WW 31 Game Thread PARANOIA

[MJW (ya that one)]

Qgqqqqq for logining-in and not posting anything (he took the poll).

You are ridiculous MJW. (This is also probably against the rules under forum camping, in the same way that remarking someone posted somewhere else but not here is.)

No it's not the rules are quite specific; the parentheses spell out the meaning:

11. Forum profile camping (watching someone's profile to see when they're online and/or reading the game thread to try and use as evidence) is not allowed.

[Qgqqqqq]

I don't get your question Qgqqqqqq. I probably cannot explain it without giving away my role though.

You mention 3 killers. We know of two that Ryan has found, and you apparently know of one who visited you. While we can safely rule out the first (Lewwyn) as a killer, how do you know that they are three distinct killers and not the one Ryan found having attacked you.

I would also like to hear some actual reads from Ryan.


Mattimeo

[Gazglum]

*Gazglum's morning internal dialogue, while examining the extra shiny-scrubbed patches on his face in the mirror*

- Did I murder a loyal troubleshooter last night? I think I remember doing that...
- You did. You know you did. You're a bad man.
- Would Friend Computer have wanted me to do that?
- Of course not!
- But I'm loyal to Friend Computer, aren't I! The most loyal there is!
- Of course you are!
- I could never go against Friend Computer's wishes, could I?
- You never could!
- So if Friend Computer WOULDN'T want me to have murdered a loyalist, and I CAN'T go against Friend Computer's wishes, I COULDN'T have done it!
- So that memory was just a bad dream!
- You're right! You know, for a minute there I was uncertain but now I'm feeling HAPPY!
- All Hail Friend Computer!
- All Hail Friend Computer!

*Takes a Forget-me-Now and strolls happily off to work in a shiny, scrubbed, new jumpsuit*

What's this in my in-tray? A letter from my friend Serdoa? Joy!

I really just changed myself a little bit and try to take this stuff lighter (being overly competitive is bad for your health kids...).

I strongly approve!

I want to point out this post by Gazglum:

This pretty much sums up what I don't like about the Novice vote. It's so much predicated on gut feel, tone, passivity, expectations. And they are all important things. I just feel that -today-, we have stronger cases on others. Serdoa and Harry also have had tone issues (for me, Serdoa's logic, Harry's jokes and defensiveness), they also jumped on the bandwagon at a more critical point.

Two things I don't like here:

a) Gazglum had just jumped on the wrong wagon D1, getting suspected for that. I expect defense, I expect reads... what I don't expect is that he tries to stir others away from a wagon. As villager you don't know if you are wrong or right, and if he is wrong, he signs his death most certainly by doing this. And that to save someone which he doesn't even claim that he feels is village, but just because he feels other cases are better? He even points out that "-today-" there are stronger cases, implicitly stating that the case against novice is good, just not the best in his eyes.

I think we've had this argument before, and regardless of alignments its a difference in play styles. I think that I should make a case for the lynch I favour (which I didn't Day 1 because I didn't have strong feelings about the front runners), and that I should try to make my vote always count. That means voting for a leader, and it means trying to get people not to vote for someone you think is the worse choice.

It's easy to say "I suspect X" and not try to get anyone to follow you, like Mattimeo's bob vote. No consequences, you can look like you've taken a tough stance. In the past you have told me yourself that I should try and convince people of reads.

I hope I haven't signed my death warrant. I'm far from the only person who pushed for Old Harry. This sounds a bit like you setting me up as the target for today before discussion has happened properly, like you attacked Rowain for the night before.

I didn't have a vllage read on Novice, no, but then I don't have that on many people (maybe MJW, Lewwyn, Q, Rowain). That doesn't mean I don't have Degrees of Paranoia to rank people on.

b) He points out that the votes on novice are based on gut feel and expectations and states that we have stronger cases. He then points to Harry and me, as these stronger cases, stating that our cases are also built on gut feel and expectations but we jumped on a more critical point onto Q. So basically there is no difference in the cases against all 3 of us, except that he decided that our jump on Q was more important than that of novice. We know that he was wrong with that in case of Harry and I personally know that he is wrong on me as well.

What I want to get with that is: This does read for me like scum jumping to bail out one of there own. Not outright stating that he doesn't believe someone is village (imagine what would happen if novice gets lynched and is shown scum) but still defending the player. Compare that to what I did in regards to Harry. Yes, I would have voted Harry if I believed it would save me, but I clearly stated that I don't see the case on him. Gazglum instead states "Yes novice is a good case, but we have an even better one". That doesn't sound honest to me.

Well...I don't know you're village. So yes, due to the timing I did decide your jumps were more suspicious. Also Harry's final vote post was pretty scummy. And even if it is now shown to be wrong, how is "Novice is a good case, harry is better" scummy? That's how we play the game Serdoa, we pick the best case.

The point about Novice starting the Q bandwagon with 'this is bad', is really interesting. If he is scum, that was a superb play, good work Novice. It -did- make me want to change things up, and he had laid the groundwork beautifully for Q to become the fall guy. Superwolf play.

That's so hyperbolical towards novice possible scumness that it can only be meant to implicitly carry the meaning "You have to be dumb if you believe that novice is scum".

That's not what it means. It means what it says.

And again I have to ask: Would someone having chosen wrong already and being heavily suspected really defend someone else like that if he didn't at least believe that this player is a villager? Would someone really go out on a limb like Gazglum here for someone he feels is "less scummy" than the top suspects? I don't believe that.

Again, that's just how I play. Here is a return question for you Serdoa,

Why would I stick my neck out on Novice if I was scum either? I would be much more likely to play for my own safety in that regard, especially when there were plenty of other people around to carry the Old Harry vote.

