quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
My issue is that the logic about hard to read players can be applied to other players in that game, and you never even mention them, only bernie,

---

If we had sufficient time to knock out all of the people who are very difficult to read, then I would do it in a snap. However, we don't have that luxury. Personally, I consider BernieB one of the hardest to read, so he was the individual I voted for in my post. Would I consider someone else? Sure. Bugger suggested XplicitR. PD mentioned liabilities but no names. If there was discussion going, maybe I could get involved. Could I have made a list of suspects instead of just naming a name? Also sure, but lists never seem to work on this forum. There is an excess of them and they usually don't say anything important or come with any analysis attached *cough* Liq *cough*. This in mind, people usually ignore lists. For an example of what I mean, look at the "call out" of the silent players. It's gone nowhere because it's a mumbo-jumbo of people and nobody wants to keep tabs on them all. If you want anything to actually happen, you HAVE to zero in and get specific. That is why I chose Bernie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
My issue is that ... people JUST AGREE WITH THE BANDWAGON and vote.

---

Agreed, this is problematic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
1.) The force of your attack on one player for reasoning that can be applied to more than one strikes me as disruptive.

---

Reasons for the targeted attack given above. That aside, though, I still don't see how I'm being disruptive ... or, even if I am, how that is a bad thing. People say things they don't mean to say when their feathers get ruffled, and that's where useful information comes from. If all we have are polite tea parties, then people will be sure to keep their manners as rigid as the colonial gentility, and we'll get nothing. While I will agree that throwing curve-balls just to be annoying and break up trains of thoughts are bad disruption, I don't see how a first-post-vote constitutes that sort of disruption. If anything, it started discussion, not stifled it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:
Yes, it is WIFOM, and such reasoning could be applied to others to increase your suspicions. I understand you have other reasons to vote Bernie, I do, but my issue is with using this as supplemental reasoning, as it is very poor.

---

So basically you're saying that WIFOM discounts any sort of circumstantial evidence that could possibly apply to someone else?

First, is this even what WIFOM says?

quote:

---

Originally posted by WIFOM:
In Game Theory, a WIFOM game is a weighted, head-to-head guessing game with no dominant strategy for either side. It occurs when, in an otherwise random guessing game, one of the choices carries an inherent advantage or drawback.

---

I fail to see any sort of drawback or advantage to using the kill-delay as evidence against BernieB. I also fail to see where the definition says "this applies when there are multiple people that the same evidence could apply to." The game is also hardly "otherwise random" because there are other reasons as to why Bernie would be suspicious.

Second of all, if WIFOM does say that, then it's crap. To say that evidence is only acceptable when it specifically implicates ONLY one person is absurd. In the real world, some people have the same fingerprint matches - does this mean fingerprinting can't be used in murder trials, even as a mere supplement to other evidence? Does "aliens did it" suffice as an adequate defense because it COULD be true? No. And that's the real world, where things actually matter. This is werewolf - you can never be sure of anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, the evidence isn't the best - I CONCEDE THAT. However, I don't think totally disregarding it is appropriate.

Or maybe I just don't understand the scenario. If that is the case, please explain it to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
AGM has only had 4 roles in the 4 games he has played so far

---

While it's funny that I got four roles in a row, I don't see why you are still bringing this issue up. Does it make me more suspicious or something?

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
However, I think Liq is purposely trying to be unreadable and that is where my vote is going. Thanks for holding out MM.

---

Holy smokes you guys have been busy while I was shooting (it went great by the way.) I scarcely know where to begin. Oh wait, yes I do. I was supposed to come home after a long hard day of shooting (and 5 hours on the road) and have a lynch result and maybe even a wolf kill to read and think over. Those would have been very useful pieces of information to consider tonight since tomorrow is going to be an insane day at work and I won't be able to pay as close attention.

Thanks a lot nonvoters. You guys are the bomb.

1. LIQ:

So now that that is out of the way, let's talk about Liq, who has been trying extra hard to irritate me. It's in character for Liq to be deliberately unhelpful and he's back in full swing there--well sort of anyway. Truth be told I'd expect better from someone as smart as he's supposed to be.

quote:

---

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

---

Liq being Liq. What else is new? Well, this actually:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liq (in WW10 #530):
FYI it is OOC for Liq to change his vote barring a reveal from the seer. I may have changed my vote like 5 times prior to this game.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liq (in WW11 #050):
Currently Voting :

• BernieB

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liq (in WW11 #079):
Currently Voting :

• Jazaray

---

So having called out TOL got him to post. This is a good thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThoughtsofLepers:
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.

