Werewolf - Game Over: The Dark Lord Rises

[Outnuendo]

Actually there is every point to discussing it. If we believe that we have 3 anti-town factions, 2 anti-town factions or 1 anti-faction, may completely change how we have to use some of our powers. Discussing this is much more useful than discussing if we think a doctor is in the game.

If there is only one kill during the night, a SK is pretty unlikely. (It would have to hit a doc target, which is pretty unlikely in a 20-man game)
If there are two kills, then it could be a vig, a SK, or another mafia faction (Becomes a possibility)
If there are three kills, then there has to be 3 of the 4 (Mafia 1, Mafia 2, SK, Vig). This makes SK pretty possible.

The possibility of a SK is strongly influenced by night actions. That's why I dropped it now.

[Snark]

Alas, on a more serious note:
There are 3 SK deniers (tlc, Angua, Innu), of which tlc was the first to back off, hence my vote is quite silly now.
Unvote

I'm tempted to follow your lead, but my vote on TLC (Tender loving care) is staying because he FoS'd Angua and Ounuendo for agreeing with him. Seems like he's trying to shift focus.

But wait, talking about one role makes you more likely to be that role? It's really more like WIFOM to follow that reasoning.

Not when you're denying that SK exists. If you can get enough people thinking that, then a watcher might be tricked into thinking you're a vig instead of a SK.

Votes should be put down when you think a player is scum, there should be adequate reasoning for that vote and if your going to unvote, there must be adequate reasoning to unvote (as in why you now think that Player X isn't scum). This should apply to all votes IMO (although I'm willing to let joke votes from start of day slip).

I'm sorry you think that I didn't have adequate reasoning for my votes. Reason for ahammel: because mason came up as cult in my mind. Reason for Zace: To try and encourage the lurkers to start posting. Reason for TLC: already explained multiple times. I understand your suspicion and FoS, but I stand by my votes and think my reasons were as good as reasons can get on D1.

Also I'm ok with being a little loose with voting early in D1. It's impossible to know for certain who's scum so the best you can do is hunches and best guesses. If we all waited til we were 100% sure someone was scum before voting, we wouldn't get much voting or lynching done at all. Instead, I see voting as a way to get a player talking. Then when they defend themselves, you can try to tell if they're being overly defensive or reasonable.

[ForAllOfThis]

Instead, I see voting as a way to get a player talking. Then when they defend themselves, you can try to tell if they're being overly defensive or reasonable.

Sure, I can get behind that playstyle but you switched votes so fast from Ahammel to Zace to TLC that you didn't give the first two a chance to defend themselves. The speed at which you were swapping votes in that period makes me think you realised the first vote looked scummy, panicked quickly and changed vote to someone who couldn't defend themselves (lurker), then tried to rescue the situation for giving a reasoned vote against TLC as there was no-one else who had put a move wrong at that point. Whether it's newbie town panic or newbie scum panic is upto interpretation, but that's how the situation it looks to me.

[Adam H]

I think we are looking at at least two kills tonight. Adam suggested we might have one NK when saying a NL wouldn't be that bad? I don't believe your that naive Adam. I've never seen just a single NK in a game of 20 players.

I think there's going to be more than one NK. I only suggested the possibility so that those who think there's only one scum faction (including SK) wouldn't get hung up on that aspect of my argument.

Either we get 1 NK and end up with 19 players instead of 20, or we get more than one NK and possibly get a scum killed by either a vig or rival anti-town faction.

Even though there's not really anything to go on, I'm going to vote. This player has made only two posts, but this isn't a lurker vote. He jumped on the multiple faction idea, then immediately jumped off; he didn't give reasons for either opinion. And lastly he said I'm always scummy! OMGUS!

Vote: greenlover

[Snark]

Sure, I can get behind that playstyle but you switched votes so fast from Ahammel to Zace to TLC that you didn't give the first two a chance to defend themselves. The speed at which you were swapping votes in that period makes me think you realised the first vote looked scummy, panicked quickly and changed vote to someone who couldn't defend themselves (lurker), then tried to rescue the situation for giving a reasoned vote against TLC as there was no-one else who had put a move wrong at that point. Whether it's newbie town panic or newbie scum panic is upto interpretation, but that's how the situation it looks to me.

