Adaham 说:
I already have been living with that fact, so sounds like a good deal to me!
[Werewolf] SMAC: Unity [Game ends!]
- 主题发起人 MaHuD
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
I already have been living with that fact, so sounds like a good deal to me!
Plus this is the... third game in a row (?) that you have suspected me from the start, so I am used to it.
Alright, after a meal I'm feeling a bit more alive, so I think I can make a contribution before I head to bed. Slogging through the continuation of the Face/Pizza argument has been exhausting, though, so I have no interest in going through it in detail. They are both innocent and this is exactly what I meant by Face getting into distracting arguments.
Now to my actual suspects. Mag already explained why Kronic is scummy. Kronic's response to that isn't any better.
As for Adaham, in the above context, this post made my gut scream wolf:
An awfully specific gut read that relies on both of them being scum, I know. So I decided to make it even better by giving a stab at naming the whole pack at the same time. Hawk was stuck in my mind because of his weird first post and the fact that he said nothing since then, so I threw him in there. Only his reappearance actually moved my read on him specifically into scum territory from null:
This, of course, just beyond the fact that there was nothing ambiguous about my mentioning both of them as innocent reads, which, unlike his own stance, is something that has **** all utility for a wolf to 'play' either way. As for me being noncommittal on others, that would be because it was simply not collection on observations on different players, which by page 8 gave me very little to give conclusions on most of them.
I also have no idea how I'm opening myself to bandwagoning on innocent lynches by throwing out a bunch innocent reads. As for letting others do the hunting for me - neither of those posts involved me relying on anyone else's work. If anything, you can thank my briefness in them on the fact that I'm not parroting others much.
Now to my actual suspects. Mag already explained why Kronic is scummy. Kronic's response to that isn't any better.
As for Adaham, in the above context, this post made my gut scream wolf:
While I suppose this technically counts as questioning Kronic, the vibe I got from this post reinforced my general read on Adaham a lot. It just doesn't look like he gives a **** about lynching the scum, and this post, following what I think was the most suspicious post in the game until that point by Kronic, felt distinctly like he was just breezing past, mostly ignoring a packmate's missteps even though he felt obligated to comment something on it because of simply how outstandingly scummy it was.Adaham 说:
An awfully specific gut read that relies on both of them being scum, I know. So I decided to make it even better by giving a stab at naming the whole pack at the same time. Hawk was stuck in my mind because of his weird first post and the fact that he said nothing since then, so I threw him in there. Only his reappearance actually moved my read on him specifically into scum territory from null:
Saying that I'm 'playing both sides' on the Face/Pizza argument is what rings my alarm bells here. I have no interest in taking sides at all in an argument that isn't mine between two players that I believe to be innocent. In fact, the whole focus on picking one side to support, following his mention of his own pick, just stinks of wolf opportunism. Coming in to throw your support on one side in a heated argument between two innocents is a prime way for a wolf to appear to be contributing while doing no work, while also giving more fuel to a fire that is only going to burn the innocents.Vermillion_Hawk 说:
This, of course, just beyond the fact that there was nothing ambiguous about my mentioning both of them as innocent reads, which, unlike his own stance, is something that has **** all utility for a wolf to 'play' either way. As for me being noncommittal on others, that would be because it was simply not collection on observations on different players, which by page 8 gave me very little to give conclusions on most of them.
I also have no idea how I'm opening myself to bandwagoning on innocent lynches by throwing out a bunch innocent reads. As for letting others do the hunting for me - neither of those posts involved me relying on anyone else's work. If anything, you can thank my briefness in them on the fact that I'm not parroting others much.
SootShade 说:
No. Hawk brings up a very good point which actually puts me in mind of the very last game we played, when wolf-you did that whole analysis of Me vs Eternal, and even though you thought Eternal was scum, you were still perfectly willing to lynch me. And you're doing exactly the same here.
Picking one side to support can be a wolf using an opportunity, yes. But so can a wolf refusing to pick a side, which is exactly what you did towards the end of Day 1 in the last game. I even pointed out to you that "if you think Eternal and I are wolves then we should fit in a pack, but according to your own opinions, you obviously don't think that" and you gave some similar BS excuse that I allowed to pass because I wasn't getting wolfy vibes from you, and my bad on that.
I'm not saying you HAVE to pick a side but trying to put a scummy spin on Hawk's observation is in itself scummy, and if you're a wolf again I'm not going to let you pull the same crap in the Melter/Pizza situation as you did in the Llandy/Eternal situation.
