Your suspicions don't line up with your variables again. That's interesting.

@BB: I generally don't like an out-of-the-gate aggression either. My guess is AGM is just following PGB's example--which did have some upsides last game (except for the part where we lost, and the target of the aggression was the seer, and the seer ended up checking PGB R1 instead of someone else who might have been a wolf). That said, looking to remove a player he thinks is unhelpful in R1 is in character for AGM. From WW10:

090. May-02 09:49 AM: AlmasterGM - Agrees with PGB#81. Voting Thanos. - (ref: Liq, ryan, Tnos)

So I don't particularly suspect him for this behavior. It's a rationale a number of players employ--given that there is so little to base suspicion on in R1, removal of a less helpful player is considered a good choice. I'm not sure I buy this rationale specifically because of what happened last game--even a less helpful player could be a seer or angel and in R1 you really haven't had enough time to figure out who's who.

{SUMMARY: responding to Liq and BernieB.}

{SUMMARY:Voting BernieB}

__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Barganing, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Perhaps. However, this is (currently) a sixteen person game. We aren't evaluating people abstractly or in comparison to everyone who has ever played werewolf. We're looking at how each person relates to the other fifteen people he is playing with. Currently, I can't think of anyone in this game who is more unreadable and difficult to deal with in the endgame than Bernie. Can you?

---

Yeah, I can actually.
Voting XplicitR.

(FWIW, I'd vote bernek but he's not playing this game)

{SUMMARY: Disagrees with AGM over who to lynch R1}
{VOTING: XplicitR (detrimental in later rounds)}

As I stated in the last game, these types of players are liabilties. They don't offer much and they are usually wolfbait, depending on they route the ww's take, Silent or Pro. As for this game it is to early to tell and I say we chose for them, Silent is the way to go. I was ever against a scenario like this, it was silent lynches. But I have seen the light.

With the ww kill taking so long maybe we should go with BB.

On another note the Montague shred has me wondering if this is a playfull ploy towards MM himself. Who do we know out of everyone here is in good with the GM. tho this is a stretch, I thinkin of it.

I don't know what went on, which is both good and bad. Bad because there's a lot of stuff I'm missing, but good because I'm sort of unbiased in a sense.

What I see here is that there are quite a few players going onto the Bernie wagon. There's never much to go on in the first round, but it seems like people are much too anxious to jump on. AGM's post made sense, but I don't think it was enough evidence to lynch Bernie. If he's that unhelpful then by all means, but I think we might be giving the wolves an easy place to hide in round 1.

EDIT: Currently not sold on anybody yet.

__________________
Originally posted by GLE:
And man... what happens when we get past 300 GDs? Will we need a second MOTL?

And then past 300 MOTLs... we'll need a new internet!

You are correct that there are players who are liabilities, fwy.

But, and here's the thing I can't get past--wolves love such players. They are a distraction--even if they get themselves lynched and out of the picture, it's still a lost lynch. It's a lost lynch whether you took them out early or late. And, their liabilities do not prevent them from landing a role as a seer or angel. We saw this last round with Thanos. Considering how little attention Thanos tends to draw to himself, if there had not been a charge to beat him up in R1, we might have had him for multiple rounds and that might have prevented us from lynching GLE or Jasper.

I think when it comes to such players we need to strike some sort of middle ground where we don't just lynch them because they are liabilities every game, but we don't give them a free pass and begin to ignore them (thus giving them the perfect cover when they actually do become a wolf.)

I don't know where that middle ground is or how to get there, because there is a visceral response to the manner of such players. I think the people who have the most power to get us to that middle ground are those players themselves. For example, Bernie's promise to pay more attention to details, XPR's shift to a somewhat more contrite and openminded stance. These are good things--we all have room to improve our play, but the willingness to consider the criticisms of others is a necessary element which both XPR and BernieB have expressed to varying degrees.

I'm not swayed to suspect any of the players for whom suspicion has been announced thus far.

I don't think I fully understood the rest of your argument. Are you suggesting someone killed Monty so as to tweak MM? If that's what you are suggesting, I agree, that's a real stretch. I think the Monty kill is either a die-roll, or by a slim chance the retaliation of someone who was annoyed at Monty.

