{SUMMARY: wondering about the missing mom joke}

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

1. AGM's out-of-the-gate charge for Bernie.
2. Arguing with XPR.
3. People being silent.

At present I have no measurable suspicions of XPR, Bernie, or AGM.

I have only the faintest hint of suspicion of Liq, Bugger, and Jaz. Liq because the wolves had an angel-free kill and Liq is alive.

{SUSPECT: Liq (not killed by wolves R0N)}

Bugger and Jaz were the targets of Montague's diatribe in WW9, and though it seems extremely unlikely that they would waste him upon his return, I can't ignore it altogether. Jaz in fact has been known to kill players returning after an absence during R0N because it's somewhat cruelly humorous (thinking specifically of Bernek here... I forget which game it was and I don't have the tracker with me right now... WW6 I think.) As I said--I don't take these notions very seriously, but I don't want to ignore them either.

{SUSPECT: Bugger,Jaz (was a target of Monty in WW9)}

These suspicions aren't enough for me to base a vote on, and in Liq's case certainly not in R1. Which brings me to the silent players. GLE? Well, he's busy and has been known have legitimate pauses. JackSpade? Not enough of a sample there to decide whether this silence is uncharacteristic.

This leaves TMB and TOL. TMB IIRC has been known to have pauses. But TOL is typically an early poster.

I have a big shoot this afternoon and I'm not going to be back until late tonight. So I'm going to vote TOL for being silent. It's unlikely to result in a lynch, but I'd like to do my part to discourage silent play. Like it or not, tht's my vote.

{VOTING: TOL (silent play)}

{SUMMARY: synopsis of round so far, suspects Liq, Jaz, Bugger, and voting TOL. Will be away for lynch.}

quote:

---

Currently Voting :
 
• Jazaray

---

quote:

---

Suspicion Level :
 

• High :
   
  {52%} : Jazaray
  {52%} : B_o_T
  {51%} : PD
  {51%} : GLE
  {51%} : Xplicit
  {51%} : BernieB
  {51%} : fwybwed
   
  
• Mid :
   
  {50%} : ryan
  {50%} : AlmasterGM
  {50%} : T_o_L
  {50%} : Bugger
  {50%} : Hilikus
   
  
• Mid :
   
  {49%} : TheMidnightBomber
  {49%} : MasterWolf
  {49%} : JackSpade

---

{VOTING: PD (Still Alive)}
{SUSPECT: jott (MIA)}
{TRUST: MAB_Rapper (KIA)}
{SUMMARY: Playing MtG}

__________________
Your Captain N of 2008

{SUMMARY: agreeing with PD}
{Voting: ToL}

I'm making my customary R1 play (When I have no suspects) and voting TMB for silence. (Hypocritical, aren't I?)

I don't have much time right now, but I want to say to PD: Why do you even slightly suspect Bugger and Jaz for the Monty kill? I know there was trouble there, but don't you think it's more likely to be an attempted frame-up job than a revenge kill? The only options you gave were that it was a die-roll kill, or it was Bugger or Jaz; I personally think the frame-up makes more sense than the latter. That said, reading into the kill is an exercise in futility anyway, of course.

I trust no one
I suspect no one
{SUMMARY: Voting a silent R1, 1st kill's pretty inscrutable}
{VOTING: TMB (Silence)}

I think the day of Proplayers still been alive after round 0 and garner suspicion has come and gone. We have played this game many times to know that this is a strategy used commonly. I think the ww would leave him in to point our suspicion towards a proplayer. There are so many avenues to take in this game, we just have to find out which way the ww will go, or like I stated earlier we can choose for them

In regards to silent or "less active player" term as I will now use. Like PD stated wws love these players. And they are distracting. Lets get rid of the distraction folks. Usually the round 1 lynch is a Villager due to the randomness of everyones vote. So its my opinion that the BB lnych may be a lucky shoot or not, but we won't lose in any case due to it been R1. Correct?