I switched from ahammel quickly because I realized that mason is pro-town. I was previously thinking of cult (anti-town). Therefore according to my previous logic, I believed he was a mason, not a cult member. Why wouldn't I change that vote quickly? He didn't need to defend himself if he's a mason.

After unvoting ahammel, I looked through my player analysis for someone else who was worthy to vote and found none. So I voted a lurker to get the lurkers posting.

Then I read this post and remembered that I had felt the same way about tlc and had, in fact, already mentioned that feeling in my player analysis here. So I realized that a vote for tlc was much better than a lurker vote. Once again, Zace had no reason to defend themselves because it was a lurker vote.

I'm officially done explaining my votes and unvotes. I had good reasons for all of them and harmed no one by switching.

[t1mm01994]

Let's do some handwavy maths! Say there are 6 anti-town players, split 3-3 in 2 factions, and they both control a NK. Doing nothing ends us up with 2 3/17 shots of someone hitting scum, and on average, scum and town will die in a 1:5 ratio. A lynch has a 3/10 chance to kill scum, which leads to an overall 1:3,5 ratio of scum:town dying, assuming randomness. In truth this'll be somewhat guided, but that's information increasing accuracy.

tl;dr: don't NL unless you've got some fairly strong arguments.

[Misnomer]

Votals:

JesseScottOwen (1): fearless
tastelikecoke (1): snark
greenlover (1): Adam H

Not Voting (17): t1mm01994, tastelikecoke, greenlover, matt96, wam, Krong, mostlynormal, CaptainFinglass, Outnuendo, Zace, ahammel, webby, BoomFrog, Lataro, DaBigCheez, JesseScottOwen, Angua

11 to lynch. Deadline in just over 72 hours.

[tastelikecoke]

If there is only one kill during the night, a SK is pretty unlikely. (It would have to hit a doc target, which is pretty unlikely in a 20-man game)
If there are two kills, then it could be a vig, a SK, or another mafia faction (Becomes a possibility)
If there are three kills, then there has to be 3 of the 4 (Mafia 1, Mafia 2, SK, Vig). This makes SK pretty possible.

It's not uncommon for the SK and mafia to choose the same target Day 1. The mod can't be guaranteed to tell that the victim was stabbed twice or something, so a one NK's more likely than you think with an SK around. Day 2 can't really disprove it.

72 hours. That can't be right. I couldn't ignore the threat of Snark's vote I guess. I'll look over the players soon, right now it's my time to sleep.

[Angua]

72 hours already?

Can we have a modprod on Lataro, please?

Better get down to some voting then. I was giving it a bit so that the replacements would have time to say something.

This post by snark raised my eyebrows a bit

Lack of day-chat for scum makes me curious:
Mod, do scum/mafia/masons/whatever/anti-town-factions already know their teammates?

1) It corroborates the fact that they thought masons were scum
2) They don't seem to think that scum generally starts off knowing who their team is? The whole point of mafia is that scum knows who their team is. It just seemed like an odd question for the mod.
(Also, for the record - daychat mason's is not an uncommon role, however scum rarely has day chat)

As for the rest of it, there's not much else that stood out. FaoT and I obviously read the mod's post concerning whether or not you could have a one man faction slightly differently, but I wouldn't have put it past misnomer to make it sound like there wasn't a one-man faction just because they're annoyed at all the questions concerning the rules. Anyway, we might have an SK, so hopefully all this talk about it will be fairly useful in later days. It wouldn't surprise me if we ended up with one of the people avidly pro-sk turns out to be the SK (wine works both ways!) - just something to keep in mind.

I think I'm going to
vote: Adam H

for FoSing DBC when they pointed out that we should be avoiding no lynches, because in Adam's eyes, they apparently aren't too bad in a big game. It's not a very strong point, I'll grant you, but it's all I really have to go on at the moment.