Again, no. You're generalising. You've surpassed Pizza-levels of generalising ("This is what you should be doing if you are innocent") and are now entering into Eternal levels of generalising ("Wolves always do this and never do that")
Don't make me pull out my meta and quote you a bunch of instances where innocents have defended each other, and wolves have sat on the fence of arguments in order to swing their votes either way. Because I can, and I will, if I have to.
This, of course, just beyond the fact that there was nothing ambiguous about my mentioning both of them as innocent reads, which, unlike his own stance, is something that has **** all utility for a wolf to 'play' either way. As for me being noncommittal on others, that would be because it was simply not collection on observations on different players, which by page 8 gave me very little to give conclusions on most of them.
Refer to Wolfshade, Day 1 of Forum Affair. When you did EXACTLY this. As I have just mentioned.
I should have removed this Soot paragraph from the post above:
"This, of course, just beyond the fact that there was nothing ambiguous about my mentioning both of them as innocent reads, which, unlike his own stance, is something that has **** all utility for a wolf to 'play' either way. As for me being noncommittal on others, that would be because it was simply not collection on observations on different players, which by page 8 gave me very little to give conclusions on most of them."
Ignore it in my post.
"This, of course, just beyond the fact that there was nothing ambiguous about my mentioning both of them as innocent reads, which, unlike his own stance, is something that has **** all utility for a wolf to 'play' either way. As for me being noncommittal on others, that would be because it was simply not collection on observations on different players, which by page 8 gave me very little to give conclusions on most of them."
Ignore it in my post.
He has done the "I've waded through this bull**** and concluded both are innocent" as an innocent too.
But the fact that I don't suspect either of them makes this distinctly different from last game, where I first picked a side and then flipped on it whenever it was comfortable. In fact it's the stance that Hawk is taking here that very reminiscent of my play last game, which is exactly why I'm calling it out. Taking the stance that there is a wolf between the two arguing allows you to then work it whichever way you want, based on that false premise. That's what I'm calling wolf opportunism. And no, mentioning that this is a good tactic for a wolf to use isn't a generalization that implies that wolves would always do it. It's a specific read on Hawk's comment here, which indicates a wolfy motive behind his picking a side.
Started to go through everyone's posts, but I have to help someone move some furniture - will finish later.
Magorian - Was not fond of his overly jokey start (which has continued), but he has become better at mixing in content. There are still a few small issues, one being applying Xardob meta to make a comment about my play. It is fine to compare other peoples' behavior to how different people could play, but I think the "obviously jokey" opening post comparison is a bit of a stretch, especially since it is such a common move regardless of alignment (and one I have made multiple times in the past). I also found his comment on Frisian to be a bit weird and out of nowhere. All Frisian had done up to this point was explain some joke and say that he thinks Pizza was clawing at me, so I am not sure why he'd feel the need to comment on him, especially since there did not seem like enough to go off of with him yet (unless I am missing some context). I agree with him on Kronic's play and most of the rest he has said after that.
Kronic - Not going to go into too much detail as people have already made the points about him, but the somewhat wishy-washy "Soot vs. Mag" stance and the similar categorization of Pizza and I ("one is slightly innocent, the other is slightly wolfy") looks like he is keeping his options open and the ability to switch to any of these players because of "foot in each door" attitude he seems to have. Not fond of the little pop-in he had earlier today because it is out of the blue and he contributed nothing else along with it.
Hawk - Has not said much so far. Disagree with his characterization of Soot playing both sides, and he had committed to Pizza being his strongest read and me probably being innocent, so I would not say he is being very "noncommittal" either. I feel like he would want to keep either of those options open if he was a wolf, similar to how I see Kronic's reaction. A bit odd to single Soot out for "avoiding being put under the lens" because there are / were others who had not been focused on either.
On a slightly different note, while I do not disagree with what he said about Pizzadude when he jumped into our conversation, I find it a bit strange that, for someone who thinks defending players is wolfish, Pizzadude did not make any comment about this. Sure, it isn't really the same sort of defense, but it is somewhat "helping out." Normally I wouldn't be too alarmed by this, but combined with his quick "strongly innocent" read of Mag and suspicion on me because I did not read Mag the same way, looks slightly like some "packie play."
Magorian - Was not fond of his overly jokey start (which has continued), but he has become better at mixing in content. There are still a few small issues, one being applying Xardob meta to make a comment about my play. It is fine to compare other peoples' behavior to how different people could play, but I think the "obviously jokey" opening post comparison is a bit of a stretch, especially since it is such a common move regardless of alignment (and one I have made multiple times in the past). I also found his comment on Frisian to be a bit weird and out of nowhere. All Frisian had done up to this point was explain some joke and say that he thinks Pizza was clawing at me, so I am not sure why he'd feel the need to comment on him, especially since there did not seem like enough to go off of with him yet (unless I am missing some context). I agree with him on Kronic's play and most of the rest he has said after that.
