[Werewolf] SMAC: Unity [Game ends!]

[Phonemelter]

Because I am not quick to make strong conclusions. Quick to judge, well, aren't we all, but finding wolves and trying to convince people that their views are more correct than someone elses' takes more than six pages, and part of that is to get people to see their way, which can often times be game theory because it is a rather important part of Werewolf.

And I never said that we should wait for the wolves to out themselves - that is rarely ever going to happen. Of course what I was saying is that "stirring the pot" and pressuring people is how to get a more accurate read. No idea how you can reas thdt from my post...

 

[Phonemelter]

By the way, calimgin that my priorities are to debate game thoery rather than finding wolves is a complete mischaracterixzation. I've said my part, albeit drunkenly, but it is not like I can magically make all of the people I want to question appear out of thing air. You, however, are here, responding to problems I have with you, so if game theory is relevant in any of our arguments, what is the problem with bringing it up?

 

[Magorian Aximand]

I doubt very much that Pizza's early interpretation of these posts is set in stone. I'm sure his opinions will be as fluid as the evidence that informs them, and his confidence in stating these opinions is a mixture of a desire to apply pressure to gauge reactions and an attempt to bring the game to a more serious stage. Trying to say that he's reading too much into early posts and jokes when there's as of yet little else to go on is a mistake. It's not as though he's going to try to end the day 96 hours early on those ideas.

Remember, this is a player Adaham compared to Whoopin. Confidence and the focus on oddities and minutia is to be expected.

**** if I know what to make of it yet though.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Explanations for what triggers my courting of Phonemelter:

Thoguths:

1. Maggy is being waaaaaay yoo jokey for my liking. Similar to how Soot started the oreviosu game, I read Mag as "oversexited wolf"\ Also going after things that surprise me. Might be to start conversation, but I'm wary and not getting the same vibes from him that I notrmally do (or from othetrs, if ytou want to not go off meta)

I do not agree with the read on Mags, and I do not think a villager comes to this lean on Mags most of the time.

2. Vieira';s qyestion does seem silly, but iirc his TT opener was equally silly, so I am not sure if it means are much as others believe atm. Not sayin he is innocent, but I do not think it is worth reading into (though his response ot a question Xardob asked may be inidicatve of packers)

This is written with a clear agenda to convince easily persuadable people to alter their views on Vieira.

Why would someone have such an agenda when they have no opinion on Vieira? It's decidedly unvillagery to come to the roundabout defense of someone you read neutrally.

Rather than wait to see what happens, and learn more from the interaction, Phone intervenes.

Why is that his priority? What motivates that so soon?

3. For some guy that apparently takes pride in his gut, Kronic (aka Ellywhateverhisanimenameis) wen for the obvious joke that has alkready been made of "omg soot and Mag are packies!" Reminds me all to well of whenever wolfs vome late to the party and start joking about what has already been said...

Seems like Phone is stating leans here based on the same limited information that I have, but he takes exception to my methods and corrects them.

I dislike that very much on an in-game level, and have no animosity toward Phone in game or out of game, other than my desire to vote for Phone for this.

4. Pizzadude thinks Vieira is not genuine about his curiosity about the OP on Hawk's name, but does not question the fact that Hawek was wondering himself. Yes, Hawk would not use it to draw any conclusions about himself ofr obvious reasons, but if Vieira is not the only person wondering, then maybe it is, in fact, genuine?

Rare are the instances in a game of werewolf that someone utters a more classic wolf tell that this line of argument.

Player A finds player X to be wolfy for reasons, but does not find Y to be as wolfy. Therefore his suspicion on X is invalid.

That is almost always a wolf's line of attack against a village. And rare is the instance a villager approaches the game this way.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I just can't read your alignment based off of that vote.

Why would you try to read my alignment off my first vote?

I try to read people's alignment based off of every word they utter.

Most of the time it is impossible. Sometimes you do something that helps me read you.

I can't offer you advice on how to help me read you villager, it defeats the purpose.

The reason why I try to read people's alignment off of every bit of their content in the game is because experience has taught me that the best tells are the ones wolves are unaware are tells.

It's not always the obvious content which reads someone's alignment one way or the other.

A vote on someone I had a stronger opinion on would probably have helped me a little. But I'm still looking for reasons to lean you villager.

The objective of course should be primarily to find reasons why someone is a villager.

I was not even really looking for wolfy behavior here, but as someone who began with the approach of hunt wolves, not villagers, instinct kicks in here even when I am trying to find my village team primarily.

Phone couldn't be wolfier today if he claimed wolf.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Give you an example.

One game I hunted a wolf on a brand new forum on the first round of the game, and it was one of the players who had yet to post.

