It's likely I may have made one mistake with the votes, possibly between sootshade/frisian.
Of the non voters (Excluding Magorian) I would like to see more contribution as well as putting down your votes.
To hawk, my condolences and a likewise request for more contribution.
As a final reqeust, it would be great if some of the most active players could tone it down a bit. I see numerous multi-posts in a matter of seconds as well as some superfluous posts. If you would like the 'lurkers' or 'less active' ones to be more active, one should also try to be accommodating. Of course, I do greatly appreciate all the input and effort put into it, I am just trying to show the other side of the picture as well.
That's why it appears to me to be something left to be referenced later, if convenient. It's very clearly not an attack now, because it's never followed or pursued. But down the road? "Oh hey guys, look at how Phone behaved like wolfy me multiple times on day one. Isn't that interesting?"
Weak grounds for an attack, so I highly doubt Xardob would have done so. If he had, I would be suspicious.
And it begs the question, if it wasn't anything important to consider, why post it at all? This is the "meaningless comment vs fabrication of a pattern" section of the post.
That's why it appears to me to be something left to be referenced later, if convenient. It's very clearly not an attack now, because it's never followed or pursued. But down the road? "Oh hey guys, look at how Phone behaved like wolfy me multiple times on day one. Isn't that interesting?"
Weak on it's own. But isn't the point of laying groundwork as a wolf so that you can draw on it later to make a current case more convincing?
Phonemelter 说:
And it begs the question, if it wasn't anything important to consider, why post it at all? This is the "meaningless comment vs fabrication of a pattern" section of the post.
It wasn't a question, though. It was an accusation. Why even bother mentioning that you're engaging in wolfy behavior when he thinks you're innocent, and post it in a manner that ignores the fact that he thinks you're innocent? And why characterize a post he claimed as not a part of his wolf playbook initially as most definitely part of a wolf playbook later on?
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).
Oh, I thought you meant Eli was related to what I linked. My bad.
No, the early case on Eli at that point was that he left the backdoor for himself. It's not identical to Hawk, but it's similar in that Hawk left a backdoor should it become convenient. That's what I meant.
I doubt anyone would consider it relevant "evidence" in a case - Xardob isn't thatdaft.
Pointless questions, statements, same difference. As I said, I would find it more problematic if that is all he was saying, but it was amongst other responses. Maybe at the time it was to get a reaction from me, maybe it was a real accusation, but in either case he dropped it not too long afterwards, I think - it isn't like he let it linger until everyone already considered me innocent (unless I am mistaken).
Just a heads up to you all that if it comes down to another last-minute lynch, I won't be around in the ~18hours running up to the deadline. Since I am still at work at 4pm. And before that I will be asleep. So if that's the case, don't expect any input or vote change from me.
I'll now post my Soot stuff. I wanted to leave this till a little closer to deadline but that's sort of pointless now. Post incoming in a few mins.
If anybody is still doubtful that Soot should swing today, they need only take a look at his LoS analysis of Pizzaguy. I’m not going to bandy words here; I’m going to point out exactly what Soot has said so you can see for yourselves why it’s scummy, and see more evidence of the fence-sitting pointed out previously.
About Pizza’s initial/entry play, Soot says this:
SootShade 说:
From the start with he made very clear his preferences in playing this game, which certainly made it get easier to get used to him. None of that really gave me any sort of read, but his transparency in immediately calling out his reads gave me an innocent vibe quickly. He was also very aggressive from the very start, challenging Vieira's questioning of Mahud's odd naming convention very strongly. While I could see his point there, his search for straight up lies from other players put me off initially, as that's not something I expect to happen often.
Note the bolded part. Pizza’s search for straight-up lies put him off initially. This is in direct contradiction to a post made by Soot three days earlier:
SootShade 说:
Pizza: A man after my own heart, his approach to the game is exactly what I like to see.
So, four days ago Pizza’s approach to the game was exactly what Soot liked to see. And yesterday, Pizza’s approach to the game put him off. Why the sudden change in opinion from “I like his initial play” to “his initial play put me off.” Either Soot realised his fence-sitting was getting too much attention, or he realised that more players were looking at Pizza with suspicion and that a Pizza lynch became more viable. I believe it is the latter, as I shall demonstrate with further points.
