Eternal:
The starting point of my re-examination is this: Eternal was practically nonexistent for day 1, though one of his two posts did give me a major gut reaction. I've still not been able to substantiate the logic that I came up with to explain that feeling, but I've never been one to dismiss my gut. He showed up a lot more on day 2 however. My initial view of that big post was very positive, because a lot of it lined up quite exactly with my own reads.
There's a bunch of qualifications when it comes to that though: 1) It's not uncommon for a wolf to upgrade their play from one day to another. 2) It's especially easy to make a great post when you are basically arriving into the game late, and just observing what happened previously from the point of view of an outsider. 3) Him marking me as a strong innocent read makes me really paranoid he's trying to buddy up with me. 4) I did not actually examine most of his points in detail at the time. 5) My reads have adjusted somewhat since he made that post,
His next big post also looked pretty fine to me, though by that time I'd somewhat cooled from the excitement of Eternal making sense for once.
So yeah, I'll start with Eternal's first big post (
page 37):
To be honest, I don't particularly get his read on Moose. I was suspicious of Moose early on, but the particular posts Eternal's picking out don't really strike me as egregious - though I might think otherwise if I wasn't playing last game. Particularly, I'm not sure why he's declaring with certainty here:
Marowit said:
Moose! said:
Soot why don’t we compromise and lynch Brutus?
Moose! wolf confirmed. Thanks for sticking up for me on my birthday, but it makes you no less hairy.
Rocco's 'trademark wolf post' giving him 'serious innocent vibes' is a bit funny, but I'll assume he's talking about a gut feeling for the latter part. That said, it's not that much later (at least in terms of Eternal's post) that Rocco is already giving him scum vibes instead.
I still agree with Eternal that the amount of attention Xardob was getting was weird, and the reasons given for it.
I think Eternal's maybe buying too much into Dago's being heroic and the only one try. Maybe my increased suspicion towards Dago changed my view here, but in the first place my innocent read on Dago wasn't so much because I was convinced by his posts; I wasn't, he just seemed too give too few ****s to be scum.
I still very much like Eternal's observations of the Arch3r wagon as well.
I don't know why I'm the only one not getting marked suspicious at all for jumping on the Arch3r wagon though - it doesn't come up in his LoS either, where he gives me a strong innocent read. He's right about me being reluctant to jump on it, but if I try to remove my own bias and forget about the Xardob/Arch3r wagon overlap - since that doesn't seem to be what Eternal's working with - I would not think that alone makes me less suspect. It's weird to try to explain why others should suspect me, but this gives the idea of him trying to buddy up with me more weight in my mind.
Especially when you add the fact that he's dismissing my vote on him - following a good post as he admitted - as bizarre, and still not really reacting with any suspicion towards me.
I note that Crassius did not feature particularly prominently in Eternal's big post. Eternal marked him suspicious for having Xardob as his first suspect early on. The key thing seems to be how he jumped on the Arch3r wagon - I still agree that's by far the scummiest part of Crassius's play, so that's fair. Then this:
Crassius's "I told you so" after jumping on the wagon... ooooof. So scummy.
Which I recall has been discussed by Eternal and Crassius as some sort of a misunderstanding on the former's part? I guess I'll get to that as I keep going.
Anyway, that's all the mention that Crassius got before being marked as 'BLATANT WOLF' in Eternal's LoS, and got a vote as well.
Eternal's LoS conclusions I was totally on board with - still am largely - but the fact that Brutus didn't seem to get viewed any more favorably in light of his incident with Xardob is still quite weird. I don't actually recall if Eternal ever answered my question about this, but we'll see as we go forward. The other problem is that, with a more in-depth reading of his previous post, he marked me with such a strong innocent read, is now even more unnerving to me.
His next notable post is the big one on
page 43:
Calling out Crassius for joining the Arch3r wagon, started by Moose who was his primary suspect, is still very astute by Eternal.
Again Eternal's really praising Dago overmuch. Yeah, could easily be trying to buddy up again, with another innocent.
Marowit said:
Dago Wolfrider said:
Both SootShade and Marowit being traitors would be rather strange. I mean Arch3r was lynched mostly because of his flip flopping. At least that's what mostly made him suspicious to me. And then what do you do? You try to start a bandwagon on your teammate to then change your vote midair once he show up with a LoS? Moreover you forgot that Marowit parked a vote on me last day. You do not vote one of your teammates if you know that you may be unable to change it and while he is under pressure. All in all I am not denying the possibility that SootShade or Marowit or both may be wolves, yet that's quite unlikely to me. I do not trust them, but their posts are reasonable and well thought, unlike many others.
Okay guys, I realize it's funny for me to say this, but there's been a lot of "oh if it's X then it can't be Y" arguments this game. Almost all of those arguments are worthless. Wolves go after each other all the time. Wolves frequently vote together, especially if they can get on a bandwagon lead by an innocent (Arch3r, anyone?). Wolves are also cautious of being caught on the same wagon, because it makes them look suspicious and associated. My past experience with analyzing packs is that it's usually not very successful and in my last few games where I used it as my primary criterion I ended up being dead wrong on a lot of people. I don't think it's a scummy argument, I just think it's a bad one. I'm much more confident in lynching Curio and/or Rocco because of their incredibly scummy behavior than I am about lynching Curio because of his associations to any other scummy people.
This part is also quite solid. But it's also not difficult for a wolf to explain this reasoning either. You can be very helpful about discussing general game theory without it saying anything about your role. This would also apply to a notable part of Eternal's other good contributions.
Marowit said:
Crassius "Biggus Dickus" Curio said:
@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.
Ehh... Dunno, seems like a bit overreaching to show this much bravado, when taking into consideration the rather minimal volume of his case on Crassius, even if the point regarding Crassius's part on the Arch3r wagon still stands.
Marowit said:
Lord Brutus said:
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.
I guess that explains why I don't recall an answer regarding my earlier inquiry on related to this. Not this answer really reassures me either.
After that post, it's pretty much silence until this:
Marowit said:
I think we have a case of Day 1 repeating itself all over again. Moose! puts down his vote on the most suspicious innocent, then the wolves jump on his wagon. I'm not convinced by the case on Jock.
Well, I guess he wouldn't be so blatant about defending a packie? But as I've noted, it feels like he might be trying to pocket innocents left and right. And yeah, I guess at this point I'm starting to read him as scum.
So, in conclusion, he's showing too much certainty with both his scum and, especially, his innocent reads. Kinda like my day 1 argument regarding Moose, I feel like he's trying to act out the usual stubborn confidence that he shows as an innocent. And even if I'm particular paranoid about being pocketed, this really feels like I'm getting too much trust from his direction. Whilst he's said a lot of the right things, there's really nothing there that indicates innocence strongly, especially considering how easy it is to come across as reasonable when you've not really been involved in the game.
So yeah, I'm good to lynch him. Not that I'm needed for that, looks like.