Careless Village WW

[gunnar11]

Gunnar11, remind me again why we shouldn't lynch you?

Because you have no reason to.
I think I'm one of the least suspicious people out here.
My second go at this game has just started a few days ago.
And the fact that I've been busy learning for exams I have this week. After tomorrow I've got a lot more time to post and will be more active in the game.

planswalker, remind me again why we shouldn't lynch you? Or tell me why we should lynch me?

[planswalker]

Because you have no reason to.

let's analyze that.

I think I'm one of the least suspicious people out here.

oh, yes, sure. You of course think your behavior has been the most inconspicuous and unnoticeable among everyone. I think you're one of the most suspicious.

My second go at this game has just started a few days ago.

let's re-count that, shall we?

And the fact that I've been busy learning for exams I have this week. After tomorrow I've got a lot more time to post and will be more active in the game.

which doesn't change what alignment you have, only how much time you have to give arguments. Doesn't mean squat about your voting history directly. Ramsus being sick didn't prevent me from analyzing him. You being busy won't stop me here either.

planswalker, remind me again why we shouldn't lynch you? Or tell me why we should lynch me?

well, a new reason to lynch you is that rather than really give any sort of concrete defense, you revenge vote. To me, that sounds like a desperate wolf hoping to get his accuser to become the target of a bandwagon.

As for my own defense: If someone doesn't think my voting history since returning is defense enough, I'll accept being lynched. I think any serious analysis of it will speak for itself. If you or anyone else would like to analyze it and show differently, feel free.

I'm really busy with exams right now, but if you instist, I'll have to choose
planswalker
simply because there's no chance that he'd be lynched right now, so it's the equivalent of an Executioners pick.

a late last-minute vote against me when there are already established bandwagons... an attempt to essentially give a non-vote without missing a day. As you say yourself, equivalent to your non-participatory Executioner pick. The executioner we likely don't have, since a tied vote the other day resulted in no lynch.

this was, of course, something that made me take note of you and decide to look over your voting history.

Executioners pick
is what I choose

you give this the day AFTER we have a tied-up lynching resulting in no one's death... a strong indication that we are without an executioner. Counter-intuitive for town to vote for something which is likely to not exist anymore and therefore give the wolves a free day.

Ok, I still don't know, but Nightpinguïn seems like the most safe choice here. Besides, I actually believe Devmaar.

Zar for president!

==========================================

The boy entered the library. It had been already 2 days since the nice girl was killed. He had been on the hunt ever since then, and had found Ramsus killed already. Now, he had some rest.

This night he would go hunting again, for the offspring of those disgusting beasts. But the problem was more complicated now. The original evil wasn't there anymore, and the next-gen had weaker aura's to trace. Rituals wouldn't lead him to the same places they did before, and could even utterly fail.

He opened the door and went to the book he sought: "Legends of Wolves and Wonder"
This should give him the info he needed.

one of two times you decided to vote for a bandwagon instead of voting executioner. You wait until late and vote for the one in the lead. A very "safe" vote, normally.

I vote Executioners pick, and that's it

you again decide a non-vote is more useful than raising suspicion by voting for someone.

Spoiler

Show

It's not useful you put that in quotes xD
Also: I wasn't being sarcastic, I really meant it.


First of all: A disguiser is an original role, right?
That means that it shouldn't be taken into account. Grey Mage can't be a disguiser and a wolf at the same time. (Or is disguiser an evil role?)
This means that you have to count with 12 people instead of 13.
Second: Did you count the seer as one of those 13? Because if you did, you would have to substract one more, leaving it at 11 instead of 12/13

If I messed up, just say so, but even if we take into account the 13:


Technically, probabilities change with the knowledge you have, but that is quite a boring talk, and I will spare you it. Essentially you're right, theoretically you're not.



No no no no no no no no.
The thing is, you already know that he's a wolf. You can't take into account that he could be a villager in disguise, while at the same time taking into account that he's a werewolf (because we know that).
You're using Knowledge A to prove Knowledge A.
Better:
1(seer probability of correct scry)*1(probability he is a wolf)*[0.9231(no disguise)-(he isn't!)0.0769(disguise)]=0.8462
But that would still be using info in two ways.
Perfect:
1(seer probability of correct scry)*1(probability he is a wolf)*1(she sees him as a wolf)=1

A quarter of that for a fool.

