Werewolf XXXVII: Middle-Earth - GAME ENDS. Who Won? Check it out!

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

Stuff like forgetting that she had played with you before seems highly unlikely to be wolfish to me. A fact that can be easily checked is a bad choice of fact to try to pass off on the rest of us. I wish you'd come up with some other reason than her being quiet to suspect her because votes like this will set off alarms with most of the people in this game.

I'm largely going based off my past experiences with her and a strong hunch. Could I be wrong? Possibly. But based on the current situation, I'm pretty darned certain she's bad.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Do you know what the voting oddity was?

Switching off on to someone else after the lynch had been assured. I want to say it was the Chief Rum vote, but I know it was one of the votes.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

So you were pushing for a lynch for someone based on a voting oddity that you weren't sure of? Seems odd to me.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

So you were pushing for a lynch for someone based on a voting oddity that you weren't sure of? Seems odd to me.

I wouldn't say I wasn't sure of it.

Rather, I knew the voting oddity occurred and the shape of it.. and I remembered that it happened on a lynch that turned out to be good.

[LoneStarGirl]

Jonathan, izulde is picking at straws.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I do find your moves suspicious so far. The late meaningless move onto a bad guy, followed by the insistence the next day that no bad guys could possibly have known he was bad when in fact it hasn't been proved one way or another.

That is a flat lie. I never insisted any such thing. By reading the death notice, I said that is looked likely that he wasn't on either bad team. That is it. You can find a reason to vote for me, but don't make one up.

The next two days managing to stay off of the person being lynched (day 2 when it was villager vs villager) and yesterday when it was villager vs unknown are a little less suspicious, but just adds to what i saw on day 1.

Not managed to stay off the person being lynched, being outvoted. Slight difference there.

In this game the bad guys don't necessarily know who all the other bad guys are, but they just know who isn't on their team.

No argument here.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

That is a flat lie. I never insisted any such thing. By reading the death notice, I said that is looked likely that he wasn't on either bad team. That is it. You can find a reason to vote for me, but don't make one up.



Not managed to stay off the person being lynched, being outvoted. Slight difference there.



No argument here.

I would hate for facts to get in the way of a good story and all, but I already spent about an hour looking through posts to find which people I felt fit a certain profile. Right now the ones that stood out to me most were you, Mr.Wednesday and Ntndeacon.

Below are the posts from you on the subject, I did not include the interplay Mr.Wednesday had with you going back and forth, but to me you two sure did seem to easily conclude it was fact that bad guys didn't know Scoobz was on their team. It seemed awfully convienant for you two that would be the case considering your actions that day.

Originally Posted by BrianD

Is it possible they didn't know he was Dark?

Originally Posted by BrianD

I agree that none of them would take out a member of their own faction, but if one or more were dark and on the same team, they may not have knows that Scoobz was on the other dark team (or was a dark independent).

Originally Posted by BrianD

It will be nice when we get another dark guy taken out so we can compare the death messages. I agree that it sounds like Scoobz was non-affiliated, but I'm still not sure if I positively believe he was non-affiliated. A comparison message would be nice.

Either way, he was dark and it is good that he is dead. It just makes me nervous when I don't know how many bad teams there are.

Originally Posted by BrianD

I am going to disagree with this. His info on page one says he was "on the side of darkness". Fouts info says he was "on the side of Light and the townsfolks". If Scoobz was on the side of Saruman, I think it would say so specifically.

[Swaggs]

I am not so sure that some of the guys on the block now are bad candidates, but I am going in a different direction today. For me, this person is reminding me a lot of how I behaved the first couple of times I was a werewolf.

Vote Daddy Torgo

I've nailed a few people this way before, so I'm going my own way today, just based on WW experience.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I would hate for facts to get in the way of a good story and all, but I already spent about an hour looking through posts to find which people I felt fit a certain profile. Right now the ones that stood out to me most were you, Mr.Wednesday and Ntndeacon.

Below are the posts from you on the subject, I did not include the interplay Mr.Wednesday had with you going back and forth, but to me you two sure did seem to easily conclude it was fact that bad guys didn't know Scoobz was on their team. It seemed awfully convienant for you two that would be the case considering your actions that day.

I don't think you at all proved what you were trying to. You have also said:

Originally Posted by AlanT

In this game the bad guys don't necessarily know who all the other bad guys are, but they just know who isn't on their team.