{SUMMARY: responding to fwy}

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
If he's that unhelpful then by all means, but I think we might be giving the wolves an easy place to hide in round 1.

---

Actually, one could make the argument that giving the wolves an easy place to hide in R1 is a good thing, as it makes it that much easier to find where they went in later rounds when we (those of us who do so) look back for analysis.

{SUMMARY: Details potential upsides of an easy R1 wagon to HilikuS}

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Yeah, I can actually.
Voting XplicitR.

(FWIW, I'd vote bernek but he's not playing this game)

{SUMMARY: Disagrees with AGM over who to lynch R1}
{VOTING: XplicitR (detrimental in later rounds)}

---

You think I am detrimental in the later rounds? Is this because of that typo that I made? Everyone makes typos. You even voted for yourself later in the game, so how is that not detrimental?

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
You think I am detrimental in the later rounds? Is this because of that typo that I made? Everyone makes typos. You even voted for yourself later in the game, so how is that not detrimental?

I may not be a good player but you are full of yourself if you can call me detrimental to this game.

---

That's quite enough. I will NOT go through another game with people sniping at each other. You want to say something about the way someone plays, that's fine, but you do NOT get personal with it. This is a freaking GAME people. A GAME. As much as I love playing, if this sort of thing continues on, I WILL close it down for GOOD. Knock it off.

Thanks,
Jazaray

__________________
A Plastered Dragon Original Limerick:
There was a nice lassie named Jaz
Many wished to have what she has,
A delicate face,
A soft warm embrace,
And a whole lot of bedroom pizzazz.

WeedIan: Jazaray is like MOTL's Mom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jazaray:
That's quite enough. I will NOT go through another game with people sniping at each other. You want to say something about the way someone plays, that's fine, but you do NOT get personal with it. This is a freaking GAME people. A GAME. As much as I love playing, if this sort of thing continues on, I WILL close it down for GOOD. Knock it off.

Thanks,
Jazaray

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
...I may not be a good player but you are full of yourself if you can call me detrimental to this game.

---

If Bugger thinks you are not a good player, and therefore thinks you are detrimental to your team, that doesn't make him full of himself. You need to get past this thing where criticism of you results in counterattacks. Nobody likes to have their skill questioned but if Bugger thinks you aren't a good player he has every right to that opinion and to express it and vice versa.

If you want to prove otherwise, do so by playing a good game instead of getting into a fight with Bugger. Consider the metagame--maybe Bugger is deliberately provoking you. Why would he do that? I'm not saying that is what is happening here, but there generally is more going on than meets the eye in such games. Very little can be taken at face value, particularly that which appears valueless.

If you want my personal take? I see you as something of a diamond in the rough. You've made some bad plays and poor decisions, but you've also made a couple insightful observations which were borne out in the endgame. I have personally found you quite annoying in the past--largely because you've approached the game in a very brash manner suffused with needless and distracting bravado (the "shouldered chip" I mentioned last game.) I think given time and experience you will settle into a more measured game where you can bring your insight to bear--I think you have a lot to offer there if you can keep your temper in check. And that's all I have to say about that.

So far I count three players provoking others (AGM --> Bernie, Bugger --> XPR, Liq --> PD). I find this very interesting--though not necessarily an indication of guilt. There is certain value in stirring the pot.

{SUMMARY: advises XPR, notes provocation appears to be a motif of WW11}

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterWolf:
Joking aside... we should be able to play this game without getting personal.

---

hee hee hee

{SUMMARY: joking with MasterWolf}

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
You think I am detrimental in the later rounds? Is this because of that typo that I made? Everyone makes typos. You even voted for yourself later in the game, so how is that not detrimental?

I may not be a good player but you are full of yourself if you can call me detrimental to this game.