The point I want to make is:
you use 4 factors in your calculations:

• Chance she is a seer [0.25 or 1]
• Chance he is a wolf [you take it for granted, 1]
• Chance he really is a wolf [you just took it for granted!, 0.9231??]
• Chance he is disguised [none really, he is a wolf, you just took it for granted!, 0.0769?????]

By the way, how did you get the factor 0.5?


request


Ok, two things: You can't use the chances taken on day 4 and combine them with day 9. As said, chances vary with the knowledge you have.
(do you know the story of the WIN A CAR shows? With the curtains/doors and when you get showed one the chance for the other increases?)

Second: when you say 0.03333 you mean 0.06666

Last but not least: you can't take the chance that she is a fool (0.2) and multiply it by the chance that she has a correct scry (0.25). These two chances are tied together. They change according to each other.

The chance she is correct while being a fool (0.2) will not decrease because she is a fool.



These are the things at first glance.
I know you meant good, but you can't calculate chances for something while using those chances to calculate it. If you get what I mean.

your analysis of my math here is actually very fishy in hindsight.

You completely "misunderstood" the role of disguiser and did your best to make it seem like a town role when it is explicitly a wolf role. You misconstrue what I was trying to say to obfuscate my logic while at the same time acting quite condescending to the person being most vocal at keeping Ramsus the slippery wolf from avoiding lynching for the day.

Rann came in the room. The meeting the day before had ended quite well, with everyone having info on their opponents.
Now, in front of him he found something horrifying. Kal, his newfound companion, was murdered. She lay lifeless there, with a single note in her hand.

She had come too close, and paid the full price for it: her life.
It was now Rann's turn to avenge her, to deal with Ramsus. And for that, they needed another ally.

"I heard you wanted to take charge of everything here, &we? he said, approaching him. This is the note Kal left. Read it.

Then he took of again. On the note he had left a small message: The fountain, every day 8 o' clock.

You vote for Ramsus when there's no rational reason to vote for anyone else. A very "safe" vote.

Seems like I already can vote: Ramsus for mayor
&we for the guillotine

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A young man entered the village. He could sense the magic in the air. This village was old, but still infested with eternal rituals of power.
While entering, he makes some gestures with his hands, some wards, for protection.

He seeks the alleys, the sideways of cities, where the rumours pass, where information is gathered. He tries to seek someone of knowledge: "What are the latest happenings in this town? I smell blood..."
He keeps his eyes open, and his mind even more.

your first vote as a clueless newcomer was to someone that was not part of any bandwagon and was basically a throwaway vote. Since you didn't even know your alignment then, this one is not really analyzable in and of itself. However, it is the same pattern you followed even AFTER knowing your alignment. One would think you'd wish to act like a townie once you know your alignment.

Current Votes:
Gray Mage - 4
usourselves&we - 2

4 min to lynch
8 still need to vote
less than 24 hours

Mayor Votes:
Ramsus - 2

People up for Mayor vote, send in title to learn about

gunnar11 added as Newcomer #36

is the day you joined. You've had seven days to vote. You've had your current role for HALF the game. You are flat out lying about having a recent role that's not analyzable. You have, however, had very forgettable votes on their own that you don't really want people to analyze as a whole.

Upon further analysis, your defense rests upon lies and misdirection. That sounds like wolf to me.

[Nightpenguin]

Wait, what happened to lynching Eternis? If he was considered more suspicious than gunnar11 yesterday (day before?) then he still is.

[Gray Mage]

Wait, what happened to lynching Eternis? If he was considered more suspicious than gunnar11 yesterday (day before?) then he still is.

Well, Eternis was up for lynch earlier then that, but Gunnar avoidance on making a meaninfull vote is suspicious to me, though I'm not convinced yet.

I'll read the thread again and give him some time to make a rebuttal to plans' post.

[Tom the Mime]

Wait, what happened to lynching Eternis? If he was considered more suspicious than gunnar11 yesterday (day before?) then he still is.

TBF said he scried him as town (80% success rate) and TBF's role sounds awfully like a village scrying role so I'd say Eternis is off the hook for now. You and Gray Mage are a little more suspicious for having raised the ire of a seer but given it wasn't based on scries, it's not a point straight away from me.