From the death notice, and knowing that we get full faction reveals on death, it looks to me like Scoobz wasn't on either bad team. Seems like a logical conclusion that if he wasn't on either bad team and the bad guys know only who is on their team (which you suggest and is reasonable), then the bad guys wouldn't have known that Scoobz was bad.

I'm not positive that this is the case, but basic reading comprehension sure seems to imply it.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I don't think you at all proved what you were trying to. You have also said:

From the death notice, and knowing that we get full faction reveals on death, it looks to me like Scoobz wasn't on either bad team. Seems like a logical conclusion that if he wasn't on either bad team and the bad guys know only who is on their team (which you suggest and is reasonable), then the bad guys wouldn't have known that Scoobz was bad.

I'm not positive that this is the case, but basic reading comprehension sure seems to imply it.

You can argue the fact whether or not people knew of Scoobz' affiliation before his death or not. However saying that I am lying about you making that arguement when you fully admit it now doesn't fly

There is a very big difference between the way Scoobz was posted and Sndvls who was an independant was posted. I was looking for someone who seem as a possible tie to Lathum's death plus some tie to Scoobz' vote with voting irregularity and the three matches I found were you, Mr.W and Ntndeacon.

The interplay between you and Mr.W as the ones pushing that Scoobz was not known now looks fishier to me than it did when you all did it. Until I see another dead bad guy with a faction listed as Saruman or sauron, I will believe that unaffiliated roles will be listed like Sndvls was and not like Scoobz was.

[Sublime 2]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

The reasons for sublime are based on this game only...my reasons for izulde are heavily based upon the fact last time i saw him play, in which he was evil, i feel he played basically the exact same game. So take it for what you will, but no one can accuse me of not saying what im thinking

Oh, and now i have a 4th canidate, becuase they werent killed last night. If this person doesnt die tonight, they will go much further up my list.

Just to clarify, you do know this is my first game right? Therefore, your reasons couldn't be based on any other game. And unless I missed it, I have yet to hear your reasoning for your suspicion. It's tough to defend myself against vague suspicion lists, atleast Tyrith tried to bring some reason to it.

Originally Posted by Tyrith

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second and go with the people blade has been talking about. Saldana, well, I've never liked him....oh, wait, you mean he's dead already? Aw. :P

Sublime 2 - Hasn't been on the lynched candidate either of the last two days. His posts generally seem to indicate he's just trying to do the right thing and he's a little overwhelmed right now....if this isn't setting off alarms in your head considering who is posting this, it should be. I pulled off this BS scheme before. The fact that he wasn't on the lynchee means we can't read his votes, so we don't know what side he's on. Would a more experienced bad guy help along with this plan? I certainly think it's possible. I started picking up a real bad vibe about Sublime yesterday because of the parallels with myself, so consider me suspicious.

Izulde - I really don't know. I read over his posts yesterday evening and didn't get anything too alarming...but now that I look again, the accusations do cause problems. I'm suspicious here too, but I don't have nearly as much to back it up. Sublime would come first if I were to vote between the two.

I'm still suspicious of most of the quieter people that have done middle-late votes on rum and kwhit...gram for sure, lsg, Mr.W (would be playing a really nice game because he's doing his best to make it seem like he's a team player), and Thomkal. And with Schmidty....well, he could be dropping hints he has a really big role, or there could be some nonsense going on.

I'll admit, this may have been a bad game for me to get start my WW career, due to the size and the complexity, BUT I assure you it's 100% pure overwhelmed behavior. I find myself, reading then re-reading posts just to make sure I'm understanding exactly what the person meant. But I still atleast can understand where your suspicion comes from, you've tried the overwhelmed schtick before, it's Blade, and to a lesser extent LSG who I haven't seen much from in the form of reasoning.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Alright, this is eventually going to get me lynched, but the new and improved list:

1.Sublime
2.Izulde
2.Thomkal

2 and 3 are tied for 2

4.?? is a ways back, and is now strongly tied to #2b

It may get you lynched sooner than you expect. I am a villager as I've said all along. I think the only reason you have me on that list is because I find it suspicious you weren't killed last night when you yourself expected it. I've thought since the beginning you were a fellow villager, but now I'm really beginning to have my doubts. You were wrong about saldana on your previous list, and you are wrong about me. So I don't think we should be trusting your instincts right now.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

It may get you lynched sooner than you expect. I am a villager as I've said all along. I think the only reason you have me on that list is because I find it suspicious you weren't killed last night when you yourself expected it. I've thought since the beginning you were a fellow villager, but now I'm really beginning to have my doubts. You were wrong about saldana on your previous list, and you are wrong about me. So I don't think we should be trusting your instincts right now.