---

No, it's not about a typo (I don't even remember any typos happening). It's about what you just did, what you just typed. You go through this game being completely reactionary- as soon as someone votes for you or declares suspicions of you you're immediately tearing at their throats; calling them wolves and insulting them. You hijack the game by then devoting all your energy to getting a wagon formed on that person. In short, you're highly divisive, and late in the game that's bad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
Consider the metagame--maybe Bugger is deliberately provoking you. Why would he do that? I'm not saying that is what is happening here, but there generally is more going on than meets the eye in such games. Very little can be taken at face value, particularly that which appears valueless.

---

This. You expressed a desire to improve your play and behavior last game. Then you went and flipped out on AGM. So, I tested you. I declared a vote for you. Had you responded calmly, I would have changed my vote- because the play flaw that formed the basis of my vote was no longer applicable.
Unfortunately, that was not the case.
Sticking with XPR.

{SUMMARY: Explains reasons for voting XPR,edit talks with hilikuS about R1 lynch choices and reasonings.}

EDIT: HilikuS, I understand your point (as a matter of fact, it's something I've thought of often since making my decision to vote off players I feel are detrimental/unproductive in R1)- which is why I make sure to neither push for their lynch (any further than just declaring my vote and explaining why) nor choose the same person R1 from round to round.

I also dislike it when people push hard for another player on such grounds because until someone does something highly suspicious everyone just votes on that wagon and suddenly we have a massive, unwieldy R1 pile. Not good later on.

~MM

__________________
[Help me PIMP my Slide!] [Join Us,or DIE!][Refs][Me] [Werewolf 9!][My Brute!]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
We need more interaction on these forums because we give silent players so much more slack later on in the game.

---

Interestingly, the only contributions you have made are 1) this post and 2) insults of Bugger. Perhaps you could consider following your own advice?

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
With the ww kill taking so long maybe we should go with BB.

---

I think this is an excellent point that has quite a bit of merit. The werewolf kill did take longer than normal, and Bernie confesses to being one of the less-frequent checkers of the thread. Although it's possible the delay means nothing or can be contributed to other factors, it's something small to go on at least.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
But, and here's the thing I can't get past--wolves love such players. They are a distraction--even if they get themselves lynched and out of the picture, it's still a lost lynch. It's a lost lynch whether you took them out early or late. And, their liabilities do not prevent them from landing a role as a seer or angel. We saw this last round with Thanos. Considering how little attention Thanos tends to draw to himself, if there had not been a charge to beat him up in R1, we might have had him for multiple rounds and that might have prevented us from lynching GLE or Jasper.

---

PD, for all your mathematical based analysis, you should know that the ability to hide works both ways. Bernie is statistically more likely to be a wolf than he is the seer or angel. Now, you could say that, becasue of this, the best idea is to just wait and deal with the problem later - that way, if he's the seer, he can reveal himself. With Bernie, though, it doesn't work like that. Like I said earlier, Bernie is hard to read and there is usually little evidence against him. When round five rolls around and we have one lynch left, nobody is going to want to burn that lynch playing the "is Bernie a wolf or not" game - especially when there is substantial evidence pointing in other directions. Thus, the only thing to do is give him a free pass ... and if he's a wolf, this means disaster.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Actually, one could make the argument that giving the wolves an easy place to hide in R1 is a good thing, as it makes it that much easier to find where they went in later rounds when we (those of us who do so) look back for analysis.

---

Isn't the definition of a "place to hide" somewhere where the wolves are harder to find? If said place actually makes the wolves more exposed, then it's not really a good place to hide anymore, is it? The argument you propose here presumes the wolves aren't that bright and automatically take the obvious path in front of him. There's no reason to believe this is true - they could easily bluff and avoid the trap ... and send us down the wrong path.

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
Everyone makes typos.

---

To be fair ... that was a pretty big and bad typo. And the last time there was a typo that big (GLE in WW9), the culprit was a wolf.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
the game is meant to be fun, not a ****ing contest.

---

Although the game doesn't have to involve cutthroat competition, I think ignoring gaps in player behavior, strategy, and skill is impossible. People play this game differently, for better or worse, and analyzing those differences - both between their own play over time and their play versus other players - is what makes this game possible and fun. If every player was exactly the same, there'd be no point to the game. It'd be random math and luck. So, in that sense, this game sort of IS a contest ... to a degree, at least.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Stop whining about it.