I'm pointing at Gunnar given that trying to stay under the radar, whatever the reason, is not the least suspicious behaviour as he seems to think. Saying his second go only started a couple of days ago when his second role is one of the older living roles isn't terribly helpful either.

Chromasia has also been alive for a while without saying much. Understandable given they're new but they should give some reasoning or claims or something and they've been alive long enough that I wouldn't feel guilty for lynching/pointing at a newbie without a scry. Likewise for Caprice although I think they've said a little bit more.

[Zar Peter]

A clueless newcomer enters the town, reading the diary of his father.

Hmm... according to this I wouldn't point at Eernis. He seeemed to be only a villager. Father could have been a fool, though, but since he found one wolf I doubt that. Oh, according to this he was very frustrated that he needed so long to find this one wolf.

And I'm sorry but gunnar11 is a bit suspicous.

[Nightpenguin]

TBF said he scried him as town (80% success rate) and TBF's role sounds awfully like a village scrying role so I'd say Eternis is off the hook for now. You and Gray Mage are a little more suspicious for having raised the ire of a seer but given it wasn't based on scries, it's not a point straight away from me.

I'm pointing at Gunnar given that trying to stay under the radar, whatever the reason, is not the least suspicious behaviour as he seems to think. Saying his second go only started a couple of days ago when his second role is one of the older living roles isn't terribly helpful either.

Chromasia has also been alive for a while without saying much. Understandable given they're new but they should give some reasoning or claims or something and they've been alive long enough that I wouldn't feel guilty for lynching/pointing at a newbie without a scry. Likewise for Caprice although I think they've said a little bit more.

Oh, I didn't see that scry. gunnar11 then. (I hope he doesn't take it out on my character - he's DM'ing my game).

[Kalrany]

TBF said he scried him as town (80% success rate) and TBF's role sounds awfully like a village scrying role so I'd say Eternis is off the hook for now. You and Gray Mage are a little more suspicious for having raised the ire of a seer but given it wasn't based on scries, it's not a point straight away from me.

Right, the scry -- that’s a really good point.

I'm pointing at Gunnar given that trying to stay under the radar, whatever the reason, is not the least suspicious behaviour as he seems to think. Saying his second go only started a couple of days ago when his second role is one of the older living roles isn't terribly helpful either.

It does come off as deliberately obfuscating.

Chromasia has also been alive for a while without saying much. Understandable given they're new but they should give some reasoning or claims or something and they've been alive long enough that I wouldn't feel guilty for lynching/pointing at a newbie without a scry. Likewise for Caprice although I think they've said a little bit more.

That is also a good point. That is something to keep in mind, but we are down an executioner and I don’t want to split the vote. Plus, I would say that gunnar11 is the more questionable of the two right now.

For now, I will go ahead and say gunnar11, because the evidence is compelling. (I’m not fond of it – I want to keep a roleplayer around if I can, but I am feeling more and more convinced as the posts keep coming.)

[Lex-Kat]

Planswalker

[gunnar11]

Spoiler

Show

Hahah, I like your style of playing.
It's a lot like what I do when trying to win an argument in a conversation (and I want to do that a lot)
First, I take a side. In this case: Gunnar is evil. (or Ramsus or whoever)
Second: I try to collect all evidence pointing to my side being right. The evidence that doesn't match up or points to someone else is either ignored or accidentally passed by (you aren't looking for it after all, you're looking for the one that you want to put down)
Third: most of the times you win the argument because there is no counter-evidence.

The sad part about it is that this third stage comes at a bad time for me. I can't be writing excessively long stories (I am already preoccupied by this one, I honestly almost can't waste the time). I tell you: If you wait till tomorrow afternoon, I'll gladly write you a George R Martin novel.

which doesn't change what alignment you have, only how much time you have to give arguments. Doesn't mean squat about your voting history directly. Ramsus being sick didn't prevent me from analyzing him. You being busy won't stop me here either.

Nor am I asking you to. Just saying what I've been up to recently, so you can deduce a little bit why I chose what I chose.

well, a new reason to lynch you is that rather than really give any sort of concrete defense, you revenge vote. To me, that sounds like a desperate wolf hoping to get his accuser to become the target of a bandwagon.

