Werewolf XXXIII: Animal Farm (SEE POST #4 FOR ALL UPDATES)

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Chubby

try again Alan T tho I do think we have an evil person tiebreaking last night. Something we didn't know then but I do know now.

Ahh, I totally missed BrianD saying he had the tiebreaker that damned Bek. Well I'm still not wrong though I can't be wrong when I quote path's rules

After the fact we learned yesterday's tiebreaker was the 2 vote thing, but if Brian had not voted for Bek or Greyfooroo, then he still would have submitted a PM with who he chose to break the tie.. So I still stand by my statement that Im not sure that tiebreaks are good for us..

See my reasoning?

[Chubby]

Amazing coincidence that all four of the people in my Circle of Distrust are all in this thread and posting.

Only Swaggs' one post is a voice from someone I'm not sure about. The people I don't trust sure are active while I am.


I fully predict that when I go to work they will try and swing things on me tho I'm sure it won't be by all of them at once.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Amazing coincidence that all four of the people in my Circle of Distrust are all in this thread and posting.

Only Swaggs' one post is a voice from someone I'm not sure about. The people I don't trust sure are active while I am.


I fully predict that when I go to work they will try and swing things on me tho I'm sure it won't be by all of them at once.

How can you say that you aren't sure if Swaggs is good or not???

[BrianD]

To be fair, I was this active yesterday too. I'm also pretty much this active in every game. This is like electronic crack and I can't stay away.

[path12]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Path, any word on either Blade or AE? Because we are going to be playing short-handed if they are not part of the game. Plus they could hold critical roles that we will need later in the game.

Just in for a quick minute, I've got a couple of projects that need my attention this morning. I have not heard back from Blade yet, and still hope that he will reconsider his request. As for Ardent, I'd like to get some kind of word from him regarding his future availability before making a final decision there, but if I don't hear anything today it's obviously a situation that will need to be addressed.......

[hoopsguy]

Exactly - every person in the game is sure about Swaggs.

Your circle of distrust just happens to include everyone except Blade who are the most frequent posters in this game. We (AlanT, BrianD, and yours truly) have been active most of the game, while you had four posts with twenty minutes before the deadline last night. Just pointing out that there is not an inherent weirdness of active players being active in a game or being on when you are around.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Alan T

How can you say that you aren't sure if Swaggs is good or not???

Because I'm working backwards this game. I'm not building a CoT, I'm building a CoDT. With his role reveal there's no reason to look at him more closely (i'm looking for bad, not good this game for my list). If I think someone is good, I'm not spending time analyzing their posts. I'll read them and check out ideas they post but that's it.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Exactly - every person in the game is sure about Swaggs.

Your circle of distrust just happens to include everyone except Blade who are the most frequent posters in this game. We (AlanT, BrianD, and yours truly) have been active most of the game, while you had four posts with twenty minutes before the deadline last night. Just pointing out that there is not an inherent weirdness of active players being active in a game or being on when you are around.

Sure is a mighty fine coincidence that the people I put out there as evil last night are all online and very active this morning when they know one of them will be an early vote.

I didn't have many posts early since I didn't have anything to say or have anything to go on. I do now.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Sure is a mighty fine coincidence that the people I put out there as evil last night are all online and very active this morning when they know one of them will be an early vote.

I didn't have many posts early since I didn't have anything to say or have anything to go on. I do now.

eh. I get to work at 6:30-7am EsT every morning. I post alot every morning. If you don't believe me, go look at the posts.. Now you're just reaching for straws... my activity hasn't changed any today vs any other day this week.

[BrianD]

Chubby, you believe that Pilkington is not dead, right?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Chubby, you believe that Pilkington is not dead, right?

Correct. I believe he made the kill on night two and that is why there was no message in blood on the body.

[hoopsguy]

OK, so here is something that is bugging me this morning (besides Chubby) - why is Swaggs still alive?

Earlier, we could argue that it was because they wanted to go after roled players, particularly the seers. This meant that they would surrender the chance to go after a known good and leave a guy who is getting no votes the following day ... this marginally increases their risk if he is clueless and monumentally increases their risk if he turns his attention on one of their number.

But yesterday there was the possibility that Swaggs was going to get PM information on the roles. So if we had in fact lynched a wolf that would allow us to start looking at voting patterns more effectively. They then had to balance the risk that Swaggs was going to be guarded last night with their decision.