Im not the death you suspected that worries me about you

[Lorena]

Well, I just spent a good chunk of time looking through posts and my head is starting to hurt. A couple of people jump out at me.

I filtered my spreadsheet to people who voted for both CR and Kwhit (both known good) and throwaway votes on Day 1 (I'm still of the belief that Day 1 DOES mean something), and the following match:

Mr. W (voted for spleen on Day 1)
Schmidty (voted for fouts Day 1)

I like Schmidty and all, but like JE mentioned, after Schmidty said he had an important role and is still alive (in spite of 3 deaths last night), I'm starting to suspect him more.

Vote Schmidty

I get the paranoia when AlanT mentions your name, but I also think that your wittiness is deflecting attention away from yourself.

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by Dodgerchick

Well, I just spent a good chunk of time looking through posts and my head is starting to hurt. A couple of people jump out at me.

I filtered my spreadsheet to people who voted for both CR and Kwhit (both known good) and throwaway votes on Day 1 (I'm still of the belief that Day 1 DOES mean something), and the following match:

Mr. W (voted for spleen on Day 1)
Schmidty (voted for fouts Day 1)

I like Schmidty and all, but like JE mentioned, after Schmidty said he had an important role and is still alive (in spite of 3 deaths last night), I'm starting to suspect him more.

Vote Schmidty

I get the paranoia when AlanT mentions your name, but I also think that your wittiness is deflecting attention away from yourself.

I really, really don't like this vote. The wolves could very well have left schmidty live because they feared he would be guarded and/or someone hoped someone would do exactly this. Furthermore, one of the deaths last night was something the bad guys couldn't have known anything about barring a role scanning ability. This is really fishy to me.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

You can argue the fact whether or not people knew of Scoobz' affiliation before his death or not. However saying that I am lying about you making that arguement when you fully admit it now doesn't fly

I don't now what you are getting at here other than trying to make stuff up. You attributed to me the statement that "There is no way the bad guys could have possibly known he was bad". I never said that. I said they probably didn't know he was bad. You are trying to claim that I have perfect knowledge of what the bad guys do and don't know. I don't. I was just tryign to figure out stuff like everyone else.

There is a very big difference between the way Scoobz was posted and Sndvls who was an independant was posted. I was looking for someone who seem as a possible tie to Lathum's death plus some tie to Scoobz' vote with voting irregularity and the three matches I found were you, Mr.W and Ntndeacon.

There is a difference, probably because their status was different. According to the rules:

Originally Posted by rules

There will be two sides in this game, the side of light and the side of dark. Almost every player will be on one side or the other.

This clearly implies that there will be some neither light nor dark..like SnDvls.

Also from the rules:

Originally Posted by rules

On each side there are two factions, almost every player will be in one or the other faction, although a few outsiders may exist.

This is a hidden roles game. No roles are revealed prior to beginning, although faction affiliation and the name of the role are revealed upon death. The role itself, may remain a mystery.

These lines tell me that there can also be light or dark who aren't members of a faction...like Scoobz. It also tells me that "faction affiliation...are revealed upon death"

The interplay between you and Mr.W as the ones pushing that Scoobz was not known now looks fishier to me than it did when you all did it. Until I see another dead bad guy with a faction listed as Saruman or sauron, I will believe that unaffiliated roles will be listed like Sndvls was and not like Scoobz was.

So basically you aren't saying that I am wrong, you are saying the rules are wrong. Even though the rules say faction affiliation will be revealed on death, you are pushing the position that my believing that factions will be revealed upon death makes me bad.

Is that really the argument you want to make?

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Dodgerchick

Well, I just spent a good chunk of time looking through posts and my head is starting to hurt. A couple of people jump out at me.

I filtered my spreadsheet to people who voted for both CR and Kwhit (both known good) and throwaway votes on Day 1 (I'm still of the belief that Day 1 DOES mean something), and the following match:

Mr. W (voted for spleen on Day 1)
Schmidty (voted for fouts Day 1)

I like Schmidty and all, but like JE mentioned, after Schmidty said he had an important role and is still alive (in spite of 3 deaths last night), I'm starting to suspect him more.

