Since Kronic really doesn't have many posts to talk about, I'll just quote them all and analyze them a bit more in depth.
Elisianthus 说:
Having quickly glanced through the current posts (I'll have a better read when I'm not cooking dinner), I can conclude that Soot and Mags are packies.
He did say before the game that he likes to go with his gut, and I personally don't have any issue with making quick judgements about the game, so I had no issue with this first post. Some others were confused if it was a joke or serious, but I personally see nothing jokey about this, so I just took it at face value. Being that me and Mag had already interacted a fair bit, even if it was mostly banter, it seemed plausible to me that Kronic would have such a read on us.
Elisianthus 说:
Phonemelter 说:
Kronic, I thought, was making a clear joke post. You, on the other hand, seem to think he was being completely serious with his conclusion tthat Soot and Mag (or whatever it was) are packies. That is why I was "correcting" you - I think you read of it, unless otherwise corrected, was wrong and that you were thinking about it the wrong way.
In fairness, it's only half jokey. I fully expect one or both of them to be wolves. Although, I could claim that for anyone in the game and have probably a 18 or 27% ish chance of being correct, so take that for what it's worth. As for the Face/Pizza interaction, my opinion is as such: gut says Face is innocent and Pizza if wolfy
however Pizza does indeed play a lot like Whoopin, and I tend to find the hyper picky stuff to come across as wolfy and in Whoopins case I was always wrong. The self analysis in that is kinda close to metagamey, I feel, so I'm not going to try to explore it too deeply in writing, but I feel that Face is
likely innocent and Pizza is
Neutral, with wolfish tendencies. I'll be keeping more of an eye of him as the game goes on.
Remember kids, about 60% of the time, I'm right 100% of the time!
This post is where my problems with his play start, and I'll even disregard the random percentages thrown in there for no reason. To me him admitting that he was even
half joking seems like he's retreating from his initial stance. If he'd continued it with an explanation for why one or both of us would be scum it would at least make sense, but instead he basically compares this read to a one made on a completely random basis. Instead of expanding on his initial read, he apparently just hopes everyone is going to ignore it because he has literally no justification he dares to present for it, and moves on to talk about a topic on which it's easy to at least pick a side. Except, well, he doesn't even really do that. He gives what again appear to be pure gut reads on Face and Pizza, but instead of expanding on these either, he starts to argue against his own gut about Pizza
before trying to look for a justification for it, not to mention basing it on a different player entirely.
This is not innocent thought process. Speaking in absolutes is bad, I know, but an innocent simply doesn't look for weaknesses in their own reads/cases before trying to figure out what caused them to have the initial reaction in the first place. It's pretty much the opposite of an inquisitive mindset of someone looking for liars, with a blatant focus on giving more scrutiny for his own actions first - to the point of self analysing his own self analysis. Not only does it point to him being very aware that he's straight up making his own reads because he already knows everyone's roles, but even if I try to look at it as an innocent thought process it's still opposite to the confident gut reads that he claimed his play is based on. He's afraid of being tied to a read that others might find suspect and so he gives himself a way out as soon as he says it.
Elisianthus 说:
Askthepizzaguy 说:
Give me a degree of certainty on this likelihood, if you care to. Ballpark between 51% and ~90%?
70% or so. No higher than 73%. Conversely, you're about 40.
Nothing really to comment on because this means nothing, just adding for the sake of completeness.
Elisianthus 说:
Askthepizzaguy 说:
A 60 percent likelihood to be wolf, that's impressive. Baffling but impressive.
Askthepizzaguy 说:
Also like to point out that your 70% lean is roughly rand, according to your own numbers.
Likely innocent =/= rand to me.
Fair. Percentage isn't actually a great metric for it, seeing as the measurement here isn't "Chance to be wolf" but "better or worse than average chance of wolfiness, after rand". There's probably a function for it.
SootShade 说:
@Kronic:
Giving a wolf read and then stating an out for it right away, not the best start there. Give us something aside an arbitrary number and a comparison to Whoopin on why Pizza is scummy.
**** you, wolfboy.
In answer to your question though, I touched on it in the prior post, but it's kinda meta. I think the best way I can summarise it without referring to previous games is - I'm a very gut feeling operating wolf hunter. I keep an eye out for things that strike me as wrong, work out likely wolf targets and
then hunt for evidence to try to make them swing, rather than the admittedly more common (And occasionally more reliable) method of "Evidence first then suspects". You can not like it, and people often don't, but it's the good old fashioned Kronic method.