I suspect that if they had lost one of their number, it would have been pretty damn important to go after Swaggs. He would know the identity of the person who PM'd him, so he would be operating with a greater circle of trust. He would also have, at his discretion, the ability to discuss the roles of the dead openly with us and provide a lot more information about our decisions and current state than we have at the moment.

The fact that he was not attacked last night (and I won't believe he was unless a bodyguard comes forward to claim this) indicates to me that the wolves did not fear the information that would come out. They don't know if Pilkerton is dead or not, but they have to believe he is since they have not seen the double kill yet. They don't know the roles of the dead and are probably just as curious about them as we are.

Anyways, that is how I interpret Swaggs being around today. I'm wondering if other people have looked at this and have thoughts on the matter?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Correct. I believe he made the kill on night two and that is why there was no message in blood on the body.

Ok, that means that Bullet was probably a revolutionary. If Bullet was a revolutionary then his death would have activated the sympathizer. Do you think it might be worthwhile to look for anyone that did a sudden turn-around in their attitudes about anyone? Did we have anyone leading the charge for someone one day and then against them the next?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

OK, so here is something that is bugging me this morning (besides Chubby) - why is Swaggs still alive?

Earlier, we could argue that it was because they wanted to go after roled players, particularly the seers. This meant that they would surrender the chance to go after a known good and leave a guy who is getting no votes the following day ... this marginally increases their risk if he is clueless and monumentally increases their risk if he turns his attention on one of their number.

But yesterday there was the possibility that Swaggs was going to get PM information on the roles. So if we had in fact lynched a wolf that would allow us to start looking at voting patterns more effectively. They then had to balance the risk that Swaggs was going to be guarded last night with their decision.

I suspect that if they had lost one of their number, it would have been pretty damn important to go after Swaggs. He would know the identity of the person who PM'd him, so he would be operating with a greater circle of trust. He would also have, at his discretion, the ability to discuss the roles of the dead openly with us and provide a lot more information about our decisions and current state than we have at the moment.

The fact that he was not attacked last night (and I won't believe he was unless a bodyguard comes forward to claim this) indicates to me that the wolves did not fear the information that would come out. They don't know if Pilkerton is dead or not, but they have to believe he is since they have not seen the double kill yet. They don't know the roles of the dead and are probably just as curious about them as we are.

Anyways, that is how I interpret Swaggs being around today. I'm wondering if other people have looked at this and have thoughts on the matter?

My best guess is they aren't afraid of what people who are dead were, they want to kill the person who can point them out. Killing Swaggs doesn't help them with that goal any.

[hoopsguy]

Brian, I posed the question on activating the Sympathizer earlier in the thread. They can still kill that night, it happens automatically.

Again, I cannot come up with any reason for the Revolutionaries to skip a kill.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Ok, that means that Bullet was probably a revolutionary. If Bullet was a revolutionary then his death would have activated the sympathizer. Do you think it might be worthwhile to look for anyone that did a sudden turn-around in their attitudes about anyone? Did we have anyone leading the charge for someone one day and then against them the next?

Sure, if that happened we can gun for them tomorrow. Today it's time to get rid of another reevolutionary, hoops.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Sure, if that happened we can gun for them tomorrow. Today it's time to get rid of another reevolutionary, hoops.

You are THAT sure Hoops is bad?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Brian, I posed the question on activating the Sympathizer earlier in the thread. They can still kill that night, it happens automatically.

Again, I cannot come up with any reason for the Revolutionaries to skip a kill.

Way to continue to focus on that part, it seems to be your MO today to only pick at and focus on specific things that help you.

It's just as likely that they hit a bodyguard block as it is that they skilled a kill to make it appear that Pilkington is dead. That is a perfectly good reason to skip a kill early on.

Dig that hole deeper hoops...

[hoopsguy]

Brian, if you trying to be subtle about asking him if he is the seer and viewed me as bad, the answer is no. Because then he would be committing himself to a 1:1 trade and I can't imagine that is good for the Revolutionaries.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by BrianD

You are THAT sure Hoops is bad?

He was at the top of my list going into today and has done nothing but reinforce my decision.

He's tried to align himself with the most recent night kill who he of course claims to be a seer.

He refuses to accept things that are pretty much fact based on the rules (Pilkington made the night kill night 2).

He repeatedly tries and twist things around (i.e. "the revs wouldn't have skipped a kill try" when noone has said that is what they believe is what happened, it's one possibility of a couple)

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Brian, if you trying to be subtle about asking him if he is the seer and viewed me as bad, the answer is no. Because then he would be committing himself to a 1:1 trade and I can't imagine that is good for the Revolutionaries.

