[Werewolf] SMAC: Unity [Game ends!]

[Pharaoh Llandy]

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)

I'm now playing ejnomad style.

You won't get that reference because you didn't have chance to be replaced into (or out of) Black Death   

 

[Vieira151]

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)

I'm now playing ejnomad style.

You won't get that reference because you didn't have chance to be replaced into (or out of) Black Death   

y u do dis 

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

Because I'm mean

But if you're actually interested, I'm referring to a case ejnomad made against Moose on Day 1. Moose had a bit of suspicion from a few players but he wasn't screaming alarm bells for most people. Then boom, along comes a spider ejnomad with a case that involves little more than pointing out what Moose has said and why it's scummy, and this case delivered at a time that was close enough to deadline to give players a chance to read it but not enough time to let their attention wander elsewhere. There was also a bit of luck involved in the fact that the wagon started rolling after ejnomad, Xardob and me placed our votes and when it became obvious the wagon was rolling Moose's packmates sold him out, but it still ended with the successful lynch of a wolf on Day 1.

I would have preferred to keep my Sootspicion case to myself until Sunday night, give him chance to post more incriminating stuff, then hit him with my case at an opportune moment that would be hard for him to dig his way out of, but since MaHuD set the deadline for stupid o'clock on a monday afternoon I would have no chance to be around and ensure something became of my case, so I'm doing it now instead and hoping it will generate momentum before Monday.

No offence MaHuD, I'm sure most people find your deadline just peachy.

 

[Vieira151]

Wow. What the ****. Have I been drunk or something? I was looking through the recent pages in the thread for a link for my notes, and the whole timeline of my edited post makes no sense. You know how I linked what I thought was half of the original here:

Oh well. 

Here is the edited post and here is part of the original.

I can't even remember the other half. 

turns out that was a different post altogether. Which means I can't remember ANY of the post I edited at all. And now I'm really, really confused. What the ****. 

Maybe I should go lie down for a bit.



@ Llandy.

Ah, I see. You'd only be playing Ejnomad style if Soot turns out to be a wolf.

And I mean, I think he might be. So, whatever! 

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

@ Llandy.

Ah, I see. You'd only be playing Ejnomad style if Soot turns out to be a wolf.

Wanna see if ejnomad style > neoxardob style? I envisage a "my style is better than your style" style style war, and you want to be on the right side, right?

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

@Magorian

You say about Xardob that it seems he's sowing the seeds of discontent for a later suspicion of Melter through the "you're taking a page out of my wolfy book" comment. Yet in this post you also seem to be pushing quite hard on proving that Melter's "too obvious" play echoes that of scum-Xardob even after Xardob has dismissed it. What makes what you perceive Xardob to be doing here different to what I perceive you to be doing?

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

@Xardob

Regarding the question you asked me the other day about a possible Soot/Mag pack. I hate hunting for packs without a confirmed wolf to provide a link, but given how Soot's subtle shift of near-universal approval for Pizzaguy's play turned into the wishy-washy bet-hedging I pointed out in my case, I could see this as one packmate directing another (Mag directing Soot, since Soot seemed to echo Mag and defend him in some ways) or a wolf exploiting the opportunity to try to slowly edge towards one 'side' of two innocents.

Sp, possible? Yes. Probable? Dunno.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Well that's particularly uncharitable. Pizza wasn't the only person to ask me about those one liners. In the very post you quoted, Llandy, I told Soot that they deserved explanation, that I was going to posts WOTs, and that I just didn't have the time at present. How exactly can I be blamed for "hiding" behind Neoxardobism, and how can WoTs be jarring when I specifically said they were coming? I'm aiming for brevity this game for my sanity, but when it comes down to it some things deserve more time and care.

As for your question, I think you misunderstood the nature of my criticism against Xardob. The problem is not that he accused Melter of just copying a wolf tactic, and then largely let it be. The problem is that he dishonestly changed the nature of his analysis of a post in order to make it appear as though Melter had a pattern of this behavior, and made this comment for apparently no reason whatsoever. It was the flip flop on whether or not that joking LoS constituted a copy of the attitude in Grimmend's game and the apparent reason for the change that is the issue. Is that distinction clear?