Vote Schmidty

I get the paranoia when AlanT mentions your name, but I also think that your wittiness is deflecting attention away from yourself.

Another wasted vote.

Part of the reason I'm still alive is because of my role.

Quite honestly, I don't fear the lynch. I do, however, fear what losing me would mean to Bree. All I want to do is help the townsfolk.

That's all I'm going to say about it. If you aren't going to believe me, you're not going believe me.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Im not the death you suspected that worries me about you

You thought you might be killed last night, and gave a list of people that you thought were evil. So why shouldn't I be surprised you are still alive?

[Lorena]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I'm largely going based off my past experiences with her and a strong hunch. Could I be wrong? Possibly. But based on the current situation, I'm pretty darned certain she's bad.

Originally Posted by Izulde

Yes I have played with you. Remember that beginner game? And that other one game I was in where I got night killed early, you may have been in that, too.

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Did everyone receive a name with their roles?

I know Alan did. I did also.

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Not to say that you are not, but I find it interesting that you haven't come out and said that you are on the side of light. Instead you are kind of attacking back at Alan.

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It's no joke at all. With 25 people, this is still like a day 1 vote. I doubt either of these guys are on the dark side, either, but it worked yesterday. And, if it turns out that this is a close, two-man race, vote, we may be able to look back on today's and yesterday's votes to put together a decent list of suspects, particularly since we did hit yesterday.

I can understand your frustration, but don't play angry. Play smart.

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Outside of a seer or witness fingering someone, what is enough to justify voting for someone on day 1 or day 2? If you want no lynch, that is fine, but I think it is smart to build a track record and start taking using the tools available to us to solve things.

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Why did you vote for me, then?

I am one of the few people that have come out and said I am on the side of light and I put out my position that, agree with me or not, I feel like we need to vote/lynch someone because it is one of the only tools available to us, yet you vote for me because I am being suspicious.

Originally Posted by Alan T

Oh you voted for swaggs. ok my bad. I'll fix that. I didnt read clearly. sorry am trying to get the place cleaned up too

Originally Posted by Tyrith

I really, really don't like this vote. The wolves could very well have left schmidty live because they feared he would be guarded and/or someone hoped someone would do exactly this. Furthermore, one of the deaths last night was something the bad guys couldn't have known anything about barring a role scanning ability. This is really fishy to me.

Fishy? Why would it be fishy? Like I said, I filtered my spreadsheet and Schmidty and Mr. W voted for different people other than Scoobz who was a known baddie.

I can easily switch my vote to Mr. W since he met the criteria as well.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

You thought you might be killed last night, and gave a list of people that you thought were evil. So why shouldn't I be surprised you are still alive?

You shouldnt be suprised, thats one of the perks of my play style. Wolves tend to leave me alone at night since they think ill be lynched soon enough. But if you somehow think, with how i acted on day 1, ive made it this far without being scanned your simply not thinking clearly. If im bad you will know whenever the seer comes forward.

But again, it doesnt sound like your listening. I said i was not my suspected death that worried me about you, it was your comments about schmidty

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

I'm still suspicious of most of the quieter people that have done middle-late votes on rum and kwhit... [...] Mr.W (would be playing a really nice game because he's doing his best to make it seem like he's a team player)[...]

My usual wolf strategy is to try to play as much like my non-wolf game as possible. It's great for nobody suspecting I'm a wolf, but not so good for managing the game to get a win. :-/

I might very well have voted (and argued) exactly as I have so far if I were on the side of darkness... so you're going to have to trust me when I tell you I'm a normal townsperson with the best interests of the people of Bree at heart.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I don't now what you are getting at here other than trying to make stuff up. You attributed to me the statement that "There is no way the bad guys could have possibly known he was bad". I never said that. I said they probably didn't know he was bad. You are trying to claim that I have perfect knowledge of what the bad guys do and don't know. I don't. I was just tryign to figure out stuff like everyone else.



There is a difference, probably because their status was different. According to the rules:


This clearly implies that there will be some neither light nor dark..like SnDvls.

Also from the rules:


These lines tell me that there can also be light or dark who aren't members of a faction...like Scoobz. It also tells me that "faction affiliation...are revealed upon death"



So basically you aren't saying that I am wrong, you are saying the rules are wrong. Even though the rules say faction affiliation will be revealed on death, you are pushing the position that my believing that factions will be revealed upon death makes me bad.

Is that really the argument you want to make?