Thoughts?

quote:

---

OP PD....
You have no idea what Bernie the wolf would be like--it's quite possible that his game would change notably. Bernie's character is pretty well established--any deviation from it will be pretty easy to pick up on. I don't think Bernie as a wolf would necessarily be "a disaster".

---

This point is only another reason to vote for BB. I have no idea what role BB is playing rite now. none of us do. We have NO IDEA... NONE. this is because of BB's playing style. In some games we can read into a fellow villagers post and say "whoa!" "hold up!" "wait a minute!" This is a villager. But with BB and Thanos its just the usual and typical.

Though PD has brought to lite others who are "less active" this round, this is not what we are talking about. Sure the silent play is coming out but My original point is the lack of involvment. The lack of insight or information.

Im gonna go with my own thoughts. Though I sense PD is really trying to stray the vote off of BB with a lite defense. Very lite.

I suspect PD and Voting BB

I am not going go random anymore. I am going try and read everyplay and player to my best ability.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
I vote BernieB.

Reason: he is entirely unreadable. This is a HUGE issue and liability later in the game where you either have to a) spend a critical, possibly game ending lynch on him based on little to no substantial data or b) give him a free pass. Both of these scenarios suck, so I think we should just deal with the issue now.

---

I concede this point, but I have issues voting for someone because of a previous game (playstyle, yes, but previous game, no). It seems like you are trying to blend the two. Sure, I have advocated policy lynches before(lynches on individuals who have bad playing styles/anti-town - thanos rings a bell) but usually go with them in later rounds, not when said player has no chance to redeem himself (no pun intended). Either way I see your point, but am not willing to put a vote on him for it.

Liq, you vote BernieB, but then for the tracker say it's PD: what gives? Anyways, I'm sure this will get figured out when the votes get revealed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BernieB:
Like a lot of people, I have a full time job (with very limited access to the internet) and a wife and a kid at home, so I do not get as much time on the computer as I would like, but I do keep up with the goings-on here. I note who votes for whom and I base my votes on that.
Right now, AlmasterGM is suspicious to me. Not because he suspects me, but because he immediately jumps out with an attack on someone. I did the same thing last game when PGB critisized Thanos. That kind of play seems disruptive and wolves thrive on disruption.

{SUSPECT: AlMaster(disruptive)}

---

I see this logic as well (disruption extremely helps the wolves, as does tunnel vision, which I think AGM is doing here). Last time I made a jump on someone in round 1 aggressively, it cost the cits the game: see me and PD in an earlier game, I'm sure he could attest to it. Although AGM has done this before as cit (as PD shows), I would be intrigued PD if you could see if he ever did this as wolf. Let me know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Battle_of_Twits:
I think we should go with BernieB. Almaster's logic is sound and we really don't have much else to go on so far. PD is right, AGM has played this way in the past so I don't think we should lynch him just for calling someone out r1. If he turns out to be wrong, well then that's a whole other ball of wax.

{SUMMARY:Voting BernieB}

---

Noting this post for future reference.
Throws a second/third vote on Bernie, with nothing new to the table (Opportunism). Also, read his last sentence before the tracker thing: for some reason, this sentence doesn't sit well with me, possibly having inside knowledge.

Bugger makes a good point about XplicitR to counter AGM's claim, but am not willing to throw a vote on it.

Fwy, so what exactly is your logic for voting BernieB. I lost it in your post, as it's sort of jumbled and the grammar is hard to understand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
I'm very much out of the loop in the game since I haven't played in a few iterations. Obviously everyone seems to be at a concensus that Bernie's play isn't helpful later on. In my experience with BB, I haven't seen that myself, but I haven't been around. Seems obvious that there's some carry-over from last game, and that Bernie didn't have a very good game. Admittedly, I haven't been keeping tabs on the game like I did in the past.

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.

