but I am not that, you know...blind.

Why do you suspect me, Moose?

If you are like, his answer will be his guts.

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.

Looking forward to that.

So @SootShade anything to say?

 

[Moose!]

Spoiler: When the wolves turn on each other because they realize the indisputable logic of my arguments

 

[Dago Wolfrider]

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.

Haven't seen you posting.

What about my post?

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.

Better than what I anticipated.

 

[Troll]

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.

Hate to bring up that one game again (nah, I don't) where you were a crafty scum, but you pulled this exact trick on me, and then declared me innocent for refusing to follow the lead you were placing. I can hope that the different take is coming from a change in role, or there's different about something about the context, but I still love just how consistent you are.



@Dago: Are you asking about something specific, or are you waiting for me to go back to the discussion we were having? I was just going to get back to it, if it's the latter, but I'm kinda skimming the current conversation for now.

 

[Dago Wolfrider]

This one:

Spoiler

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,383873.msg9112040.html#msg9112040

 

[Moose!]

Hate to bring up that one game again (nah, I don't) where you were a crafty scum, but you pulled this exact trick on me, and then declared me innocent for refusing to follow the lead you were placing. I can hope that the different take is coming from a change in role, or there's different about something about the context, but I still love just how consistent you are.

Spoiler: Mind pointing me to that game? My memory has clearly been wiped

 

[Moose!]

I was implying that Jock and Soot are packies, yes. I'm also implying that Jock and you are packies. And Eternal too, probably.

 

[Dago Wolfrider]

I was implying that Jock and Soot are packies, yes. I'm also implying that Jock and you are packies. And Eternal too, probably.

Who should be Eternal's packie? Or is it four traitors all together?

 

[Troll]

Hate to bring up that one game again (nah, I don't) where you were a crafty scum, but you pulled this exact trick on me, and then declared me innocent for refusing to follow the lead you were placing. I can hope that the different take is coming from a change in role, or there's different about something about the context, but I still love just how consistent you are.

Spoiler: Mind pointing me to that game? My memory has clearly been wiped

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,355641.0.html

This one. I recall it well, because I had too much fun roleplaying.

This one:

Spoiler

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,383873.msg9112040.html#msg9112040

You are pulling **** out of your ass. More specifically:

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?

The conclusion of the original reread on Jock was that he was less scummy than I originally thought, and you were slightly more scummy than I thought. As I said just after that, my top three (Eternal, Jock, Crassius) didn't really change by that point - still hasn't, though the reread on you is still pending.

I feel like jumping right off again

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

I certainly did. Still, the day was close to ending and it was an informative lynch regardless. In this case, Jock's scummy and Moose actually isn't even wrong about the lack of people pouncing on the wagon being rather interesting.

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?

It doesn't. Unlike the your exchange, stewing over the entire game, followed by several posts of 'no u', and ending in nothing, I actually went through the trouble of making a case on Jock whilst doing my reread, and laid down a relevant vote after he responded in a very scummy manner.

I honestly can't even get the context many of the rest of the quotes, and I'm not sure if they are someone else's or mine. And I honestly don't care to get dragged more into a quote war, so if you need answers to those then I hope you can clarify first.

 

[Troll]

Also, if your scum read on me is solely based on a pack theory connecting me and Jock, and specifically the behaviour on his side, you can feel free to vote Jock whenever. We can start seriously discussing which on of us is a packmate after we are both satisfied with the obvious scum being dead.

 

[Moose!]

I don't hunt packs, I just accuse them.

Cheers for the link!

 

[Troll]

Hammer time.

Vote Sootshade

And before I forget, we're lynching an innocent.

Sorry Soot.

What I didn't remember was that Xardob's compulsive hammering was a problem back then as well.

 

[Troll]

I think I should go back to being 'Altmershade' in the next game. Make it my own brand of neoxardobism or something.

 

[Moose!]

Re-reading old games is always a hoot, I don't know how I got away with that one. Clearly my semi/sub/unconscious meta strategy is just to be as scummy and spammy as I can possibly be in every game regardless of role. 

 

[Dago Wolfrider]

Hate to bring up that one game again (nah, I don't) where you were a crafty scum, but you pulled this exact trick on me, and then declared me innocent for refusing to follow the lead you were placing. I can hope that the different take is coming from a change in role, or there's different about something about the context, but I still love just how consistent you are.