[JesseScottOwen]

I think I'm going to
vote: Adam H

for FoSing DBC when they pointed out that we should be avoiding no lynches, because in Adam's eyes, they apparently aren't too bad in a big game. It's not a very strong point, I'll grant you, but it's all I really have to go on at the moment.

You're right, it's not a strong point. Vote someone for being suspicious of someone else? Suspicious.

Vote: Angua

[Angua]

It's why (ie their arguments) they're being suspicious, not the fact that they're suspicious in general.

If it wasn't for the fact that it would be extremely OMGUSy, I'd be voting for you right now. However, I will see what reaction other people think that merits.

[Outnuendo]

Why would you be so concerned with it appearing as an OMGUS? Self-Preservation much?

[Misnomer]

Lataro has recieved a modprod.

[Adam H]

You're right, it's not a strong point. Vote someone for being suspicious of someone else? Suspicious.

Vote: Angua

Lolololol. You're voting someone for being suspicious of someone else for being suspicious of someone else! I really want to vote you for being suspicious of someone else for being suspicious of someone else for being suspicious of someone else, just for the fun of it. But I won't.

[Angua]

Why would you be so concerned with it appearing as an OMGUS? Self-Preservation much?

No, just recognising that my judgment in this matter is probably clouded.

[t1mm01994]

Just For My Information, but isn't it a common fact that Adam looks suspicious D1?

[Angua]

Yes, but sometimes he turns out to be scum anyway. See - the latest resistance game.

[ForAllOfThis]

72 hours till deadline, probably a good time to drop a vote.

@Snark: I feel much better about you now than I did before. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt with regards to those early votes being a mistake and the fact I've numerlously voted newbie town thinking they were scum in the past, but I'll be keeping my eye on you.

@Adam: Haven't you tried to make a case before for a NL on day 1 before? Or was that someone else? If you don't actually believe there to be only one scum faction then I have no need to vote. Without wading too much into the NL argument though, I have to agree with you that a NL wouldn't be as bad as people like to make out (but only on D1). http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=66663&start=200. Deva's number collecting revealed that D1 lynches last year resulted in a 64% chance of town being lynched D1, 25% chance of scum being lynched D1 and a 11% chance of an independent being lynched D1. However, I think there are practical cons to a NL D1, like losing important information such as votals (only if people vote for a NL). For that reason I wouldn't suggest voting for a NL.

@Outnuendo: Still dislike the wait till tomorrow attitude. It's drenched in wine because there might be successful doctors, roleblocks, witholding of kills etc etc. Discussion is also good, so attempting to shut it down is a little scummy. I still consider you scummy, but will not be voting for you just yet.

I'm going to vote Webby. I felt his defense of Snark and Outnuendo was a little pre-emptive, so I think there might be an ulterior motive under there. He's also contributed extremely little to the thread, which is unlike him. A well reasoned vote and response might make me re-consider but for now I have a gut feeling that something is not right.

Vote: Webby

[ahammel]

Man, so little to go on! Since we're getting to the deadline, I'm going to

vote: greenlover

For general lurkiness and the flip-flop on the multi-scum-faction issue.

[Lataro]

I'm here I'm here!

Been busy with work and evil auction. I haven't had time to fully read whats been going on, but can try later, gotta head back to work now.

[greenlover]

[...]flip-flop on the multi-scum-faction issue.

...Seriously? Someone other than AdamH voted on this? Wow.

Anyway, A flip flop is when someone changes their mind without any justification. I did not do this. Instead, I was corrected on a misunderstanding - previously, I thought that werewolves were simply an addon to mafia in the mafia games (a perception built up due to previously playing in the mafia+werewolf game). However, as was explained later in the thread, werewolf mafia is typically just a different flavor of the same old game of mafia.

Lynch me for lurking if you want, but don't lynch me for something I didn't even do.

Also, I'm currently undecided on a vote, but I'm currently leaning towards voting for ahammel on bandwagoning on AdamH's vote. I know, I know, call it OMGUS if you want, but that's actually scummy.

