Before I re-look at your masterplan^tm plan, there is something I need to know. Please answer this honestly without any masterplan^tm mentality because I don't know whether I'm over-thinking myself or whether I do see what I think I see:
Assuming that Eli is not lynched today, and that he survives the night, would you lynch him tomorrow? And if so, how high of a lynch priority would he be to you?
I just want a simple answer. A yes or no on the first question, and a relative answer for the second.
I hope y'all are fine for me taking a while, but according to my software I am at around 2000 words (and 13000 characters) including formatting and I'm on page 13 of my reread. I'm probably going a bit too thorough, but **** it.
I'm probably going to take a break from this for a little bit.
Llandy: In the first post she chipped in on all of the banter going on and laid down a joke vote on Xardob. After some more banter she made a more serious post in answer to Pizza. She explained a little her style of voting and investigation, noted that she didn't find Face particularly suspicious and explained a little where her read on him differed from his. Originally I criticised this post for not trying to make much of the conversation between Face and Pizza before interjecting, but I suppose that she did actually call out her disagreement with him pretty clearly. In subsequent posts directed to Pizza she continued elaborating on her stance about early votes and how much to read into them, pretty neutral stuff. In a bigger post she chipped in on a variety of matters. There was some meta mixed in there, and good questioning toward Pizza about his comments about possibly voting no lynch. She also answered my questioning of her eagerly, just like she did with Pizza earlier. This is something I have come to associate with innocent Llandy, though it's worth noting that in her response to me she didn't push to question me in turn, which is another behaviour I'd expect. It's something that she did do when talking to Pizza, though, so perhaps she just didn't find enough to object to in my remark.
She questioned Kronic regarding his comparison of Whoopin and Pizza, which I also found curious at the time, though for somewhat different reasons. I do agree with her conclusion, that Pizza and Face got at each other's throats because they are both so active. She also further questioned Pizza for his no lynch statements, especially the earliness of the initial suggestion. When Pizza posed the question of Kronic's wolfishness to the entire village, Llandy said neutral, instead of a binary answer. Interesting, perhaps a sign of a packmate connection who didn't know which way to go with it (okay, there are maybe starting to be a few too many of those for Kronic at this point) but on the other hand Llandy is the kind of player who won't make a decision on the spot just to satisfy someone's curiosity, so this is probably not worth reading into. She noted that she wanted to hear more from Frisian, Xardob and Hawk, while showing signs of tiring of the Pizza vs Face argument.
After I countered Hawk's case on me, Llandy mentioned her agreement with him and brought up points of her own to back it up. As I've pointed out, I do not think her argument of me 'sitting on the fence' stacks up at all, because there is no fence, even metaphorical, between two distinct innocent reads. I am also a bit miffed by the fact that she doesn't appear to see any validity to my response against Hawk, and she made a number of other inaccurate comparisons through her discussion. However, I can see where her suspicion stems from in that there is some grounds for comparison between my play this game and the last game, and some Llandy paranoia towards me made me genuinely feel better about her after I felt that she wasn't really engaging into discussions as much as she usually does. This is the first point where I got a real innocent read from her. The attempted 'gotcha' following it left a sour taste in my mouth, though.
I don't really like the fact that Llandy didn't appear to find Kronic's wishy washy behaviour and empty excuses suspicious. Acknowledging the argument but saying that it doesn't 'feel' like it is something that could be a pretty clean way to avoid giving an opinion for a careful wolf, but I do have to admit that I'm finding crafting pack theories around Kronic a bit too easy right now to count on them. She does bring up a understandable comparison to the last game in regards to those pack theories, but I would like it if she would bother to remember the games where I've been innocent and have done the same. Her insistence on the matter is almost making me doubt my own memory here.
