FrisianDude
Archduke
wait which post is 48 and how do I find that?
[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
Archduke
At the top of posts, under the thread title, there'll be a timestamp. It'll tell you what post number it is. To find it, I'd guess around the start page 4, thouhh iy depends on how many posts you have set per page.
OK, been reading a long a bit. Gonna try and do a little bit more work, then I'll be with you all.
OK, been reading a long a bit. Gonna try and do a little bit more work, then I'll be with you all.
FrisianDude
Archduke
Oh. I see.
Also, whaaaat that bit of nothing means I'm definitely not a packmate of Magorian?
Also, whaaaat that bit of nothing means I'm definitely not a packmate of Magorian?
Pharaoh X Llandy 说:
This is what we mean by backdoors.
Excellent analysis though.
I'll get a proper Pizzanalysis up today. We need to hear more from Kronic, Xardob, and Hawk. Llandy desperately needs to finish her LoS. Why desperately? Because I'm selfish and I want to read it.
Xardob
A lot of Xardob’s play so far has been banter and pot-shots which I feel are designed to provoke reactions. He slips in wolfy accusation to a lot of the players, first Magorian, then me, then Adaham, then Soot, and he does this in his usual one-liner style, to which he gets little response. He feels like he finally arrives in the game with this post, in which he speculates about a possible Pizza/Vieira pack as an explanation for a Pizza/Vieira interaction. It shows me that Xardob is thinking about motives, even if the majority of his posts appear more superficial.
He goes on to show some further in-depth analysis in this post where he calls Hawk out for doing what he accuses Soot of doing by leaving himself a back door for vote-switching. I can see why Xardob (and others) have picked up on that, but as I mentioned in my Hawk section, I need to hear what Hawk has to say about Pizza and Adaham before I can judge his motives for doing this.
Xardob continues to question/respond to a wide range of players and give his own interpretations unprompted. His disagreement with Soot/defence of Adaham and disagreement with me/defence of Soot has a pretty genuine feel to it that I would call more innocent than wolfy here. Then the rest of Xardob’s posts are more of a return to the short and snappy style, with further jabs at players like Mag, a willingness to lynch Hawk or Frisian, and a rather lengthier peace-offering post to Adaham.
It’s always quite hard for me to read Xardob, but there are a few things in his favour so far. He has questioned and responded to a wide range of players. Some of his responses have been insightful and reconciliatory. If Xardob was furry I would have expected to have gotten a more nefarious vibe at some point from him by now, and I would also have expected him to have more of an agenda with regards to lynching one or two players. Although I think his willingness to vote Frisian or Hawk is just him ‘settling’ rather than having genuine suspicions, I don’t get a very strong scum feel from that, and his willingness to sell his vote does not stand out as anything out of the ordinary either. Right now I’m putting Xardob in my Neutral category, but with a very slight tendency to villager motives.
Phonemelter
Melter starts with a faux LoS entry which is an obvious spoof of Xardob’s infamous LoS in the last game. If anybody had any doubts that this was anything other than a joke, they need only look at the last entry on his LoS; Whoopin isn’t even playing this game. After that he seems to relapse into traditional Melterbanter and drunk phoneposting. I do feel that Melter makes some good points even whilst drunk, and explains himself relatively well. Unfortunately the Pizza/Melter war takes over, in which both sides have some good arguments and some bad ones. Overall, I don’t think very much was gained from that whole episode (at least, I did not take very much away from it, except perhaps an appreciation for how it feels to be on the outside looking in, thus giving me something to learn from/reflect on in future).
A little later on, Melter says that Pizza’s “buddying” of Adaham seems to be calculated/diplomatic in a way he finds off-putting. I don’t agree with his assessment here, but I am acutely aware that when you are very suspicious of somebody, and when you have been the focus of their intense investigation for some time, you start seeing dark motives in everything they do. I think this is partially why Eternal didn’t know how to react towards me after I pushed him hard in the last game and then declared him innocent, and I have been in Melter’s situation before, so I know what it feels like to try and defend yourself/look for reasons to accuse your accuser (no, Xardob, my head does not explode with that sentence structure!) in ways which involve others. My Meltermeta tells me this isn’t overly indicative of his alignment, as it’s something he would do whether innocent or scum, but his frustration over the whole quote-war-without-quotes gives me a slightly innocent vibe. It’s a similar frustration to what Eternal showed when I pushed him hard in the last game, and I think it’s hard for wolves to fake that without it appearing contrived.