Yes, but sometimes he turns out to be scum anyway. See - the latest resistance game.

This is true. Although I don't agree with Angua's current justification, we certainly shouldn't just let AdamH off the hook 'cause he always seems scummy. Just make sure that you take any pings he gives you with a grain of salt.

[Mostlynormal]

I'm still in the process of wrapping my head around this game. So as to contribute to this thread I'll throw out a few people who I find scummy:

Ahammel for the very "safe" vote.

FAOT for saying that we should only vote people who we think are scummy--I think this was already adressed but voting is also very useful for gauging reactions, both overdefensive and bandwagonny.

I'll probably lay a vote down tommorrow but right now I'm too tired to think right.

[ahammel]

...Seriously? Someone other than AdamH voted on this? Wow.

Anyway, A flip flop is when someone changes their mind without any justification. I did not do this. Instead, I was corrected on a misunderstanding - previously, I thought that werewolves were simply an addon to mafia in the mafia games (a perception built up due to previously playing in the mafia+werewolf game). However, as was explained later in the thread, werewolf mafia is typically just a different flavor of the same old game of mafia.

See, you didn't mention this in your second post. All we got was "I was building off an assumption that now appears to be invalid". You didn't mention which assumption. From here it looks an awful lot like "ok, now I don't think there are two scum factions". It was always a weak justification, but we don't have a lot to work on. In retrospect, an FoS would have been fully sufficient but I was all "dammit, there's no time!".

Unvote

Aaaaand, back to square zero. Bah.

[tastelikecoke]

Most of the posts are rolespecs. This means somehow these are the scum tells I could have:
- agrees/disagrees with ideas, specs, but less on scumminess.
- gives a lot of opinion, but doesn't stand on it.
This is not too definite. Arrogant players often breaks all of them.
Anyhow it leads to DBC, Angua, greenlover, and wam. Out of them the most I notice is Angua. But this might be more gut, it's more like Angua's posts lack some kind of sparkle.
Basically though, in her post agreeing with my point, I see some sense. But she did quickly turn it down, and it feels too sudden for a change of heart. He also voted Adam H, though not being a really strong point-ish, and I'm not really liking that one. All in all posts feel a bit, safe.
Vote: Angua

As I've noticed matt96 have been lurking the thread without any substantial contribution other than joke votes. The same with fearless, and some among the replacements. I hope they would post soon. I don't like lurker lynches but it wouldn't really hurt in a large game.

[Angua]

I was still advocating that we could have some sort of serial killer though (my mechanism for making it town aligned was to have a way that once town had won, they didn't need to find the serial killer as well). While I thought SK counts as an independent, I was still saying that there could be justifications for having them around. Therefore, if people are certain that it counts as a different faction instead of an independent, I wasn't that invested in the point.

[Misnomer]

Votals:

JesseScottOwen (1): fearless
tastelikecoke (1): snark
greenlover (1): Adam H
Adam H (1): Angua
Angua (2): tastelikecoke, JesseScottOwen
Webby (1): ForAllOfThis

Not Voting (13): t1mm01994, greenlover, matt96, wam, Krong, mostlynormal, CaptainFinglass, Outnuendo, ahammel, webby, BoomFrog, Lataro, DaBigCheez

11 to lynch. Deadline in just under 54 hours.

[CaptainFinglass]

...That awesome moment I haven't the faintest idea who to vote for but I don't want a NL... Well.

Slight FoS at Snark for vote hopping so quickly.
Slight FoS at Angua for very "safe" feel to posts.

That's... really all I got so far. I'll do a more thorough read through again tomorrow and try and scrape up an actual vote by morning.

[ForAllOfThis]

FAOT for saying that we should only vote people who we think are scummy--I think this was already adressed but voting is also very useful for gauging reactions, both overdefensive and bandwagonny.

Way to take my statement out of context. I was specifcally making this point to Snark who made 3 votes in a very short amount of time which I percieved as having little justification for those votes. I even agreed with him (and thus I am agreeing with you) when he raised the point that votes can be used to apply pressure, but for that, a vote has to remain on a person for a substantial amount of time which (in Snark's case) they didn't until the final vote.