You seem to be arguing semantics, I quoted the posts where you were telling people that you felt that bad guys wouldn't know Scoobz' role and you are arguing about things that I quoted you saying. You then go on to further argue the point that I am saying that you are arguing in the first place


Of course the rules aren't wrong, and I still have reason to believe that everything isn't as cut and dry as you and Mr.Wednesday seemed to make them out to be (especially since making them out that cut and dry benefit you and Mr.Wednesday the most).

[Lorena]

Uhh... wtf was that? I had this stuff quoted because I was looking at swaggs posts because he's another one I suspect.

Oh well, whatever. I suspect Swaggs as well because he's been utr and seems to be playing the same kind of game he did in the SAW game when he ended up being evil.

Izulde, well, he's a different story.

[Lorena]

Gosh darnit, I get so easily swayed.

Unvote Schmidty
Vote Mr. Wednesday

They both meet the criteria, I'll give Schmidty the benefit of the doubt.

I haven't eaten so I gotta get my grub on... be back in a few.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dodgerchick

Uhh... wtf was that? I had this stuff quoted because I was looking at swaggs posts because he's another one I suspect.

Oh well, whatever. I suspect Swaggs as well because he's been utr and seems to be playing the same kind of game he did in the SAW game when he ended up being evil.

Izulde, well, he's a different story.

lol... well I was reading it and figured something like that happened. Looks like your thought process was trying to find a link between Swaggs and me.

I can easily say I have no link with Swaggs this game and I doubt he knows anything about me other than what I said in the thread. I would love to hear more of his thoughts on Daddy Torgo, but as of right now I think he's probably barking up the wrong tree. Inn keeping along with that general line of thinking, I would love for him to be a bit more involved so we have more to base our thoughts and opinions on.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Below are the posts from you on the subject, I did not include the interplay Mr.Wednesday had with you going back and forth, but to me you two sure did seem to easily conclude it was fact that bad guys didn't know Scoobz was on their team.

I concluded it independently of anyone else, and I don't think Brian was even the most prominent in agreeing with my. Tyrith did as well.

So far, the only logic you've offered for the opposing position is some LOTR-theme gobbledygook. Convince me I'm wrong: since the dark adept is clearly NOT in a particular faction (Anxiety has clearly stated that factions are revealed upon death), why do the bad guys know who the dark adept was?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

I concluded it independently of anyone else, and I don't think Brian was even the most prominent in agreeing with my. Tyrith did as well.

So far, the only logic you've offered for the opposing position is some LOTR-theme gobbledygook. Convince me I'm wrong: since the dark adept is clearly NOT in a particular faction (Anxiety has clearly stated that factions are revealed upon death), why do the bad guys know who the dark adept was?

How am I supposed to know what the bad guys knew?? If you and BrianD are sure that you all didn't know who Scoobz was before hand, then fine I'll admit that one of the bad guy's sides didn't know him!

Seriously though, like I said before I based my suspect list on those who voted Lathum day 2 and had weird votes on day 1 involving Scoobz. The whole knowing or not knowing about Scoobz was something interesting I picked up along the way. I still won't be suprised to find out that you guys knew ahead of time.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

You seem to be arguing semantics, I quoted the posts where you were telling people that you felt that bad guys wouldn't know Scoobz' role and you are arguing about things that I quoted you saying. You then go on to further argue the point that I am saying that you are arguing in the first place

Do you really think I am arguing semantics, or is that just the current game you are playing? You have been characterizing my posts in a very specific way. I'll quote you again:

Originally Posted by AlanT

I do find your moves suspicious so far. The late meaningless move onto a bad guy, followed by the insistence the next day that no bad guys could possibly have known he was bad when in fact it hasn't been proved one way or another.

I never insisted any such thing, and claiming that I did is like saying that I must be bad because I know what the bad guys are thinkin. You also say that I am stating something as fact when it hasn't been proven yet. What I was doing was trying to have the discussion which might lead to a general understanding of what was going on with the death reports. I didn't "know" I was right, but based on the rules as written, I thought my ideas were worth adding to the discussion.

Of course the rules aren't wrong, and I still have reason to believe that everything isn't as cut and dry as you and Mr.Wednesday seemed to make them out to be (especially since making them out that cut and dry benefit you and Mr.Wednesday the most).