---

I agree 100% with hilikuS post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
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 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 hilikuS:
That'll be my only other alternative at this point unless somebody comes up with something better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BernieB:
The first round is a shot in the dark, people roll dice to see who to vote for, people ask their kids, people guess.
AlmasterGM is voting to lynch me because I am hard to read, good enough reason for round one. I voted for Bernek a few times, because his name starts with 'Ber', like mine.
This time I am trying to pay more attention to the details, so I am voting for who acts like a wolf - being disruptive, so I have already placed my vote for AlmasterGM.

edit:
{VOTING: AlmasterGm(disruptive)}

---

This vote reaks of OMGUS. AKA Bernie is voting for Almaster strictly because he is voting for him.

Well, XplicitR has a history of making OMGUS votes, and Bugger gives evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:

Bugger and Jaz were the targets of Montague's diatribe in WW9, and though it seems extremely unlikely that they would waste him upon his return, I can't ignore it altogether. Jaz in fact has been known to kill players returning after an absence during R0N because it's somewhat cruelly humorous (thinking specifically of Bernek here... I forget which game it was and I don't have the tracker with me right now... WW6 I think.) As I said--I don't take these notions very seriously, but I don't want to ignore them either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JackSpade:
Hello all. Well im at a bit of a loss, don't really suspect anyone. I had not posted because I don't really feel i have much to contribute yet. Out of all the arguments I've read i would probably agree with PDs the most that silent players are not helping and ToL not posting yet does seem a little off, maybe hes just scared to post early seeing as that's what got him lynched so early last time. For now im going with PD and voting ToL but ill keep an open mind.
And I am a newbie have not played with you guys much, but really can we hold off on all the sniping back and forth. We're here to have fun not to rage at each other, its a games don't take it personally.

{SUMMARY: agreeing with PD}
{Voting: ToL}

edit for spelling and to add vote to tracker

---

Fencesitting 101. Not only that, but like BoT, second on bandwagon with NO ORIGINAL THOUGHTS. Also, are you serious about no suspicions? Personally, I have never seen this many scumtells by this many people on round one, and people are still going for the trend of voting based on previous games, and saying there is nothing else to go off of. Statements like this just baffle me.

Currently, I find Almaster, BOT, and JackSpade the most suspicious.

Although I would be down for any of the above to be lynched, and even am open to lynching silents early,
Jack's recent post warrants enough for a vote for me.

{SUMMARY: current game quotes and tells}
{VOTING: JackSpade}
{SUSPECT: BoT, JackSpade, and AGM}

And just for future reference, I will NEVER be using the TRUST tag, as in a game like this, one really cannot trust anyone, unless someone (or yourself) is confirmed seer.

@ PD: I don't mean to tit for tat, although I do see what you mean.

@ Bugger: Touche. Vote for me then if you really believe I am detrimental.

I am currently undecided on a vote, it will probably be Liq who never seems to write anything besides those lists which I can never seem to decipher.

Generally, people who make a big splash early are innocent.

People who do things that seem out of place or wierd are suspects.

Wolves try to stay as quiet as possible until near the end, unless that would be a big deviation from their normal style.

-----

With that in mind:
Low suspicion:
AGM

Mid suspicion:
all the quiet players

High suspicion:
BOT

Deleting a post that you made, or editting it, is such a huge red-flag I can't believe no one has mentioned it. This is a blazing "trying to not bring attention to myself" type action. Wolves are the ones that take super attention to scruitinizing what they post, careful not to make a single mis-step. Citizens have no reason to be that cautious.

I don't mind the ToL or Bernie Vote, I think they are both solid reasonings. But I feel like BoT is a wolf, and I will be voting that way.

quote:

---

Fencesitting 101. Not only that, but like BoT, second on bandwagon with NO ORIGINAL THOUGHTS. Also, are you serious about no suspicions? Personally, I have never seen this many scumtells by this many people on round one, and people are still going for the trend of voting based on previous games, and saying there is nothing else to go off of. Statements like this just baffle me.