That is not what I am asking.

[Chubby]

BrianD - I'm a common sheep. No seer powers

[hoopsguy]

Chubby, your MO for the day is to obsess over your pet theory that is wrong. And to try to discourage any discussion that doesn't help your theory by continually attacking me.

It is really counter-productive to the Farm and I'm getting to the point where I want to vote for you just to get you to stop slowing down the game for the rest of us who are trying to win.

I know you don't have the same outlook on the game as I do because we are looking at it from different directions. But while I'm not sure mine is correct, I'm 100% sure you are wrong with your approach today.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Chubby

He was at the top of my list going into today and has done nothing but reinforce my decision.

He's tried to align himself with the most recent night kill who he of course claims to be a seer.

He refuses to accept things that are pretty much fact based on the rules (Pilkington made the night kill night 2).

He repeatedly tries and twist things around (i.e. "the revs wouldn't have skipped a kill try" when noone has said that is what they believe is what happened, it's one possibility of a couple)

Considering your efforts to draw us to Hoops, are you willing to claim the credit if you are right and the blame if you are wrong?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Considering your efforts to draw us to Hoops, are you willing to claim the credit if you are right and the blame if you are wrong?

Of course.

Something hoops isn't willing to do now is he?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Of course.

Something hoops isn't willing to do now is he?

OK. I'm not convinced that you are right, but I'm willing to find out if you've got your fingers on the pulse of this game.

Vote Hoopsguy

[Blade6119]

If there are no objections, i think ill continue playing

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

If there are no objections, i think ill continue playing

Whatever its worth, I'm glad you are going to still play. I enjoy the game more when other active people are around, and if anything you're active.

Plus I would feel bad voting for whoever took your spot!

[hoopsguy]

Chubby, I'm not willing to because I don't have role information on you. I know you are acting in a manner that is anti-village, but I can't see a reason why a Revolutionary would take the approach you are. I'm trying really hard not to lash out at you and make it personal (within the game context) because I still do not believe that helps the Farm.

Blade, welcome back.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

OK. I'm not convinced that you are right, but I'm willing to find out if you've got your fingers on the pulse of this game.

Vote Hoopsguy

Yeah.. this is what I mean.. Maybe its because I already found BrianD suspicious, but just jumping on someone else's theory this fast without sound proof just reeks bad to me.

It wasn't his reasoning he was wrong about a lynch, he just was convinced!

[Blade6119]

Hey brian, thank you...i thought i was alone in my thoughts about these bad guys

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Yeah.. this is what I mean.. Maybe its because I already found BrianD suspicious, but just jumping on someone else's theory this fast without sound proof just reeks bad to me.

It wasn't his reasoning he was wrong about a lynch, he just was convinced!

In the last game, I felt that I had a very strong idea of what was going on and I couldn't get anyone to go with me. I don't have that feeling in this game, but Chubby seems to. I'm willing to trust him for one vote and see what happens. I don't really have any strong feeling against anyone else.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Yeah.. this is what I mean.. Maybe its because I already found BrianD suspicious, but just jumping on someone else's theory this fast without sound proof just reeks bad to me.

It wasn't his reasoning he was wrong about a lynch, he just was convinced!

He put forth what he admitted was a "weak" argument. That lead to a friend of the farm being lynched for no good reason.

Of course hoops isn't willing to accept responsibility. He wanted bek dead because he wasn't on hoops' side.

[RealDeal]

Chubby's reasoning makes absolutely no sense at all to me, and neither does an experienced player suddenly deciding to "trust" him.

[hoopsguy]

OK, this seems like a good time to publish my list of assumptions for this game. This should be a way for us to begin establishing some conventional wisdom in the Farm:

- changes to the rules after a Night lynch mean we lynched a good guy
- no changes to the rules after a Night lynch mean we lynched a bad guy
Given these two assumptions, I don't know how the Sympathizer would show.
- Both Cronin and Bek were good guys. Bullet was a bad guy
- given that there has only been one kill on N2 and N3 I believe that Pilkington is dead
- Swaggs is a cleared good


The above represent my impressions and are guiding my actions. It will take a very persuasive argument to change my mind on these points.

Here are a couple of suspicions
- I believe Bulletsponge was Pilkington
- I worry that Anxiety was the seer. If he was not, he was affording me considerably more trust on Day 2 - and continuing to extend it on Day 3 - than I am used to seeing from a vanilla villager this early in a game where I'm uncleared

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by RealDeal

Chubby's reasoning makes absolutely no sense at all to me, and neither does an experienced player suddenly deciding to "trust" him.

and my list gets updated before I leave...