Actually, I am just trying to help everyone out. I have no idea what Mr.Wed is doing, but I would guess the same thing. The rules seem pretty straightforward. They say that factions will be revealed upon death. If we have someone without a faction revealed, I have to assume that he didn't have one. The rules are also very clear that there will be independent folks, and those with their own victory conditions. You are insisting that we can't actually believe the rules. I am trying to clarify things, why are you trying to make them less clear?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

How am I supposed to know what the bad guys knew?? If you and BrianD are sure that you all didn't know who Scoobz was before hand, then fine I'll admit that one of the bad guy's sides didn't know him!

Seriously though, like I said before I based my suspect list on those who voted Lathum day 2 and had weird votes on day 1 involving Scoobz. The whole knowing or not knowing about Scoobz was something interesting I picked up along the way. I still won't be suprised to find out that you guys knew ahead of time.

So now you aren't really accusing us of what you were accusing us of, but we still probably knew anyway. Nice.

[Tyrith]

Thinking about day 1...it's possible, although I suspect not terribly likely, that scoobz was unaffiliated and they knew who he was. Something like the master/apprentice scenario from the sith game, where they could bring him to their side and knew his identify, but he was blind.

[Lorena]

Originally Posted by Alan T

lol... well I was reading it and figured something like that happened. Looks like your thought process was trying to find a link between Swaggs and me.

Alan, you scare me sometimes with your analysis, that's exactly what I thought.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

So now you aren't really accusing us of what you were accusing us of, but we still probably knew anyway. Nice.

If I knew for sure that you and/or Mr.W were bad, then I would come out and say: "I know you and/or Mr.W are bad!"

Obviously there was some tongue in cheek in my response to Mr.W but thats mostly because you all are arguing the side thought that I had which I found interesting rather than the reason I am suspicious of you.

I still feel there is some validity with lathum dying to what looks like a different killer than most of the normal night kills to look at who was voting for him during the day. I then narrowed it down further by seeing who had voting weirdness on day 1 involving someone who ended up a bad guy (whether you knew he was bad or not before hand). That narrowed the list down to three names. You, Mr.W and Ntndeacon (who I voted for yesterday and so far today).

Once I had that list narrowed down I spent an hour or so looking over the posts from that group. Of course I didn't find much from ntndeacon because he has been quieter than a stump. I saw the stuff from you and Mr.W and thought it was interesting enough to mention it and it added to my suspicions.

So from my viewpoint, you all are making a huge fuss over the part I found interesting and totally ignoring what put me in your direction in the first place (the ties to lathum)

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

Thinking about day 1...it's possible, although I suspect not terribly likely, that scoobz was unaffiliated and they knew who he was. Something like the master/apprentice scenario from the sith game, where they could bring him to their side and knew his identify, but he was blind.

That is one of my thoughts, but like I have said the entire game, until we know more well we won't know for sure. I just found it interesting when people were trying to push a certain idea or agenda when we don't really know the full story.

[Lorena]

Why is this game so darn addicting? (BTW, I'm having a hard time keeping it clean).

Okay, i'm really gone now.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

You shouldnt be suprised, thats one of the perks of my play style. Wolves tend to leave me alone at night since they think ill be lynched soon enough. But if you somehow think, with how i acted on day 1, ive made it this far without being scanned your simply not thinking clearly. If im bad you will know whenever the seer comes forward.

But again, it doesnt sound like your listening. I said i was not my suspected death that worried me about you, it was your comments about schmidty

The fact that a seer hasn't come forward yet and mentioned you is what makes me think you are a villager as I'm sure you were an early scan target. I just don't like the fact that you pegged Saldana wrong, and now me.

And I was listening, I just misunderstood your post. Why shouldn't I have expected Schmidty to be a night-kill? He's the first one in this game to really reveal as a good-aligned role, and perhaps a powerful one at that. I suppose the bad guys might have thought he be guarded, but he might of been worth the risk too.

I just thought this needed to be discussed, as I'm sure I'm not the only one who had their suspicions raised.

[Tyrith]

Okay, I'm thinking we have better people to lynch than sublime for today. Mr.W, Brian, and Izulde have managed to ratchet up the list today.

UNVOTE SUBLIME

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

That is one of my thoughts, but like I have said the entire game, until we know more well we won't know for sure. I just found it interesting when people were trying to push a certain idea or agenda when we don't really know the full story.

Is it really an agenda to say that I think this situation is detailed specifically in the rules?

There was even a question for Anxiety about the faction identifiers in the report and his only answer was that he thought it was quite clear (or something to that effect). Who has the agenda?