---

I'm still sticking with AGM and voting BernieB. I'm not really bandwagoning, I just have a hunch that AGM's going in the right direction with this. We should eliminate a player in the early game who is difficult to read in the late game if we have no other direction to go.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Battle_of_Twits:
We should eliminate a player in the early game who is difficult to read in the late game if we have no other direction to go.

---

I totally agree with you BoT....

But alot of players here are just lambs. Like PD stated a few games back, "herding". Thats basically what they do. They read and do as the most dominant poster states to do.

With BerniB gone early we can have more villagers with actual info or participation. But no one really gets that.

Its like "PD's right..."

or

"Im going with PD on this"

Example Jack of Spade...oO

This is no offense in anyway to PD. I do think he is a great player, but as I stated few games back people tend to take his word as gold.

take the GLE Fwybwed situation.

He suspected GLE and if GLE was a ww then so was I. it so happened I was shredded soon after and PD stated that the wws were angel hunting BUT no one questioned him in his logic in regards to his suspicion that If GLE is then so be Fwy, NO ONE! he was way off base on both of us.

This just goes to show the lack of insight we as villagers posses. Try to be your own person. dont go along with the dominants. use your gut. right or wrong. Its with these dominant players that the ww feed off of.

Fwy

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
Liq, you vote BernieB, but then for the tracker say it's PD: what gives? Anyways, I'm sure this will get figured out when the votes get revealed.

---

Liq's voting for BernieB. He's just putting those nonsensical tags down at the bottom to try and throw off PD's tracker (which records everything written in those tags). In a way, Liq's trying to dodge radar. Not surprising, considering his #1 goal in each game is to be as inscrutable as possible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Battle_of_Twits:
You guys are taking my deleted post out of context. Srsly. If you're wanting to point out someone who "edits/deletes" their posts all the time, look at PD. Half his posts are edited at least once. I was going to make a joke post but decided not to because I want to keep my posts more informative and serious this game. I didn't feel like I was contributing anything, so I deleted the post.

---

It's immaterial at this point, really. For future reference, if you post something you later regret, DO NOT DELETE OR SUBSTANTIVELY EDIT THE POST. Speaking from personal experience here, it only makes you more likely to be lynched and makes you look wolfy- which is bad (in varying degrees) no matter your role. The biggest issue with it is that naturally, we can't take your word for what was or was not in that post you deleted. For all we know, you could have said "me and the other wolves", or "person X will be my first scry tonight", or "I need to make sure to save person X" (not saying you'd be stupid enough to do any of those things in any role, just hyperbole here)- the point is we don't know. And that's a problem.

---

Now for the more substantive stuff.
Is it just me, or are people blurting a lot of stuff out? Maybe my playstyle is just wildly different from everyone else's in that regard, but I always (well, more recently as of late) make it a practice to divulge only what I think nessecary- I don't want to spit out every single thought that comes through my head.
That being said, people have been surprisingly loose-lipped this round, and it bothers me a bit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
Noting this post for future reference.
Throws a second/third vote on Bernie, with nothing new to the table (Opportunism). Also, read his last sentence before the tracker thing: for some reason, this sentence doesn't sit well with me, possibly having inside knowledge.

---

I understand you find this suspicious, I did as well. But you really didn't consider that it may have been advantagous to let BoT speak on his own? I mean, if he makes one suspicious movement that's interesting, but if he does it again I think it's worth mentioning. If you call him out immediately (if he's a wolf) he'll just make sure to not do it again and you've lost the opportunity to obtain more observations on his behavior.
I hope this doesn't sound like I'm criticising your playstyle- to each his own, for sure. I'm just interested that you wanted to say this right away, right now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
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.