Melter does bring up a couple of pertinent points about Pizzaguy, however. One is that Pizzaguy has said that defending players you read neutral is wolfish, yet does not react when Mags defends him or when I defend Melter. This feels like a genuine attempt by Melter to look a little deeper into Pizza’s play, rather than just sitting in defensive mode. A little later there is what appears to be a jokey jab by Melter towards Pizza, with an accusation that he is packmates with Mags because he’s letting Mags direct his vote. I can see where Melter gets the idea from, but I’m going to have to read Pizza and Mags interactions and address this separately in their sections later.
After that, Melter comes to a round-about slight defence of Mags in this post by pointing out that Pizza is accusing Mags of making explanation-free reads, whilst perpetuating the same behaviour himself. I do agree with Melter’s assessment that Pizza is doing what he accuses Mag of doing, but I don’t yet know whether that makes Pizza scummy or just struggling to adapt his real-time running commentary to our style of forum play. Melter’s next post is a little disappointing but I can understand why he did not want to accept Pizzaguy’s offer of a hard reset. So long as Melter does not allow himself to become tunnelled on Pizza, I think his response here is acceptable. Melter also says that he does not make ‘deals’ in WW, referring to Pizza’s comment that if Melter accepts his offer he will answer all of his questions. Again, I can understand Melter’s response, because I feel that Pizza should answer any questions which any players have made the effort of posing to him. In a way, Pizza’s offer sounds a like a bribe, and I think I would respond the same way in Melter’s position.
Still on Pizza, Melter points out that Pizza often makes references to his own villageryness, and says this is not a villagery thing to do. Mags and Frisian have also commented on Pizza’s tendency to do this, but I’m not sure it is as potentially indicative of fur as all three seem to imply, because over the course of the games I have been in, I have seen villagers do that just as much (maybe even moreso) than wolves, similar to how they always mark themselves as blue on their own LoS’s. What I find slightly more telling is the way in which Pizza phrased his claim (quoted within Melter’s quote), which basically amounts to “if you don’t read me innocent you’re either a wolf or you’re not good at Day 1 reads” which I find mildly insulting and provocative. I don’t think I would have responded to that quote as calmly as Melter, and more Meltermeta tells me that scum-Melter would probably have blown that quote out of proportion in an attempt to gain the sympathy of others.
Overall, I think Melter is giving off some innocent vibes but my read of him is hindered a little by his focus on Pizza. He seems to be holding a grudge in a way that I haven’t really seen from him before. I know that Melter isn’t a player to allow himself to become too heavily tunnelled, so I really hope he starts more investigation of others soon
I'm typing as fast as I can!
A lot of Xardob’s play so far has been banter and pot-shots which I feel are designed to provoke reactions. He slips in wolfy accusation to a lot of the players, first Magorian, then me, then Adaham, then Soot, and he does this in his usual one-liner style, to which he gets little response. He feels like he finally arrives in the game with this post, in which he speculates about a possible Pizza/Vieira pack as an explanation for a Pizza/Vieira interaction. It shows me that Xardob is thinking about motives, even if the majority of his posts appear more superficial.
He goes on to show some further in-depth analysis in this post where he calls Hawk out for doing what he accuses Soot of doing by leaving himself a back door for vote-switching. I can see why Xardob (and others) have picked up on that, but as I mentioned in my Hawk section, I need to hear what Hawk has to say about Pizza and Adaham before I can judge his motives for doing this.
Xardob continues to question/respond to a wide range of players and give his own interpretations unprompted. His disagreement with Soot/defence of Adaham and disagreement with me/defence of Soot has a pretty genuine feel to it that I would call more innocent than wolfy here. Then the rest of Xardob’s posts are more of a return to the short and snappy style, with further jabs at players like Mag, a willingness to lynch Hawk or Frisian, and a rather lengthier peace-offering post to Adaham.
It’s always quite hard for me to read Xardob, but there are a few things in his favour so far. He has questioned and responded to a wide range of players. Some of his responses have been insightful and reconciliatory. If Xardob was furry I would have expected to have gotten a more nefarious vibe at some point from him by now, and I would also have expected him to have more of an agenda with regards to lynching one or two players. Although I think his willingness to vote Frisian or Hawk is just him ‘settling’ rather than having genuine suspicions, I don’t get a very strong scum feel from that, and his willingness to sell his vote does not stand out as anything out of the ordinary either. Right now I’m putting Xardob in my Neutral category, but with a very slight tendency to villager motives.