Wait, was that a revenge vote? I didn't use it like that
You put my name in red, because you wanted to discuss what I've been choosing and doing, right?
Well, that's the same reason why I put your name in red.

Besides, weren't you revenge-voting me in the first place because I put your name in red the round before?
Are you feeling threatened?

You see, while I believe you're very good at this game, I don't believe you're automatically good. Sure, you can deduce who is a wolf and who isn't a good deal of the time (I praise you for that), but in my opinion, people are now almost automatically following your vote, without really thinking about other options. Look at the vote history. A lot of times you voted as first or second for a person, and people began to follow you automatically.

As for my own defense: If someone doesn't think my voting history since returning is defense enough, I'll accept being lynched. I think any serious analysis of it will speak for itself. If you or anyone else would like to analyze it and show differently, feel free.

Like I told you, I'm very busy atm. But if you'd like I'd love to analyze everyon's voting history this weekend. Choosing you was to see what you had to say (same reason you voted for me).

a late last-minute vote against me when there are already established bandwagons... an attempt to essentially give a non-vote without missing a day. As you say yourself, equivalent to your non-participatory Executioner pick. The executioner we likely don't have, since a tied vote the other day resulted in no lynch.

A: You're busy
B: The GM says: 6 hours (or whatever) to go, this person (gunnar11) has not chosen
A+B= vote to not be one of those missing-a-day-persons.

this was, of course, something that made me take note of you and decide to look over your voting history.

Voting against you seems like a crime at this point. It gets you fully analized on any sign that you might be a wolf.
And that even though I only did it for a replacement I-have-to-vote-fast-but-there-is-no-executioner-vote.

you give this the day AFTER we have a tied-up lynching resulting in no one's death... a strong indication that we are without an executioner. Counter-intuitive for town to vote for something which is likely to not exist anymore and therefore give the wolves a free day.

I believe bladescape did the same thing, before me? Wait, Eternis did it too, or didn't he?
Let me see... I was in a hurry, I come onto the forum, I see that 2 people have voted executioners pick, and it's weird for me to also choose it?

Two people voted the same before me. Wasn't Eternis already a topic of discussion?

one of two times you decided to vote for a bandwagon instead of voting executioner. You wait until late and vote for the one in the lead. A very "safe" vote, normally.

If I was a wolf, and this person was already to die, mightn't I just choose another person? It doesn't matter anyway, this person is practically dead. I can choose what the hell I want!

Besides, I was the first one to ask for an explanation to NightPinguin. I already had my eyes on her before any of you said anything. Look it up, it's there.

And we can play a little game. It's called the counting game. How many votes did Devmaar have before I posted Nightpenguin's name in red? 4!
And how many did Nightpenguin have before I put her name in red? 3!
By your logic, I voted Devmaar. 'The safe choice'

But wait, I didn't.

you again decide a non-vote is more useful than raising suspicion by voting for someone.

Eternis voted Executioner before me... (how many times must I repeat this?)
Wait, bladescape voted Executioner AGAIN!

So I was actually the third to vote executioner in a hurry, with 12 hours to go, in the middle of studying for exams, AGAIN.

your analysis of my math here is actually very fishy in hindsight.

You are an orca playing the piano while dancing ballet in hindsight.

You chose me as a person of interest, and I get it, because everyone could be a wolf, but then you gather evidence that points at me before looking if others could be a wolf, and start bashing into me. That I don't understand. Keep your options open(er).

You completely "misunderstood" the role of disguiser and did your best to make it seem like a town role when it is explicitly a wolf role. You misconstrue what I was trying to say to obfuscate my logic while at the same time acting quite condescending to the person being most vocal at keeping Ramsus the slippery wolf from avoiding lynching for the day.

It's my first time playing this.
I might have sounded condescending, is that why you want me dead?
And please, if I wanted to obfuscate your logic, believe me, I would've done a better job of it. This wasn't that obfuscating at all.

You vote for Ramsus when there's no rational reason to vote for anyone else. A very "safe" vote.

There is no rational reason to vote for anyone else, ergo, it's rational to vote for Ramsus. Townies are rational and will thus choose Ramsus, or am I wrong.