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

The fact that a seer hasn't come forward yet and mentioned you is what makes me think you are a villager as I'm sure you were an early scan target. I just don't like the fact that you pegged Saldana wrong, and now me.

And I was listening, I just misunderstood your post. Why shouldn't I have expected Schmidty to be a night-kill? He's the first one in this game to really reveal as a good-aligned role, and perhaps a powerful one at that. I suppose the bad guys might have thought he be guarded, but he might of been worth the risk too.

I just thought this needed to be discussed, as I'm sure I'm not the only one who had their suspicions raised.

The fact he wasnt killed makes me think hes either bad or the bad guys want us to do it for them. Yourself and DC have been the two i noticed, maybe i missed others, who have tried to push suspicion on him. Thats in line with #2, but not #1...so who knows

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Rather, I knew the voting oddity occurred and the shape of it.. and I remembered that it happened on a lynch that turned out to be good.

You consider the CR lynch a good one?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Is it really an agenda to say that I think this situation is detailed specifically in the rules?

There was even a question for Anxiety about the faction identifiers in the report and his only answer was that he thought it was quite clear (or something to that effect). Who has the agenda?

I think the agenda is more the non-acceptance of possibilities that may lie within the rules but not spelled out by them. Tyrith mentioned one such possibility.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

If I knew for sure that you and/or Mr.W were bad, then I would come out and say: "I know you and/or Mr.W are bad!"

Obviously there was some tongue in cheek in my response to Mr.W but thats mostly because you all are arguing the side thought that I had which I found interesting rather than the reason I am suspicious of you.

I still feel there is some validity with lathum dying to what looks like a different killer than most of the normal night kills to look at who was voting for him during the day. I then narrowed it down further by seeing who had voting weirdness on day 1 involving someone who ended up a bad guy (whether you knew he was bad or not before hand). That narrowed the list down to three names. You, Mr.W and Ntndeacon (who I voted for yesterday and so far today).

Once I had that list narrowed down I spent an hour or so looking over the posts from that group. Of course I didn't find much from ntndeacon because he has been quieter than a stump. I saw the stuff from you and Mr.W and thought it was interesting enough to mention it and it added to my suspicions.

So from my viewpoint, you all are making a huge fuss over the part I found interesting and totally ignoring what put me in your direction in the first place (the ties to lathum)

If you want to be suspicious of my moves, that is fine. I'm trying to knock out the bad guys, but you are allowed to see suspicion in my moves. The fact that you combined suspicion with the rules discussion seems like bad logic. The fact that you are now backing off and calling that discussion "interesting" doesn't change the fact that you used bad logic to throw a lot of heat my way. You have been trying to run things all game and you have used bad logic to point at me, Mr. Wed, and Blade. That makes me trust you very little.

[Tyrith]

My opinion on schmidty is that we have to let him go for today. Then if he's alive tomorrow we can torture him for a while, see what he says he actually is, then go from there. But today we'd be firing in the dark, and I have to think that the bad guys thought he might have been guarded if he's good.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

You consider the CR lynch a good one?

You're misinterpreting my meaning. By good lynch I meant that CR turned out to be good.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I think the agenda is more the non-acceptance of possibilities that may lie within the rules but not spelled out by them. Tyrith mentioned one such possibility.

I think you are trying not to hear me. Tyrith's possibility is definitely a possibility. That is why I have been saying things like the bad guys probably didn't know Scoobz was bad. They might have known. We haven't even really been discussing this. We've been talking about the faction of Scoobz. In the posts you quoted, I was coming to the belief that he wasn't in a faction. From what we've seen since those votes, I now strongly believe he wasn't in a faction.

I haven't used the rules to say anything about what the bad guys did or didn't know. I have used them to support my belief that Scoobz wasn't in a bad faction.

The fact that you link Tyrith's possibility with my discussion of the rules when they are not connected seems like an attempt to throw more suspicion on me. You are playing games with logic and people should be looking at why you are doing this.

[Tyrith]

Is this game going to be defined by constant, incessant bickering? We might have to start killing people just to get some peace and quiet in here!

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

If you want to be suspicious of my moves, that is fine. I'm trying to knock out the bad guys, but you are allowed to see suspicion in my moves. The fact that you combined suspicion with the rules discussion seems like bad logic. The fact that you are now backing off and calling that discussion "interesting" doesn't change the fact that you used bad logic to throw a lot of heat my way. You have been trying to run things all game and you have used bad logic to point at me, Mr. Wed, and Blade. That makes me trust you very little.