Why did I suspect this one no-show, and not the other?

Why the answer was obvious- the other no-show had been voted by someone already. That meant that in the pool of [villagers and wolves], someone wanted no-poster number one dead.

No one wanted no-poster number two dead. So obviously no wolves wanted no-poster number two dead. I read them wolf for it.

But people argued with me and said if you find no-poster 2 wolfy, you have to find no-poster 1 wolfy.

Those people were also wolves.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Bottom line- the attempt to make context-based wolf reads seem inconsistent or hypocritical, is wolfy 90 percent of the time.

Villagers do not hunt wolves that way.

 

[Pharaoh Llandy]

I can't offer you advice on how to help me read you villager, it defeats the purpose.

I didn't ask you to. And I wouldn't listen to your advice even if you gave it. No offence, but there's more to playing this game than trying to convince you of my innocence. My wolf-hunting methods have made me appear scummy to some players before, and will no doubt do so again. It's not the end of the world if you're one of them.

Anyway, hike to work now. Back later.

~Llandy, who is considerably more condescending than Melter 

 

[Phonemelter]

@Mag:

Of course, I am just stating problems with how he came to those conclusions, but he didn't seem to argue against that. 


@Pizzadude:

Why do you not think someone being very jokey at the start would be seen by others as a potential overexcited wolf?

Read my signature - I "defend" people a lot of the time.  You may see it as motivation to protect a packie, but I see it as a way to get people to keep an open mind and not immeditely jump to conclusions that they might get stuck on an tunnel for the whole game because lord knows that's been happening often.

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.

Again, your characterization of my comment about Vieira / Hawk is bollocks. I would never expect you to be wolfy of Hawk in this scenario just because you suspect Vieira, and I never said that your argument is in any way invalid. All I was asking is that if Vieira and Hawk had similar questions, then maybe the question was genuine instead of a lie for no apparent reason?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I can't offer you advice on how to help me read you villager, it defeats the purpose.

I didn't ask you to. And I wouldn't listen to your advice even if you gave it. No offence, but there's more to playing this game than trying to convince you of my innocence. My wolf-hunting methods have made me appear scummy to some players before, and will no doubt do so again. It's not the end of the world if you're one of them.

You and I appear to be talking past each other- this wouldn't be the first post of mine you've almost entirely misunderstood.

 

[Phonemelter]

One game I hunted a wolf on a brand new forum on the first round of the game, and it was one of the players who had yet to post.

What is the purpose of this example and relevance to the game? Because I can point out dozens of instances of players being correct in their suspicions even though nobody agreed with them.

By your logic in this example, how would it follow that I am a wolf if your other wolf Vieira is voting for me (or any of the other voting / other connections you have made)? In your post you go on about how people voted for one person vs. the other, so if you realize packies are not likely to throw each other under the bus at this point, why is that the case here? Sure, I am "defending" him, but you also seem to think there is a link between him and Soot because of Soot's "attack" on him. Might be comparing apples to oranges here, but your hunting feels rather... "selective."

 

[Phonemelter]

Anyways, I'm going to sleep now. Normally I wouldn't bother to to post as much, but I feel like I should let you know because of your interest in "real time" replying. Plus I doubt anyone is going to enjoy reading this lengthy exchange in the morn' if it continues. 

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

One game I hunted a wolf on a brand new forum on the first round of the game, and it was one of the players who had yet to post.

What is the purpose of this example and relevance to the game? Because I can point out dozens of instances of players being correct in their suspicions even though nobody agreed with them.

You said:

    4. Pizzadude thinks Vieira is not genuine about his curiosity about the OP on Hawk's name, but does not question the fact that Hawek was wondering himself. Yes, Hawk would not use it to draw any conclusions about himself ofr obvious reasons, but if Vieira is not the only person wondering, then maybe it is, in fact, genuine?

My example was another game where someone made the same specific type of argument. If X is not genuine because of reason, then why is Y not also being considered to be not genuine? Or maybe X is actually genuine after all, if Y is genuine.

That is directly comparable to the above quote.

And you've seemingly deliberately removed the context again. The point of my tale was never anything remotely like- I was correct once and people didn't agree.

I am having trouble seeing a universe where you aren't well aware of that, yet you still posted this:

"Because I can point out dozens of instances of players being correct in their suspicions even though nobody agreed with them"

As if that were the point I was driving at.

More dishonesty, removal of context.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Vote: Phonemelter

Aggressively wolfy dishonesty, removal of context deliberately, pretense at drunkenness to a level of hiding behind it while clearly still lucid, classically wolfy arguments, almost wholly wolfy presentation.

Quite a conclusive day one wolf read, in my world.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I left a number of unanswered questions and points not responded to in the thread.