Kronic - Not going to go into too much detail as people have already made the points about him, but the somewhat wishy-washy "Soot vs. Mag" stance and the similar categorization of Pizza and I ("one is slightly innocent, the other is slightly wolfy") looks like he is keeping his options open and the ability to switch to any of these players because of "foot in each door" attitude he seems to have. Not fond of the little pop-in he had earlier today because it is out of the blue and he contributed nothing else along with it.
Hawk - Has not said much so far. Disagree with his characterization of Soot playing both sides, and he had committed to Pizza being his strongest read and me probably being innocent, so I would not say he is being very "noncommittal" either. I feel like he would want to keep either of those options open if he was a wolf, similar to how I see Kronic's reaction. A bit odd to single Soot out for "avoiding being put under the lens" because there are / were others who had not been focused on either.
On a slightly different note, while I do not disagree with what he said about Pizzadude when he jumped into our conversation, I find it a bit strange that, for someone who thinks defending players is wolfish, Pizzadude did not make any comment about this. Sure, it isn't really the same sort of defense, but it is somewhat "helping out." Normally I wouldn't be too alarmed by this, but combined with his quick "strongly innocent" read of Mag and suspicion on me because I did not read Mag the same way, looks slightly like some "packie play."
"He" being Mag in the first part of that last paragraph.
SootShade 说:
A variation on a theme, and one that I imagine will come in useful if there is a potentially tied lynch.
For example, you have, as an innocent, come to the defence of some people before. You took AW's side in the AW vs Mag "wolf tell" saga and you made your reasons for doing so very clear. Very, very clear. So clear that nobody ever wants to rehash that argument ever again.
So for you to claim...
SootShade 说:
...is a partial fallacy, because you have actually done that before.
Granted, you may have thought Mag was more scummy than AW in that game (I will have to go back and check) but in this game, all you say is:
SootShade 说:
Yes, this reinforces your innocent-type reads of both players in your [urhttp://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,333390.msg7894243.html#msg7894243]LoS thing[/url] but I'm very surprised to see you taking such a stance against two strongly opposing sides and seemingly willing to write both off as innocent given the accusations from each player (and others) that there is some dishonesty going on between them.
Failed link should have been: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,333390.msg7894243.html#msg7894243
That comparison is also weak. In that game I was quite certain that Mag was scum and AWdeV innocent, even before that argument happened.
The actual comparison you need to make here is to the Face vs Calo argument (your first game, I think), or at least it's what I'm thinking of right now, as it was another case where Face and another innocent were at each other's throat's over misunderstandings. The difference is that I simply don't have the patience to go through all that ****ing nonsense step by step to illustrate why.
The actual comparison you need to make here is to the Face vs Calo argument (your first game, I think), or at least it's what I'm thinking of right now, as it was another case where Face and another innocent were at each other's throat's over misunderstandings. The difference is that I simply don't have the patience to go through all that ****ing nonsense step by step to illustrate why.
SootShade 说:
Face and another innocent?
You know Calodine was innocent back then because that game is over and the roles revealed. But this one is still in progress. The only way you could know Melter is innocent, and Pizza is "another innocent" here, now, is if you're scum.
I'm home, and I'm delighted that you all left me this 15 pages to read. Luckily this was a slow day at work, so I could skim the thread most of the time. Expect some kind of post after I'm mentally prepared to slog through this thread.
Also, I'll comment on thing as I read them, so if you see something that was answered/explained late, deal with it.
Also, I'll comment on thing as I read them, so if you see something that was answered/explained late, deal with it.
So I was going to do everyone else, but there are some people that I need to see more of to make a better judgement, specifically Frisian, Adaham, Xardob, and Vieira (the latter two are still catching up). However, I can still make a few comments on those guys:
Xardob - Leaning towards innocent, as nothing out of the ordinary is going on with him. Typical entry, though maybe playing a bit more amicably than I would expect.
Adaham - Generally a tough read, probably the most neutral person I have right now. I partially agree with Xardob's sentiment that he seems "disinterested" to some extent / not caring much, though his frustration with Pizzadude's continuance of the latest installment in my "War of the Quotes, 2014-2015 (Medium: Pixels on a screen)" exhibit gives off innocent vibes (unless he is just getting annoyed with a packie). I know what he thinks about myself and Kronic, but his other suspicions (Vieira and Soot) I am having a hard time finding. The only thing I could find on Soot was Adaham's comment about a big ego slipping up when trying to read him and middle-ground stance on Soot's lack of buddying (or something along those limes - neither of which sounds like much of an accusation), and there is nothing on Vieira. He also asked Pizzadude about Frisian, stating that he find's Frisian's stance on the Pizzamelt sitch interesting (since he and Kronic were the only two to comment on it at the time). Sounds like he had some thoughts on Fris, but has not stated anything as far as I can tell. Will be interesting to see where he goes from here.