[Snark]

Votals:

JesseScottOwen (1): fearless
tastelikecoke (1): snark
greenlover (1): Adam H
Adam H (1): Angua
Angua (2): tastelikecoke, JesseScottOwen
Webby (1): ForAllOfThis

Just did an individual read-through on the six people who have garnered votes so far.

Adam has been acting hyper, in an odd way. See this:

And lastly he said I'm always scummy! OMGUS!
Vote: greenlover

FoS: Adam for tossing out a vote where I can't tell if you're joking. It's too close to the deadline for games.

Jesse, greenlover, Angua, webby have all been lurking or active-lurking the hell out of the game so far. I'm ok with lynching active lurkers (because it's scummy and safe for the person doing it), but I think there's a better choice. Cue next paragraph.

Tastelikecoke has 1. Denied that an SK is possible, 2. FoS'd people who agreed with him on point 1, 3. Failed to defend himself at all in this post and instead shifted focus to the person (me) who voted for him, and 4. Voted Angua while still saying he'd by open to lynching one of the many lurkers in game.

IMO, TLC's been trying to divert attention away from himself, and onto anyone who he thinks he can get lynched. If you would read through TLC's posts, I think more of you would be voting for him. Maybe you won't feel the same as me, but he's pinging me pretty hard, and I don't want this day to end without going on record that I think TLC is scum.

[matt96]

I would just like to say that I agree with snark about TLC, and that it might be partly because I find TLC's image kind of weird/disturbing, and that I won't be online for a few hours because I am leaving to volunteer at a soup kitchen.

almost forgot
Vote:tastelikecoke
if it the votal is tied nearing the deadline, I will remove my vote only to prevent a no lynch scenario.

[Mostlynormal]

FAOT for saying that we should only vote people who we think are scummy--I think this was already adressed but voting is also very useful for gauging reactions, both overdefensive and bandwagonny.

Way to take my statement out of context. I was specifcally making this point to Snark who made 3 votes in a very short amount of time which I percieved as having little justification for those votes. I even agreed with him (and thus I am agreeing with you) when he raised the point that votes can be used to apply pressure, but for that, a vote has to remain on a person for a substantial amount of time which (in Snark's case) they didn't until the final vote.

Yeah, it looks like you're right. I apologize. When I first saw your post it almost looked like you were arguing against pressure votes and that's the image I had in my mind.

I don't really have a strong target for a vote right now. All I know for sure is I disapprove of the Angua lynch. Jesse's vote makes little sense, and I don't agree with TLC's justification. Angua's normally a "safe" player, I think she's doing relatively good this game.

Anyway, Jesse's reason for voting was rather out there. It could be a newbie mistake but I've got little else to go on and really want a vote out there.

Vote: JesseScottOwen

Fearless, you still have a vote on Jesse left over from Chickenfish (and I think it was a joke vote, at that). Could you please either take it off or renew it? It's confusing to see it in the votals.

[ForAllOfThis]

Personally, I don't see an argument against TLC. What it essentially boils down to is people are voting for TLC because he doesn't think there is a SK in the game. In most games, that wouldn't be considered scummy. So right now, I'm more concerned with the people opting to vote for him as he seems like a relatively easy target to bandwagon (specifically referring to matt's vote here).

[Snark]

Hey FOAT, you don't have to agree with me, but try to at least acknowledge that I had 4 points/reasons for voting TLC, not just the one that you chose to address.

[Snark]

EMWOP: FAOT, not FOAT

[matt96]

Personally, I don't see an argument against TLC. What it essentially boils down to is people are voting for TLC because he doesn't think there is a SK in the game. In most games, that wouldn't be considered scummy. So right now, I'm more concerned with the people opting to vote for him as he seems like a relatively easy target to bandwagon (specifically referring to matt's vote here).