I’ve spoilered the following quote for space. Read it, and you’ll discover a whole lot of words that actually say nothing at all except giving a brief recount of Pizza’s actions at the time.
SootShade 说:
He first read Face's drunk posting as innocent but flipped completely around as soon as he saw Face's reads, which in me caused the opposite read. He then delivered a very detailed account of his initial reads, though he was not as detailed in explaining all of them. He however already had strong reads on Mag as innocent and Vieira as scum, which he was at least in depth about. He was more unclear about Face whom he was also reading strongly as wolf. In general I didn't agree with most of his reads, but I could see the basis for them in general and the ones he had strong reads on had posted in some quantity that could be judged, so I didn't really have a problem with it.
Next is another quote that uses a lot of words to say basically nothing. The gist is that Pizza left some things unexplained, Soot saw something as a good sign, Soot feels uneasy although his initial reading was of innocent, it’s only now that potential dishonesty in Pizzaguy’s actions is becoming apparent.
After that the whole mess of Pizza vs Face started. Initially Face challenged Pizza with his usual questioning, and Pizza took the challenge. However, his response wasn't really answering any of the questions as much as presenting his own, presumably with the preconceived idea that Face was a wolf. He also did not clarify what had made him think that Face is scummy before that. It didn't take long for him to straight up accuse Face of lying about being drunk. This is another example where I think Pizza's and this forum's general expectations differ. For me, even if I hadn't played with Face before, there wouldn't be any reason to assume that he's just making up a story about being drunk, at least without some incentive beforehand. To me it seems that in the games that Pizza has played there isn't the same kind of expectation, and while this is questionable to me I don't think points to anything regarding his role. I do think it's worth bearing in mind that he straight up shifted the subject of discussion with this, and in my opinion left some things he's said without adequate explanation. Next, when Face denied the allegation, Pizza questioned why his priority was to discuss game theory instead of finding wolves, seemingly another shift in the subject of the discussion, but this is something I expect a villager to be thinking about and as such I initially counted this as a good sign. However, I don't think it's fair to suggest that it was fully Face's fault that the discussion shifted to theory instead of specific hunts, as this was a point that Pizza himself chose to focus on out of the questions that Face laid out. All of this makes me quite uneasy when rereading, but at least initially I got a strong impression that it's his style to quickly pressure his suspect from multiple angles to get reactions. This seems to have been his explanation also, and the potential of dishonesty in what he did is only appearing to me now.
Next is more words-saying-nothing. Soot likes some parts of Pizza’s play and can see innocent reasoning, but it could be that Pizza isn’t being honest and there may be some scummy agenda at work. Bets, meet the hedge.
As he next brought up what initially gave him a wolf read on Face, it seems that while his focus wasn't on explaining himself to his suspect, he didn't intend to refuse to explain his reads. His take on Face's initial list of four reads was vastly different from mine, but while I disagreed with it I thought that a crucial component of innocent thought process, namely looking for the motivations behind posts, was clearly present there. The extent he extrapolated there is a little extreme though, which might speak of an scummy agenda behind his own actions. He also clarified in many posts his method of looking for suspicious motivations, which seems to fit what he was doing and matches my own method in many ways. Still, while I approve of his method, it's worth keeping in mind that there's nothing stopping from wolf explaining their regular method as an innocent. In fact, it's a tool I've used more than once as a wolf, for example stressing the importance of the motive behind a post, to explain away certain leaps of logic when my own suspicions are questioned. In short, I like his purported innocent style, but I'm not sure he's fully honest about using it here.
The next one is short but subtle. I’m not even going to spoiler it:
He was open to discussion from everyone, and engaged himself into some, so I can't say by any means that he was getting lazy and trying to use his case on Face to avoid contributing.
It actually does sound like you’re insinuating that, Soot.