Phonemelter
Melter starts with a faux LoS entry which is an obvious spoof of Xardob’s infamous LoS in the last game. If anybody had any doubts that this was anything other than a joke, they need only look at the last entry on his LoS; Whoopin isn’t even playing this game. After that he seems to relapse into traditional Melterbanter and drunk phoneposting. I do feel that Melter makes some good points even whilst drunk, and explains himself relatively well. Unfortunately the Pizza/Melter war takes over, in which both sides have some good arguments and some bad ones. Overall, I don’t think very much was gained from that whole episode (at least, I did not take very much away from it, except perhaps an appreciation for how it feels to be on the outside looking in, thus giving me something to learn from/reflect on in future).
A little later on, Melter says that Pizza’s “buddying” of Adaham seems to be calculated/diplomatic in a way he finds off-putting. I don’t agree with his assessment here, but I am acutely aware that when you are very suspicious of somebody, and when you have been the focus of their intense investigation for some time, you start seeing dark motives in everything they do. I think this is partially why Eternal didn’t know how to react towards me after I pushed him hard in the last game and then declared him innocent, and I have been in Melter’s situation before, so I know what it feels like to try and defend yourself/look for reasons to accuse your accuser (no, Xardob, my head does not explode with that sentence structure!) in ways which involve others. My Meltermeta tells me this isn’t overly indicative of his alignment, as it’s something he would do whether innocent or scum, but his frustration over the whole quote-war-without-quotes gives me a slightly innocent vibe. It’s a similar frustration to what Eternal showed when I pushed him hard in the last game, and I think it’s hard for wolves to fake that without it appearing contrived.
Melter does bring up a couple of pertinent points about Pizzaguy, however. One is that Pizzaguy has said that defending players you read neutral is wolfish, yet does not react when Mags defends him or when I defend Melter. This feels like a genuine attempt by Melter to look a little deeper into Pizza’s play, rather than just sitting in defensive mode. A little later there is what appears to be a jokey jab by Melter towards Pizza, with an accusation that he is packmates with Mags because he’s letting Mags direct his vote. I can see where Melter gets the idea from, but I’m going to have to read Pizza and Mags interactions and address this separately in their sections later.
After that, Melter comes to a round-about slight defence of Mags in this post by pointing out that Pizza is accusing Mags of making explanation-free reads, whilst perpetuating the same behaviour himself. I do agree with Melter’s assessment that Pizza is doing what he accuses Mag of doing, but I don’t yet know whether that makes Pizza scummy or just struggling to adapt his real-time running commentary to our style of forum play. Melter’s next post is a little disappointing but I can understand why he did not want to accept Pizzaguy’s offer of a hard reset. So long as Melter does not allow himself to become tunnelled on Pizza, I think his response here is acceptable. Melter also says that he does not make ‘deals’ in WW, referring to Pizza’s comment that if Melter accepts his offer he will answer all of his questions. Again, I can understand Melter’s response, because I feel that Pizza should answer any questions which any players have made the effort of posing to him. In a way, Pizza’s offer sounds a like a bribe, and I think I would respond the same way in Melter’s position.
Still on Pizza, Melter points out that Pizza often makes references to his own villageryness, and says this is not a villagery thing to do. Mags and Frisian have also commented on Pizza’s tendency to do this, but I’m not sure it is as potentially indicative of fur as all three seem to imply, because over the course of the games I have been in, I have seen villagers do that just as much (maybe even moreso) than wolves, similar to how they always mark themselves as blue on their own LoS’s. What I find slightly more telling is the way in which Pizza phrased his claim (quoted within Melter’s quote), which basically amounts to “if you don’t read me innocent you’re either a wolf or you’re not good at Day 1 reads” which I find mildly insulting and provocative. I don’t think I would have responded to that quote as calmly as Melter, and more Meltermeta tells me that scum-Melter would probably have blown that quote out of proportion in an attempt to gain the sympathy of others.