What interests me more on this argument is the irony of it:
I was the second person that day to vote for Ramsus.
The third one was TBFProgrammer
The FOURTH one was you. Tell me, aren't you the one making the safe choice?
I was the second one, not the fourth one. And I bet everything you say now about you being a town and thus choosing Ramsus because he's the most logical choice also applies to me, but if you come up with a better argument, do tell.

your first vote as a clueless newcomer was to someone that was not part of any bandwagon and was basically a throwaway vote. Since you didn't even know your alignment then, this one is not really analyzable in and of itself. However, it is the same pattern you followed even AFTER knowing your alignment. One would think you'd wish to act like a townie once you know your alignment.

You mean vote what everyone else was voting?
That would make me seem like a wolf, you just said so.
You mean vote what no-one was voting?
That would mean I defend the person that is being lynched, we're both wolves!

I didn't have time to analyze things. I chose executioner. That's it.

I'm still the same person. Wether or not my alignment is good, evil or I don't know, whenever I don't have time to answer, or I simply don't know what to choose I waste my vote, yes.

is the day you joined. You've had seven days to vote. You've had your current role for HALF the game. You are flat out lying about having a recent role that's not analyzable. You have, however, had very forgettable votes on their own that you don't really want people to analyze as a whole.

Once again, I've been busy.
And more importantly: Don't you dare call me a liar. I never said I have a role that is not analyzable. I said it was recent. And it feels like that way for me.

Upon further analysis, your defense rests upon lies and misdirection. That sounds like wolf to me.

Yes, upon further analysis.
You construct your analysis around your point of view.
Gunnar has to be evil/lynched, find the info that says so, post it.
That's your strategy. You've been using it the whole time.

Look, I'll just say it this way:
To me, with your arguments, Eternis would be a better option for a lynch.

And if you do decide to lynch me. Please, other players, promise me you won't just blindly follow everything planswalker says. He's not always right. He just constructs it that way.

I'm so sorry that everyone is just exponentially putting their votes on me, just because planswalker started it (like he has been doing the whole game)
It seems like he is in control of the game now.
That doesn't mean he's evil.
Just in control.
And you his sheep.

[gunnar11]

Guys, sorry for the double post, but I already wasted 1 hour of my time. I hate that.

Furthermore, if I have to do a role claim (it seems that way):

I am Member IV of the Secret Circle of Masons.
We're the same as the old masons.
But we have a traitor amongst our midst.
If we kill him we get a point.

And like I said: Eternis and bladescape and others were well below the radar too.
I can't believe I'm getting lynched because I find 6 days of actually having a role 'recently'.

Other secret circle members should vote me free too

[Gray Mage]

Ohh, a mason claim. That makes things interesting. On one hand, if they work like the original masons, it isn't possible for them to counter claim you, since not all are in contact, but to confirm another mason would have to claim as well.

Edit: If it's a fake claim you thought it well, I must say.

[gunnar11]

I was in contact with TigerFang, until he died, then I got another Member:

Count Dingdong
One of you has died. QT will be locked shortly. More information will be provided in your respective QTs.

gunnar11
So, do you know the latest movements in the Mason network?

There seems to be a traitor, or so CountDingDong said.
You should be careful, the other Mason could be the traitor. Also: I don't know how many members there are, but up until now there are max. 4 members.

Who are you going to lynch next?


TigerFang
I thought it would be obvious that Mason 1 would be a dead giveaway to my real identity. xD Yes I am in contact with one other. Which means there are currently 3 masons in total.


Member IV
By the way: would it be possible to trade names?
That way we can help each other in game too.


Mason 1™
Hey, Feel free to share any suspicions/random analysis or just any thoughts/ideas you might have.

Are you in contact with any other mason? My guess would be that you aren't but it's better to check.

Member IV
hey there!


Count Dingdong
Here is the message space for Mason 1 and Member IV. Talk here about whatever masony stuff you wish.

[Nightpenguin]

Interesting... in order to corroborate your claim, another Mason would have to expose themselves. Possibilities as I see them:

1. You are a Mason, and are confirmed.
2. You are a Mason, and no-one confirms your claim. You will probably be lynched, because we have no way of distinguishing this from case 3; at least we'll know in hindsight.
3. You are a wolf, and no-one confirms your claim. You will probably be lynched.
4. You are the Spy, and a Mason mistakenly confirms your claim. We have no way of distinguishing this from case 1.
5. You are a wolf other than the Spy, and another wolf (or the Spy) confirms your claim. We have no way of distiguishing this from case 1.