Also, you're building a case predicated on BOTH Novice and I being scum. You're always telling us you are an experienced player, you should be experienced enough to know that those kidn of chain assumptions, however beautiful they may seem to you, have very high chances of being wrong.

Just pointing out something here: I am an experienced (scum)player and so is novice. Is someone really telling me that either of us decided that we would make a run for Q to save Azza? Someone that normally plays on his own and won't even tell you his role in the scum-thread if not absolutely necessary (that happened in a WW game I was scum with him)? And not only that, but in my case I even screwed further up and called my scum-buddy out in thread regarding his vote against MJW? But then was not only dumb enough not to act upon it but even did the opposite and tried to vote another candidate up? Tonight when I should have been sleeping I was thinking about Rowain pointing out the WW-game in which I tried to save TT. And I realised that if you believe I would play like that still, than you also have to believe that I would not incriminate my scum-buddy first but bail him out instead.

You may have a point about pointing out Azza's tell first, that might be out of character for Scum Serdoa.

But why wouldn't you try to save him? This is a team bloodsport. And the whole point of the Azza vote was that it was NOT overwhelming. It wasn't like Old Harry, where the writing was on the wall from hours before the lynch. There was no strong case on Azza, for a lot of people he seemed just the best pick of a bad bunch. And the votes were spread evenly. Scum could have easily saved him if not for the robot and Lewwyn charging to the rescue, and they couldn't have predicted that. And I'm not saying they all would have had to do it, just 1 or 2.

It makes me really suspicious that you keep arguing that scum would be so heartless they wouldn't lift a single finger to save Azza. Especially if other people bolstering Q were village, so it would like they only needed to tilt the scales a tiny bit to save their man. I've been scum Serdoa, Mattimeo was my true Pack Brother. And I, for one, would have tried to save Azza.

But, you know, obviosuly not this time.

[Qgqqqqq]

Qgqqqqq for logining-in and not posting anything (he took the poll).

You are ridiculous MJW. (This is also probably against the rules under forum camping, in the same way that remarking someone posted somewhere else but not here is.)

No it's not the rules are quite specific; the parentheses spell out the meaning:

11. Forum profile camping (watching someone's profile to see when they're online and/or reading the game thread to try and use as evidence) is not allowed.

You are correct.
I believe this should be against the rules however. Brick?

[Gazglum]

No it's not the rules are quite specific; the parentheses spell out the meaning:

11. Forum profile camping (watching someone's profile to see when they're online and/or reading the game thread to try and use as evidence) is not allowed.

Have you ever heard of the Spirit of the Rules, MJW? You should look it up sometime! It will make you happier.

[MJW (ya that one)]

I don't get your question Qgqqqqqq. I probably cannot explain it without giving away my role though.

You mention 3 killers. We know of two that Ryan has found, and you apparently know of one who visited you. While we can safely rule out the first (Lewwyn) as a killer, how do you know that they are three distinct killers and not the one Ryan found having attacked you.

I would also like to hear some actual reads from Ryan.


Mattimeo

No. I said that there would be three (non-wolf) killers if Ryan hit a player who was not the vig who shot me. The three non-wolf killers would be the vig, lewwyn and the person ryan scryed.

There's no other rules that talk about tricks like that so Brick would be changing the rules in the middle of the match.

[Qgqqqqq]

I don't get your question Qgqqqqqq. I probably cannot explain it without giving away my role though.

You mention 3 killers. We know of two that Ryan has found, and you apparently know of one who visited you. While we can safely rule out the first (Lewwyn) as a killer, how do you know that they are three distinct killers and not the one Ryan found having attacked you.

I would also like to hear some actual reads from Ryan.


Mattimeo

No. I said that there would be three (non-wolf) killers if Ryan hit a player who was not the vig who shot me. The three non-wolf killers would be the vig, lewwyn and the person ryan scryed.

Err, no you really didn't. Your ONLY qualifier was "So if that killer is not a wolf..." There was no mention of if Ryan had scried the player who hit you or not.

There's no other rules that talk about tricks like that so Brick would be changing the rules in the middle of the match.

So? It's a practice that has been frowned on in the past, and the intent of that rule is to prevent werewolf from discouraging other forum-based activity (like voting in a pole...) so I think this is something that should definitely be rectified.

[Ryan]

Afaik what if the killer was you Q does that count ?

[MJW (ya that one)]

I don't get your question Qgqqqqqq. I probably cannot explain it without giving away my role though.

You mention 3 killers. We know of two that Ryan has found, and you apparently know of one who visited you. While we can safely rule out the first (Lewwyn) as a killer, how do you know that they are three distinct killers and not the one Ryan found having attacked you.

I would also like to hear some actual reads from Ryan.


Mattimeo

No. I said that there would be three (non-wolf) killers if Ryan hit a player who was not the vig who shot me. The three non-wolf killers would be the vig, lewwyn and the person ryan scryed.

Err, no you really didn't. Your ONLY qualifier was "So if that killer is not a wolf..." There was no mention of if Ryan had scried the player who hit you or not.

There's no other rules that talk about tricks like that so Brick would be changing the rules in the middle of the match.

So? It's a practice that has been frowned on in the past, and the intent of that rule is to prevent werewolf from discouraging other forum-based activity (like voting in a pole...) so I think this is something that should definitely be rectified.

"That killer" refers to the killer ryan scryed. He would be the third killer.

I really just don't like changing the rules in the middle of a match. Slippery slope. And I think that poll is part of this game. For example, if anyone voted "I'm a communist" we should lynch him. So this is not "other forum-based activity" in the first place.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Afaik what if the killer was you Q does that count ?

Are you saying that Q can kill?

If ryan meant that you should roleclaim Q and tell what you did. Because unless you have an role-excuse for that you have a very high chance of being a wolf.