Spoiler: Mind pointing me to that game? My memory has clearly been wiped

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,355641.0.html

This one. I recall it well, because I had too much fun roleplaying.

This one:

Spoiler

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,383873.msg9112040.html#msg9112040

You are pulling **** out of your ass. More specifically:

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?

The conclusion of the original reread on Jock was that he was less scummy than I originally thought, and you were slightly more scummy than I thought. As I said just after that, my top three (Eternal, Jock, Crassius) didn't really change by that point - still hasn't, though the reread on you is still pending.

I feel like jumping right off again

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

I certainly did. Still, the day was close to ending and it was an informative lynch regardless. In this case, Jock's scummy and Moose actually isn't even wrong about the lack of people pouncing on the wagon being rather interesting.

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?

1. It doesn't. Unlike your exchange, stewing over the entire game, followed by several posts of 'no u', and ending in nothing, I actually went through the trouble of making a case on Jock whilst doing my reread, and laid down a relevant vote after he responded in a very scummy manner.

I honestly can't even get the context many of the rest of the quotes, and I'm not sure if they are someone else's or mine. And I honestly don't care to get dragged more into a quote war, so if you need answers to those then I hope you can clarify first.

They are not yours, but you missed one:

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.

1. Why did he answer your post in a very scummy manner, something he has never done so far? Haven't you asked you that? Check his answers to my posts and check the answer to your post, that as you say, rises me in scumminess, while lowers him. Two completely different feedbacks and I was accusing him, while you were saying that he was quite innocent. Strange ah! That's the kind of reaction I expect from a betrayed traitor and "that seems more like an escalation that you may have been forced to because you saw(just changing the verb) that the way that Jock was going about it wasn't in your favor."

Wouldn't be so sure.

Thats gonna be interesting.

Also, if your scum read on me is solely based on a pack theory connecting me and Jock, and specifically the behaviour on his side, you can feel free to vote Jock whenever. We can start seriously discussing which one of us is a packmate after we are both satisfied with the obvious scum being dead.

Wasn't Eternal your main suspect? If Jock is obvious scum I don't want to know what he is.

Waiting Brutus's LoS and Jock's alignment chart. There is still time.

Re-reading old games is always a hoot, I don't know how I got away with that one. Clearly my semi/sub/unconscious meta strategy is just to be as scummy and spammy as I can possibly be in every game regardless of role. 

That's probably the case.

 

[Troll]

Why did he answer your post in a very scummy manner, something he has never done so far?

Quite simply, it looks like I struck a nerve. The way he's focusing on a particular thing and trying to make it out to be the crux of my argument, suggests to me that I was entirely right about it being his suspicion on Xardob being there for no other reason but because it was easy.

Wasn't Eternal your main suspect? If Jock is obvious scum I don't want to know what he is.

He was when I was voting for him. Did you completely forget when I said I liked his posts today and unvoted to follow him onto Crassius?

 

[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.

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.

I'm not that certain on Curio, but I'd be happy to lynch Dago, Eternal or Jock, so I guess we agree for today.

What I didn't remember was that Xardob's compulsive hammering was a problem back then as well.

I didn't either. 

I think I should go back to being 'Altmershade' in the next game. Make it my own brand of neoxardobism or something.

I have a very nice idea for a game that would go well with that kind of play. Let's take this discussion to the main thread, though.

 

[Lord Brutus]

I've already given my LoS but apparently your're too blind to see or understand, Drago.  It's Moose, Moose and, of course, Moose followed by Rocco and Drago.

 

[Dago Wolfrider]

Why did he answer your post in a very scummy manner, something he has never done so far?

Quite simply, it looks like I struck a nerve. The way he's focusing on a particular thing and trying to make it out to be the crux of my argument, suggests to me that I was entirely right about it being his suspicion on Xardob being there for no other reason but because it was easy.

Wasn't Eternal your main suspect? If Jock is obvious scum I don't want to know what he is.

He was when I was voting for him. Did you completely forget when I said I liked his posts today and unvoted to follow him onto Crassius?

Guess you kinda forgot this:

Spoiler

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,383873.msg9111708.html#msg9111708

I've already given my LoS but apparently your're too blind to see or understand, Drago.  It's Moose, Moose and, of course, Moose followed by Rocco and Drago.

What about innocent reads? Can you put your suspects in a list?

 

[Troll]

Yeah, notice how I didn't just go with my whim again and instead followed the original plan of actually figuring out who is suspicious before I laid down the next vote.