---

*sigh* you just blurted out what I was trying to avoid. By stating that an easy wagon is a good thing R1 because we can find the wolves there, I was trying to affect the way the wolves would play- if they were easily exciteable or prone to standard bluffing players, they would go for the obvious and not vote there. If they were middle-tier players, they'd decide to try to vote mainly in the lynch pile. If they're heavyweights, nothing I can say would affect them anyway, so no ground lost there. It's not nessecarily a big deal (there are better things to watch for), but just the same I'm surprised you didn't recognize what I was trying to do. Oh well.

I've got another observation or two to make, but as they depend on the outcome of the lynch I'll wait until then.

{SUMMARY: Response to some of the day's posts,ref: HilikuS, AGM, ryan, BoT}

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
He suspected GLE and if GLE was a ww then so was I. it so happened I was shredded soon after and PD stated that the wws were angel hunting BUT no one questioned him in his logic in regards to his suspicion that If GLE is then so be Fwy, NO ONE! he was way off base on both of us.

---

UGH. Congratulations on completely misrepresenting his argument. PD said if GLE was a wolf it seemed likely fwy was too- NOT "if fwybwed is a wolf GLE is probably too". The fact that you were killed that night would have had absolutely no influence in the slightest on PD's theory for GLE. Long story short- There was no point to question him about, because the point you said he made never existed. His suspicion of you tertiary to his suspicion of GLE was not a road that ran both ways- if you were a cit, it in no way made it more likely that GLE was too.

{SUMMARY: Shredding fwy's logic gap}

~MM

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
UGH. Congratulations on completely misrepresenting his argument. PD said if GLE was a wolf it seemed likely fwy was too- NOT "if fwybwed is a wolf GLE is probably too". The fact that you were killed that night would have had absolutely no influence in the slightest on PD's theory for GLE. Long story short- There was no point to question him about, because the point you said he made never existed. His suspicion of you tertiary to his suspicion of GLE was not a road that ran both ways- if you were a cit, it in no way made it more likely that GLE was too.

{SUMMARY: Shredding fwy's logic gap}

---

I expected you to post to the T Bugger, too me you are the "Mini me" of PD lol. You are always and I mean always shadowing him. and He is always talking you up.

quote:

---

OP PD from X

Ugh. This is as bad as Liq asking "why is it you seem to think you'll survive the wolf kill" on the most inconsequential turns of phrase.

---

"Ugh" get your own game style will ya lol jk

quote:

---

PD

* If GLE is a wolf, then fwy probably is a wolf.

---

I didnt misrepresent anything PD said.

I stated, if you had read the post he had this huge suspicion of GLE and myself.
The ww's blew the part of his argument on me away, by shredding me. and yet no one even considered he MAY be wrong about GLE.
Which was OBVIOUSLY open and in the light then. Even PD himself should have seen the "evidence".
But he was so blinded by GLE been a top player still in the game, he refused to see anything else that may have come to light.

I was so suspicious of you in X cuz of the bad plays you were making, switching plays and votes, unwilling to go to the gallows for the good of the Poggle.

Who was willing? GLE. but PD backed you up even tho you did NOT want to go to the Gallows for the Village.
Tho I apologized for my wrongful vote on your lynch. I dont apologize for the decision. if you made the same plays in this game I would vote for you again. You took some chances that did not go your way. bad choices Bugger.

Though I agree that BernieB should see the gallows up close, PD's voice has others thinking otherwise.

Think late game folks....and this is one of the reasons i suspect PD is that he is using his voice very early to sway.

Fwy

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
You have no idea what Bernie the wolf would be like.

---

History question - has Bernie ever been a wolf? or any role at all?

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
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.

---

what does sound like a good play to you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
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 at all trying to contend that lynching Bernie is the mathematically correct move - I only brought that point into the fray as a rebuttal to your "Bernie could be Angel / Seer" argument. I'm not even claiming that Bernie is currently acting like a wolf. My only argument - and I've made this argument both previous times when I was a non-Werewolf (WW7 and WW10) - is that if we don't know what else to do, Bernie seems like a good pick because he's hard to read and we will have just as much evidence against him now as we will later. It's a twist on the "lynch silents" argument. Nothing more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD:
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.