Pizza's play of immediately jumping on someone and picking at banal and asinine details was - as wa spointed out - a very Whoopin esque thing to do. It makes my gut twitch. Normally, my response would thusly be "**** that, it's a wolf." Unfortunately,
that specific playstyle (Which Whoopin uses, but Frisian and Adaham are both people I've had the same issue with in prior games) is something I have been wrong about on
multiple prior occasions. As a result, while I'm not going to dismiss my gut, I'm going to wait for other pointers before I jump down their throat and start trying to choke them.
Pharaoh X Llandy 说:
Is that a joke? I can’t tell.
50/50
Magorian Aximand 说:
I think this thing, but oh hey let me present a way to back out of it. Oh, and I think this other thing, but again there's this way for me to escape my own reasoning. You know what, I'm not going to commit to anything until it's convenient for me to do so. - Kronic
**** you, Wolfboy.
Glad to know I get the same objections now as I did back then, it means I haven't lost my touch.
In seriousness though, I put my hands up and admit it, I don't have anyone I'm willing to point at and call a wolf just yet. So yes, I'm going to have uncertainty in what I say. And?
When I'm more certain, I can happily turn around and say "**** you, you're a wolf", but I'm not about to arbitrarily decide that someone has reached that level just because you get prissy about me being uncertain. And it's still better than me not naming any suspects at all, so get stuffed mate.
I mean, I'll happily lynch you, Soot and Pizza if you want a shortlist, but it's day one and I'm willing to see how things go. I'm pretty certain I'd get at least one and probably two wolves out of you three. Which, to me, is "acceptable casualties", but not "acceptable risk". I'd like to see more fro Xardob and Adaham, but I admit that this whole "NeoXardobism" trend is throwing me for a loop and I'm struggling in reading it. I suspect it's a strong reason why I don't get to do my "**** you, you're a wolf" post within the first day this time.
Here he suddenly remembered that he's supposed to be confident, overdoing it and contrasting his previous stance. And yet, despite this pretense his initial reaction isn't to stick with his read, but instead he uses his reliance on his gut as an excuse. He claims that he hunts for the evidence after the read, but, as I already pointed out, he didn't do this initially. Instead he scoured his own thinking for reasons why he might be wrong first and foremost. He tentatively brings up one thing he objected to in Pizza's play, but instead of even trying to explain why his gut would think it's scummy, he only uses it to justify his comparison to Whoopin. Being how he goes on to explain about how he's been wrong about this being scummy before, he's effectively still given no reasoning for why he would think Pizza is scummy. His only complaint he demolished himself, and instead of looking for more reasons he's left with literally nothing to be suspicious about by his own standards, only sticking with a suspicion presumably to have a scum read and justifying it with gut, even though he went to great lengths to explain why his gut isn't reliable there.
His response to Mag has more of that fake confidence. Followed by admitting that he's actually not certain about anything. Which makes the attempted misdirection in his post even more blatant. It would be better even if this contradiction is his play was at least consistent throughout it, but instead his two posts with substance thus far also contradict each other in that matter. And for all that he claims it's usual for his playstyle, there's a massive difference between the way an innocent considers all the possibilities about another player's play, and the way a wolf dismantles their own arguments when unsure. Or, as Mag said it:
Magorian Aximand 说:
Oy, Kroni****er (
), there's a difference with being uncertain, and making arguments before presenting a reason for you to drop them if they become inconvenient. One is prudential, the other is a tactic. Guess which one your posts demonstrate? Can you guess what the typical wolf response is to being called out on it?
Elisianthus 说:
Adaham 说:
Hey Kronic, do you feel that that cursing a lot gives your arguments more weight?
I mean, I'm not the one to point fingers when it comes to an angry fit, but wolf hunting for you seems to consist mostly of saying "**** you, wolfboy" whenever somebody doubts your stuff. If I were a nitpick, I'd call that blatant OMGUSing. But luckily I've studied Cicero, so I'm not even gonna go there.
Nah, not really. Was intended as a bit of a callback to how I used to play, but I guess it fell flat. ;_;
It has been a long time, I guess, but yeah, I've mellowed out sicne then and the swearing is optional.
