[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
If you put as much effort into WW as you do playing the game we have in the SpammmasterTM QT thread, you'd have found all the wolves by now. 
Xardob 说:
So, I should probably make that post about Xardob, eh?
My goal here is to highlight what appear to me to be mistakes hidden in otherwise rather normal Xardob play. He's not a player who will telegraph his alignment, or be terribly unreasonable as a wolf. He's experienced and capable, so mistakes will be small, but they're mistakes that I wouldn't expect him to make as an innocent.
That said, I want to be abundantly clear about one fact. I will not vote for Xardob today, and I'll fight to prevent lynching him should a (currently rather unlikely) bandwagon form. This is because, as I've said time and again, I think it foolish in the extreme to kill one of our most capable wolf hunters on the day that we have the least information and are most likely to be wrong. Problems in his play today should not be ignored, which is why I'm voicing my suspicion of him now, but killing him now is folly.
Failure in Fabrication:
Xardob has always maintained that for wolves generally, and himself especially, it is in principle more difficult to fabricate a case to use against a player they know to be innocent than it is for an innocent player to generate a genuine case against a player they suspect to be a wolf. This can lead to discrepancies in reasoning, intent, goals, and persistence that help differentiate between cases which are genuine and cases which are manufactured. It is by no means a perfect measure, clearly wolf cases can be convincing and innocent ones full of various errors, but the fact that cases generated by wolves should be more prone to these errors should be noted. And when analyzing Xardob, it's the chief thing with which one should concern themselves. As one would expect from a skilled player, not all of Xardob's ideas are problematic. But mixed in with the convincing ideas are ones that should raise an eyebrow. Yes, this could be innocent Xardob being simply imperfect, but that's not what my gut says.
There are two prime examples I'd like to analyze here. One is the flip flop I mentioned earlier, in which I will go into greater detail shortly, but it's not a lone event. I'll present a second example here to show that what my gut is picking up on appears to be a pattern, which is what makes this significant, rather than simply trivial.
For reference, here are the relevant posts in the flip flop:
In order for this to be clear we need to understand precisely what the flop is, and why it matters. In the first post, Xardob dismisses Phone's LoS not only as not wolfy, but not even closely reminiscent of the attitude I referenced when I asked that question. As others have noted, it lists players as innocent (and hilariously even a non-player) and resembles innocent Xardob's joking LoS from the previous game far more than the attitude and strategy from Grimmend's game. Xardob himself says it can't be a part of that strategy. In short, Xardob claims that this post is decidedly not a copy of his wolfy behavior. This is a distinct difference from simply saying that Phone's post was not wolfy.
In the second post, Xardob highlights another post from Phone, and says that Phone has copied Xardob's wolf playbook again. ... again? Why again, when the prior example was decidedly, according to Xardob himself, not from the Xardob Scriptor Lupus Militarium. You can't have it both ways.
This matters because the second post, without further explanation, serves as an attempt to paint a picture of Phone repeatedly using wolfish behavior. It's a comment that can be drawn upon at a later date if convenient and hopes to influence public opinion about the nature of Phone's play as a whole. Why does Phone keep drawing from Xardob's wolfy playbook? What could it mean to note that he does? Of course, these questions are leading. All one needs do is ask them at the opportune moment.
Sadly, Xardob's reply to this accusation only solidifies the problem:
Xardob tries to claim that there is no flop because he still thinks Phone is innocent. Of course, that completely misses the point. The accusation isn't that he changed his opinion on Phone's alignment, which I don't think would be a problem, it's that he changed his opinion on the nature of Phone's joking introductory LoS. But worse than missing the point is that this response would render his second comment regarding Phone to be a meaningless non comment. Why is it even worth mentioning that Phone is copying Xardob's previously wolfy play if this ultimately means nothing to Xardob about Phone's alignment? And what's worse is that Xardob doesn't appear to be just making a meaningless comment. He persists in his explanation of the comment when pressed by Phone:
Is this a more reminiscent of a meaningless comment about a villager, or the fabrication of a pattern of wolfish behavior to be drawn upon at a later date? Even if you think Xardob's later comment on Phone's apparent downplaying of suspicion is a fair analysis of Phone's play, how can you justify the mischaracterization of a previous post in order to make the behavior appear to be a pattern?
-----
The second failure in fabrication comes in Xardob's analysis of a post by Hawk.