If you wanted you could see my opening assessment of that LoS and subsequent counter to Xardob's reply as an attempt to lay the groundwork for a future case, but that is not the accusation that I'm leveling at Xardob. Remember, I'm highlighting the failure in fabrication which reveals a potential goal (especially in light of the absence for decent alternative goals in light of Xardob's response), rather than proposing the goal as just an interpretation of a lone attack.

To account for my behavior, I can explain that I wanted to poke and prod in the early stages. I'd have found a "problem" with anything at that point, as I always do. The difference is that this game I'm not being hyper aggressive about it, as I usually am. My take on the LoS should be clear from my post on Xardob now.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

In the very post you quoted, Llandy, I told Soot that they deserved explanation, that I was going to posts WOTs, and that I just didn't have the time at present.

To which post that I quoted do you refer?

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

Scratch that, I see which one. But it's hard to tell which posts are serious and which are not in a situation like that. The 'welcome to neoxardobism' comment does seem to imply an 'I'm not going to elaborate because this is my new style' attitude which is at odds with the vague 'I need to make a WoT sometime' sentiment directly above.

I'm glad that you've cleared up that you're not actually playing neoxardob style, though.

The rest of my point still stands. Regardless of your stance on how effective you feel pressure-votes are on you, responding to somebody's request  for clarification/elaboration with a 'lol no' type one-liner is not exactly conducive to reciprocal sentiment.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

The one where you accused me of hiding behind Neoxardobism to avoid answering a question. Sorry, phone posts and quote formatting are not friends.

Edit: Except it wasn't "lol no". It was joking, as should be abundantly clear from the fact that I literally explained what was actually going on in the very same post. And there is a MASSIVE difference between not wanting to engage in a confrontational quote war, and outright pretending that counterarguments don't even exist, or in Phone's case blaming the other player for the moritorium on interaction because they didn't want to ignore half the game.

 

[Xardob]

So, I should probably make that post about Xardob, eh?

So let's get down to it.

But first, for anyone who wishes to avoid what may be the start of a quote war, I will say right away that Mag's analysis of my play is fair, even though he is wrong about his conclusion. So he is probably innocent, albeit a bit misguided.

Also, the following post will probably contain a lot of meta and game theory, read at your own risk.

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.

Small correction, wolves don't have more difficulty fabricating a case than innocents have to generate a genuine one. The difference lies in the support each party gives to their case. Wolves are always more reticent to fully commit to their cases. It's a matter of belief. Wolves usually know their cases are wrong, and it's very hard to support something you don't believe in. A lot of errors wolves make comes from their fear that the village will see right through what they know is a lie.

Yes, this could be innocent Xardob being simply imperfect

Surely such a thing is impossible. 

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.

You quoted my post, so you know that's not what I said. Let's have a look again at the post:

That was a fun game. But no, I don't get that vibe from that post. Too obviously jokey to be part of that strategy.

The exact words were "to be part of that strategy". I didn't analyze the merits of the post at all. I simply said it didn't fit the picture you were painting. That it couldn't be part of a strategy that was designed to let me freely jump around flinging **** at everyone without committing to anything (and I wanted to prove that I could make a believable case against anyone, but that's not really relevant here) because it didn't take itself seriously enough. It doesn't mean that the act itself, which is clearly scummy, couldn't have been copied from my behaviour in that game, with other purposes, simply as a joke or even unknowingly.

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.

I think I covered this above, but I love the name. May I use it in the future?

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.

I think you're either overthinking this or giving me too much credit. There's no way this observation can carry weight later in the game, it's empty, doesn't have any explanation attached to it and could easily be seen as a joke. If it's not used and leveraged at the moment, it's not going to have any impact at all. If anything, any accusation that relies on it would make the case weaker.

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

I hope it's clear now that I never changed my opinion on Melter's introductory LoS. That would have been impossible, because I never had an opinion in the first place.

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?

Why not mention it? And more importantly, why does it need a purpose at all?

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?

It's at this point that I started to think that you're seeing ghosts in my play and looking for things that aren't there. You're looking for purpose behind a post that deliberately doesn't have any. You're reaching this conclusion because you read that post as if I had an agenda while making it.

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.

I won't disagree with you that Hawk was very conclusive about his suspicion of Soot. That's not where the backdoor is. But he did leave two very convenient avenues of escape.