Please tell me how I'm backing off now? I've said all along the entire time that what led me to being suspicious of you and Mr.W and Ntndeacon was based on the following posts. For crying out loud I have my vote on ntndeacon who wasn't even involved in the discussion about whether or not you knew who scoobz was before hand.

Your comment that I have been trying to run things all game is insulting and untrue. I've done nothing but try to get others to give their reasons for things and to try to get others to drive stuff and not just hop on my feelings alone. I don't mind if you disagree with me or suspect me, but don't be insulting.

Originally Posted by Alan T

I actually was starting to distrust St.Cronin based mainly on him still being around. He was an active player without any lynching heat on him trying to drive people to logical methods of voting (whether you agreed with his logic or not, he applied a very detailed and thought out reasons for why he felt we should do what they are doing.)

That is the exact type of player that I would expect to be night killed, so if he was still around much longer I likely would have started to get suspicious of him.

Now that we know what we do about the day 2 vote between Lathum and Chief we know it was villager vs villager run off. Its pretty funny though that Tyrith predicted St.Cronin's death in a pool of blood last night.

I'm wondering if there is any value in looking at the people who have been hiding their votes somewhat. Something like Brian's voting pattern jumps out at me. Day one vote for Spleen (with late jump to Scoobz after he was already surely lynched), day 2 vote for Lathum and day 3 vote for Tyrith.

Originally Posted by Alan T

Oh Good grief Blade, get over the persecuted act already. In the quote you posted, you can very clearly see I was refering to Brian's voting patterns and have followed it up with discussion on him. What in your mind could you possibly think that post had anything whatsoever to do with you?

Oh I forgot, every one of my posts is a subtle hint to try to get you lynched.

Originally Posted by Alan T

Well to get back to the point i was -trying- to make before that intermission...

I do find your moves suspicious so far. The late meaningless move onto a bad guy, followed by the insistence the next day that no bad guys could possibly have known he was bad when in fact it hasn't been proved one way or another.

The next two days managing to stay off of the person being lynched (day 2 when it was villager vs villager) and yesterday when it was villager vs unknown are a little less suspicious, but just adds to what i saw on day 1.

In this game the bad guys don't necessarily know who all the other bad guys are, but they just know who isn't on their team.

Originally Posted by Alan T

I was debating something similar. One of my thoughts was someone who voted for Lathum day 2, and once he fell out of the lynch spotlight went ahead and night killed him last night. My thinking is the Lathum kill was Saruman's "assassination" kill action and that once again drew me to thinking about people who wern't fond of killing Scoobz on night1.

This thinking is what actually led me to BrianD in looking at voting patterns this morning, but ntndeacon follows the same pattern. Day 1 Swaggs, day 2 Lathum. Mr. Wednesday also seems to fit the pattern some too. (which you can see where I based my immediate distrust list from.)

I voted ntndeacon yesterday due to him being super under the radar, and the fact he seems to fit in the profile that I can invision a bad guy in, I wouldn't have a problem voting for him again today. (That and the contribution he made after I voted for him yesterday was mostly rehashing already stated arguements).

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

Thinking about day 1...it's possible, although I suspect not terribly likely, that scoobz was unaffiliated and they knew who he was. Something like the master/apprentice scenario from the sith game, where they could bring him to their side and knew his identify, but he was blind.

Interesting... I didn't play in that game, what was the mechanic?

I was tying him into past games where there was the "sorceror" role (on the side of the bad guys but functioned like a good guy) or a "designated conversion target" role.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

I was tying him into past games where there was the "sorceror" role (on the side of the bad guys but functioned like a good guy) or a "designated conversion target" role.

That was pretty much my view as well.

[Mr. Wednesday]

followed by the insistence the next day that no bad guys could possibly have known he was bad when in fact it hasn't been proved one way or another.

Not to be confused with your insistance on treating it like the bad guys MUST HAVE KNOWN he was bad, when in fact it hasn't been proved one way or the other.

I thought that a mechanic where they would have known was unlikely, but I didn't realize that such had been used before.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

Is this game going to be defined by constant, incessant bickering? We might have to start killing people just to get some peace and quiet in here!

No one will probably believe me, but with it being a LotR WW, I figured what the heck, I'll come in not throw around accusations and enjoy it a bit. =\