Then, following a short interlude about Pizza’s request for reads on Eli, we’re back to Melter again. Spoilered, but if you want a summary of this quote just read the single line I have bolded and apply it to the paragraph.
And then Face returned with a vengeance, accusing Pizza of dishonesty and ignoring questions, along the lines where my thoughts occasionally travelled in the second paragraph of this wall. Pizza's answer at first was very dismissive, and claims in turn that Face post was meant to mislead instead. A pretty uncompromising stance that doesn't really look villagery to me right now. Following this, Pizza said that he'd follow Magorian's indication and lay his vote on Hawk, if Mag just told him to. This is not something that strikes me as villagery behaviour, but I think it makes sense when in context with Pizza's stance on consolidating votes. He then return's to Face's post and tries to justify his stance that Face's drunk posting was dishonest in some fashion. The thing is, this lengthy ramble doesn't really address anything, and as such feels utterly pointless and quite deceptive. He brings up a better point in that Face's focus has been on him solely instead of engaging others, but it's just accompanied by a dismissing Face's defence without really addressing most of it. After this both of them got to repeating the same goddamn arguments until the point where everyone just told them to stop.
I will summarise the next paragraph for you, but feel free to read it yourselves to confirm this is correct. Soot does some more of that narration he’s so fond of, followed by more intimating of a Pizza/Eli pack, followed by a series of sentences such as “I sort of like it but it’s possible Pizza is simply a wolf… Overall I actually like this and it’s genuine… On the other hand it would be a pretty easy spot to flip for a wolf… He clarified his views which reads as an innocent move despite it being a neutral thing to do.”
A single paragraph where Pizza is neutral, innocent, possibly a wolf and maybe pack with Eli. I’m impressed.
Some pages later Pizza returns to unvote from Face, acknowledging out collective grievances, though he states that he's still not clearing Face. An okay stance, though I would have preferred that he'd immediately name his next target at least if he felt it worth an unvote. He did go on to respond to other people however, and at the same time also begins reversing his stance on Magorian and maybe Vieira too. He also remarks about the fact that Kronic hadn't gained any votes despite many people thinking he's scummy, which I initially liked, but now seems like he might just be covering his ass for any possibilities on what could happen to his packmate, as he's still not actively doing anything about it. He then further backs away from his stance on Face, acknowledging that Face kept responding to others while their argument was going on. I sort of like it, but it's definitely possible and Pizza is simply a wolf that didn't see any chances of pushing this lynch through. This whole process speeds up to a vote on Magorian fairly quickly. Overall, I actually like this, and it seemed to be genuine move towards Magorian because he was taking his time clarifying his Xardob read. On the other hand, it would also have been a pretty easy spot to flip a read for a wolf. He also clarified his views on things in general, which read to me as pretty innocent move in the circumstance, despite being such a neutral thing to do in general.
“Oh, and I’ll throw in that I also see the Mag/Hawk connection which Pizza mentioned, in case I can’t generate enough suspicion on the Pizza/Eli idea.”
One specific that I can agree with is the potential connection between Hawk and Mag that Pizza sees here. I think it might be going a little bit past their regular behaviour.
“Now that I have laid the foundations for a switch to a Pizza vote, I will say some positive/innocent things about him.”
I like the stance that Pizza took about Face after his reversal. He's not going back on it to snipe, and it seems he's at least closed that door conclusively. This seems like the innocent course of action, and once again his clarification of his reads read as villagery to me. His case on Magorian didn't get any stronger as time went on, though, but he did recognize that he wasn't making any progress and went back to examining the whole of village in more detail. His overall stance to me seems very reasonable and overall something I agree with. Hell, I don't even disagree with his Magorian stance aside his reasoning (which arguably is the most important part). He has been commenting on everything going on in the game in solid manner since he calmed down from his pursuit of Magorian. This is similar to what happened after he backed off from Face, and is once again giving me a more innocent vibe overall. He's continued chipping in on a lot of things, and most recently has argued with Llandy and Mag about what level of factual consistency to expect from innocents vs wolves. To me his motive for this seems sound, but I think he's once again I don't think he has the same expectations as a lot of us
Well said, Soot. And when you’re innocent, you do this.