---

You can't seriously have read what I wrote and think that I'm saying either it MUST be a die roll or Bugger or Jaz MUST be wolves because Monty was the R0N kill--I simply want to acknowledge these possibilities.

Now consider this: if it is SO unlikely a scenario (and I believe it is very unlikely), it's even LESS likely to be a frame-up. Maybe the aliens stole your ice cream. Or maybe *I* stole your ice cream so that you would notice it gone and say "OMG ALIENS TOOK MY ICE CREAM!" If the first is far fetched to you, the notion that it was a frame up to make you come to the far fetched conclusion on your own is even more far fetched. This is why I didn't bother to mention the frame-up possibility. But on that vein...

Wanna talk about WIFOM (wine in front of me)? I am so freaking sick of being reminded "maybe that's what the wolves WANT you to think." No DUH. It's so obvious a possibility that it goes without saying. We all know the double bluff is a possibility, so in most cases I don't bother mentioning it.

3. FWY:

I was dreading reading fwy's posts because of his penchant for misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) what I write and then taking me to task for arguments which are not mine. I see he didn't disappoint.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
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...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon (in WW10 #554):
...While it's true you probably don't want to eliminate a strong player R1 or R2 without very good reason, in the later rounds you can't cling to them just because they are strong. Wolves may leave strong players in the game as targets of suspicion, it's true, but it is also true that wolves remove players they consider a threat. I personally can't think of a team of three wolves who wouldn't consider Liq a threat--can you? So I'd suggest sticking to decisions based on apparent guilt or innocence in the later rounds as opposed to player skill.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
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.

---

It's not like I have someone better than Bernie in mind. My suspicions are too mild (and uninformed--this being R1) for me to seriously think ANYBODY is a wolf until they do something suspicious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
...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...

---

On the matter of "herding": way to completely misrepresent what I was talking about. "Herding" as I was describing it, is an attempt by the wolves to stack the deck with the endgame in mind. Let's say there is a disruptive, easily excitable player in the game and people frequently suspect this player. The wolves might refuse to vote for this person during day phase, and choose kills that make the person look guiltier during night phase, in an attempt to get to round 5 with that person still in play. Such that by the time the game gets there, everybody is eying that person with suspicion and *wants* to vote for them. Or simply dropping clues through kills to make the cits think "this pile must have wolves" or "that pile must be wolf free".

That is herding--the wolves steering the crowd in the direction they want them to go--not because the crowd are a bunch of sheep, precisely the opposite. When wolves herd they are trying to discern the easiest wrong decision the crowd is likely to be receptive to, and then nudge them in that direction. If they were all sheep, you wouldn't really know what wrong decision would be better since the crowd would simply go wherever the strong players led them--which would mean it would be the strong players you are trying to manipulate, which would be far harder.

quote:

---

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

---

Keep insulting your fellow players fwy. I'm sure THAT will convince them to come around to your way of thinking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
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.

---

BUT, I do think I'm pretty good at framing an argument in a convincing manner--as I've noted countless times, if you are going to make an argument, make it well. What's the point of making it badly? Needless to say, people respond to a well formed argument--not because they are sheep, or "taking someone's word as gold"--precisely because they are thinking individuals who can see the merit of the argument and hopefully weigh it carefully.

Now, does being able to frame an argument well mean I'm more likely to be right? No of course not, and I've never claimed otherwise. It's a little amusing for you to point out "look at this example where PD was wrong". Every single player in this game is wrong more often than they are right. So what? Of course I'm wrong, and wrong often. Do you seriously think people don't understand that? If someone agrees with me, you can't possibly think it is because they imagine "PD is always right". I would hope it's because they say "hmm... that makes a lot of sense". Why do you assume otherwise?

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.

---

Well, largely for what you (perennially) ignore--I had very good reasons to suspect GLE, and GLE had made it a point to say "I think fwy is a cit." I didn't suspect that GLE was a wolf because I thought you might be one. I thought you might be a wolf because GLE seemed likely to be one and he had expressed trust of you. If you were lynched and revealed as a wolf, that strengthens my argument against GLE. If you were lynched and revealed as a cit, that has no effect on my argument against GLE.