Erm, what backdoor? Without commenting on the quality of Hawk's reasoning, one thing you can say about it is that it is decidedly conclusive. Hawk concludes, without reservation, that Soot is suspicious. He provides no reason to doubt his analysis; creates no route with which he can escape his voiced opinion when it may be convenient. Along the way Hawk gives some indication on what his opinion of two other players (Pizza and Adaham) is, but that's not useful information in pulling away from Soot or "switching" to either of them as targets. Presumably Hawk has reasons to suspect these players independent of his post on Soot, and Hawk says as much when he indicates for both players that they'll be featured in his upcoming LoS. None of this can be reasonably seen as leaving a backdoor, bet hedging, or base covering. Especially when contrasted with Kronic's post and Xardob's defense of it this accusation makes zero sense, but more on that later.
What can we say of this post? Well, we must remember who it is Xardob is criticizing here. Hawk is very easy to drag into quote wars, and invariably he is going to make further errors as those conversations continue. Even if outright support of Hawk's opponent is not forthcoming from the village, at the very least most will usually sympathize but disagree. There is a reason that Hawk has had such an abnormally difficult time surviving for any amount of time in this game. I myself remarked in a wolf quicktopic thread in a previous game that Hawk represented "free activity". Attack Hawk, and nobody bats an eye. I don't think Xardob's comment could have been so inadequately leveled at any other player without retribution. It seems very clear that this is a fabricated case, a hunt for free activity rather than a wolf.
Potential Pack Mate Behavior:
Xardob has had an odd relationship with Kronic. As I mentioned above, Xardob largely dismissed the post where Kronic really does repeatedly give reasons to doubt his ideas at every turn as "standard gut driven", and remarks that he's seen worse non-committing posts, but levels the same accusation against a post where Hawk presents concrete ideas without reservation. This discrepancy is compounded when it is noted that Xardob has been rather ruthless regarding this behavior in the past.
Later Xardob indicates that he has a case on Kronic as a lurker wolf, but this case never materializes. Then comes the vote on Kronic with the call for supporters, but this is never followed up on and when asked it is shrugged off as "Oh, I guess I sprung the trap too soon."
In other words, Xardob made a legitimate attempt to quell a genuine case on Kronic when it began to materialize, but made some halfhearted distancing behavior with an empty vote and the mention of a case that we've never seen. It's not as though he hasn't been active. Why hasn't this case been argued? Why keep a player in your suspect list, but stifle other arguments against them?
Neoxardobism, where or where have you gone? I'm WoTting again.
My goal here is to highlight what appear to me to be mistakes hidden in otherwise rather normal Xardob play. He's not a player who will telegraph his alignment, or be terribly unreasonable as a wolf. He's experienced and capable, so mistakes will be small, but they're mistakes that I wouldn't expect him to make as an innocent.
That said, I want to be abundantly clear about one fact. I will not vote for Xardob today, and I'll fight to prevent lynching him should a (currently rather unlikely) bandwagon form. This is because, as I've said time and again, I think it foolish in the extreme to kill one of our most capable wolf hunters on the day that we have the least information and are most likely to be wrong. Problems in his play today should not be ignored, which is why I'm voicing my suspicion of him now, but killing him now is folly.
Failure in Fabrication:
Xardob has always maintained that for wolves generally, and himself especially, it is in principle more difficult to fabricate a case to use against a player they know to be innocent than it is for an innocent player to generate a genuine case against a player they suspect to be a wolf. This can lead to discrepancies in reasoning, intent, goals, and persistence that help differentiate between cases which are genuine and cases which are manufactured. It is by no means a perfect measure, clearly wolf cases can be convincing and innocent ones full of various errors, but the fact that cases generated by wolves should be more prone to these errors should be noted. And when analyzing Xardob, it's the chief thing with which one should concern themselves. As one would expect from a skilled player, not all of Xardob's ideas are problematic. But mixed in with the convincing ideas are ones that should raise an eyebrow. Yes, this could be innocent Xardob being simply imperfect, but that's not what my gut says.
There are two prime examples I'd like to analyze here. One is the flip flop I mentioned earlier, in which I will go into greater detail shortly, but it's not a lone event. I'll present a second example here to show that what my gut is picking up on appears to be a pattern, which is what makes this significant, rather than simply trivial.
For reference, here are the relevant posts in the flip flop:
Xardob 说:
Xardob 说:I see you've taken another page from my playbook. And it's the wolf one again.Phonemelter 说:Plus this is the... third game in a row (?) that you have suspected me from the start, so I am used to it.