Therefore, our best course of action in the case of a confirmation might not be to lynch gunnar11, but to investigate the person who confirms the claim instead. If the claim is left unconfirmed... well, we'll have to take the risk that you're telling the truth.

Is there anything in the rules about TigerFang saying something after he has died about what he knew when he was in that role? I feel like it should be against the rules, but I don't see anything...

[Tom the Mime]

Ohh, a mason claim. That makes things interesting. On one hand, if they work like the original masons, it isn't possible for them to counter claim you, since not all are in contact, but to confirm another mason would have to claim as well.

Edit: If it's a fake claim you thought it well, I must say.

Hell, if I needed it as a wolf, I was planning on using mason as a fake claim after the first time I was lynched after people didn't pay much attention to the logic regarding the lack of a counterclaim.

Eternis voted Executioner before me... (how many times must I repeat this?)
Wait, bladescape voted Executioner AGAIN!

So I was actually the third to vote executioner in a hurry, with 12 hours to go, in the middle of studying for exams, AGAIN.

Bladescape claimed neutral and hence his executioner vote isn't that suspicious. It's a "It doesn't affect me either way and I'm staying out of this" vote. And Eternis was scried villager by basically a confirmed villager seer so his votes there have gone from a little suspicious to annoying.

Bladescape is fully capable of claiming neutral as a wolf and pulling it off. Pengi's scry and hints of relative alignments also make sense if both are wolves and Pengi scried bladescape as such, and tried to surreptitiously tell him he was on the same team. Pengi's death didn't sound the a wolf kill in the narration, especially given that Zar Peter died the same night. Him saying it proves he wasn't a wolf makes me suspect that he was one.

You are an orca playing the piano while dancing ballet in hindsight.

Technically not fishy

I can't believe I'm getting lynched because I find 6 days of actually having a role 'recently'.

By comparison with many others it is recently

And if you do decide to lynch me. Please, other players, promise me you won't just blindly follow everything planswalker says. He's not always right. He just constructs it that way.

We're not blindly following (or at least I'm not). We're going over past events, reading peoples analysis of them and coming to conclusions. Just because we come to the same conclusion doesn't mean we're blindly following someone.
You're defending yourself in a very aggressive, confrontational manner, and if it wasn't for the mason claim, I would've kept my vote on you regardless of other emerging info because acting like you just did makes the whole environment less fun for everyone. I especially don't want that when there are a fair few new people in this game that I'd prefer not to scare off. That said, I'll change my vote when/if you're a confirmed mason - see my posts day 7 for being sceptical with mason claims until actively confirmed. Personally I think an extra revealed mason is better than people being able to make mason claims with virtually no scrutiny but I'm open to hear other opinions.

Also:

THIS IS A NO PM, BLIND GAME. Also, no sharing personal/mason QTs. You are free to make role claims, but it could be disadvantageous. Players will revive in this game, potentially on another team

[Tom the Mime]

Is there anything in the rules about TigerFang saying something after he has died about what he knew when he was in that role? I feel like it should be against the rules, but I don't see anything...

It seems a bit of an honour system to avoid meta-gaming but it's definitely not in the spirit of the game and we shouldn't encourage it.

[Gray Mage]

Is there anything in the rules about TigerFang saying something after he has died about what he knew when he was in that role? I feel like it should be against the rules, but I don't see anything...

Dunno, he is back in the game, and it will shape how he votes at least, so I think so. I'll wait for Count to confirm it, though.

And I think that possibility number 5 shouldn't be counted. Wolves are blind, and I doubt one would risk claiming just in case he is a wolf. If we consider it, then we should also consider possibility 6, that he is a mason, a wolf thinks he isn't, tries to confirm it and Gunnar says the one to confirm isn't the right player. Or 7, same thing as 6, but he's the spy and the one confirmimg him is a legit mason.

[Count Dingdong]

Is there anything in the rules about TigerFang saying something after he has died about what he knew when he was in that role? I feel like it should be against the rules, but I don't see anything...