If GLE was lynched and revealed as a cit, then clearly that would completely nullify the argument against you.

You really need to pay attention to the "why", fwy. Especially when I go to the trouble to spell it out in great detail.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
...Here's a new set of piles to think about--

Pile 1: Bernek, TOL, Bugger, GLE, Liq, fwy.
Pile 2: AGM, Bernie, MW, XPR
Pile 3: PGB, PD

I think it likely there are two wolves in pile 1. I think there's at least some chance that there is one wolf in pile 1 and 1 in pile 2. I think it unlikely there are two wolves in pile 2. There are no wolves in pile 3.

Why people are members of pile 1:
* Bernek - BOT voter, carrying on to excess about Thanos' role
* TOL - BOT voter, named by BOT as "suspicious"
* Bugger - missed BOT's wolfhint
* GLE - voted for seer twice (after seerhints dropped), suspected cleared player, shabby defense, strong player
* Liq - named by BOT as "suspicious", strong player, making bad arguments
* fwy - named as cit by GLE

Further, on pile 1:
* If GLE is a wolf, then fwy probably is a wolf.
* If Liq is a wolf, then the other wolf could be GLE or maybe TOL.
* If Bugger is a wolf, then Bernek is probably not and one of GLE/Liq/TOL probably are.
* If Bernek is a wolf, then Bugger/Fwy/TOL are probably not and one of GLE/Liq probably are.
* If fwy is a wolf, then GLE is probably a wolf.
* If TOL is a wolf, then Bernek and Liq are probably not wolves, and one of GLE/Bugger/fwy probably are...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
...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.

---

I agree that we as villagers know very little--and I've pointed out in many previous games, it is *NORMAL* for cits to mistakenly vote for cits, and *UNUSUAL* for cits to vote for wolves.

I agree that we should all think for ourselves (assuming that's what you mean by "be your own person"). As I've noted multiple times, if you want to blame someone for leading you astray blame yourself for allowing yourself to be led.

I agree that you shouldn't go along with someone simply because you like them, or their opinions are strongly held.

As for what I don't agree with? "use your gut. right or wrong." Jesus no--use your brain. My gut tells me that everyone who makes a bad argument is guilty. My gut tells me that Liq is guilty in every game he plays because of how he chooses to present himself. My gut tells me when someone votes for me they must be guilty. It's my brain that says "hold on there... think about it." If you are trying to digest your dinner, use your gut. If you are trying to digest the game, use your brain. Your gut is stupid. So is mine.

I also disagree that you shouldn't evaluate the arguments of other people and incorporate them into your thinking. Knee-jerk assuming that everyone else (or a certain player you have a fixation on) is wrong is as bad as knee-jerk assuming everyone else (or that certain player) is right.

And finally, regarding wolves "feeding off dominants"--wolves turn anything to their advantage as best they can. If there is a strong willed player who happens to be looking in the wrong direction, and the populace seems receptive, the wolves may herd in that direction. If there are no strong willed players or everybody is in a state of complete disharmony because they refuse to consider anything anyone else says and are mistakenly interpretting the rumblings of their intestines as rational thought, the wolves will take advantage of that too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
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:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
"Ugh" get your own game style will ya lol jk

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
I didnt misrepresent anything PD said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
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.

---

What is really annoying here is this other assertion you make, that nobody considered I might be wrong about GLE. How do you know what people did or didn't consider? Did you interview everybody and ask if they "considered" that or not? You don't at all know what is going on in the minds of all the other players and it's high time you stopped imagining you do. Did EVERYBODY vote for GLE? No. Did EVERYBODY who DID vote for GLE necessarily not consider that PD could possibly be wrong? No.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
Which was OBVIOUSLY open and in the light then. Even PD himself should have seen the "evidence".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
I was so suspicious of [Bugger] in X cuz of the bad plays [he was] making, switching plays and votes, unwilling to go to the gallows for the good of the Poggle.

---

Why are you bent on reliving WW10 anyway? Have you checked the voting records? Your game was worse than several other players. How about you don't blame Bugger for making you vote for the wrong person (himself) and take responsibility for your own choices?

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
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.

---

Not too cool a thing to say, is it? Of course I don't really think you are a sheep--just making a point.

Moving on.