---

Wasn't.

As far as who to vote for, I want to see what Bernie has to say about all this. I know what the wagon wants, but interested to see what the victim wants. I'm not convinced that Bernie is a wolf at all, so his advice still holds some water. That'll be my only other alternative at this point unless somebody comes up with something better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
I think this is an excellent point that has quite a bit of merit. The werewolf kill did take longer than normal, and Bernie confesses to being one of the less-frequent checkers of the thread. Although it's possible the delay means nothing or can be contributed to other factors, it's something small to go on at least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
PD, for all your mathematical based analysis, you should know that the ability to hide works both ways. Bernie is statistically more likely to be a wolf than he is the seer or angel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Now, you could say that, becasue of this, the best idea is to just wait and deal with the problem later - that way, if he's the seer, he can reveal himself. With Bernie, though, it doesn't work like that. Like I said earlier, Bernie is hard to read and there is usually little evidence against him. When round five rolls around and we have one lynch left, nobody is going to want to burn that lynch playing the "is Bernie a wolf or not" game - especially when there is substantial evidence pointing in other directions. Thus, the only thing to do is give him a free pass ... and if he's a wolf, this means disaster.

---

I'm not suggesting he should have a free pass. I'm merely suggesting that lynching Bernie because he is hard to read doesn't sound like good play. Maybe you will get lucky and he will be a wolf--but the most likely scenario is you are wasting a lynch on a cit. On chance alone, you are likely to bag Bernie the wolf 1 in 5 games simply by wasting him round one. But that leaves 4 games where you throw away a lynch on Bernie--four wasted lynches. If you're prepared to do this you are basically handicapping your team instead of finding a way to deal with players you consider suboptimal.

I'm not saying you shouldn't vote for Bernie--it's round 1 and we know next to nothing, he's as good a choice as any--I'm just saying I don't agree with your reasoning. I count three potential liabilities in this game--but I'm not prepared to blow three rounds lynching them. There has got to be a better way to deal with such players.

Speaking of "free passes" we have five silent players this round (though ryan gave fair warning he'd be away). GLE, JackSpade, TMB, and TOL. Do you guys have anything to offer at this point?

{SUMMARY: responds to AGM about Bernie, calls out silent players}

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
Bugger you are wrong, I did not go after the people who voted for me. As desperate as you may think my plays are, I don't think I have ever resorted to voting for myself to gain sympathy. Vote for me, its better than voting for yourself

---

Case in point, what has Bugger's self vote got to do with whether or not you are detrimental to the late game? Suppose for a moment Bugger is an utter force for destruction--worst player ever. Does that have anything at all to do with what sort of player you are? No. Yet you bring it up in response to his criticism of you as if it is some sort of defense--it isn't. It's infantile tit-for-tat sniping and it resolves nothing.

On the other matter, I'm not going to beat on you for a typo--you are correct that people do indeed make typos all the time and a typo is different than an admission--it isn't a strong indicator. If we are going to start lynching people for making typos then we've truly hit bottom and started digging.

{SUMMARY: responds to XPR's latest offering}

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
Bugger you are wrong, I did not go after the people who voted for me.

---

... You're kidding, right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger in WW9:
For now though my vote is sticking with XPR as I still feel something can be learned from him regardless of role.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR in response:
That's a stupid reason to vote for me, you would have to be a wolf to gain from this. PGB I don't suspect you, well not as much as I suspect the 3 I mentioned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger in response:
Untrue. I'm voting for you for several reasons:
1)You're moderately suspicious. You have performed a few notable egregious reversals and inconsistencies in your play.
2) None of my other suspicions are strong enough right now to warrant a vote.
3) even if they were, it's important for the cits to become more united in their lynches as the rounds progress because the wolves begin to take up larger and larger portions of the vote.
4) And yes, there is much to learn from your innocence-- If you are a wolf; who was mentoring you? If you are a cit, who set you up? Who is responsible for your death? Where did the wolves place their votes in either case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR in response:
Go ahead and vote for me shaggy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM in WW10:
First off, Liq, lets fix the piles.
Pile 1: Random Voters
MasterWolf
BernieB
Liq