Overall, I think Melter is giving off some innocent vibes but my read of him is hindered a little by his focus on Pizza. He seems to be holding a grudge in a way that I haven’t really seen from him before. I know that Melter isn’t a player to allow himself to become too heavily tunnelled, so I really hope he starts more investigation of others soon
Magorian Aximand 说:
I'm typing as fast as I can!
Just checking in to say I'll be preoccupied today so chances are it won't be until tomorrow afternoon that I can get around to reading / postinf
SootShade
Soot opens with a joke-vote on Frisian and an explanation about Hawk’s misspelled name to Vieira, so nothing out of the ordinary there. His next post is more meta-references which doesn’t give me any particular vibe either way, followed by some non-relevant banter. It’s not until his post here that Soot posts something of real relevance. I didn’t notice on my first read, but this is where we start with some minor incongruities.
First, Soot says that he doesn’t like Mags’ interpretation of NeoXardobism, despite never having a problem with anybody’s interpretation of it before. He goes on to say that he feels Mags’ interruption of Pizza/Melter war actually sabotaged Pizza’s questioning of Melter. He also speculates a pack connection between Mags and Melter due to this interference, which to me feels like a bit of a stretch.
In his section about me, he says that he would have thought I could make some sort of read on both players based on the topic being discussed. And yet Mag did not make a read on either of the players, but Soot seems not to be as bothered by this. And Soot draws up a Mag/Melter pack connection because of Mags’ defence of Pizza, yet does not draw a similar connection between me and Pizza or Melter because of my defence of Melter. Also, when Magorian interjects in favour of one player it is “sabotaging” the discussion, and when I interject to do the same, it is not? It feels like Soot is holding myself and Magorian to different standards here.
Another thing that rings alarm bells with me, is something I call The Shatari Time Effect. Take a look at what Soot says about Melter in the post I linked to above. He is impressed that Melter has avoided full on misunderstandings this time around and it has helped Soot to get a better read on Melter. And yet just three hours later he tells Pizza that Melter is notorious for getting into quote wars “full of misunderstandings on his side” and strongly implies that this is what has happened yet again. He even goes so far as to offer to go through Melter’s arguments step by step to point out the misunderstandings for Pizza. I call this The Shatari Time Effect because this sort of slips are only truly noticeable if you back-read a player’s history to filter out the posts of everybody else in between, and it’s how I did one of my best pieces of wolf hunting (on Shatari, in Black Death) that I have ever done.
This is what I see when I refer to Soot “playing both sides”, as mentioned by Hawk, and I hope that it is a little more noticeable if you go into Soot’s post history and read the remarks side by side.
The next post of interest to me continues the theme of “reversal” that Soot seems to have going in this game (reverse his stance on Adaham, reverse how he plays two opposing sides against each other, reverse how he interacts with me). In this post, he says that Hawk is making **** up (dismissive) whereas my own approach is understandable. Soot is a clever enough player to realise that when I am pushed, I push back with the same force, and he witnessed this first-hand in the last two games we played in where he was scum, and he pushed me, and I pushed back, and then I ended up lunched on Night 1 and Night 2 respectively. He’s also clever enough to know that Hawk is a much, much easier lynch than I am, and given Hawk’s relative inactivity, and the fact that Hawk was the first to point out the fence-sitting on the Pizza/Melter matter, I’m guessing Soot hoped that by discredited Hawk he would also undermine my own suspicions about him and make them seem less credible.
When Adaham also picks up on this reversal, Soot attempts to undermine it by writing it off as meta. And yet Soot was the one who started the whole thing, with a jokey “Adaham is totes innocent” type entry in this thread. I think he didn’t expect Adaham to get this suspicious if he choose instead to swing his suspicion to Adaham = wolf. And just to be on the safe side, Soot starts to offer up Xardob as a potential suspect, despite the fact that Xardob is doing what Xardob always does regardless of his alignment. Always useful to have another card in your back pocket, I suspect.
I shouldn’t need to summarise, but I hope that this analysis goes into enough detail about Soot’s ‘playing both sides’ because I don’t know how to make it any clearer. Even if you don’t accept my vibes about him making up contrived pack connections, it’s hard to deny The Shatari Time Effect when you can see it for yourself. Because of these things, Soot is my strongest scum read so far.
Soot opens with a joke-vote on Frisian and an explanation about Hawk’s misspelled name to Vieira, so nothing out of the ordinary there. His next post is more meta-references which doesn’t give me any particular vibe either way, followed by some non-relevant banter. It’s not until his post here that Soot posts something of real relevance. I didn’t notice on my first read, but this is where we start with some minor incongruities.