And finally, to cover all his bases in his summary…
I'm decidedly undecided on this guy. He made me write a wall of text to match my regular LoSs in length regarding him alone from just a few days of play. His playstyle is different from what I generally expect on this forum. This is something that has in my eyes caused most of the arguments he's been involved in, but as everyone's adapted a little I think it's very helpful for sorting out the game overall. I think there's a real chance of dishonesty behind both of his major cases, but his overall play seems very solid an innocent to me. His behaviour towards Kronic seems very suspect to me, but otherwise I can at least follow the reasoning for his reads otherwise. I like his approach to the game in general, but I'm not sure whether his single minded pursuit of his top suspects is innocent or scummy behaviour. For now I don't want to lynch him, but the possibility of him being scum is definitely stronger in my mind that before I reread through his posts. Gut still says he's innocent, though.
In addition to that, his LoS entry on me seems couched to pacify any suspicion I have towards him, similar to how he handled Adaham in the last game he was a wolf. There are certain aspects of my play that an innocent Soot should have picked up on and commented on, aspects which Melter has touched on and one or two others have briefly touched upon. And I fully expect an innocent Soot to point these aspects out and be rightfully suspicious in my change in behaviour. But he doesn't. I see him behaving towards me as he behaved towards Adaham in the last game, and behaving towards Adaham as he behaved towards me in the last game. Innocent Soot is more honest than this.
@Xardob - If that doesn't convince you I don't know what else will.
@Vieira - I know you've got a lot of catching up to do, but are you onboard with this?
@Hawk - I have no idea what's going on with you but are you at least willing to see your earlier suspicion through?
@Melter - I know this probably won't convince you.
@Frisian & Magorian - I don't know what you'll think of this but I hope you'll put it together with my earlier LoS entry on Soot and see what I am trying to point out.
@Pizzaguy - I know that lynching Soot will probably go against your gut since you've shifted him to a villager read, but I hope you'll give this as much consideration as I gave your overly complex masterplan^tm.
@Eli - I don't even know if you're still reading this game.
Jesus Christ, Mag Me. In the hands of an inexperienced player, I'd consider that a wolfish oversight. But in your case? I don't know. I'd be surprised if you could **** up that much.
@Vieira - To clarify, are you "onboard" with what I am saying. Ie, are you in agreement with what I just posted about Soot, as you were with what I said about Soot previously, or has your opinion diverged since then? Do you see the suspiciousness in the behaviour I am pointing out, or are you not seeing what I am trying to get across. Since we now have a deadline, are you willing to consider Soot a lynch candidate for today, or are you now looking elsewhere? Give me input, even if it's disagreement.
If Hawk is a wolf, it gives him flexibility. Perhaps backdoor wasn't the correct term, but I feel he is giving himself options should situations change (which I feel is similar to leaving the backdoor open, so to speak)
I am suspicious of Pizza. One of the people he is suspicious of I am also suspicious of. One of the people he thinks is innocent I find high suspect. Am I giving myself options?
@Vieira - To clarify, are you "onboard" with what I am saying. Ie, are you in agreement with what I just posted about Soot, as you were with what I said about Soot previously, or has your opinion diverged since then? Do you see the suspiciousness in the behaviour I am pointing out, or are you not seeing what I am trying to get across. Since we now have a deadline, are you willing to consider Soot a lynch candidate for today, or are you now looking elsewhere? Give me input, even if it's disagreement.
Ah, ok. I didn't see your big post before that in the updated posts during preview.
[me=Vieira]reads...[/me]
Pharaoh X Llandy 说:
I’ve spoilered the following quote for space. Read it, and you’ll discover a whole lot of words that actually say nothing at all except giving a brief recount of Pizza’s actions at the time.
SootShade 说:
He first read Face's drunk posting as innocent but flipped completely around as soon as he saw Face's reads, which in me caused the opposite read. He then delivered a very detailed account of his initial reads, though he was not as detailed in explaining all of them. He however already had strong reads on Mag as innocent and Vieira as scum, which he was at least in depth about. He was more unclear about Face whom he was also reading strongly as wolf. In general I didn't agree with most of his reads, but I could see the basis for them in general and the ones he had strong reads on had posted in some quantity that could be judged, so I didn't really have a problem with it.