These adjustments should make meta-gaming less of a problem. Root of the matter is that it's hard to stop. So I'm relying on you all to minimize it. That's it. Done what I can, and the rest is up to you. Make this as fair of a game as possible. Hopefully this all works out.

Not specifically against rules, but up to you guys to avoid meta-gaming. Have knowledge from previous roles but NO ROLE-CLAIMING previous roles if possible.

@Ninja Tom: correct on both accounts.

[Gray Mage]

Not specifically against rules, but up to you guys to avoid meta-gaming. Have knowledge from previous roles but NO ROLE-CLAIMING previous roles if possible.

Well, in this case is there a diference? I mean, if TF says that he trusts Gunnar or if he votes for him, his past role (or at least Gunnar's present) will be very clear.

How long until day ends?

[Count Dingdong]

Well, in this case is there a diference? I mean, if TF says that he trusts Gunnar or if he votes for him, his past role (or at least Gunnar's present) will be very clear.

How long until day ends?

As said, meta-gaming can't be taken out. Just do what you can to minimize it.

~38 hours left? Will give voting update at ~24 hours left.

[usourselves&we]

ugh, so many words, and no one has given us a run down on what has happened the other days we were dead.
doom ie doom doom dooooooom doom e doom e doom
executioner, because whatever, mason claim can't think about logic.
doom doom doom doom dooooooom doome doome doom
---
doome doom doom doome doome doom doom
The child spirit that no one has talked to starts singing a song that only has one word (and slight variations of it) until someone talks to him/tells him what is up with the town.

[Kalrany]

Wow -- the posting is fast and furious. I am not going to edit this any more and just add posts as they come up as I attempt to write this…

Interesting... in order to corroborate your claim, another Mason would have to expose themselves. Possibilities as I see them:

1. You are a Mason, and are confirmed.
2. You are a Mason, and no-one confirms your claim. You will probably be lynched, because we have no way of distinguishing this from case 3; at least we'll know in hindsight.
3. You are a wolf, and no-one confirms your claim. You will probably be lynched.
4. You are the Spy, and a Mason mistakenly confirms your claim. We have no way of distinguishing this from case 1.
5. You are a wolf other than the Spy, and another wolf (or the Spy) confirms your claim. We have no way of distiguishing this from case 1.

Therefore, our best course of action in the case of a confirmation might not be to lynch gunnar11, but to investigate the person who confirms the claim instead. If the claim is left unconfirmed... well, we'll have to take the risk that you're telling the truth.

Is there anything in the rules about TigerFang saying something after he has died about what he knew when he was in that role? I feel like it should be against the rules, but I don't see anything...

I think it is by default. Otherwise, how can you be clueless? I am not willing to vote for a claimed Mason without there being something more than a very suspicious voting record at this stage. Besides, that is a very specific claim which makes it either a well thought out bluff or authentic, and for now I am going with the latter. There are more than enough alternatives to vote for lynching.

So, Eternis is a scried town, as is Nightpenguin, gunnar11 claimed Mason, bladescape claimed neutral. Any other info missing?

...You see, while I believe you're very good at this game, I don't believe you're automatically good. Sure, you can deduce who is a wolf and who isn't a good deal of the time (I praise you for that), but in my opinion, people are now almost automatically following your vote, without really thinking about other options. Look at the vote history. A lot of times you voted as first or second for a person, and people began to follow you automatically...

A well thought out argument, even when flawed or with ulterior motives, tends to be followed unless there is an alternative argument for it. There are a number of people who just don’t have any idea – it seems to be that there are a lot of us new people in the game, which probably makes it worse than normal. Unless experienced players present arguments, the newbies are more likely to listen to someone who makes sense. Unless there are opposing arguments/theories/facts that can be argued – i.e. your claim of Mason, then yes, the vote will likely follow his argument. Voting for a well done argument isn’t what I would call being a sheep, I would call it being swayed. Very different.

Hell, if I needed it as a wolf, I was planning on using mason as a fake claim after the first time I was lynched after people didn't pay much attention to the logic regarding the lack of a counterclaim.

Good point. I haddn't thought in those terms.

Bladescape claimed neutral and hence his executioner vote isn't that suspicious. It's a "It doesn't affect me either way and I'm staying out of this" vote. And Eternis was scried villager by basically a confirmed villager seer so his votes there have gone from a little suspicious to annoying.

