[Werewolf] Crusade on Castle Mengelberg, (Werewolves Win!)

Users who are viewing this thread

Ativan

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWB
Also also NO NIPPLE STOP THAT SHEEP IS DEAD STOP DEFENDING HIM ALREADY ASDFHSDFHGS YOU SILLY POTATO
:lol:

All right, since Cal and Nipple will be awake and Mag will likely to be awake too, I'm off to bed. Not that I say I trust every one of them, at least I don't think we'll have a no lynch now.

I hope I haven't made a serious mistake here, I'll guess I'll see tomorrow. Good night and happy hunting.

 

Phonemelter

Marquis
WBM&B
Cativan said:
Might be true, but he commented that my case against him was solid a couple times so I guess he at least understood where I was coming from. He made the distinction between being suspicious of Cal and making an out of context attack against him as I have said in my previous post.

He thought the case was solid, but he didn't see the activity of Sheep as wolfish (from my understanding of his posts).
 
Pharaoh X Llandy said:
Magorian Aximand said:
Maggy-poo's day one LoS:
(cut for saving space, quote-linked for future reference)

Your LoS (so far) seems like a fairly accurate overview of the Day 1 events. I like the objective tone; I don't think anybody else has been able to manage that to this extent, probably because we were actually experiencing events as they happened, rather than looking back with hindsight. One of the things I'm struggling with most in this game is trying to re-evaluate what I held to be early-game/Day-1 beliefs in light of new information and evidence. I feel like I jumped at some things too quickly which has left me struggling to try to piece things together now. When I do try, my opinions are either based off vague gut feelings that I feel stupid for even considering, much less discussing, or overly convoluted explanations which have a pretty low chance of actually being real.

So I do think your LoS has been a useful recap of Day 1. However, I do have one small bone to pick, and two points I'd like to raise. I'll do the latter first as I don't want to start the day off with some criticism. Oh, and apologies in advance; it's going to be a bit of a mind-ramble.

Numbered lists, yay!!!

1) Calodine/Ativan. Why'd you put Ativan as 'most innocent'? I know you found Cal's stream-of-consciousness hard to follow -- so did I, at times (and that's even without the ****ed up quotes). But I think this actually speaks in his favour, because I'm finding it very hard to find anything he's done or said which feels 'calculated'. Cal's posts have an immediacy that I feel is congruent, and even his reminder about special roles comes across as a genuinely attempted reminder and an honest mistake. Furthermore, Cal was the very person Sheep tried to frame. Unless Sheep was the worst wolf in the history of werewolf games, I doubt he'd try and do that to another wolf (in case it was a successful smear campaign) which is one of the reasons why Cal gets my #1 innocent spot.

I realise that at this stage, I'm just splitting hairs; it hardly matters who is 'most innocent'. And maybe I just disagree because my own posts have an element of stream-of-consciousness ramble in them too, so I can relate to how Cal plays. But I thought I'd mention it as there's not much else on your LoS I can pick at right now.

Small point, I said he's the most "clearly" innocent. Rather than the most innocent. Those have slightly different meanings to me.

I get your point about Cal though, and his position in my LoS reflects that. Both Ativan and Cal are in situations that would be incongruous with a game in which they were Sheep's pack mate. The reason Ativan takes the top spot for me is that, in addition to the strong situational evidence, he hasn't exhibited any wolffish behavior of his own. The same cannot be said for Cal. I find it unlikely in the extreme that Cal would be Sheep's pack mate, but the failings in his own play can't just be ignored. I'm splitting hairs here, but you did ask why. :razz:

Pharaoh X Llandy said:
2) My vote on Adaham - I'll admit that I probably did have an initial overreaction to Adaham. I'm not going to apologise or make excuses; my feelings at the time were very real and I acted/posted according to those feelings. I was very hesitant to vote on Day 1, so I held off on voting for Adaham until he actually posted something I felt was questionable at best and gave me the impetus to place a vote that I felt was both accurate and justified. I know you've probably not yet fully recapped on Day 2, but nothing Adaham has done or said since my initial vote on him has given me reason to believe my vote is misplaced. Whilst I am now more confused about some of the other players than ever, I'm more sure about Adaham now than I was on Day 1.

Did/do I have tunnel-vision? Maybe. But I don't think I had tunnel-vision to the extent where I've excluded everyone else. Day 2, in places, got crazy, and tedious. I would have liked nothing more than for my #2 suspect (Pilgrim) to actually post something. To answer my questions/accusations. To have some interaction so I could confirm my feelings about him or alter them accordingly. But, he didn't (more on that in point #3). This is entering into Day 2 territory, though, and I'd like to keep this in line with your LoS. So, moving on to the bone I'd like to pick.