First, Soot says that he doesn’t like Mags’ interpretation of NeoXardobism, despite never having a problem with anybody’s interpretation of it before. He goes on to say that he feels Mags’ interruption of Pizza/Melter war actually sabotaged Pizza’s questioning of Melter. He also speculates a pack connection between Mags and Melter due to this interference, which to me feels like a bit of a stretch.
In his section about me, he says that he would have thought I could make some sort of read on both players based on the topic being discussed. And yet Mag did not make a read on either of the players, but Soot seems not to be as bothered by this. And Soot draws up a Mag/Melter pack connection because of Mags’ defence of Pizza, yet does not draw a similar connection between me and Pizza or Melter because of my defence of Melter. Also, when Magorian interjects in favour of one player it is “sabotaging” the discussion, and when I interject to do the same, it is not? It feels like Soot is holding myself and Magorian to different standards here.
Another thing that rings alarm bells with me, is something I call The Shatari Time Effect. Take a look at what Soot says about Melter in the post I linked to above. He is impressed that Melter has avoided full on misunderstandings this time around and it has helped Soot to get a better read on Melter. And yet just three hours later he tells Pizza that Melter is notorious for getting into quote wars “full of misunderstandings on his side” and strongly implies that this is what has happened yet again. He even goes so far as to offer to go through Melter’s arguments step by step to point out the misunderstandings for Pizza. I call this The Shatari Time Effect because this sort of slips are only truly noticeable if you back-read a player’s history to filter out the posts of everybody else in between, and it’s how I did one of my best pieces of wolf hunting (on Shatari, in Black Death) that I have ever done.
This is what I see when I refer to Soot “playing both sides”, as mentioned by Hawk, and I hope that it is a little more noticeable if you go into Soot’s post history and read the remarks side by side.
The next post of interest to me continues the theme of “reversal” that Soot seems to have going in this game (reverse his stance on Adaham, reverse how he plays two opposing sides against each other, reverse how he interacts with me). In this post, he says that Hawk is making **** up (dismissive) whereas my own approach is understandable. Soot is a clever enough player to realise that when I am pushed, I push back with the same force, and he witnessed this first-hand in the last two games we played in where he was scum, and he pushed me, and I pushed back, and then I ended up lunched on Night 1 and Night 2 respectively. He’s also clever enough to know that Hawk is a much, much easier lynch than I am, and given Hawk’s relative inactivity, and the fact that Hawk was the first to point out the fence-sitting on the Pizza/Melter matter, I’m guessing Soot hoped that by discredited Hawk he would also undermine my own suspicions about him and make them seem less credible.
When Adaham also picks up on this reversal, Soot attempts to undermine it by writing it off as meta. And yet Soot was the one who started the whole thing, with a jokey “Adaham is totes innocent” type entry in this thread. I think he didn’t expect Adaham to get this suspicious if he choose instead to swing his suspicion to Adaham = wolf. And just to be on the safe side, Soot starts to offer up Xardob as a potential suspect, despite the fact that Xardob is doing what Xardob always does regardless of his alignment. Always useful to have another card in your back pocket, I suspect.
I shouldn’t need to summarise, but I hope that this analysis goes into enough detail about Soot’s ‘playing both sides’ because I don’t know how to make it any clearer. Even if you don’t accept my vibes about him making up contrived pack connections, it’s hard to deny The Shatari Time Effect when you can see it for yourself. Because of these things, Soot is my strongest scum read so far.
That STE stuff had me very convinced for a second, but then I read Troll's second post closely, and he still concludes that Phone's misunderstandings were "tame" and he's likely being honest here. You've introduced a lot of interesting points here, but this one is one that I still cannot get on board with.
STE accusation sounds very villagery, but it looks misapplied here. It's a bridge too far.
I am not there on Soot. Much of the case involves double standards, and I'm afraid that's just a hallmark of villaging and thinking in general. People do not consistently apply their own theories to people.
What happens is, when you suspect someone, you apply your scum hunting theories more.
When you don't, you are more blinded to the same stuff you might see in another player.
Notice how my own reads of people this game have different interpretations in retrospect, after I form a different opinion.
It's bias. I know it is bias. But looking at the same post from the perspective of both kinds of bias, arrives closer to the truth, imo.