If people are interested in my responses to them I will respond, but this is the -brief- version of me. If the unresponded to questions and points are material to anyone else in the game, I'll follow up after I take a nap.

My objective for not being entirely thorough in responding to those questions and points is that I felt they were an attempt by a wolf to derail and muddy things by making it a war of text walls that no one reads. I can fight that war if need be.

Askthesleepingguy, signing off.

 

[Phonemelter]

Checking my phone was a bad idea.


Yeah, I am not seeing those "classically wolfish arguments" you seem to think I am making.

You make no mention of any arguments about the genuineness of a statement in your talk about the different game - seems vastly different than what you are applying it to. I just found it funny for someone who was complaining about my talks of game theory would bring up an example of using game theory to find wolves in another game. Again, what is wrong with me asking you the difference in Hawk's and Vieira's posts?

Anyways, it looks as if you have ignored some things I said in this post in favor of saying I am being dishonest about being drunk. I do not care that you are doubting the level of intoxication I was ever at, but why should that have any impact on what I was saying (if you are just shrugging it off because of that)? There was no dishonesty there about anything regarding the actual game, so why would that invalidate the arguments?

Speaking of which, I do not know about you, but I can still remain lucid after drinking. I can come up with arguments, even if there are misspellings, and remain cognitively sane, even if I do get a bit silly. But I would never intentionally come off as drunk just to "hide" behind anything. As I've said before, I know you are new and all, but in the past couple of games I have done this thing where I go out and drink with friends, come back, and type out poorly-spelled arguments regardless of what role I am.

 

[FrisianDude]

Ooctivity.

Pizza, it kinda seems you're just clawing at Phone.

even if there are misspellings

more like you accidentally spell something correctly once in a while. 

It's decidedly unvillagery to come to the roundabout defense of someone you read neutrally.

The roundabout 'defense' might also be simply poking at the reasoning for suspicions, which might make them even stronger.

 

[Adaham]

That was the best quote-war-without-quotes I've seen in a long time. And I totally expect to receive a medal for luring pizza onto this forum 

Rather than commenting on this beautiful piece of interaction between the pizzamelt, I'd much rather ask myself why the hell Soot couldn't resist the urge to call me out as an innocent.

I'll get back to you guys when I've come up with an answer.

~

 

[Troll]

Xardob: His discussion regarding Face's first post with Mag seems pretty innocent to me. Even though the argument was referencing his own play, I don't see a wolf really wanting to interject in favor of Face there.

Magorian: I don't like Mag's interpretation of Neoxardobism, if that's what caused him to poke at Vieira's behaviour and then completely abandon it, and then later pop into the Pizza/Face argument to offer something of no real weight to the discussion. In fact, where the latter went slightly beyond stating the obvious, I feel like it sabotaged Pizza's questioning of Face if anything. If I was prone to making rushed conclusions (totally not the case, I might add ) I might say that this is a possible packmate interaction between Mag and Face. Beyond that, I just don't like the way he seems to be using his style to excuse floating past any discussion.

Pizza: A man after my own heart, his approach to the game is exactly what I like to see. Sadly he got stuck in an argument with Face right away, but I guess that was inevitable. That interaction doesn't actually give me a lot to read him on, but his initial approach to the game seems distinctly innocent to me. Not many of his reads really coincide with mine, but I can see very clearly where he's coming from, and mine differ largely based on the added (dis)advantage of the meta I already have on most players. I'm curious to see what his fresh perspective offers this game.

Face: I'm impressed by how he avoided full on misunderstandings this time around - maybe a consequence of adapting a more readable format for his quote wars? In any case, I appreciate both, and it gave me a chance to actually get a read on him this time around. To me it appears that he's arguing from a genuine standpoint, and I think this whole argument would offer him no benefit to engage in if he was scum - and despite similar behaviour regardless of role, I think his scum play is more considered. I also liked his initial reads.

Llandy: I was happy to see a third player really interject into the Pizza/Face argument, but then I realized that Llandy did so only to argue her preferences. I know she likes to do that, and I know she doesn't like to make quick conclusions, but I would have thought she could make at least some kind of read on either of them based on the topic being discussed.

Vieira: Vieira is definitely more nervous than he should ever be at this stage of the game. The extent he feels he has to justify his every word when questioned is excessive to say the least. But, even though this is something I generally think is extremely scummy, I have to admit that this is not uncharacteristic of Vieira regardless of his role.

 

[Adaham]

Alright, let's lynch Vieira before he buggers off to vacuum his room and never come back.

After that we lynch Soot, because he's toying with me again.

After that we lynch Phoney, Mugorian and Llandy.

Consider this an LoS of sorts.

~