If you did indeed branch out on day two, it would certainly be fair to say you didn't let your tunnel vision continue. I also did allow for the possibility that your current vote was the result of accurate argument presented in the part of the thread I simply hadn't reached yet. In any case, I agree with the vote placement.

Pharaoh X Llandy said:
3) There seems to be one player appraisal missing from your LoS: Pilgrim's. Maybe it's unfair of me to ask you to give an overview/your thoughts of the person whose role you have inherited after one replacement has already failed to do anything with it, but the simple fact is Pilgrim said some dodgy stuff in Day 1, and in his only post during Day 2. I feel like he avoided any attention by going silent, only posting after sufficient prompting from ejnomad, and then being replaced.

Whilst the silence/prompt-posting/replacement doesn't necessarily point to him being a wolf (he could've had **** going on IRL that nobody knows about which caused him to post less and less) it doesn't excuse or explain his Day 1 posts, nor his underwhelming Day 2 LoS.

I'm not asking you to answer the questions posed to Pilgrim, or to try to explain his behaviour. I told Vieira that doing such a thing would probably be an exercise in futility, and the same goes for you. But as you seem to be good at giving impartial overviews, could you maybe try to look at this from an outsider's POV and give me your thoughts about Pilgrim's play style on Day 1? Like I said, maybe it's unfair of me to ask you this, but Pilgrim was my #2 suspect. He/you is currently sharing that spot with somebody else now, and although I tried my best to give Vieira the benefit of the doubt, I still can't help feeling unsatisfied by Pilgrim's behaviour, and irritated that five or six days were basically lost before Vieira stepped aside. Vieira's interactions told me nothing except he was out of his depth and I would like now to hear what you have to say about Pilgrim.

I'm afraid I can't be much help here. What that analysis would amount to would be nothing more than an attempt to guess what he was thinking in light of the role I know he had. His thoughts would just have to be taken at face value, and as I did mention I disagree with many of them. All I could really do is make unsubstantiated guesses as to why he posted the way he did.

Consider, we now know Xardob's role. Going back through his posts, does it give you any information at all to try to guess why he posted a certain way? Regarding his suspicions, can you do anything other than take them at face value, whether or not you think they're accurate? That's the position I am in.

I certainly can't ask you to disregard his play, no matter how different it is from my own. Every post made by every player who has filled this spot must be considered. But I'm no more privy to Pilgrim's thoughts than any of you, and any analysis of his posts would just amount to pointing out that he must have thought what he said he thought. Which is tautologically unhelpful.
 
**** that's hard to do on my phone.

Regarding more recent events, I'm still leaning towards Adaham. I'll place my vote now, but I'll be checking back all up until the deadline. I'm certainly not opposed to lynching CW but I find Adaham's sheep-blind play more suspicious than CW's inconsistency.

Vote: Adaham
 
Nipplemelter said:
@Magorian:

I'm confused as to what situation you are referring to when talking about me, because I had a lot of problems with Sheep on Day 1 and said that I was most willing to lynch him or Pilgrim at the end of the day (though voting swung to Tuckles, so that never happened). Plus, I did admit error when the quote issue was explained to me.
Nipplemelter said:
Also, I don't see how noticing the quote mining would "force" anyone to jump on the Sheep wagon. The only people who cared enough about it seemed to be Cado and Avian. Do you think everyone else to be suspicious for not jumping on the wagon immediately?

Having listed a few suspicions of a player does not absolve you of your attempts to obfuscate the most clear evidence against them. Wolves often "suspect" their packmates, while happily lynching a more convenient target. What is it you did, again? Oh, right.

What you admitted error on was not the central issue. As evidenced by Cal repeatedly telling you that you still weren't getting it, well after that fact. I'll be sure to quote the relevant bits when I'm back to a computer.

Seeing the quote mining for what it was would force suspicion because of the extreme level of dishonesty it demonstrates. You and Adaham stand out in your reaponses for the reasons I outlined in my LoS. I mean really, what Sheep did amounts to this:

Mag: I can't stand people who think that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marry.
SheepAnalog: OMG! Mag said, "homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marry"!! How appalling!

Does an innocent have any cause to use such dishonesty? No. And that's what you've tried to hide from the village.

 

Taimat396

Baron
And now I'm just sitting here trying to figure out which would be better to lynch today. Rather, do I go with my gut, or trust that Ativan has a better handle on things than me?

...I'll give it an hour and vote then.
 