The bolded suggests that at the very least, Soot doesn't consider it scummy, which I guess is some kind of stance. I would argue that because of that stance the paragraph does say something, and that you are being a little harsh on this particular 'graph.
Otherwise, I would say it's solid. It might be a little bit harsh, considering it seems like a collection of notes rather than an LoS (which generally contain definitive statements) but I think you summed up the last quote perfectly, and it's how I've felt with Soots play (though as I said to Magorian, the last 10 pages are still hazy so I can't recall much that has went on so I've not properly analyzed it yet). But yes, I'm onboard as of right now.
Phonemelter 说:
Vieira 说:
If Hawk is a wolf, it gives him flexibility. Perhaps backdoor wasn't the correct term, but I feel he is giving himself options should situations change (which I feel is similar to leaving the backdoor open, so to speak)
I am suspicious of Pizza. One of the people he is suspicious of I am also suspicious of. One of the people he thinks is innocent I find high suspect. Am I giving myself options?
You are, but the context was different. You have laid out your position clearly and did not claim that Pizza was covering all bases at the same time as doing just that yourself. Hawk had not a recognisable stance in the game at that point and as such it was the foundation of his case, rather than an apparent result or coincidence resulting from his case.
Hiding behind Neoxardobism to avoid answering a question, whilst simultaneously accusing Pizzaguy of failing to respond to questions.
Magorian Aximand 说:
In addition to the analysis of Pizza's play that I provided in my LoS, Pizza's alignment can be determined by revealing his utterly dishonest means of arguing.
Suspicion that precedes supporting reasons:
Pizza begins prepping his swap in this post. Downgrading to neutral because he hasn't seen anything good recently... sure. In light of his comment on why he found me "deep blue" I don't know why a lack of effort would make me less good rather than just a bad villager (something he's had no problem of accusing Phone of being), but sure. He then drops the vote only after I list a few positions (which shockingly don't line up with his own reads!) and say that I'm going to have to explain them later.
This is an important point in the process to follow, because anything and everything I do from then on is considered wolfish, no matter what it is, and the arguments Pizza presents later on that respond to my posts have nothing at all to do with this seemingly empty flip. The most substance it has is that I provided "explanation free reads", despite the fact that Pizza himself does this (as is pointed out by Phone) and I promised explanations to follow. But more on that later. What is relevant for this sections is that this represents a turning point at which Pizza has arbitrarily decided to spin everything a player does in a certain light, regardless of what they are, and his argument that coincides with this change does not survive later into the exchange.
Hypocrisy, and why it matters:
Is bad reasoning worth following because humans reason imperfectly? No, of course not. Making an error in reasoning does not make a person a wolf, but when an idea is shown to be a bad one, when a conclusion is shown not to follow from a set of premises, it should be abandoned. What reason would a villager have to maintain an idea when it has been shown to be unsound? None. It is the persistence in an argument when the failure in the reasoning has been demonstrated that indicates woflishness, not the mistake itself. Crying, "Villagers can make mistakes!" is a red herring, and isn't an excuse to perpetuate those mistakes to the detriment of the village.
When Player A, presumably a villager, argues that another players behavior indicates that they are a wolf, but Player A also exhibits this behavior, this demonstrates that the behavior cannot indicate wolfishness. QED.
So how hypocritical is Pizza?
He claims explanation free reads are wolfish, but does the same himself.
He claims my LoS is problematic because it lists a lot of wolves, when he himself defends the process that has led him to "read" a high number of wolves.
He claims every word should be analyzed, but asks Phone to ignore half the game to this point.
He claims that not listing villager "reads" is wolfish because it's too difficult and risky to change those reads when it's convenient, when he's done exactly that in his flip.
Blatant falsehoods:
Pizza's case rests on a number of falsehoods, and his extrapolation of the idea does as well.