The next relevant post is the start of her LoS. She brings up a good amount of valid points about Frisian, and I agree with her conclusion on him. I also like her bit on Hawk, if only for the satisfaction I get out of the fact that she at least questioned his motivations finally, even if she couldn't make a conclusion based on it. The section on Kronic also makes me like her stance a lot more. She went into good detail in explaining her thought process about him, and brought up several things that I hadn't thought of myself. Most importantly she takes a solid stance on him finally, and one I agree with at that. In the continuation of her LoS she first looks at Adaham, which is the first point where I seriously disagree with her assessment, even though it appears to be more or less the stance for most other players too. I've already explained my stance on Adaham, though, so suffice to say that I simply don't see the cause for her innocent read on him, as it seems to be based a whole on gut reads. On the other hand, the next part, on Vieira, is agree on and very much for the same reasons also. Further on, regarding Xardob and Face, I can yet again agree with her for the most part.
Arriving to her LoS entry on me I had a definite innocent read on Llandy. Not much that I can agree with in this portion, however. I figure this is as good a time as any to answer her points there.
Pharaoh X Llandy 说:
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.
Me taking issue to Magorian's interpretation of neoxardobism but not having the same issue with what others have done means exactly that I take issue with his interpretation which differs from the others in ways I don't like. That is the relevant part, not that it's neoxardobism which I generally approve of. This is also the exact part where I expressly did take issue to how Magorian didn't do anything but state the obvious with his interjection to the Pizza vs Face argument. I also feel it was a different way that you interjected your comments on the matter - in fact to the point where my initial impression was false - as you brought up clear reasons why you disagreed with Pizza's reads, while Magorian to me didn't feel like he was actually trying to partake in the discussion in any way, making an observation but not using it to form any conclusions.
The STE stuff doesn't really make sense either. The fact is that in both posts referenced I mentioned 1) Face got into a huge argument again 2) He did not make as much of a mess out of it as usual. The second post was a clarification of the first one, as requested by Pizza. This is, yet again, not an example of 'playing both sides' which curiously seems to be something that changes meaning every time the last one is pointed to be false. On the 'reversal' stuff - I don't have any interest into going into a bunch of WIFOM about what I would do if I was a wolf. Reading my entire game with the preconceived idea of my wolfishness is going to make my every word seem wolfish, there's nothing surprising there. That is exactly why tunnel visioning in this game is so easy.
Moving onto her section on Magorian. She points out largely the same things that I myself picked up on, and thus this is yet another part of her LoS that I quite like. After that her contributions were also pretty good in my mind, and she seems to be keeping an open mind about the game, despite the insistence on my scummyness that I still do not understand. The huge wall on Pizza that she somehow managed to push out before mine is yet another good one. It not only includes the majority of the things I thought of in mine but in less space, and also brings up several points I didn't think of myself on top of it. Since then she hasn't said much, but seems to be giving heavy thought to Pizza masterplan reveal. There's also some more stubborn arguing for my lynch - at least she's going at this with a clear intent.
The amount of focus Llandy has on me is strange, and even stranger is the confidence she seems to have in her read, as this does not seem characteristic of her or very justified here. However, bearing in mind that being the target of suspicion makes it hard to give an accurate judgement on it, and the fact that I liked most of the rest of her contributions quite a lot, I'm still leaning towards her being innocent. Just forgive me my own meta induced paranoia against her in turn, as I'll say that I will never again give a confident villager read on her - the last time I did it was because our reads were almost all the same, and she was still a wolf. There's also the fact that I'm starting to feel that there's similarities to her partly irrational but very insistent case against Adaham in her first game to what she's doing now.
There's also the fact that I'm starting to feel that there's similarities to her partly irrational but very insistent case against Adaham in her first game to what she's doing now.
I know you were briefly online not long ago, I still need that answer from you. It can be short, no need to post more than a few words. But it's almost bedtime o'clock here, so it's going to be tomorrow or maybe even Wednesday night before I respond to your masterplan^tm (depending upon what answer you give me).
Little has changed because there has not been much going on, but I am entertaining the possibility of him being innocent when thinking potential scenarios. Gut says wolf, brain says innocent (similar to Delta last game), but it would help to see more from others.
Ah well, keep in mind I'm drunk on a ferry...you should consider it a privilege that I'm even still posting
I'm selective with my input, I'll admit as much. But I think I'm finding a nice middle-ground between the no-shows and the Hemingway-impersonators. I'm like a rug that ties the thread together.
Except if you were innocent, then shouldn't you have been focusing more on finding the bad guys who stole the rug instead of chatting up Pizza and Xardob?