Adaham said:
@ Magorian: Like Llandy, I do agree with everything you said, except for the things you said about me. But all the other stuff is really good  :wink:

Nah, jokes aside. Good analysis, except that - even though it's a day 1 LoS - your judgement of me is based on your a posteriori knowledge of Sheep's guilt. And while my opinion might change drastically when I reread the whole damn thing, I currently still believe that the case for Sheep wasn't a lot stronger than for Tuckles. If I'm totally honest, I think people bet on different horses, and one was right, and one was wrong. Except that I know that both of the wolves also voted for their packmate, which means the wolves wanted to be right. Probably to avoid having to listen to the same accusation of being wrong that I'm listening to all the time.

Should the knowledge of the roles of the dead not be used in an analysis? Should I ignore the information that allows for a more clear delineation of player interactions? I do to understand this particular qualm with my analysis.

I don't think that the cases on Tuckles and Sheep were remotely similar in strength. But it's not just your lack of conviction regarding Sheep. It was the fact that you practically ignored one of only three major topics that day. That's not like you. So I have to wonder why you would do it, especially when the evidence in question was so simple and clear cut. Don't worry, I'm not after you for simply being mistaken. Ive wrongly convicted innocents and trusted wolves far too many times myself to think that alone to be wolfish. I think you're a wolf because of the behavior you demonstrated when your pack mate forced you into a horrible situation.
 

Phonemelter

Marquis
WBM&B
@Magorian:

You missed my point. What I was getting at is not addressing the quote-mining WHICH A BUNCH OF OTHER PEOPLE NEVER ADDRESSED AND SOME OF WHICH THINK WASN'T OVERLY SUSPICIOUS because it is easy to see how one could have gotten confused by Cado's wording doesn't change the fact that his argument could still possibly be valid in the sense that Cado brought up an that specific example ("People could spin my bringing up of possible power roles was bait to make it seem wolfy") as a preemptive defense in case anyone decided to think "hmm, Cado is mentioning possibility of roles; is he trying to draw anyone out?" Yes, it wasn't a defense, and Sheep took it literally instead of looking at the context, but Cado was implying "I'm innocent and wasn't intending for this to be seen as bait" (in addition to everything else that could be spun), which is what Xardob and I found odd. At any rate, I still found Sheep highly suspicious on Day 1, quote-mining or not, and was willing to vote for him is enough were on board, so I don't see how I "hiding his dishonesty" or whatever bull**** you are trying to imply.

 
Yeah, it's really not bull****. But because this discussion is rather irrelevant to the current choice between CW and Adaham, I'll pick it back up tomorrow.
 

Phonemelter

Marquis
WBM&B
Calodine said:
And now I'm just sitting here trying to figure out which would be better to lynch today. Rather, do I go with my gut, or trust that Ativan has a better handle on things than me?

After reading CW's reaction to Xardob's "I have a hunch (or two)" post, it almost looks as if she was scared that Xardob was the seer and found out Pilgrim (her packie) as being a wolf and tried to push suspicion on Xardob by saying "you're waving red flags." And while thinking bout Xardob's death some more, it was of no benefit to Adaham, even if he was a seer because he thought Adaham as innocent enough. Plus, if Adaham is innocent and at least one wolf voted for Sheep before Vieira's vote, I think CW's vote is the most suspicious since she didn't comment much about him on Day 1 and her Day 2 reasoning was mostly based off a Sheep/Adaham/Xardob pack possibility. 

I'd say to go with CW.
 

Taimat396

Baron
Welp that seals it

Still couldn't make a decision but I THINK this gives us the best shot going forward.

Because if CW is innocent you murderise the **** out of Adaham and Nipple.

With any luck me or Ativan get nommed on and this is faaairly simple from there even if I'm wrong (Although that never happens ever so you guys got nothin' to worry about)

vote: ComingWinter

I hope you're right on this Ativan, I'm far too adorable to die ;~;
 

Taimat396

Baron
Just gonna point at dis:

Nipplemelter said:
Calodine said:
And now I'm just sitting here trying to figure out which would be better to lynch today. Rather, do I go with my gut, or trust that Ativan has a better handle on things than me?

After reading CW's reaction to Xardob's "I have a hunch (or two)" post, it almost looks as if she was scared that Xardob was the seer and found out Pilgrim (her packie) as being a wolf and tried to push suspicion on Xardob by saying "you're waving red flags." And while thinking bout Xardob's death some more, it was of no benefit to Adaham, even if he was a seer because he thought Adaham as innocent enough. Plus, if Adaham is innocent and at least one wolf voted for Sheep before Vieira's vote, I think CW's vote is the most suspicious since she didn't comment much about him on Day 1 and her Day 2 reasoning was mostly based off a Sheep/Adaham/Xardob pack possibility. 

I'd say to go with CW.

If CW is wolf, Adaham is almost certainly packmate. If CW is not, ATIVAN BETRAYED MY TRUST FOREVER and Nipple is almost 100% pack with Adaham.

Yeah I'm basically just completely sold on adaham being a wolf.
 
Top Bottom