---

First, who do you consider liabilities? Second, the unfortunate fact is that there isn't a better way to deal with said people. Either they fix their play and become non-liabilities or they continue to be liabilities. This is obviously not the best situation, but if round one gives us the ability to knock off 33% of the liability, I say that's not a terrible move.

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
AGM, I would make more posts however it seems that people like to talk about other peoples faults but not their own.

---

Dude, loads about the game has been said at this point OTHER than personal attacks and this is the only excuse you have? What are your thoughts on the Bernie issue? PD has made several substanative posts you could've responded to. I don't want to hear you ever blame the state of the game on other people's lack of posting again. Ever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PD's "Things I Don't Like" list:
1. AGM's out-of-the-gate charge for Bernie.

---

You know what I don't like? Your out-of-the-gate refusal to do anything but observe. If that was everyone's strategy, nobody would say anything and this game would never go anywhere. Somebody has to say something early in this game or nothing happens. Granted, as soon as anyone does, it's "tunneling" and "aggressive." The alternatives, though, are either dead silence or total-chaos-randomness. I prefer neither of those methods.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
Sure, I have advocated policy lynches before(lynches on individuals who have bad playing styles/anti-town - thanos rings a bell) but usually go with them in later rounds, not when said player has no chance to redeem himself (no pun intended). Either way I see your point, but am not willing to put a vote on him for it.

---

I would concur with your later-not-earlier point IF I thought Bernie was going to change his playstyle. However, he conceeds via his defense that he is the way he is because he is a busy person. I don't blame him at all for that, but it does infer that he isn't going to change. A history of several games of Werewolf and Mafia before them also indicate this. There are only so many chances for redemption.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
I see this logic as well (disruption extremely helps the wolves, as does tunnel vision, which I think AGM is doing here).

---

1) How am I actually being disruptive and 2) how can I be having tunnel vision when there isn't anything else to go on except for a few issues that were just raised extremely recently?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
This post opens all kinda of WIFOM.

---

Hardly. Yes, anything can be twisted into the WIFOM logic loop if you try hard enough. In this case, though, I don't think it really applies. Bernie openly admits that he can't post as often because he has a job and a family. That's fine, and I don't blame him. What this means, though, is that there isn't even a probable chance that Bernie posts all the time - that number is 0%. So, even though there is the chance that someone else couldn't PM the kill or even intentionally waited, there is only just that - a CHANCE. It could be someone else, the wolves could be playing mind games ... but then again, they could not. With Bernie, however, there is no chance. You know that the example applies to him. Now, I'm not suggesting that this would normally be sufficient evidence for a lynch. It wouldn't. However, I already think Bernie should go for other reasons. This just increases those suspicions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
I am curious to find out if AGM has got a 5th role in a row this game.

---

And I am curious to see if you have anything to say that actually has any significance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
*sigh* you just blurted out what I was trying to avoid. By stating that an easy wagon is a good thing R1 because we can find the wolves there, I was trying to affect the way the wolves would play- if they were easily exciteable or prone to standard bluffing players, they would go for the obvious and not vote there. If they were middle-tier players, they'd decide to try to vote mainly in the lynch pile. If they're heavyweights, nothing I can say would affect them anyway, so no ground lost there. It's not nessecarily a big deal (there are better things to watch for), but just the same I'm surprised you didn't recognize what I was trying to do. Oh well.

---

~MM

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
History question - has Bernie ever been a wolf? or any role at all?

---

I have been a wolf once and an angel three times in a row. The rest have been cits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hilikuS:
I'll be voting AlmasterGM.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JackSpade:
Scumtells? And about the no suspicions, i guess im just not seeing anything that would make me go, "oh look at that." I should have said I didn't see something that would make me vote against a particular person. And yeah i guess that is fencesitting, it seems that's pretty much what round 1 is.
BoT's deleting of his post is standing out right now tho. To the others who have played this game longer than I have, I would ask: has this happened before? Under what circumstance? Are we just grasping at straws here?
As for my vote, thinking BoT or ToL atm.