CoDT: hoops, Alan T, RealDeal, BrianD

The 1st three are now a good deal ahead of the 4th.




As I'm working until 10:30pm EST, I won't be online until 11pm EST at the earliest



tho I'll be online for a few more mins, don't forget the bolded part when there's a late bandwagon swing towards me.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Chubby

He put forth what he admitted was a "weak" argument. That lead to a friend of the farm being lynched for no good reason.

Of course hoops isn't willing to accept responsibility. He wanted bek dead because he wasn't on hoops' side.

Well I guess my beef here is that I find BrianD playing a very good passiveaggressive game here. Every single day he follows someone else's lead. He stays under the radar by not putting out his opinions but instead asks for other people's opinions.

He doesn't throw his votes away to not attract attention for doing that, instead he gets his votes in early on other people's ideas. Then after the fact he tried to take credit for leading people to bulletsponge's death (since most of us seem to think he was bad), even though at the time he basically just agreed with my arguement for why Bullet seemed bad and jumped on them. Truth be told, I had no idea if bullet was bad and still don't. If Bullet was pilkington, then I doubt Brian would have known he was if he was a revolutionary either..

I do have a feeling that if Bullet had ended up good, Brian would have not talked that move up much and instead just say "well Alan T convinced me"...

Yesterday he was more responsible for Bek's death then anyone else. He once again followed along on the voting behind hoops (who later moved), however it was almost immediately after, but he also had the tiebreaker.

Today once again, someone throws out an idea (yours) and he's all over it too.. His entire actions this game have seemed wolfish to me, and this just continues it for me.

[hoopsguy]

Chubby, I'll accept just as much responsibility for Bek as the four people who actually had their votes on him at the end of the day - even though I removed the vote.

I also had my Day 1 vote on Swaggs, which obviously was not the right choice. I don't know about my Day 2 selection (Passacaglia) right now. But I think it is a tough sell to go after voting records with the limited information we have right now.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

OK, this seems like a good time to publish my list of assumptions for this game. This should be a way for us to begin establishing some conventional wisdom in the Farm:

- changes to the rules after a Night lynch mean we lynched a good guy
- no changes to the rules after a Night lynch mean we lynched a bad guy
Given these two assumptions, I don't know how the Sympathizer would show.
- Both Cronin and Bek were good guys. Bullet was a bad guy
- given that there has only been one kill on N2 and N3 I believe that Pilkington is dead
- Swaggs is a cleared good


The above represent my impressions and are guiding my actions. It will take a very persuasive argument to change my mind on these points.

Here are a couple of suspicions
- I believe Bulletsponge was Pilkington
- I worry that Anxiety was the seer. If he was not, he was affording me considerably more trust on Day 2 - and continuing to extend it on Day 3 - than I am used to seeing from a vanilla villager this early in a game where I'm uncleared

You are clearly evil.

The way to distinguish who killed the people at night is if there's writing on them or not. The blood writing is by the Revs (look at what they wrote). The body with no message was the same night (per the rules) that Pilkington could make his 1st kill, night 2 was Pilkington's kill.

Either hoops IS Pilkington or he knows why the Revs didn't get a kill on night 2. Either way, hoops = evil.

[hoopsguy]

Chubby, hopefully we can continue our marginally civilized conversation tonight when you get home..

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Yesterday he was more responsible for Bek's death then anyone else. He once again followed along on the voting behind hoops (who later moved), however it was almost immediately after, but he also had the tiebreaker.

Yesterday he voted for bek, who had voted for him 2 straight days, BEFORE you or hoops came out. Later that day then, hoops started his little crusade and you joined right in. You 2 caused his death. Oh look who also joined in, realdeal...

Then hoops swaps off at the last second, not just off bek onto the other canidate, but puts in a throw away vote to look less suspicious.

BrianD has much less to do with it then you and hoops, sorry

[Alan T]

Vote BrianD


I tried this yesterday and no one joined me so I ended up moving my vote. I'll try again..

I've suspected Brian of being bad for days now, I can't be the only one.

[hoopsguy]

Chubby, I would expect your list of assumptions to read:
- Hoops is evil
- I don't trust three others

Seriously, if you think I'm trying to steer the conversation here publish your own lists and we can have an open conversation about where we perceive differences.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Chubby, I'll accept just as much responsibility for Bek as the four people who actually had their votes on him at the end of the day - even though I removed the vote.