4. RYAN:

I love ryan, even if he is pointing out the WIFOM argument "the wolves may have killed Monty so we'll suspect Jaz/Bugger".

Presently I have no suspicion of ryan, but I don't agree with his suspicions. It's JackSpade's second game, and the last game he was wiped out early for saying the wrong thing. I would expect him to be somewhat timidly cautious this time around. His thoughts on BOT resonate with me, and I'm going to think more about them. Re: AGM, see below.

Clearly ryan's been spending some time on mafiascum.net (OMGUS, WIFOM, scumtells, fencesitting) and it's to his credit that he's learning about the game from a variety of sources.

BUT (you knew this was coming, right ryan? there's always a but with me) with respect to scumtells and fencesitting, I can't help but recall good old Freud.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And that's all I have to say about that.

5. MW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterWolf:
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.

---

That said, the contents of the post were utterly benign... I know this because the tracker downloads posts and stores them on my hard drive. It's a great way to notice when someone edits a post after the fact, and it occasionally bags a post that someone deletes later.

6. BOT:

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...

---

7. AGM:

quote:

---

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

---

A quick check of what I have on file:

WW1 - BOB, TMB, LIQ
WW2 - MON, ROD, PGB
WW3.1 - CAI, KIL, MAR
WW3.2 - KIL, EVC, PD
WW4 - KOO, GLE, RAN
WW5 - GLE, MON, FWY
WW6 - JAZ, CAI, REV
WW7 - BUG, PD, CAI
WW8 - AGM, BOT, REV
WW9 - AGM, GLE, JAZ
WW10 - MW, LIQ, BOT

I show no games where Bernie was a wolf among the WW games I have on file.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
what does sound like a good play to you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
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.

---

From my perspective you came out of the gate and went right for Bernie's throat--you were like the second or third post so it wasn't like you had anything to go on, and yet with an entire round of argment and discussion you've come out the other end still focussed on what held your attention in the first few seconds of the game. That sort of thing worries me. It looks like you made up your mind before you even began.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
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.

---

Regarding who is a liability? Obviously if I had wanted to name names, I would have. I didn't really want to hurt people's feelings. However, since I suspect you will needle me unless I tell you: fwy, BernieB, and XPR. XPR and Bernie for reasons already discussed, and fwy because he is (IMO) a dismal player who makes attrocious arguments, regularly insults his fellow players, and has demonstrated a tendency in the past to go bonkers when people disagree with him or accuse him. Bernie may be hard to read, but at least he's not volatile and hard to read. If I actually were voting players based on the damage I felt they could do to their team, Bernie would not be first on my list.

But I didn't say "three liabilities", I said "three potential liabilities". Both Bernie and XPR say they want to improve their games for example, so maybe if we give them a chance to do so, they won't be liabilities--the fact that they appear willing to make an effort is a good sign.

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.

---

8. XPR:Yes Liq is trying to be unreadable. On the one hand you have Bernie who is sort of naturally unreadable and is promising to play a better game, and on the other hand you have Liq who deliberately tries to be unreadable. I can understand why you would vote Liq. The problem is that if Liq *is* a cit, when he finally chooses to be an asset to the team, he's brilliant. That's why it's often said that Liq is a job for the seer. There are certain players that seers almost always check--Liq is onesuch. That's why for now I'm content to point out what I think is suspicious about Liq, but not vote Liq. It's only R1... and it's not like he's dropped a bombshell of a boo boo. While it annoys me that Liq (when a cit) pretty much forces the seer to waste a round checking him because of his behavior, when he chooses to be an asset he is often a stellar one. If R4 rolls around and the seer has been killed and Liq is still alive with no wolves found, there will definitely be a stronger argument for taking him out in the absence of bombshells. Believe me that will be on my mind then assuming I'm still around. But for right now? I recommend noting his behavior and watching him closely.

By the way, I wanted to take a moment and commend you--you are clearly making an effort to bring your game up and "play nice with others." The responses you made after the latest round of critique had much better tone. I hope you continue to make such an effort. I think you have strong potential.

SUSPICIONS/VOTES

{SUSPECT: Liq (OOC by his own yardstick: switched vote, not killed by wolves R0N)}
{SUSPECT: Bugger,Jaz (target of Monty's WW9 diatribe)}
{SUSPECT: BOT (wagoning -- see ryan's argument)}

Going to withdraw my TOL vote--he's posting now and it's good to see. If I were going to pick an SP to vote next, it would be TMB. I think he's been known to make pauses in the past, but surely he should have posted by now considering the voting deadline has come and gone. GLE has too, but I'm not going to vote a top tier player in R1 without something better.