I am not there on Soot. Much of the case involves double standards, and I'm afraid that's just a hallmark of villaging and thinking in general. People do not consistently apply their own theories to people.
What happens is, when you suspect someone, you apply your scum hunting theories more.
When you don't, you are more blinded to the same stuff you might see in another player.
Notice how my own reads of people this game have different interpretations in retrospect, after I form a different opinion.
It's bias. I know it is bias. But looking at the same post from the perspective of both kinds of bias, arrives closer to the truth, imo.
I find accusations of double-standards, inconsistency, hypocrisy, to be almost wholly wolfy things.
Villagers do these things miles and miles more than wolves, in my opinion. Wolves tend to check themselves and try to leave fewer argumentative weaknesses and can be consistent because it's all fabricated stuff anyway, whereas villagers act on instinct and context and in the moment, and therefore, will apply themselves unevenly. That is actually honesty.
Attacking players for a thinking-weakness and honesty itself, finds wolves ever so rarely. Only certain players are sloppy enough to do this as a wolf, in my experience.
Right now, I find you very villagery, Pharaoh, but if such a case on Soot happened to come out of Magorian's mouth, I'd just find it to be more evidence of his guilt.
Right there that's a double standard. I'm even consciously aware of it. I can't even explain why I'm still fine with it, knowing it's there.
It's not something we can really fix, I don't think. Our brains work how they do, and when they don't seem to function consistently, that's just life at that point. Gotta adjust our self-awareness accordingly and not let it rule our judgments.
Villagers do these things miles and miles more than wolves, in my opinion. Wolves tend to check themselves and try to leave fewer argumentative weaknesses and can be consistent because it's all fabricated stuff anyway, whereas villagers act on instinct and context and in the moment, and therefore, will apply themselves unevenly. That is actually honesty.
Attacking players for a thinking-weakness and honesty itself, finds wolves ever so rarely. Only certain players are sloppy enough to do this as a wolf, in my experience.
Right now, I find you very villagery, Pharaoh, but if such a case on Soot happened to come out of Magorian's mouth, I'd just find it to be more evidence of his guilt.
Right there that's a double standard. I'm even consciously aware of it. I can't even explain why I'm still fine with it, knowing it's there.
It's not something we can really fix, I don't think. Our brains work how they do, and when they don't seem to function consistently, that's just life at that point. Gotta adjust our self-awareness accordingly and not let it rule our judgments.
Magorian
Mags starts off with some general banter, similar to Soot, and meta-discussion of past games and game theory. This continues for quite a few posts, with the most noticeable thing being some suspicion of Melter due to similarities to Xardob’s past scum games. Magorian’s first real post of substances comes in the form of a defence of Pizza. What comes to my mind first is that Magorian seems awfully sure about Pizza’s style and motives, and I’m not sure where this certainty comes from or whether such confidence in Pizza is even warranted at this early stage, and this does not sit right with me.
The next post of interest is here, where Mags expresses some concern about players potentially buddying up. I don’t see the “danger” he is referring to here, and to me it feels more like an attempt at contributing without actually saying anything that is/was currently relevant to the game. Why is buddying ‘a danger’? Wolves who buddy villagers or each other this way may provide valuable information if they are proven to be red. Villagers who buddy each other stand a better chance of achieving consensus. I can see villagers who buddy wolves being a concern, but not one that needs to be overtly stated in this way. As well, I feel as if Magorian was trying to deflect the attention of the “outside” (non-buddy) players to possible cliques. He mentions Pizza/Adaham interaction, yet I’m sure it’s clear to everybody why there should be some initial friendliness between the two. Similarly, I don’t think anybody on Team Spam is green (or foolish) enough to allow suspicious behaviour to pass. And Magorian mentions Pizza clearing him, yet just a few posts of his earlier, he was offering what seemed like a very positive ‘vouch’ for Pizza’s future-play for no reason that I can see. It’s hard to put into words what feels off about this to me, but it’s just off.
One post I do like is here where Magorian does not immediately tell Pizza to vote Hawk, but instead seems open to seeing more of Hawk’s play before making a decision. This tells me that Mags doesn’t want to potentially sabotage the game by allowing his dislike of Hawk to lead his vote, and it’s the strongest innocent vibe I’ve had from Magorian so far. This is compounded in another of Mags’ posts where he tells Pizza that he would rather Pizza do hunting independently and reach the same conclusion, than follow blindly. Ms Paranoid Pharaoh could twist this into a possible packmate direction, but if it is, it’s very blatant and right now it’s not a road I’m willing to walk down.
