Xardob said:Guys, you're overinterpreting things. It just means Vieira had used his night ability.
Why wouldn't he have done it? I doubt it does just mean that.
Xardob said:Guys, you're overinterpreting things. It just means Vieira had used his night ability.
Still strikes me as him trying a bit too hard on this, when he doesn't come to any conclusion.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!
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.
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?Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said: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.SootShade said:Crass's been active and is giving me a nice gut feeling generally, though this post leans in the other direction:
Seems like a bit too much 'suggesting' rather than 'accusing', as wolf might do to test the waters.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!
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.
Maybe you are right tho and I should use a more accusatory tone in my posts to get stronger reactions
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.Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said: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.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 explained my suspicions about you as soon as they were formed here on day one.Dago Wolfrider said:Already answered this.
So, why not writing it before, why now, if you really wanted to lynch me.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.
I was hinting at this post here: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,383873.msg9109528.html#msg9109528So, I am not since I am doing both things contemporary. If you haven't noticed.Constantly talking about game mechanics or telling everyone to hunt. Basically speaking more about things you're doing instead of doing them.
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.
...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.Just an opinion. That's all you've got?This aggressive style doesn't fit you – you come off too hypocritical.
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.
Suspected you.In day 1 you were not under accuse, were you? Yet, what did you do?
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.Fabricating what, what you said yourself?You're not even oversimplifying, you're fabricating.
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.
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:I'm 'commenting posts' because that's what this game essentially is.
Wrong game man. That's not that easy.
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.Dago Wolfrider said:Yet, what have you done so far? 0 effort.
Xardob said: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?Marowit said:Vieira is a strange night kill. There's no information there. Vieira just kind of did ****all.
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.Dago Wolfrider said:Both SootShade and Marowit being traitors would be rather strange.
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: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).
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: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.
I'm open to the possibility that Brutus may still be a wolf if someone uses a non lethal ability on him and fails.Moose! said:I would agree, but Xardob is much smarter than all of us, and he seems pretty sure that Brutus' role must be innocent.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.
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.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
what about my game, bro?Moose! said:Nice try, Soot, but the game is up.
Jock said:Right. Let's go down this rabbit hole to prove my balls then.
I explained my suspicions about you as soon as they were formed here on day one.Dago Wolfrider said:Already answered this.
So, why not writing it before, why now, if you really wanted to lynch me.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.
I was hinting at this post here: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,383873.msg9109528.html#msg9109528So, I am not since I am doing both things contemporary. If you haven't noticed.Constantly talking about game mechanics or telling everyone to hunt. Basically speaking more about things you're doing instead of doing them.
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....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.Just an opinion. That's all you've got?This aggressive style doesn't fit you – you come off too hypocritical.
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.Suspected you.In day 1 you were not under accuse, were you? Yet, what did you do?
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.Fabricating what, what you said yourself?You're not even oversimplifying, you're fabricating.
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.
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:I'm 'commenting posts' because that's what this game essentially is.
Wrong game man. That's not that easy.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.Dago Wolfrider said:Yet, what have you done so far? 0 effort.
Xardob said: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?Marowit said:Vieira is a strange night kill. There's no information there. Vieira just kind of did ****all.
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.Dago Wolfrider said:Both SootShade and Marowit being traitors would be rather strange.
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: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).
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: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.
I'm open to the possibility that Brutus may still be a wolf if someone uses a non lethal ability on him and fails.Moose! said:I would agree, but Xardob is much smarter than all of us, and he seems pretty sure that Brutus' role must be innocent.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.
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'.
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.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
I'm going to wait for what Soot has to say about me and then take it from there. ( :
what about my game, bro?Moose! said:Nice try, Soot, but the game is up.
I'm going to wait for what Soot has to say about me and then take it from there.
then we're going to keep this discussion going for even longer.
Moose! said:I dunno, I just like being provocative.
Moose! said:Dago, when are you going to vote?
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.
Moose! said:Emergency Medical Holograms aren't property!
Moose! said:You should consider the myriad of struggles that holograms have to endure, in a world controlled by organics.
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.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.
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.