{SUSPECT: TMB (silent play)}

AGM's single minded pursuit of Bernie is really bugging me, but for now I think he is more likely a cit than a wolf. I don't suspect him, yet.

So for me right now it is a toss up between TMB and BOT. I do *NOT* suspect BOT for the deleted post... I only brought it up because it showed up in my downloads folder and on my post list but I couldn't see it on the thread itself. But ryan's argument about BoT's wagoning is interesting--but Freud keeps whispering in my ear.

As noted above work is going to be crazy today. I started this post late last night after getting home and I am finishing it up now. I'm probably not going to get a chance to post again today (I hope I will, but it seems unlikely right now). So I probably won't have time to mull this over further.

Okay, I'm going to keep BOT on my suspicion list for now and vote TMB.

{VOTING: TMB (silent play)}

Gotta go... hope we gain some useful information from the lynch and the wolfkill. Hope everyone gets their votes in and the wolves and other specials act quickly so that we don't have to wait until Monday to start the next round. I don't have time to proofread this post, so I apologize in advance for incomplete thoughts, spelling errors and the like.

{SUMMARY: long response, suspect list}

quote:

---

Originally posted by fwybwed:
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.

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

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

Edit "NOT" BOLD

---

I'm a weird thinker. I see arguments as physical things within my mind- usually it's a quadratic pyramid. The more complex or long the argument, the larger the pyramid, and the more complicated inside it is. I look at it like a giant machine, complicated like a clock for your basic werewolf lynch argument ("I think we should lynch player X, reasons Y, Z, and A"). When an argument is sound and solid, the machine/pyramid/thing works smoothly. When someone's argument has a fallacy, things start getting weirder. Depending on the size of the fallacy, the machine degrades and if the fallacy is really big it becomes like an MC Eshcer painting, with an impossible object crammed where it doesn't fit. So when someone makes an argument with a glaring contradiction, it's like they're trying to drive a car with sixteen axles coming out of the same strut that don't do anything besides stick out of the sides of the car in random directions- it doesn't make any sense. So, even if I can't clearly articulate why, arguments made or composed even partly of unsound logic cause me almost tangible mental pain (this is why I'm so snappy and/or condescending about it oftentimes). That being said, I can't see anything productive in furthuring my point with you in this regard, fwy- mostly because history has proven it pointless before but also because I agree with your overall point- while we can't have complete disunity, we should neither be lemmings without a cause.

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-

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryan2754:

I definitely agree with this. This opens up a whole new WIFOM can and more often than not, gambits like this I have seen don't pan out too well for the cits.

---

1) AGM: you seem bitter this game, man. Something bothering you IRL (not that anyone who played WW8 would believe you, but still )?
2)Ryan and AGM: This was never intended as an overarching strategy or even mildly important- I did that on the fly to try and spin something good (however marginally so) from something neutral. It was worth a shot, at least in my opinion.
3) Ryan: It holds at least marginal value because it's how I play (not meaning I make stupid attempts at non-selfsustaining data mined from questionable "traps"). I play to find wolves, yeah, but I'm much more interested in treating the game as a battle of wits. My kind of game analysis is to map out a wolf psychograph- a personality profile for the wolfpack of what kind of player they are, how they're trying to win, and where within the piles and the wolfkills they're trying to accomplish that. I then tie this completed psychograph (usually constructed by R3) to different players by running through the scenarios that would indicate their influence on the wolf movements and pick my targets accordingly. From my play experience, I'm not quite as accurate at tying the psychograph to players as I'd like to be, but the psychograph has been dead-on accurate every single time. I trust my instincts in that regard. This was trying to construct one of many filters with which to sieve the psychograph through the play data- I was making something that would potentially help myself out in the midgame. Now, obviously any findings that would be hinted at simply by running the psychograph through that 'trap' would not be used to support an argument- being that it's not selfsufficient data it would serve only as a secondary argument point (something that can indicate wolfhood but is too inherently shaky to stand on its own), but not a tertiary argument point (something that is barely an argument point at all, and is something that would be explained by the target's potential wolfhood, but does not verify or influence that potentiality in any way).

quote:

---

Look at fairly every single game I play. I address everything up to my last post, and usually do it in quotes. I won't call it loose-lipped, but scrutinizing.