---

1.) No, fencesitting is not what round 1 is. Sure, there are a lot of random votes, but usually something warrants attention (bandwagoning, fencesitting, deleting posts, etc.)
2.) I am surprised you see NOTHING that could warrant a vote.
3.) Usually deleting, or even editing posts (save for fixing quotes), usually is a problem. IMO, it is just better to post something rather than to then delete it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Battle_of_Twits:
You guys are taking my deleted post out of context. Srsly. If you're wanting to point out someone who "edits/deletes" their posts all the time, look at PD. Half his posts are edited at least once.
I'm still sticking with AGM and voting BernieB. I'm not really bandwagoning, I just have a hunch that AGM's going in the right direction with this. We should eliminate a player in the early game who is difficult to read in the late game if we have no other direction to go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
I totally agree with you BoT....
Thats basically what they do. They read and do as the most dominant poster states to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Liq's voting for BernieB. He's just putting those nonsensical tags down at the bottom to try and throw off PD's tracker (which records everything written in those tags). In a way, Liq's trying to dodge radar. Not surprising, considering his #1 goal in each game is to be as inscrutable as possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:

That being said, people have been surprisingly loose-lipped this round, and it bothers me a bit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:

Do you think it would have been advantagous to let BoT speak on his own? I mean, if he makes one suspicious movement that's interesting, but if he does it again I think it's worth mentioning. If you call him out immediately (if he's a wolf) he'll just make sure to not do it again and you've lost the opportunity to obtain more observations on his behavior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
Think late game folks....and this is one of the reasons i suspect PD is that he is using his voice very early to sway.

Fwy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
You know what I don't like? Your out-of-the-gate refusal to do anything but observe. If that was everyone's strategy, nobody would say anything and this game would never go anywhere. Somebody has to say something early in this game or nothing happens. Granted, as soon as anyone does, it's "tunneling" and "aggressive." The alternatives, though, are either dead silence or total-chaos-randomness. I prefer neither of those methods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
I would concur with your later-not-earlier point IF I thought Bernie was going to change his playstyle. However, he conceeds via his defense that he is the way he is because he is a busy person. I don't blame him at all for that, but it does infer that he isn't going to change. A history of several games of Werewolf and Mafia before them also indicate this. There are only so many chances for redemption.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:

1) How am I actually being disruptive and 2) how can I be having tunnel vision when there isn't anything else to go on except for a few issues that were just raised extremely recently?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:

You know that the example applies to him. Now, I'm not suggesting that this would normally be sufficient evidence for a lynch. It wouldn't. However, I already think Bernie should go for other reasons. This just increases those suspicions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
I'm tired of these garbage traps. These are REAL cases of the WIFOM paradox Ryan was talking about. You have no way whatsoever of verifying whether or not the trap has been sprung. Maybe an average player goes into the "trap" and turns out to be an unsuspecting citizen. Maybe there ARE two newbie wolves, but they are being coached by a more experienced player. Maybe they are average players who just don't take your bait. When "traps" like this one exist, though, it gives us a feeling that we know where we are going and why when really we have no idea whatsoever. Using them as evidence later is just a bad idea. So yes, I ruined your trap. I apologize. None of the wolves will ever fall for it now. Except, oh wait, if none of them would ever fall for it, then maybe they would ... but then... O WAI-

---

Since we are granted the extra day, I am going to go ahead and do a re-read tomorrow and see if I can find anything else out. Personally, I would like EVERYONE to respond to their feelings about the cases that have presented against each player - primarily the AGM's case on Bernie, other's case on AGM, my case on BOT and Jack, and various case on ToL. This will only help in pursuit of finding the wolves.