Magorian’s LoS is not as in-depth or as impressive as I’ve usually come to expect from him, but I chalk that up to Neoxardobism. He expresses some reads that I agree with, and some that I don’t. Again, I get an odd, hard to describe vibe here. I think the best way for me to describe it is ‘careful.’ The LoS contains, I feel, the bare minimum that an LoS should contain, but it doesn’t push any boundaries, bring up anything new (except his short case on Xardob, which I also don’t agree with) or leave me with the impression that Magorian cares very much about showing why his scummy reads are scummy. He does state in his titular line that it’s incomplete and poorly referenced, and maybe this is due to me not ‘getting’ another interpretation of Neoxardobism (again…) but I just feel underwhelmed. Not to the underwhelming extent of Frisian’s LoS, but just… meh.
There’s a little bit of a double-standard in Magorian’s post here. Earlier he warned about the danger of buddying, and now makes an appeal to Melter to help him analyse Pizza’s claims against him. In his next post he explains this as Melter having been in the same situation and wanting a second opinion of somebody who has ‘been there’ but as Soot says, Melter is probably the last person who can give an objective opinion, and I agree with Soot’s assessment that this looks like an appeal for support/back-up from Melter. It is not something I would expect Mag to do, because he has always been able to fight his own battles, but Melter has defended Mag before (in Dwarfcraft) so I have to wonder whether this is Magorian trying to exploit Melter’s willingness to defend him (if scum) or recall Melter’s willingness to generally defend people he thinks are innocent (if villager).
Magorian then gets into a slightly Melter-style war with Pizza, and again, I think both sides have some good arguments and bad. Pizza accuses Magorian of non-elaborative reads, which is correct (Neoxardobism… meh) and Magorian accuses Pizza of the same thing/hypocrisy, which is also correct as I see it. And I do feel that Magorian has an accurate point, when he says that Pizza does not always reply to every question and sometimes seems selective with his responses; I have noticed that too, and others have pointed it out. That’s pretty much what I took out of the minor war between the pair.
So far, Magorian has been the hardest person for me to read. He’s said some things which give me positive, innocent vibes, but then they are countered by things which I find either suspicious or odd/difficult to understand his motives. For the moment I consider him largely Neutral, but with a slight tendency to furry.
Well, consider this another accusation of double-standard to add to my wolfy list, I guess. I'm not going to stop calling them out if I see them, just because you think it's wolfy.
Now I gotta have dinner because it's getting late here. I'll make a start on my Pizza analysis tonight but it will more than likely be tomorrow morning when I post it, because there is soooo much to read through.
Mags starts off with some general banter, similar to Soot, and meta-discussion of past games and game theory. This continues for quite a few posts, with the most noticeable thing being some suspicion of Melter due to similarities to Xardob’s past scum games. Magorian’s first real post of substances comes in the form of a defence of Pizza. What comes to my mind first is that Magorian seems awfully sure about Pizza’s style and motives, and I’m not sure where this certainty comes from or whether such confidence in Pizza is even warranted at this early stage, and this does not sit right with me.
The next post of interest is here, where Mags expresses some concern about players potentially buddying up. I don’t see the “danger” he is referring to here, and to me it feels more like an attempt at contributing without actually saying anything that is/was currently relevant to the game. Why is buddying ‘a danger’? Wolves who buddy villagers or each other this way may provide valuable information if they are proven to be red. Villagers who buddy each other stand a better chance of achieving consensus. I can see villagers who buddy wolves being a concern, but not one that needs to be overtly stated in this way. As well, I feel as if Magorian was trying to deflect the attention of the “outside” (non-buddy) players to possible cliques. He mentions Pizza/Adaham interaction, yet I’m sure it’s clear to everybody why there should be some initial friendliness between the two. Similarly, I don’t think anybody on Team Spam is green (or foolish) enough to allow suspicious behaviour to pass. And Magorian mentions Pizza clearing him, yet just a few posts of his earlier, he was offering what seemed like a very positive ‘vouch’ for Pizza’s future-play for no reason that I can see. It’s hard to put into words what feels off about this to me, but it’s just off.