Pile 2: Thanos Voters
AlmasterGM
XplicitR
PGB

Pile 3: BOT Voters
Bernek77
ThoughtsofLepers

Now, I know I am a citizen. If XplicitR is also a citizen and what Liq says about there being no wolves in the BOT pile is true, that leaves a VERY interesting endgame - two out of three wolves will have voted in the "random" pile round one. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The Thanos vs BoT vote was close. BoT was lynched by a margin of only +1, meaning that if both the random wolf voters had simply voted Thanos, they could have saved their leader and nailed the seer. This move wouldn't have really exposed them either; looking at the piles now, the Thanos pile versus the random pile are the same size. Keeping this in mind, I think there are two probable options about the wolf strategy.

1) The wolves are willing to take risks and didn't mind throwing BoT under the bus.
2) One of the wolves voted Thanos.

If option one is true, I think the person who most fits the bill is Liq. Neither MasterWolf or BernieB strike me as risk takers - I think they'd be more likely to just do the math and vote for
Thanos. However, at the same time, Bernie is experienced and has made some other suspicious plays. Voting for him wouldn't be an entire bad play. However, lynching Liq right now is risky and not entirely founded. I think we should consider option two: XplicitR

XplicitR as a wolf makes sense. It debunks the "no wolf voted for Thanos" option, a scenario that I think is highly unlikely to be true. XplicitR voting for Thanos also matches with his skill level - he is good enough to know what wagons to vote on and how piles may turn out, but not so advanced that he'd deem it acceptable to throw BoT under the bus. He's also made it a point NOT to kill ANYONE from Pile 2, his place of residence, as no wolf kills have damaged that pile - only lynches. XplicitR has also made a fair number of suspicious posts in the past, and has made it a point to slip under the radar and let the GLE lynch take its course (fits with the apparent wolf strategy of trying to get rid of good people at this point - GLE followed by PD). That's four strikes against XplicitR, if I count correctly, and that's without any post quotes.

Currently voting XplicitR.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR in direct response:
That would definitely make your life a lot easier now wouldn't it AGM. Since I know I am not a citizen, you wouldn't be doing us any good. However, you are quasi-PD, because you try to follow his strategy and tear people's arguments to shreds, however you do it horribly.

Also you say that I wanted to get rid of PD?

I pointed out ever since he PMed me that I thought he was a citizen. Also as a wolf, why on earth would I want other people to clear their suspicions of PD by annoucing that he PMed me. Of course him sending it was against the rules and I was stupid to mention it, but its done now. So where does that leave me? Why don't you go try to wagon on someone else that isn't you because if all the cits see through you like I do, you will hang from the noose....WOLF.

{VOTING: AlmasterGM}

---

No, I know what I'm talking about.

quote:

---

As desperate as you may think my plays are, I don't think I have ever resorted to voting for myself to gain sympathy. Vote for me, its better than voting for yourself

---

(The next sentence is meant sincerely) I appreciate that you're trying to move away from personal attacks, really I do. But this is irrelevant as a rebuttal- it's as if someone said to you "you're a bad writer" and you responded by saying "oh yeah? well, you smell bad!". If you want to vote for me because I voted for myself last game, go right ahead- voting based on previous games seems to be in vogue for R1 all over.

quote:

---

AGM, I would make more posts however it seems that people like to talk about other peoples faults but not their own. Also the typo was not a big one, I was practically cleared by the illegal PM (unless you think its a double bluff, quad bluff - no wolf would reveal contact from another player). Not to say it wasn't a dumb thing, but I do not reread my posts once I have wrote them and I have enough integrity not to go back and edit them after someone sees something.

---

Actually, what works well is to either preview the post (it's next to the "submit reply" button so if you make spelling or formatting errors it's easy to fix, or when you edit just write what it was about (which is what I usually do).

{SUMMARY: Rebuttal to XPR}