In order for this to be clear we need to understand precisely what the flop is, and why it matters. In the first post, Xardob dismisses Phone's LoS not only as not wolfy, but not even closely reminiscent of the attitude I referenced when I asked that question. As others have noted, it lists players as innocent (and hilariously even a non-player) and resembles innocent Xardob's joking LoS from the previous game far more than the attitude and strategy from Grimmend's game. Xardob himself says it can't be a part of that strategy. In short, Xardob claims that this post is decidedly not a copy of his wolfy behavior. This is a distinct difference from simply saying that Phone's post was not wolfy.
In the second post, Xardob highlights another post from Phone, and says that Phone has copied Xardob's wolf playbook again. ... again? Why again, when the prior example was decidedly, according to Xardob himself, not from the Xardob Scriptor Lupus Militarium. You can't have it both ways.
This matters because the second post, without further explanation, serves as an attempt to paint a picture of Phone repeatedly using wolfish behavior. It's a comment that can be drawn upon at a later date if convenient and hopes to influence public opinion about the nature of Phone's play as a whole. Why does Phone keep drawing from Xardob's wolfy playbook? What could it mean to note that he does? Of course, these questions are leading. All one needs do is ask them at the opportune moment.
Sadly, Xardob's reply to this accusation only solidifies the problem:
Xardob 说:
Xardob tries to claim that there is no flop because he still thinks Phone is innocent. Of course, that completely misses the point. The accusation isn't that he changed his opinion on Phone's alignment, which I don't think would be a problem, it's that he changed his opinion on the nature of Phone's joking introductory LoS. But worse than missing the point is that this response would render his second comment regarding Phone to be a meaningless non comment. Why is it even worth mentioning that Phone is copying Xardob's previously wolfy play if this ultimately means nothing to Xardob about Phone's alignment? And what's worse is that Xardob doesn't appear to be just making a meaningless comment. He persists in his explanation of the comment when pressed by Phone:
Phonemelter 说:
Xardob 说:
Is this a more reminiscent of a meaningless comment about a villager, or the fabrication of a pattern of wolfish behavior to be drawn upon at a later date? Even if you think Xardob's later comment on Phone's apparent downplaying of suspicion is a fair analysis of Phone's play, how can you justify the mischaracterization of a previous post in order to make the behavior appear to be a pattern?
-----
The second failure in fabrication comes in Xardob's analysis of a post by Hawk.
Xardob 说:
Erm, what backdoor? Without commenting on the quality of Hawk's reasoning, one thing you can say about it is that it is decidedly conclusive. Hawk concludes, without reservation, that Soot is suspicious. He provides no reason to doubt his analysis; creates no route with which he can escape his voiced opinion when it may be convenient. Along the way Hawk gives some indication on what his opinion of two other players (Pizza and Adaham) is, but that's not useful information in pulling away from Soot or "switching" to either of them as targets. Presumably Hawk has reasons to suspect these players independent of his post on Soot, and Hawk says as much when he indicates for both players that they'll be featured in his upcoming LoS. None of this can be reasonably seen as leaving a backdoor, bet hedging, or base covering. Especially when contrasted with Kronic's post and Xardob's defense of it this accusation makes zero sense, but more on that later.
What can we say of this post? Well, we must remember who it is Xardob is criticizing here. Hawk is very easy to drag into quote wars, and invariably he is going to make further errors as those conversations continue. Even if outright support of Hawk's opponent is not forthcoming from the village, at the very least most will usually sympathize but disagree. There is a reason that Hawk has had such an abnormally difficult time surviving for any amount of time in this game. I myself remarked in a wolf quicktopic thread in a previous game that Hawk represented "free activity". Attack Hawk, and nobody bats an eye. I don't think Xardob's comment could have been so inadequately leveled at any other player without retribution. It seems very clear that this is a fabricated case, a hunt for free activity rather than a wolf.
Potential Pack Mate Behavior:
Xardob has had an odd relationship with Kronic. As I mentioned above, Xardob largely dismissed the post where Kronic really does repeatedly give reasons to doubt his ideas at every turn as "standard gut driven", and remarks that he's seen worse non-committing posts, but levels the same accusation against a post where Hawk presents concrete ideas without reservation. This discrepancy is compounded when it is noted that Xardob has been rather ruthless regarding this behavior in the past.