Honestly, I just really cannot stand TLC's image, it is almost as unnerving as Lataro's, speaking of Lataro, doesn't Lataro apparently always act scummy (at least day 1), anyone else find it weird he hasn't been scummy yet this game?

[fearless]

unvote
Because I didn't vote for him. o_O

All the SK talk seems a bit premature on D1. Rather wait to see what happens on N1 (ie how many kills there are) before we jump to conclusions and conjectures.

TLC claims it is *not* uncommon for SK and mafia to target the same person on N1. Lol? In a game this size, I think the probability of that happening is pretty low.

vote TLC

[tastelikecoke]

Snark, That's because I really don't think your suspicion that I'm scummy because I'm an SK really holds water. I had a defense, it's this.

But wait, talking about one role makes you more likely to be that role? It's really more like WIFOM to follow that reasoning.

To expound that further, Imagine you are an SK, with the exact description as you are incriminating me with. You would probably think of some plan to cover up your identity. You read upon the rules, Hey, it shows here that an SK is impossible, if you consider it a third party. You thought "I'll mention that and I'll get away and have some tea while I stab people."
This is just as likely as any town misinterpreting the rules. Would an SK really go the trouble? Well, there's a chance for a gambit, or any magnificent bastard thinking it over, but do you really think that would mean I am definitely pinging as an SK?
Also, as for your reason 4.

4. Voted Angua while still saying he'd by open to lynching one of the many lurkers in game.

Sure, but why does it make me scummy? That's just a description of what I did.

well then, bandwagon's bandwagon for Matt96 and fearless. o_o do you have something against me just because I mentioned you guys weren't posting much?

TLC claims it is *not* uncommon for SK and mafia to target the same person on N1. Lol? In a game this size, I think the probability of that happening is pretty low.

Mafia and SKs have same things common in their mind. They want to kill people who is helpful for town. It's still possible, not impossible enough to make us sure that one night kill means one faction.
Really, this is a very flimsy argument to vote me though. You even argued that talking about SKs are a bit premature. Didn't we discuss how important an SK is to the setup? This is a bit OMGUS-y but
unvote
vote: fearless
I would prefer this against an Angua lynch.

[t1mm01994]

Ooh, I found a thingy here!
Fearless.. What exactly is your reasoning behind voting tlc? It appears rather bandwagonny with very, very poor justification. (SK and scum both want to hit one of the towniest players)
Vote: fearless
for not saying much, but that what is said is off.

[Snark]

To expound that further, Imagine you are an SK, with the exact description as you are incriminating me with. You would probably think of some plan to cover up your identity. You read upon the rules, Hey, it shows here that an SK is impossible, if you consider it a third party. You thought "I'll mention that and I'll get away and have some tea while I stab people."
This is just as likely as any town misinterpreting the rules. Would an SK really go the trouble? Well, there's a chance for a gambit, or any magnificent bastard thinking it over, but do you really think that would mean I am definitely pinging as an SK?

Yes. I think you would go to that trouble.

Also, as for your reason 4.

4. Voted Angua while still saying he'd by open to lynching one of the many lurkers in game.

Sure, but why does it make me scummy? That's just a description of what I did.?

Because you don't seem to care who gets lynched as long as it's not your self.

[fearless]

(SK and scum both want to hit one of the towniest players)
.

because 1. mafia and SK might not agree on who is the "towniest".
2. The SK might be an inexperienced or bad player in which case, his list of "towniest" players might be very different to the mafia's list. (In addition, the mafia have more knowledge so their NK choice is dictated by what they know, whereas the SK's choice is dictated by what he /thinks/ he knows)
3. There is a doc who wants to protect the person who is likely to be the NK target - which means neither mafia nor SK should go for the "obvious" choice. So then, what are the chances that they both end up targeting the same person in a game of 20 people?

I voted for TLC because he engaged in that silly SK debate, and after everyone had agreed to drop it, he THEN went on to say mafia & SK might hit the same target in which case we can't rely on the N1 results in which case we really should still talk about the whole SK thing. And now he vote switches to the person who voted for him. Seems pretty desperate to me.