Frisian - Most interesting part of his play so far is the "peacekeeping" comment. Reasonable, and for what it's worth, similar to what his twin did as a good guy previously. However, given his "I think Pizzadude is clawing at Melter" comment, my assumption would have been he thought Pizza was leaning wolf, unless he meant something different (which is not exactly clear - problematic). Still, I think he is slightly innocent at this point.
Question to anyone: Do you think this comes off as, similar to what Soot is partially being accused of, not taking a side for "wolfy" reasons (maybe preemptive bet-hedging), or is it genuine, careful innocent behavior?
Vieira - I can see why people would think his opening posts came off as nervous, and his asking about why people think so does come off as a tad wolfy to me (mostly because I think I've seen instances where wolves ask about their behavior in order to take notes and change their play before the suspect behavior becomes a problem - not sure if it is worth putting stock in), but the rest of what he has said so far comes off as someone trying to do their own thing without malicious intent. Do not agree with all of it, but it isn't ringing alarm bells with me at the moment. Will be good to see more.
Xardob - Leaning towards innocent, as nothing out of the ordinary is going on with him. Typical entry, though maybe playing a bit more amicably than I would expect.
Adaham - Generally a tough read, probably the most neutral person I have right now. I partially agree with Xardob's sentiment that he seems "disinterested" to some extent / not caring much, though his frustration with Pizzadude's continuance of the latest installment in my "War of the Quotes, 2014-2015 (Medium: Pixels on a screen)" exhibit gives off innocent vibes (unless he is just getting annoyed with a packie). I know what he thinks about myself and Kronic, but his other suspicions (Vieira and Soot) I am having a hard time finding. The only thing I could find on Soot was Adaham's comment about a big ego slipping up when trying to read him and middle-ground stance on Soot's lack of buddying (or something along those limes - neither of which sounds like much of an accusation), and there is nothing on Vieira. He also asked Pizzadude about Frisian, stating that he find's Frisian's stance on the Pizzamelt sitch interesting (since he and Kronic were the only two to comment on it at the time). Sounds like he had some thoughts on Fris, but has not stated anything as far as I can tell. Will be interesting to see where he goes from here.
Frisian - Most interesting part of his play so far is the "peacekeeping" comment. Reasonable, and for what it's worth, similar to what his twin did as a good guy previously. However, given his "I think Pizzadude is clawing at Melter" comment, my assumption would have been he thought Pizza was leaning wolf, unless he meant something different (which is not exactly clear - problematic). Still, I think he is slightly innocent at this point.
Question to anyone: Do you think this comes off as, similar to what Soot is partially being accused of, not taking a side for "wolfy" reasons (maybe preemptive bet-hedging), or is it genuine, careful innocent behavior?
Vieira - I can see why people would think his opening posts came off as nervous, and his asking about why people think so does come off as a tad wolfy to me (mostly because I think I've seen instances where wolves ask about their behavior in order to take notes and change their play before the suspect behavior becomes a problem - not sure if it is worth putting stock in), but the rest of what he has said so far comes off as someone trying to do their own thing without malicious intent. Do not agree with all of it, but it isn't ringing alarm bells with me at the moment. Will be good to see more.
So, completely neutral and useless read on Vieira. Why bother with it at all? You offered an opinion on everyone else in that post. Why not your packmate as well?SootShade 说:
Interesting, you said quite a lot, but didn't answer my question in the end.Askthepizzaguy 说:
Yeah, it's a pity that, isn't it? So, want to hunt another wolf together? Reenact the awesome partnership from Twilight Zone II?Adaham 说:
Some even make them on purpose, right?Pharaoh X Llandy 说:
Here's an interesting thought. Pizza and Vieira are packmates. Pizza came up with a weak but believable reason to suspect Vieira, while not quite explaining it. He then used that reason to stay in the hunt and bait other players into discussion. After the quote war with Melter, he shifted his suspicion and the bit about Vieira lies forgotten but ready to be picked up again if needed.
I don't know about that. Sounds like a fairly standard gut feeling driven post. I've certainly seen worse non committing posts.Magorian Aximand 说:
I'll break this post here because it's getting cumbersome in the reply box.