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,203622.msg4946006.html#msg4946006
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,219101.msg5255304.html#msg5255304
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,282158.msg6739156.html#msg6739156
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,219101.msg5255304.html#msg5255304
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,282158.msg6739156.html#msg6739156
Later Xardob indicates that he has a case on Kronic as a lurker wolf, but this case never materializes. Then comes the vote on Kronic with the call for supporters, but this is never followed up on and when asked it is shrugged off as "Oh, I guess I sprung the trap too soon."
In other words, Xardob made a legitimate attempt to quell a genuine case on Kronic when it began to materialize, but made some halfhearted distancing behavior with an empty vote and the mention of a case that we've never seen. It's not as though he hasn't been active. Why hasn't this case been argued? Why keep a player in your suspect list, but stifle other arguments against them?
Neoxardobism, where or where have you gone? I'm WoTting again.
Bloody typos.
Oops, I forgot to answer your question from yesterday, xardob. I'll do it when I get home tonight 
In the mean time what do you actually think about Melter's play so far?
In the mean time what do you actually think about Melter's play so far?
Nice post, Mag. I'll answer it when I get home tonight.
Llandy, his war with Pizza should indicate that he's innocent. Yet I can't clear him just for that. I'd like to see some of his opinion on everyone else before giving a full analysis.
And I think I remembered where that bloody thing is from. You'll have to find a new way to taunt me.
Llandy, his war with Pizza should indicate that he's innocent. Yet I can't clear him just for that. I'd like to see some of his opinion on everyone else before giving a full analysis.
And I think I remembered where that bloody thing is from. You'll have to find a new way to taunt me.
What about his Pizza War gives you an indication of his innocence? The fact that it happened at all? The things he said/defences he provided? Something else?
I've only seen Melter as scum once, and he did get into a quote war with Twinkle that time. But the feeling I get now is genuine and insulted frustration about the legitimacy of Pizza's initial accusations, and less of the "why would I do that if I was a wolf???" repetitive responses he seems to make more often as scum.
I'll go on record as saying Phonemelter reads to be the one guy in this game everyone should lock down as a stone-cold mortal lock as a villager, based purely on his interaction with me, and the frustration he's exhibiting toward me.
Some of it not at all warranted, but it's still real. And I'm feeling pretty much the same way but I'm fine with not being a mortal lock to be clear.
I would be an impressively bad lynch today, but, I'm new and I'll excuse it.
Some of it not at all warranted, but it's still real. And I'm feeling pretty much the same way but I'm fine with not being a mortal lock to be clear.
I would be an impressively bad lynch today, but, I'm new and I'll excuse it.
I think everyone should, if they feel comfortable, nail down one villager. Especially out of the folks that posted enough of their brainwave that they should be readable by now.
The one thing that would make this day feel less crappy to me is if we made progress on locating a villager buddy. That's more pressing a matter than finding a wolf today, since I'm pretty sure most of the votes today have not been against wolves.
The one thing that would make this day feel less crappy to me is if we made progress on locating a villager buddy. That's more pressing a matter than finding a wolf today, since I'm pretty sure most of the votes today have not been against wolves.
I am off today for most of the day, though I need to show up and close the shop at the tail end of things, and I'm off tomorrow and the next day.
I don't think I'll be living inside this thread the way I have, though- I am feeling the brick wall and I am feeling the lack of progress and the lack of utility. So, until something changes in-game or we have a flip, I'm going to operate at 10%.
I don't think I'll be living inside this thread the way I have, though- I am feeling the brick wall and I am feeling the lack of progress and the lack of utility. So, until something changes in-game or we have a flip, I'm going to operate at 10%.
Probably a missed opportunity to really interact with me if you don't use that time, though.
I'll be interacting a lot less with Mags and Phone, feel like one is a wolf and the other won't actually be useful to interact with on both of our ends.
The outright refusal to answer questions or address concerns posted by 20% of the players in the game is baffling to me.
Xardob 说:
I played the Tag Team with Hawk? I barely played at all, unfortunately.
You know, that's the post that introduced me to some interesting points on Soot, which I've talked about before (I think? Maybe it's all in my notes and I haven't actually posted them. If so, woops!). So I thought he made an interesting point on that.
But you also made a good point here that I've been thinking about when reading VH. I do consider what you pointed out to be scummy, especially considering that seems to be the main case against Eli today (unless something has happened I've missed, so hopefully if that's the case I'll pick up on it this reread), and that post reads moderately wolfish (only moderate because I agreed with some of the points he raises about Soot).
... what? Did you post the wrong link?
If not, did you read the section where I analyzed that post in my recent WoT?
If not, did you read the section where I analyzed that post in my recent WoT?