I also had my Day 1 vote on Swaggs, which obviously was not the right choice. I don't know about my Day 2 selection (Passacaglia) right now. But I think it is a tough sell to go after voting records with the limited information we have right now.

You led the bandwagon on bek and tried to sneak off of it once you thought his death was assured, you have more responsibility than others do.

The fact that you insist Pilkington is dead when he can't be (he killed on night 2) further shows your evil ways.

[hoopsguy]

Alan, you are not and of the people who have votes so far Brian would be the person I would vote.

I'm waiting to see if Swaggs has any information to bring to the table today for us.

[RealDeal]

- changes to the rules after a Night lynch mean we lynched a good guy
- no changes to the rules after a Night lynch mean we lynched a bad guy
Given these two assumptions, I don't know how the Sympathizer would show.
i'm not convinced of this, and here's why. After Day 1 a rule changed, and after Day 3, two rules changed. I'm still wondering if path didn't just forget after Day 2. If after Day 3, only one rule had changed, then I would definitely agree with this.

- Both Cronin and Bek were good guys. Bullet was a bad guy I voted for bullet and bek, but I'm not sure why we can assume we know whether either was good or bad. What info do we have to support this?

- given that there has only been one kill on N2 and N3 I believe that Pilkington is dead I'm going on this assumption too, right now

- Swaggs is a cleared good yes, I agree


The above represent my impressions and are guiding my actions. It will take a very persuasive argument to change my mind on these points.

Here are a couple of suspicions
- I believe Bulletsponge was Pilkington I see where this comes from. If Pilkington is indeed dead, it had to be one of our first two kills, and I guess you are guessing that it was bullet because of the rule thing
- I worry that Anxiety was the seer. If he was not, he was affording me considerably more trust on Day 2 - and continuing to extend it on Day 3 - than I am used to seeing from a vanilla villager this early in a game where I'm uncleared interesting thought

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Yesterday he voted for bek, who had voted for him 2 straight days, BEFORE you or hoops came out. Later that day then, hoops started his little crusade and you joined right in. You 2 caused his death. Oh look who also joined in, realdeal...

Then hoops swaps off at the last second, not just off bek onto the other canidate, but puts in a throw away vote to look less suspicious.

BrianD has much less to do with it then you and hoops, sorry

I already said why I chose Bek. I took responsibility for my actions. I don't know why you are saying otherwise. I said many times yesterday my vote was because I didn't like the fact you, Bek, Goldeneagle (3 of the 4 I distrust in this game, with the other being BrianD) all on Greyfooroo.

I don't know much about Greyfooroo, but if you three were on him, it felt really bad to me. I still stand by my decision, even though I was wrong about Bek, my choice was either to:

1) Keep my vote on BrianD (throw away)
2) Move my vote to Blade (throw away)
3) Move my vote to goldeneagle (throw away)
4) Move my vote to Greyfooroo (bad move in my opinion based on who was voting for him)
5) Move my vote to Bek to prevent you from lynching your candidate.

I obviously took #5. Now knowing what I do know, that Bek obviously was influenced by your words and was a misguided villager, I wish I had pushed harder for people to move votes over to BrianD where I was.

Either way, you are completely mistaken about me not taking my responsibility for my actions. I already posted many times taking responsibility.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Alan, you are not and of the people who have votes so far Brian would be the person I would vote.

I'm waiting to see if Swaggs has any information to bring to the table today for us.

VOTE HOOPSGUY

[Chubby]

I have to get ready to leave for work in a minute.

To recap:
bodies with bloody messages from the Revs = Rev kills.
bodies with no messages = Pilkington kills.
I have no idea why there was no Rev kill night two but have put forth my 2 possible reasons: either it was on purpose to try and show Pilkington as dead when he isn't or it was a bodyguard block.
I have 4 people I don't trust, hoops is A #1 and he should be taken out today before he can do anymore damage to the farm.

I won't be online until 11PM EST at the earliest after I get home from work.

[hoopsguy]

Short of seeing two night kills, or having information from both dead-seers reveal that they have not viewed Pilkington, I'm probably not going to change my stance on this. I'm certainly not changing it because you are telling me this.

You are suggesting that the wolves are acting in a manner that slows their end game. I don't buy it. Period, end of story. If you believe that makes me evil then be prepared to deal with the consequences for this at some later point in the game.