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

Users who are viewing this thread

And as a side note, I had a dream last night where Avian turned out to be a wolf.  :lol: I probably dreamed it because I had drank a beer called "Werewolf" beforehand, but who knows; my brain could have suddenly became the seer.
 
Nipplemelter said:
And as a side note, I had a dream last night where Avian turned out to be a wolf.  :lol: I probably dreamed it because I had drank a beer called "Werewolf" beforehand, but who knows; my brain could have suddenly became the seer.

That's kinda funny, because last night I also had a dream, in which Ativan really didn't want to play with Magorian, so a couple of hours after Magorian was subbed in, he posted "Hey you guys, Magorian is obviously a wolf, and Llandy is his packmate!" There was no reason or logic presented, but nobody else wanted to play with Magorian either, so we all voted to lynch him, and Mags posted a MASSIVE WoT whinge-post about how he'd just been lynched right away in two games he was subbed into because nobody wanted to play with him, and he vowed never to play with any of us again :razz:

I know exactly where that dream came from; the large amount of whisky I drank too quickly yesterday evening  :\  Even in my dream, I was just drunkenly LOL'ing at all the people bent on lynching Magorian, so the general consensus was that it would be best to get rid of me next. I woke up before that happened, but seeing Magorian so pissed off by being lynched outta 2 games in a row was just hilarious.

I'm definitely scaling back the whisky consumption now.
 
:lol: That dream sounds hilarious.

Pharaoh X Llandy said:
Magorian Aximand said:
I'm just about caught up on day one, so I should have a LoS up some time after I get home from work.

Will your LoS be based off your impressions of Day 1 only, or have you been keeping up with Day 2/3 and are using Day 1 to put together a full picture and a LoS which takes all three days of play into consideration?

I've been skimming as the game has progressed, but I'm going to keep this focused on the events of day one. The only hindsight being added will be the known roles of dead players. Not only will this help me get the deepest analysis I can muster, but hopefully I can add a fresh perspective to those early goings on. I'll get started on day two as soon as I post, and then day three to follow. So, hopefully, I'll have three LoSs for you all in short order. That's going to be a lot of info, but hopefully it'll shake things up.
 
Maggy-poo's day one LoS:

Adaham: Adaham is always tough to read, for me especially, because he does this annoying thing where I read some posts, have some very specific thoughts about them, and then scroll down and read Adaham apparently typing those thoughts down for me. It can be tough to get an accurate read on a player who you seem to always agree with, regardless of their role. As I'm sure ejnomad can attest, I was having this issue back when this game started and I was just reading along. I told him as much. The single major exception was my opinion of Sheep (which you'll see expanded upon in the section here for Facemelter). But while a difference of opinion isn't anything to write home about, reading through day one with fresh eyes and fresh knowledge reveals Adaham's position on the topic to be unconscionable. Hindsight is 20/20. I fully understand that he doesn't have quite the time to dig through and write about the thread as he has in past games, but the problem(s) with Sheep was (were) not small, unobtrusive, or open to interpretation. I can't bring myself to believe that Adaham simply wouldn't have noticed the most blatant and pathetic case of quote mining I've ever seen in a game of WW, ever. Especially with how much conversation it garnered, not just from Facemelter (whose reaction to the situation I find to be equally problematic) but with clear, short, and accessible explanations from Calodine and Ativan. The only way to handle the unfortunate situation of a packmate being caught out in such an obvious lie without throwing them under the bus immediately on the first day is to not address the situation at all. Because if you do address it at all you are forced to admit their error (how could you not?) and join in the vote. I can see no other reason Adaham would allow one of only three major day one topics slide so completely. And hey, it worked. At least for a day. Rather than starting the game in a hole, the wolves managed to push the village to its first mislynch, of which (in a game of 11) wolves need only four to win should they be fortunate enough to maintain their own population.

The most sensible interpretation of Adaham's actions here is that of a good player making the most of a bad situation. Of the possible pack mates for Sheep, Adaham seems to be one of the most likely.

ComingWinter: CW's play on day one was troubling as well. Her early "joke justification" for her vote on Adaham turned into a parking vote, and while I know she's been active in later days, her relative absence on day one once the Calo/Sheep/Nipple train got rolling would indicate that she was happy to let the village's attention shift elsewhere. The parking vote itself is a large problem, but that whole conversation regarding her not-yet-parking vote is quite telling as well. Despite her claims that she was always consistent about what that comment was, she changed her story repeatedly. Let's look:

The "joke" actually spans two posts, here and here. CW then spends a full two posts defending the idea, here and here. In the second one she does suggest the whole thing is a joke, but that's not exactly the case, is it? The vote on the first page, sure, but she just spent two posts putting a cogent argument together about what group removing the experienced players would actually benefit. Should I just ignore that because it was her joke vote on the previous page that spawned the discussion? Oh, and just for the sake of accuracy, CW suggests she was required to place that vote. The rules do not agree.

But it continues. This post encapsulates what I said above, that she's attempting to sweep the seemingly honestly held ideas she posted under the rug of the loosely related joke vote in response to the criticism of those ideas, and again with the corollary that such a vote was an obligation. That's not going to fly.

Here the excuse now becomes that the joke has served as bait, and keeping her vote is justified (mixed with some unnecessary worry about her appearance), the emphasis being that it's all a joke, but then here it's admitted as genuine bad logic trail? Well, which is it? Also, please note that "looking at the experienced players" is not the same as saying that being experienced makes you more suspicious.