His main problem with my LoS is that I list a high number of wolves, and don't give any real reasons why my innocents are innocents. He accuses me of a lot of fence sitting. How true is this?
Well, out of ten players I list 5 people I suspect (3 of which more than the other two), 1 neutral, and 4 players I think are likely innocent. Is that out of the ordinary? With only one neutral read, how can I be fence sitting? Is it not reasonable to find problems with the play of more people than there are wolves?
How about the innocents? Do I really give no reasons for my thoughts on them? Take a look... Frisian is more adventurous than I expect him to be as a wolf, Vieira isn't actually a nervous wreck (usual as a wolf) and is hunting like I know he can as a good guy, Phone fought to keep his conversation with Pizza on point, and didn't let it distract him from hunting, and Soot (the weakest reason given, but still a reason) seems very genuine and I can find no malicious intent with his posts. I tried to get Pizza to acknowledge this, even just suggesting that he reread only the entry on Frisian, but this went ignored.
Then his continuation of the idea is that I would claim that I stopped the day one mislynch of Phone because I repeatedly "read" him as a villager. Is this true? As it turns out, I only mentioned Phoney a single time over the course of their discussion. Yes, I read him villager. Once. In one short sentence. Does that constitute a strong defense of a player whose bandwagon never actually got rolling? Nope. More fiction.
The ignoring of counterarguments:
One striking feature of this exchange has been Pizza's unwillingness to acknowledge even the existence of arguments presented to counter his own. He regularly quotes a post, responds to only a small part of it, and ignores the rest. He has even gone as far to say that I haven't actually presented any arguments at all.
When I called him out on this, he took the incredibly dishonest approach of pretending I was claiming he wasn't posting enough and that my demands were unrealistic. When I corrected that idea and explained, again, what I meant, he simply persisted.
Claiming to know what cannot be known:
The accusation that I was stalling and deflecting earlier today rests on the notion that Pizza can know that I lied when I claimed I didn't have time. How could this possibly be substantiated? How could he possibly know what was happening at that time in my life? This is a further demonstration of his determination to read everything I have done as wolfish, no matter what it is, and it is horribly dishonest.
Other wolfy behavior:
One rather terrible post, here, presents the horrible reasoning that even if he's wrong about me and Hawk it will be okay because our deaths will clear (in his mind) enough innocents to win the game. "Don't worry about it guys. Even if I'm wrong, killing my targets will get us to the promised land!" This is particularly dangerous reasoning to advance on the day we have the least information and are most likely wrong in our assessment of the game. And do the math; with an expected 3 wolves that would put us at LoL.
As has already been mentioned, Pizza feels a near constant desire to declare his own innocence, and admonish any player who fails to recognize it. Not only is this an attempt to "hide the human in the humor" as I put it earlier, it's an attempt to cajole players into going along with it. Because if they don't buy it and he does turn out to be innocent, they're a "bad player".
I had more to say, but it's nearly 4 in the morning. Time for sleep.
Dropping the Neoxardobism routine when it is convenient for Magorian to accuse his accuser after Pizzaguy has seemingly lost the will to continue.
I’ve tried to be patient but there’s only so much I’m willing to accept “neoxardobism” as an excuse for. Whilst it’s true that Pizzaguy has outright stated he’s going to avoid answering some questions from those he finds suspicious, I find his stance more understandable after re-examining this exchange. I find that Pizzaguy is generally willing to answer questions when they are posed rationally -- hell, I’ve pushed my questioning of him pretty far too. The reasoning of “I’m not responding to this because one of the people accusing me is wolfy and the other is going nowhere” is understandable when considered from the innocent-Pizza perspective. If he is innocent, he thinks the accusations against him are wolfy and there comes a point where you just have to say ‘enough is enough’. I think Pizzaguy has reached that point and it gives me a stronger innocent read of him than my LoS analysis.
Mags’ switch from short and snappy NeoX style (and apparent pleasure derived from said style) to his more usual verbose style is a jarring inconsistency at best. At worst it is a way to switch between different styles to suit his needs and is the scummier of the two positions IMO.