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.

There they are. There's no better backdoor than suspicion on another player, especially poorly explained suspicion. If he wants, he can change his focus whenever he senses is convenient. What other reason would he have to make those offhand comments in the middle of his LoS, if not to give himself options in the future. If those suspicions were genuine, they surely could have been placed elsewhere, where it wouldn't take focus away from his case and make it sound like he is excusing his own suspicions.

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.

You could have hunted for  better examples, you know. And the ruthlessness thing, as I explained to Adaham, is a matter of post style, not alignment.

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."

I did explain the vote on Kronic. I was testing a hunch (I'm sure someone will get this reference). Something that I plan to revisit later in the day.

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?

I think we have two different definitions of attempt to quell a case. I'd call that a challenge on your conclusion rather than any sort of defense of Kronic. Think of it as more of a way to gauge your role than his.

Neoxardobism, where or where have you gone? I'm WoTting again.

I know, right. I can't promise to continue this even if you choose to challenge every counter argument I made.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

Edit: Except it wasn't "lol no". It was joking, as should be abundantly clear from the fact that I literally explained what was actually going on in the very same post.

It was not abundantly clear. Your 'I need to WoT' was in relation to Soot's comment about his read on Xardob getting stronger innocent, not to Pizza's request for clarification/threat of vote. "Abundantly clear" would have been "busy now but I'll get back to you soon" or some sort of declaration of intent to answer at some point. I can't see anything that obviously strikes me as that. The closest thing would be your admittedly incomplete LoS which does not appear to be in response to Pizzaguy's post and which misses a player off its list.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

I did explain the vote on Kronic. I was testing a hunch (I'm sure someone will get this reference). Something that I plan to revisit later in the day.

And as I recall, hunches are dangerous things to have. Last time you had one, you got ate.

 

[Xardob]

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.

Just one? Surely most of us can manage more than that.

I was confident that I would not be lynched because I never have been lynched on day one

I never was as well. Until one day I abused my luck in a game with enough wolves willing to jump in the wagon.

Weak grounds for an attack, so I highly doubt Xardob would have done so. If he had, I would be suspicious.

If I actually thought it was an indication of you being a wolf, I would have attacked you based on that alone, make no mistake. There's no such thing as too weak a point.

@Xardob - If that doesn't convince you I don't know what else will.

Well, you know I'm always open for some bartering or bribing if your arguments don't work.

@Xardob

Regarding the question you asked me the other day about a possible Soot/Mag pack. I hate hunting for packs without a confirmed wolf to provide a link, but given how Soot's subtle shift of near-universal approval for Pizzaguy's play turned into the wishy-washy bet-hedging I pointed out in my case, I could see this as one packmate directing another (Mag directing Soot, since Soot seemed to echo Mag and defend him in some ways) or a wolf exploiting the opportunity to try to slowly edge towards one 'side' of two innocents.

Sp, possible? Yes. Probable? Dunno.

I still haven't read you case, it's the next thing on my to do list, so don't know if you have addressed this, but I was thinking more along the lines of Soot's change of heart on Magorian earlier in the day than on Pizza.

And as I recall, hunches are dangerous things to have. Last time you had one, you got ate.

That sounds awfully like a threat. 

 

[Magorian Aximand]

I was confident that I would not be lynched because I never have been lynched on day one

I never was as well. Until one day I abused my luck in a game with enough wolves willing to jump in the wagon.

 

[Xardob]

Because you know your packmates won't sell you out? 

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

I still haven't read you case, it's the next thing on my to do list, so don't know if you have addressed this, but I was thinking more along the lines of Soot's change of heart on Magorian earlier in the day than on Pizza.

Then I shall look at that tomorrow. It's after midnight o'clock and my brain isn't functioning properly anymore.

That sounds awfully like a threat. 

It was a recollection, one easily made by any of the players or many substitutes that game had. You can interpret it however you like.

[me=Pharaoh X Llandy]go bed[/me]

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Because you know your packmates won't sell you out? 

Because I'm not abusing my luck.

 

[Xardob]

It was a recollection, one easily made by any of the players or many substitutes that game had. You can interpret it however you like.

Now, none of these other players ate me during the night over said hunch, did they?