Sorry, but I call them as I see them.

---

No prob. I was just remarking on the differences in playstyles. You'll probably remember I was excited that I would be able to play in a game alongside you- I enjoy seeing what stronger players each bring to the table. Consider it a compliment if you need to

quote:

---

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.

---

As you wish.
Case 1: AGM v. BernieB
I don't like it. I mean, it's arguably very sound, and AGM makes many good points as to why a Bernie lynch is beneficial now. Let me rephrase: I like the argument, I don't like the argumentor. AGM's playstyle thus far this game is wildly OOC for him, and I don't know what to make of it. He's so aggressive even PGB would probably say "whoa, back up for a minute". He's argumentative. Now, as XPR has stated, AGM has had a role every game he's played thus far- seer WW7, wolf WW8-9, angel WW10. So this character change holds two distinct possibilities: the first, that he is finally a plain cit, and we're just seeing his playstyle for the first time, or he is a wolf who's changing things up. The largest contributor to my weighing of the second possibility anywhere near the probability of the first is that AGM is IMO an underrated player. He's too good to rule something like that out.
Further time and information will tell which of the two scenarios will prove more probable, but for now AGM has made my suspect list.

Case 2: BoT v. BB
I think most of us can agree this stinks fairly strongly. It's almost empty wagoneering, and I see the same kind of forced "useful either way" rationalizations that I made quite frequently as a wolf in WW7. Wolves will do this, in my experience, to leave themselves a trapdoor- they can say "well, if the person's a cit it's still okay" to shore up their position when said person is in time revealed to be precisely that. The post deletion, I fear, is the same kind of beast that the in-game illegal PM held last game: unfortunate, probably harmless, but nevertheless necessary to take into account. Like I said directly to him already, it doesn't matter if a 'your mom' joke really was all that was in the deleted post- the important part is that we can't know that for sure. BoT, therefore, is also on my suspect list.

Case 3: ryan v. Jack/BoT
v. Jack: I know it's suspicious, but this is apparently entirely in character for Jack to do. He played exactly in that manner last game, and it's what drove me to push for his lynch R2. I'm not surprised it has your alarm bells ringing as well. But right now? No, I don't agree with your case, because he's playing almost literally exactly in line with his previous game's behavior.
v. BoT: already covered this.

Case 4: Various v. ToL:
Again, I see nothing tremendously out of the ordinary with ToL this game. He seems to be usually very quiet, popping up only to announce his target and why right before a lynch. It's a bit annoying in that it's exactly the same strategy Caitiri used to win WW7 without earning a single vote or really any untoward attention at all- but as ToL has been a cit each time he's done it, it doesn't make things any easier. In a way, he's like BB in that regard- almost untraceable play that's equally applicable to any role. The problem is that ToL is rapidly, IMO, becoming a strong player.

As per my vote: XPR seems to be making a genuine effort to change his play, so I can no longer in good standing vote for him on the grounds that his play is detrimental. I am switching, therefore, to someone who has been utterly silent (and I've never played with before, so I can't tell if he's always like this or not).

{SUMMARY: Rebuttal to AGM and ryan,opinions on the round's lynch arguments, announcing change in vote}
{VOTING: Themidnightbomber (silence)}

EDIT: Dear mother of god PD just made a post so large I think he must have spent the entire night typing it all up. Will edit this post accordingly after reading it if I find anything of note to comment on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
Your suspicions don't line up with your variables again. That's interesting.

---

They're independent of one another.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Dear mother of god PD just made a post so large I think he must have spent the entire night typing it all up.

---

O... M... G...

PD just make a Liq move. Correct me if I'm wrong but the last time I saw PD make a post like that was in Werewolf 3.2.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
let's talk about Liq, who has been trying extra hard to irritate me.