And again here, it's changed character completely. Now it was a witty vote with a seed of truth. So was it a joke, or bad logic, or a joke with good logic? If the final option, as suggested in this post, what exactly was the good logic? What was the truth there?

This is so inconsistent. Mix that with the parking vote and convenient quietness, and I'm rather suspicious of CW. However, I don't think it reasonable to assume that CW and Adaham could possibly be packmates, so her rank on my list is lessened by the fact that I'm leaning more towards Adaham.

Calodine: Calodine's posts were tough to read. The stream of consciousness writing and the lack of quotes makes context nearly impossible to determine without second and third passes. But the most important post of his, this one, is perfectly clear. Heck, I thought the initial quote mined post was perfectly clear. Calodine has said a lot of suspect things (his "advice" to the specials was a questionable move at best) but his vehement reaction, backed by votes and campaigning, to being quote mined exonerates him in my eyes.

Ativan: I'm going to repeat, for Face, HIS NAME IS ****ING ATIVAN. PLEASE STOP WRITING AVIAN. Sorry, but it's driving me nuts. Ativan is, to me, the most clearly innocent player in the game. He hasn't avoided any topics (contrary, actually, to what Adaham suggested in his day one LoS) and his most persistently pursued target turned up red. It's one thing to create some vague suspicion of, or even vote for, your packmate. It's something else to lead their lynch for two days straight.

Nipplemelter: The problem here is similar to what I wrote above for Adaham. The only difference is the method Nipple used to handle the situation. He, rather successfully, tried to bury the subject with a quote war. Through those pages and pages of back and forth, he never actually came close to addressing the problem with Sheep's quote mining. He obfuscated the issue, and despite multiple clear explanations, he never came clean or admitted error on the right problem. Because, again, how could he? Were he to actually listen to what Calodine was saying, he'd be forced to join the sheep wagon. But by burying the issue amid wall of text after wall of text with a convenient "misinterpretation" (something I find to be rather impossible), he turned it into something enough people didn't want to dig through. And hey, Tuckles was lynched.

Llandy: Llandy seems to me like the rapidly well adjusted newcomer. Her reaction to Adaham's "warning" was extreme, and frankly far off base, but she's clearly put in the effort to analyze and hunt. I have to disagree with my previous, erm, previous incarnation about her. If anything, I think she developed a serious case of tunnel vision from that overreaction to Adaham's post, something the most recent vote count would suggest she never shook, but thankfully in this case I think she's right by accident. Or perhaps by solid reasoning she puts forth on day two, I haven't got there yet.



So that's my LoS. My top suspects thus far are Adaham, Face, and CW, in that order. I'll get moving on day two and have an updated LoS posted for you all tomorrow. Because we still have time, Adaham is already halfway to a lynch, and my opinions are subject to change, I'll refrain from voting right now.
 
Adaham said:
Welcome Mag. It would have been fun to play with you earlier, but reading your early impression, I doubt we'll have a lot of playing time together. But I'm glad you'll give us some fresh perspective of things, it might help me making my "last words" better.

Ciao guys, smell you later.

Always a pleasure to play with you, Adaham. To me, you are WW incarnate. And I mean that in the best possible way. :razz:
 
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.

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.

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.
 
Dammit. Still can't find much useful to say. Just kinda waiting for Magorian to catch up and post his thoughts before vote time.

Llandy - at a guess, I'd say it's down to Ativan pushing for Sheep that much harder than me. I left wriggle room, he was 100% convinced. Also, I died for half of day 2 :razz:
 
Calodine said:
Llandy - at a guess, I'd say it's down to Ativan pushing for Sheep that much harder than me. I left wriggle room, he was 100% convinced. Also, I died for half of day 2 :razz:

Yeah, maybe. Though I interpreted your 'wriggle room' as 'willing to lynch people you thought were equally likely to be wolves'. I know there were people (like CW) that you were equally convinced of, and that sticking with your vote on Sheep until the end was partially because it was risky to put your vote anywhere else after the inanity that was Day 2. Either way it doesn't particularly matter; whether I think you're #1 innocent or #2 innocent is just a case of small degrees of separation. I was hoping to get Magorian's input on it, though, so I have a better idea of what he's looking at (overall) in his LoS's.

If that even makes sense.

 
@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.
 
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?
 
Adaham said:
I'm just posting quickly to let you guys know I'm still alive. After my three day-trip to the Austrian military, I'm in the middle of a CD recording and seriously sleep deprived. I'm still doing my best to read along, but see little point in commenting on the likeliness of scenarios like Nipple and me being in a pack. I hope to find some time the next days to make a final post summing up my thoughts, which should help you tomorrow. For the rest, I'm very sorry Ativan, but I just really don't have the time to read the whole thing again and form a new opinion. And to be honest, I don't think much is going to change about it anyway. Nor is it going to prevent my lynching. So I'll try to make sure I can make a post with "last words" before everything is decided and will try to stay on top of things regarding new postings.
I specifically asked for you to read thread Adaham, because your whole play on day 3 is based on "I was fooled, I couldn't see this or that". So you have a very good reason to read the thread, knowing a handful of people's identities with a fresh perspective. It would make your case stronger and cohesive but instead, you declined it again. I am sorry about your real life obligations but apart from that, you are again your own worst enemy here.

@Magorian:
Nice start with the LoS of day 1. I am not surprised to see that your most suspicious people list coincides with mine in my last LoS. I am waiting for the rest of your analysis, especially the changes happened on day 2 compared to day 1 (such as CW's stance towards Sheep) and the whole Nipplemelter thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom