quote:

---

Originally posted by BernieB:
As is the standing tradition, I am voting to lynch Bernek.

Of course, since he is not currently playing, I will then suspect the next player who posts after me.

---

But what if that player was me Dan?

~MM

__________________
[Help me PIMP my Slide!] [Join Us,or DIE!][Refs][Me] [Werewolf 3!]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Montague:
I'm not a big fan of the first kill discussion. The only good that ever comes out of it is when a wolf talks too much and gets themselves lynched. Other then that, the small amount of information given doesnt constitute a vote for anybody. Therefore, the first vote will be basically a shot in the dark. I will declare who I am voting for closer to voting time, that is unless somebody sticks out at me.

---

Your logic would actually speak to the contrary. There are three basic options (based on what you said) that can occur out of round one discussion:

1) "A wolf talks too much and gets themselves lynched."
2) A wolf talks, but doesn't say too much, so they are not lynched. Later, when there is more data, their posts can be broken down and analyzed.
2) A wolf doesn't talk. Since this obviously means number one doesn't happen, we have nothing to go on, and make a random stab into the silent crowd, possibly getting the wolf.

So, actually, round one discussion is quite good no matter what way you look at it, even in round one. In fact, I don't think there is a single scenario where discussion would be harmful (save for perhaps the night phase). Minimally, talking doesn't do anything BAD, so there's no reason not to do it.

I do agree that talking in general is good, though. That way we can find those "odd" posts that usually lead to a wolf.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GottaLoveElves:
He would, and he will. But, I do have something to note:

I think that it's just as likely that the facilitator of these kills may've watched the round of mafia that just ended as opposed to WW. In a direct contrast to how the last WW went, in that game the mafia took out all the moderate/low posters and let the high volume posters/heavyweight names live, and the result was the exact same, a clean sweep.

---

Okay, so far people have been pretty tame, and not much has been said that strikes me as suspicious. Of the 16 living players, 14 have posted thus far. The two who haven't are revenger and TOL.

For revenger this isn't really that surprising. He's not a chatty dude anyway. And though silent players need to incur a reasonable amount of suspicion if we are to keep this game alive, for now he's merely a suspect for silence--I'm not declaring a vote for him at this time.

For TOL on the other hand, this is a little more surprising. He was a fairly active poster in WW8--not superactive but definitely not silent either. Last game he posted 5'th after the wolf kill and five times in round 1. So far not a peep, which is doubly interesting because Liq's cast a vote for him and TOL hasn't responded. You'd think he might be even more inclined to respond.

Yes maybe he is busy, maybe his net access is down--that's understood. But as noted at the end of WW8, I think we need to stop giving silent players a free pass. So right now I am declaring a vote for TOL for being uncharacteristically silent.

This vote will probably change later on, but for now that's where I am. Thus far I haven't noted anything else suspicious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeddlingMage:
But what if that player was me Dan?

~MM

---

Oh, you are always a definite suspect, always being the first to post when there is a kill, don't think that I haven't noticed how you seem to know more about what is going on than most people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
So right now I am declaring a vote for TOL for being uncharacteristically silent.

This vote will probably change later on, but for now that's where I am.

---

Suspicious.

__________________
Your Captain N of 2008

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
Day 2 Post 1:

Okay, so far people have been pretty tame, and not much has been said that strikes me as suspicious. Of the 16 living players, 14 have posted thus far. The two who haven't are revenger and TOL.

For revenger this isn't really that surprising. He's not a chatty dude anyway. And though silent players need to incur a reasonable amount of suspicion if we are to keep this game alive, for now he's merely a suspect for silence--I'm not declaring a vote for him at this time.

For TOL on the other hand, this is a little more surprising. He was a fairly active poster in WW8--not superactive but definitely not silent either. Last game he posted 5'th after the wolf kill and five times in round 1. So far not a peep, which is doubly interesting because Liq's cast a vote for him and TOL hasn't responded. You'd think he might be even more inclined to respond.

Yes maybe he is busy, maybe his net access is down--that's understood. But as noted at the end of WW8, I think we need to stop giving silent players a free pass. So right now I am declaring a vote for TOL for being uncharacteristically silent.

This vote will probably change later on, but for now that's where I am. Thus far I haven't noted anything else suspicious.

---

I felt this post was fairly innocuous at first glance, but after Liq calling it out I couldn't resist doing a double-take and now I've found it slightly suspicious.

The 'case' for a ToL vote in and of itself is not unusual or out-of-character in the slightest for PD from my perspective. But when juxtaposed with some of the language he's using, as well as one fairly clear logic gap, it's no longer as innocuous to me. For example:
-Chuck notes it's equally probable that ToL may be a) away for the weekend, or b) having computer difficulties (after all, he frequently mentioned in last game his laptop was giving him trouble), and yet still brings up as a point of consideration the fact that ToL hasn't responded to Liq calling him out. Which, as noted, could just as probably be due to him (hypothetically) being away from the computer- which renders it effectively useless in constructing a solid case.
-Second: This was posted around 24 hours after roles were assigned, and ToL is considered being "uncharactaristically silent". IMO that seems kind of jumping the gun to form any long-term estimations on a single day- a day where only half of it was actually a round.

Am I going to vote for Chuck now? Lord no. I'm leery of lynching someone who's so valuable to the cits with such a small bit of data to go on. Do I think he's a wolf? Not really. But he has piqued my interest, if only a little. If I could score my suspicion level as a graph with 5 being neutral suspicion, 10 being a definite wolf and 0 a definite cit, I'd put my suspicions of Chuck at probably 5.2.

Incidentally, however, unless a better target presents itself, I'd be fine with a ToL lynch. The most quiet players right now are XRKron, ToL, and revenger. IIRC, XRKron *has* played a game of mafia, no? I'll check that out to see how he plays and modfiy my vote accordingly if I find anything of note. For now though, my vote is for lack of a better option ThoughtsofLepers.

__________________
You know, I get it that people are just looking for a way to fill the holes. But they want the holes; they want to live in the holes; and they go nuts when someone else pours dirt in their holes. Climb out of your holes, people!
-Hugh Laurie, House

Liq, out of curiosity, is there any particular reason you've picked me as a wolf 2 games in a row in R1?

Come on wolves, post some damning information! It'd be nice to actually get you suckers this game.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
I felt this post was fairly innocuous at first glance, but after Liq calling it out I couldn't resist doing a double-take and now I've found it slightly suspicious.

Am I going to vote for Chuck now? Lord no.

Do I think he's a wolf? Not really.

Incidentally, however, unless a better target presents itself, I'd be fine with a ToL lynch. For now though, my vote is for lack of a better option ThoughtsofLepers.

---

Suspicious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThoughtsofLepers:
Come on wolves, post some damning information! It'd be nice to actually get you suckers this game.

---

Suspicious.

__________________
Your Captain N of 2008

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liq:
Suspicious.

---

It may be a bad idea in retrospect, but I'm giving PD the benfit of the doubt on this one (mostly). We're not all perfect all the time.

quote:

---

Suspicious.

---

For what it's worth, ToL was similarily eager last game. My vote will either be for ToL or XRKon, whose mafia gaming history indicates he is a quiet player.

__________________
You know, I get it that people are just looking for a way to fill the holes. But they want the holes; they want to live in the holes; and they go nuts when someone else pours dirt in their holes. Climb out of your holes, people!
-Hugh Laurie, House

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThoughtsofLepers:

Come on wolves, post some damning information! It'd be nice to actually get you suckers this game.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liq:
Suspicious.

---

I may be new, but I'm not quite stupid enough to post something like that as a wolf! As for the quote itself, I've played one full WW game, was a cit, and NEVER bagged a wolf. Here I am in this game, as a cit again, and I would really like to not see the same thing happen, even if I die R1.

I would reiterate my question to you, but I guess you don't really need much of a reason to suspect someone R1, so I suppose I understand the random suspicion of me in your first post. (2 games in a row now! We can be the new BernieB and Bernek! )

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThoughtsofLepers:

Come on wolves, post some damning information! It'd be nice to actually get you suckers this game.

---

I always like to wait until somebody posts something that strikes me as odd, and here it is.

It seems like the wolfs always try to post, but not post too much. In their posts they always try to watch what they say and act like they really want to find the werewolfs. Well in most cases they over act a little and we end up with statements like this. I just don't think a normal cit would say something like this.

It might be a little flawed, but this idea worked on Mardak a couple games ago. This is where my vote will be going unless something more suspicious comes along.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Montague:
I hate that this was already pointed out, so I look like I am jumping onto a bandwagon. That is the chances we have to take I guess.

---

True :/

What gets my attention more than the "C'mon, wolves" post is the "I'll be home all day, let's get this thread rocking" one. That sounds very similar to my "Throw confetti" post back in WW7 (when I was a newbie wolf), and therefore stands out more to me.

*note: It also ties into the possible theory behind the MW kill- that the wolves want an "exciting" game- but since that's unverifiable I'm not going to take it into consideration unless more signs appear that point in that direction.

__________________
You know, I get it that people are just looking for a way to fill the holes. But they want the holes; they want to live in the holes; and they go nuts when someone else pours dirt in their holes. Climb out of your holes, people!
-Hugh Laurie, House

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
...For what it's worth, ToL was similarily eager last game...

---

Certainly not a compelling piece of evidence, but better than nothing at all. As far as my post being suspicious--whatever--I don't think it is suspicious at all. I clearly stated at the end of WW8 there needs to be an effort to put silence on par with talk when it comes to suspicion. It's a sad truth that he who talks gets lynched and silence gets a free pass--this encourages silence, which in turn hurts the game. I was very clear about this so the fact that I'm declaring a vote for a player who was OOC silent isn't bizarre at all.

Anyway it's an early vote declaration and I will likely change it later as more information comes to light. But I am happy to see that it is generating conversation. :-)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
...It also ties into the possible theory behind the MW kill- that the wolves want an "exciting" game- but since that's unverifiable I'm not going to take it into consideration unless more signs appear that point in that direction.

---

Anyway, I'm not trying to be difficult for difficulty's sake, I'm just cautioning against putting too much stock in any conclusions drawn from the MW kill. In later rounds a pattern may become apparent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Montague:
I always like to wait until somebody posts something that strikes me as odd, and here it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThoughtsofLepers:
Also, although I really do think we shouldn't read too much into this kill at all, I find it worth noting that last WW game, MasterWolf was the only player to no-vote twice. My only interpretation of this is that they want to know where everyone's vote is going this game. (Thoughts? Am I reading way too deep into that? Is there another interpretation? Or is the data useless?) Even IF that's true, I'm certainly not advocating not declaring...

---

All we can definitively say is the wolves didn't choose a strong player.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
]The exciting game theory is only one, and I'd caution against relying on it based on a single kill. Yes it's possible that the wolves watched Mafia-2 and have decided to play the EXACT SAME STRATEGY. But a lot of us watched Mafia-2, so maybe that's just the conclusion they are hoping we'd make. There are other theories that fit just as well. For example: Why didn't the wolves take out a strong player? What if they are ALL strong players? What if Liq, GLE, and PGB are the wolves? It would certainly explain why the R0N kill wasn't Liq, GLE, or PGB wouldn't it?

Anyway, I'm not trying to be difficult for difficulty's sake, I'm just cautioning against putting too much stock in any conclusions drawn from the MW kill. In later rounds a pattern may become apparent.

---

__________________
You know, I get it that people are just looking for a way to fill the holes. But they want the holes; they want to live in the holes; and they go nuts when someone else pours dirt in their holes. Climb out of your holes, people!
-Hugh Laurie, House

quote:

---

Originally posted by Montague:
I hate that this was already pointed out, so I look like I am jumping onto a bandwagon. That is the chances we have to take I guess.

I always like to wait until somebody posts something that strikes me as odd, and here it is.

---

Suspicious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThoughtsofLepers:
Montague...The only thing I can do is to point you out to last WW game (Where I was a cit and the wolves made a clean sweep), where you will find many 'suspicious' statements made by me R1. I can assure you that if I am lynched this round it will not be anything like Mardak's case, in that I am a cit, and it looks like everyone would just have what is shaping up to be a large pile to search through for wolves. I assure you, my 'mistakes' are only attributable to my newness. I would not play a 'loud' R1 wolf. That's just stupid. I appeal to the citizenry to at least admit that if I am a wolf, I am a VERY bad one. The sheer amount of people currently going for me should alert you to the fact that you have the wrong person. (When is the last time a large number of people voted out a wolf in R1?)

At least think about it.

---

Where in all this is the point in which I am convinced that you don't know what you're doing?

You played the previous round.

You know who's failed before.

You admit mistakes.

A 'loud wolf' you are not. A very bad one is yet to be determined.

As for the last time we outed a wolf R1, I think it was Werewolf II.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Montague:
I think there was a game where we got all 3 werewolves in a row!

---

:takes a bow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
Anyway it's an early vote declaration and I will likely change it later as more information comes to light.

---

Suspicious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
Yes it's possible that the wolves watched Mafia-2 and have decided to play the EXACT SAME STRATEGY. But a lot of us watched Mafia-2, so maybe that's just the conclusion they are hoping we'd make.

---

The amount of Vets to Good Players to Novices in Mafia is very different compared to Werewolf.

2:3:1 Ratio for the last Mafia game.

1:4:3 Ratio for the current Werewolf.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
If you read what I'd said, you'd realize you're preaching to the choir.

---

Suspicious.

__________________
Your Captain N of 2008

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
And that was exactly the point I was making--last game, eager beaver, this game, laid back.

---

Well, you were making that point before I had posted. And I was indeed without internet access the past couple of days. Just figured I'd point out that suspicions of me based on that point are now moot, as I'm not so sure I qualify as a silent now that I'm back home and posting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
Eh. It doesn't realy seem that plausible to me. It sounds like you are reading too much into it IMO. A sustained pattern of eating nondeclaring players would be a better indicator. (IIRC MW did declare sometimes.) There's just not enough data here--barring something obvious I think we are going to see a few rounds of wolf activity before we can look at this kill in context and tease out some better conclusions.

All we can definitively say is the wolves didn't choose a strong player.

---

Alright, thanks for the input. Just figured I'd throw it out there, since no one had mentioned it.

Post Count!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
...If you read what I'd said, you'd realize you're preaching to the choir...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liq:
...As for the last time we outed a wolf R1, I think it was Werewolf II...

---

118. Dec-14 06:22 PM: MeddlingMage - randon lynched - round 1 votes

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liq:
...:takes a bow:...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liq:
...PD writes: Anyway it's an early vote declaration and I will likely change it later as more information comes to light.

Suspicious...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThoughtsofLepers:
Well, you were making that point before I had posted. And I was indeed without internet access the past couple of days...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThoughtsofLepers:
...Post Count!...

---

By 'loud wolf' I meant an obvious one. IMO, posting calling for the wolves to post and screw up (Which I did w/o thinking of how it would be interpreted, since as a citizen, I'm not too worried about editing my posts or being careful of what I say, other than that which might help the wolves)

I still have no reason to be suspicious of anyone in particular so I can't point the finger at someone, attempting to save myself, but, seriously, there are at least 3 better lynches than myself. Bugger, if you vote to lynch me, (assuming you are a citizen) you will feel just as bad about it as you did by lynching fwyb last round, with the difference being, that this early in the game, lynching a cit is not as big of a deal as lynching one later. Are you that much more sure of me being a wolf than you were fwyb last round?

Sigh. I think its funny that I am so hardcore on the defensive like this (Why am I so hardcore on the defensive, you ask? Because I want to win and lynching me is a wasted round. If I have any chance of convincing anyone of that, I have to take it. If you'll assume I'm a cit, I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from there.) based off of a quote that makes perfect sense for me to make, given how last game went. And as PD said, it's even in-character for me. If anyone DIDN'T see WW8, I suggest reading R1 (starts here: http://classic.magictraders.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/016416-3.html) and then telling me how much like a wolf I come off as. (I'd say - and so did several others - that I came out of that round looking pretty damn suspicious, saying the same types of things I'm suspected for now, and I was a cit)

Hopefully, I've convinced someone what side I'm on. (Yep, I'm aware that can be taken either way. Consider it a very quotable opening for the next poster who decides everything I said sounded wolfy. )

EDIT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
The tracker counts posts quite automatically, so if you really want a post count, you don't need to do it by hand, unless you want to. Feel free to ask.

---