---

I could spend every game butting heads with you until one of us dies but it gets boring.

quote:

---

Currently Voting :
 
• Jazaray

---

quote:

---

Suspicion Level :
 

• High :
   
  {52%} : Jaz
  {52%} : PD
  {52%} : BoT
  {51%} : fwyb
  {51%} : Bugger
  {51%} : Bernie
   
  
• Mid :
   
  {50%} : Xpl
  {50%} : GLE
  {50%} : Hilikus
  {50%} : Almaster
  {50%} : ToL
   
  
• Mid :
   
  {49%} : ryan
  {49%} : TMB
  {49%} : MasterWolf
  {49%} : Jack

---

{VOTING: PD (OOC)}
{SUSPECT: Iabtu (Bant)}
{TRUST: Bob Phyllis (Old School)}
{SUMMARY: Kicking it up a notch}

__________________
Your Captain N of 2008

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liq:
They're independent of one another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liq:
O... M... G... PD just make a Liq move. Correct me if I'm wrong but the last time I saw PD make a post like that was in Werewolf 3.2.

---

What's interesting about your response is how you've neatly avoided mentioning the meat of what I had to say with respect to you: by your own yardstick you are now out-of-character. I haven't forgotten and I'm sure everyone else noticed you didn't mention it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liq:
I could spend every game butting heads with you until one of us dies but it gets boring.

---

{SUSPECT: Liq (switch vote OOC, not killed by wolves R0N)}

{SUMMARY: notes Liq's sidestepping of his OOC behavior}

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
By the way, I wanted to take a moment and commend you--you are clearly making an effort to bring your game up and "play nice with others." The responses you made after the latest round of critique had much better tone. I hope you continue to make such an effort. I think you have strong potential.B]

---

Thanks, I'm trying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:

Reasons for the targeted attack given above. That aside, though, I still don't see how I'm being disruptive ... or, even if I am, how that is a bad thing. People say things they don't mean to say when their feathers get ruffled, and that's where useful information comes from. If all we have are polite tea parties, then people will be sure to keep their manners as rigid as the colonial gentility, and we'll get nothing. While I will agree that throwing curve-balls just to be annoying and break up trains of thoughts are bad disruption, I don't see how a first-post-vote constitutes that sort of disruption. If anything, it started discussion, not stifled it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
So basically you're saying that WIFOM discounts any sort of circumstantial evidence that could possibly apply to someone else?

First, is this even what WIFOM says?

I fail to see any sort of drawback or advantage to using the kill-delay as evidence against BernieB. I also fail to see where the definition says "this applies when there are multiple people that the same evidence could apply to." The game is also hardly "otherwise random" because there are other reasons as to why Bernie would be suspicious.

Second of all, if WIFOM does say that, then it's crap. To say that evidence is only acceptable when it specifically implicates ONLY one person is absurd. In the real world, some people have the same fingerprint matches - does this mean fingerprinting can't be used in murder trials, even as a mere supplement to other evidence? Does "aliens did it" suffice as an adequate defense because it COULD be true? No. And that's the real world, where things actually matter. This is werewolf - you can never be sure of anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, the evidence isn't the best - I CONCEDE THAT. However, I don't think totally disregarding it is appropriate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:

Clearly ryan's been spending some time on mafiascum.net (OMGUS, WIFOM, scumtells, fencesitting) and it's to his credit that he's learning about the game from a variety of sources.
[/quote
Yes, I have, and it took me a while to learn their style of play, and at first I was totally against it, but I now I fairly like it, and using acronyms for certain logical fallacies is much easier.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And that's all I have to say about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Case 3: ryan v. Jack/BoT
v. Jack: I know it's suspicious, but this is apparently entirely in character for Jack to do. He played exactly in that manner last game, and it's what drove me to push for his lynch R2. I'm not surprised it has your alarm bells ringing as well. But right now? No, I don't agree with your case, because he's playing almost literally exactly in line with his previous game's behavior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
3) Ryan: It holds at least marginal value because it's how I play (not meaning I make stupid attempts at non-selfsustaining data mined from questionable "traps"). I play to find wolves, yeah, but I'm much more interested in treating the game as a battle of wits. My kind of game analysis is to map out a wolf psychograph- a personality profile for the wolfpack of what kind of player they are, how they're trying to win, and where within the piles and the wolfkills they're trying to accomplish that. I then tie this completed psychograph (usually constructed by R3) to different players by running through the scenarios that would indicate their influence on the wolf movements and pick my targets accordingly. From my play experience, I'm not quite as accurate at tying the psychograph to players as I'd like to be, but the psychograph has been dead-on accurate every single time. I trust my instincts in that regard. This was trying to construct one of many filters with which to sieve the psychograph through the play data- I was making something that would potentially help myself out in the midgame. Now, obviously any findings that would be hinted at simply by running the psychograph through that 'trap' would not be used to support an argument- being that it's not selfsufficient data it would serve only as a secondary argument point (something that can indicate wolfhood but is too inherently shaky to stand on its own), but not a tertiary argument point (something that is barely an argument point at all, and is something that would be explained by the target's potential wolfhood, but does not verify or influence that potentiality in any way).