One post I do like is here where Magorian does not immediately tell Pizza to vote Hawk, but instead seems open to seeing more of Hawk’s play before making a decision. This tells me that Mags doesn’t want to potentially sabotage the game by allowing his dislike of Hawk to lead his vote, and it’s the strongest innocent vibe I’ve had from Magorian so far. This is compounded in another of Mags’ posts where he tells Pizza that he would rather Pizza do hunting independently and reach the same conclusion, than follow blindly. Ms Paranoid Pharaoh could twist this into a possible packmate direction, but if it is, it’s very blatant and right now it’s not a road I’m willing to walk down.
Magorian’s LoS is not as in-depth or as impressive as I’ve usually come to expect from him, but I chalk that up to Neoxardobism. He expresses some reads that I agree with, and some that I don’t. Again, I get an odd, hard to describe vibe here. I think the best way for me to describe it is ‘careful.’ The LoS contains, I feel, the bare minimum that an LoS should contain, but it doesn’t push any boundaries, bring up anything new (except his short case on Xardob, which I also don’t agree with) or leave me with the impression that Magorian cares very much about showing why his scummy reads are scummy. He does state in his titular line that it’s incomplete and poorly referenced, and maybe this is due to me not ‘getting’ another interpretation of Neoxardobism (again…) but I just feel underwhelmed. Not to the underwhelming extent of Frisian’s LoS, but just… meh.
There’s a little bit of a double-standard in Magorian’s post here. Earlier he warned about the danger of buddying, and now makes an appeal to Melter to help him analyse Pizza’s claims against him. In his next post he explains this as Melter having been in the same situation and wanting a second opinion of somebody who has ‘been there’ but as Soot says, Melter is probably the last person who can give an objective opinion, and I agree with Soot’s assessment that this looks like an appeal for support/back-up from Melter. It is not something I would expect Mag to do, because he has always been able to fight his own battles, but Melter has defended Mag before (in Dwarfcraft) so I have to wonder whether this is Magorian trying to exploit Melter’s willingness to defend him (if scum) or recall Melter’s willingness to generally defend people he thinks are innocent (if villager).
Magorian then gets into a slightly Melter-style war with Pizza, and again, I think both sides have some good arguments and bad. Pizza accuses Magorian of non-elaborative reads, which is correct (Neoxardobism… meh) and Magorian accuses Pizza of the same thing/hypocrisy, which is also correct as I see it. And I do feel that Magorian has an accurate point, when he says that Pizza does not always reply to every question and sometimes seems selective with his responses; I have noticed that too, and others have pointed it out. That’s pretty much what I took out of the minor war between the pair.
So far, Magorian has been the hardest person for me to read. He’s said some things which give me positive, innocent vibes, but then they are countered by things which I find either suspicious or odd/difficult to understand his motives. For the moment I consider him largely Neutral, but with a slight tendency to furry.
Askthepizzaguy 说:
Well, consider this another accusation of double-standard to add to my wolfy list, I guess. I'm not going to stop calling them out if I see them, just because you think it's wolfy.
Now I gotta have dinner because it's getting late here. I'll make a start on my Pizza analysis tonight but it will more than likely be tomorrow morning when I post it, because there is soooo much to read through.
Askthepizzaguy 说:
Would that have anything to do with the fact that Magorian has accused you of hypocrisy?
Some food for thought whilst I go get some food for my stomach.
Pharaoh X Llandy 说:
I don't expect you to change. I'd reiterate this position post-game, and especially if the players in question all end up being villager (I'm one of them and have a townread on others) it should be more convincing to you then.
The accusation of hypocrisy attacks the logical consistency of a person's thought process.
The trouble is, we're not Vulcans. We're not high elves. We are human beings. Logical consistency is not our forte, and that doesn't stop being the case when we rand villager, which is way more often than we rand wolf.
By default, hypocrisy can't be a tell, because too many villagers will do it, way more often than wolves do it.
That's just apparent, if you think about it. But- you probably won't take this under serious consideration until postgame. Just put it in your mental folder to unpack later, as a personal favor to me.
Pharaoh X Llandy 说:
No, actually. If you like, I could dig up references to this belief of mine from years ago in games where I was a villager.
I'm afraid this is a very long, established position of mine that became a point of my thinking process well before I ever heard of TaleWorlds, or even 2+2 for that matter.