Also, generally, I tend to direct it more towards people I suspect rather than people who disagree with me. Sometimes they're the same, sometimes they're not. I'm aware from experience I'm not great at spotting slips from a technical side, hence why I rely on my gut and "reverse engineer" it. Being aggressive tends to make people reply more, and it gives me more to look at to try and figure evidence to actually make a case, one way or another.
Magorian Aximand 说:
Oy, Kroni****er (
), there's a difference with being uncertain, and making arguments before presenting a reason for you to drop them if they become inconvenient. One is prudential, the other is a tactic. Guess which one your posts demonstrate? Can you guess what the typical wolf response is to being called out on it?
How does that name even work?
And yeah, point taken. It's kind of a self defense thing to prevent myself tunnel visioning, but you're right in that it's less helpful for the village as a whole. I'll try to keep it as a "Reasons for, reasons against" thing to clarify my viewpoint next time.
pre-post edit: Jesus **** this thread is busy.
He then proceeds to back out even from his fake confidence when confronted about it. Absolutely nothing about Kronic's play sticks. He's ditching anything anyone finds suspicious and trying to swap tactics as he goes, showing that his first priority is to avoid suspicion. It shows so obviously probably exactly because of how opposite it is to the innocent playstyle he claims to employ. If his standard play is to rely on gut to get started, I'm not surprised that he's having trouble when that function of his play is effectively disabled by the extra knowledge granted by the wolf role. Also, speaking about being aggressive - that's exactly what he's not, his play is completely reactionary, regardless of the image he's trying to project.
Elisianthus 说:
Phonemelter 说:
Yes, sarcasm from me is a HUGE wolf tell.
**** you, wolfboy.
Eh, I guess it was at least more funny this time around.
Elisianthus 说:
Right, sorry, I've just had a read through while drinking my first coffee and I'll be going through again shortly. I realise there have been a coupla questions put my way, but something I spotted while reading which really isn't making my opinion on Pizza much better:
Askthepizzaguy 说:
If I can't read Eli directly I can always read Eli indirectly by measuring the temperature of the thread. Sort of like how I read afk people or low-posters. Indirect read time.
Askthepizzaguy 说:
but you're in my solid blue so you have commanding privileges for the time being.
I'm going to have to see if I can find more of these, but these both come across as serious warning signs to me: in both cases I read these as "I am willing to bandwaggon with your opinions". In the first quote, yes, he explains he has trouble getting a read on me and looks for other ideas, but the phrasing of the second one I genuinely can't read as something other than "I am willing to piggyback off you". This makes the first seem a lot more troubling to me. I'm actually kinda surprised this wasn't called out by more people?
He tried to be proactive, the result wasn't particularly convincing. It's a legitimate point also a very very basic one. And I do think that it was in fact brought up before he did.
Elisianthus 说:
I've been really busy over the past three days sorting the prep stuff for a job tryout next week. I've got 25 or so pages to catch up on, but I'll hop to it.
Sorry everyone, realise it's not great when a player drops off the face of the planet for a few days, I was gonna drop a message Saturday morning but I overslept and things ended up rather rushed. I'll catch up ASAP.
Well, regardless of the reason for his inactivity, this is his latest post. With another thirty or so pages since then, I'm not holding much hope for him catching up during this game day and incriminating himself or his packmates anymore. I'm not basing any of my case on him on his activity, but I will point out that in spite of it there's plenty enough reason to lynch him. Not only are his posts that contain any substance very scummy, but there's much beyond his own play that points to him being scum.
In fact, I think that quite possibly the most incriminating thing against Kronic is the way other players have acted towards him. There's a couple that have at some point or another said they think he's innocent, but even those have been a reaction to the majority having a scum read on him. Worse, despite the amount of people thinking he's scummy, there hasn't been a notable amount of votes on him at any point. This was showed very clearly when Pizza asked everyone for their reads on Kronic, most answered that they thought him to be scum, and there still wasn't a single vote on him. Another point was when Xardob placed down his vote and tried to get others on board and only Mag joined him. For all that this is very general and meta reliant read, I think that a lack of votes despite suspicion is a very clear sign of scum, and this is a prime example of that. It's simply a matter of him being so scummy that everyone's noticed, but the scum having no incentive to use this in their favor because he's their packmate. Instead they are hoping to let it pass with all the high profile targets in the game, when they haven't seen the innocents pursuing this matter.