---

Looking back on the thread, BoT's play strikes me. Changing vote to BoT.

Bugger ~ TMB (1)
Liq ~ Jazaray (1)
AlmasterGM ~ BernieB (1)
GLE ~ AlmasterGM (1)
PD ~ TMB (2)
ryan ~ B_o_T (1)
T_o_L ~ TMB (2)
Jazaray ~ JackSpade (1)
BernieB ~ AlmasterGM (2)
fwybwed ~ BernieB (2)
B_o_T ~ BernieB (3)
MasterWolf ~ B_o_T (2)
Xplicit ~ Liq (1)
JackSpade ~ B_o_T (3)
TheMidnightBomber ~ NONE (-0.25)
Hilikus ~ AlmasterGM (3)

BernieB and AlmasterGM have 3 votes apiece. Re-votes for 1 of these 2 players are due asap.

~MM

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeddlingMage:
Players ~ Their vote

Bugger ~ TMB (1)
Liq ~ Jazaray (1)
AlmasterGM ~ BernieB (1)
GLE ~ AlmasterGM (1)
PD ~ TMB (2)
ryan ~ B_o_T (1)
T_o_L ~ TMB (2)
Jazaray ~ JackSpade (1)
BernieB ~ AlmasterGM (2)
fwybwed ~ BernieB (2)
B_o_T ~ BernieB (3)
MasterWolf ~ B_o_T (2)
Xplicit ~ Liq (1)
JackSpade ~ B_o_T (3)
TheMidnightBomber ~ NONE (-0.25)
Hilikus ~ AlmasterGM (3)

BernieB and AlmasterGM have 3 votes apiece. Re-votes for 1 of these 2 players are due asap.

~MM

---

Um, MM... TMB has three votes too. Will this be a three-way vote?

Votes for these 4 are due asap!

~MM

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

{VOTING: TheMidnightBomber (not voting)}

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
Now consider this: if it is SO unlikely a scenario (and I believe it is very unlikely), it's even LESS likely to be a frame-up. Maybe the aliens stole your ice cream. Or maybe *I* stole your ice cream so that you would notice it gone and say "OMG ALIENS TOOK MY ICE CREAM!" If the first is far fetched to you, the notion that it was a frame up to make you come to the far fetched conclusion on your own is even more far fetched. This is why I didn't bother to mention the frame-up possibility. But on that vein...

---

I disagree with this. While it may be far less likely to be a frame-up in real life scenarios, it carries a lot more merit in a game like werewolf, where misdirection and double-bluffs are the name of the game.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
I disagree with this. While it may be far less likely to be a frame-up in real life scenarios, it carries a lot more merit in a game like werewolf, where misdirection and double-bluffs are the name of the game.

---

{voting: tmb (inactivity)}

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.

__________________
Your Captain N of 2008

edit: I voted BernieB.
__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Barganing, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

Current tally since beginning of tiebreaker:

Battle_of_Twits - 3 votes from Liq [1], MasterWolf [1], TheMidnightBomber [2] - 1: not stated, 2: to save self
TheMidnightBomber - 3 votes from Bugger [1], Jazaray [2], PlasteredDragon [3] - 1: not voting, 2: inactivity, 3: empty seat at table
BernieB - 1 votes from Battle_of_Twits [1] - 1: not stated

No votes declared from: AlmasterGM, BernieB, fwybwed, GottaLoveElves, hilikuS, JackSpade, ryan2754, ThoughtsofLepers, XplicitR

{SUMMARY: suggests tracker users treat tiebreaker round as R2}

No votes declared from: AlmasterGM, BernieB, fwybwed, GottaLoveElves, hilikuS, JackSpade, XplicitR

I have another shoot today. I'll be in Westport, MA until late. I'll try to check in tonight.

MM, I recommend you make a cutoff in voting at some point this weekend and if there's still a tie, relegate the outcome to the Gods of Fate. Your call of course.

EDIT: {SUMMARY: tally, will be away today, recommends voting cutoff}