Agreed.

Bladescape is fully capable of claiming neutral as a wolf and pulling it off. Pengi's scry and hints of relative alignments also make sense if both are wolves and Pengi scried bladescape as such, and tried to surreptitiously tell him he was on the same team. Pengi's death didn't sound the a wolf kill in the narration, especially given that Zar Peter died the same night. Him saying it proves he wasn't a wolf makes me suspect that he was one.

I think I just confused myself here... who was suspicious in this one?

...We're not blindly following (or at least I'm not). We're going over past events, reading peoples analysis of them and coming to conclusions. Just because we come to the same conclusion doesn't mean we're blindly following someone.
You're defending yourself in a very aggressive, confrontational manner, and if it wasn't for the mason claim, I would've kept my vote on you regardless of other emerging info because acting like you just did makes the whole environment less fun for everyone...

I'm inclined to believe it was not meant to be, but it was by the end of the post to me as a reader. That is one of the problems with the internet, a mental voice from the writer may not match what the reader hears...

That said, I'll change my vote when/if you're a confirmed mason - see my posts day 7 for being sceptical with mason claims until actively confirmed. Personally I think an extra revealed mason is better than people being able to make mason claims with virtually no scrutiny but I'm open to hear other opinions.

As I stated, I am pulling my vote for the moment, but if nothing else emerges it may well go back on. You have a good argument as to not taking Mason claims as positive. The other aspects still hold true unless a better argument is presented. I’d love to present one, but I am rushing to keep up with the current arguments themselves!

…Chromasia has also been alive for a while without saying much. Understandable given they're new but they should give some reasoning or claims or something and they've been alive long enough that I wouldn't feel guilty for lynching/pointing at a newbie without a scry. Likewise for Caprice although I think they've said a little bit more.

Any comments from Chromasia or Caprice? Silence may not be your friend for long…

ugh, so many words, and no one has given us a run down on what has happened the other days we were dead.
doom ie doom doom dooooooom doom e doom e doom
executioner, because whatever, mason claim can't think about logic.
doom doom doom doom dooooooom doome doome doom...

Ermm… are you aware that there is compelling evidence that there is no executioner at this time? We had a tied lynch the day before (Day 12) and no death. Right now No Lynch is ebing debated as suspicious…

The game is designed to be grasping at straws. A good argument is an attractive looking rope, for good or ill. But then, what do I know? I am here for the roleplaying, mostly.

Speaking of… (AKA: And now for something completely different...)
Hey, Zar Peter, how old does your character look? Would he be offended with a “hey kid!” interrupting his reading? (My mind is coming from the idea that he is following his father’s notes…) Just wondering…

And usourselves&we – where is the child spirit?

[planswalker]

Guys, sorry for the double post, but I already wasted 1 hour of my time. I hate that.

Furthermore, if I have to do a role claim (it seems that way):

I am Member IV of the Secret Circle of Masons.
We're the same as the old masons.
But we have a traitor amongst our midst.
If we kill him we get a point.

You claim to have known tigerfang. I know tigerfang was a mason (as does the rest of the town). Confirmation from him would get you off the hook.

And like I said: Eternis and bladescape and others were well below the radar too.

Eternis has been cleared by scry; bladescape is neutral. If it wasn't for the scry, it'd be Eternis and not you I would be analyzing.

I can't believe I'm getting lynched because I find 6 days of actually having a role 'recently'.

straw man fallacy. That is NOT the only reason you are getting lynched. You are getting voted for by me because I poked you, your response made your case worse, and I went back and saw a consistent pattern of trying a little too hard to hide.

your response since then has been defensive and hostile.

Other secret circle members should vote me free too

and that is an interesting bluff. All your fellow masons suddenly voting for you in the last 30 hours is a good way to get them all targeted for NK. If you're the spy, this is to your benefit. If you're not a mason but claiming to be one, this could get you free unless a real mason calls you out. If you are and no one speaks out for you, you're likely going to get lynched.

whether you're a wolf or a mason, you're starting to sound panicky to me, which isn't helping you sound less suspicious to me.

Hahah, I like your style of playing.
It's a lot like what I do when trying to win an argument in a conversation (and I want to do that a lot)

please stop being condescending. The other time I spoke up, you responded in much the same way and I'm tired of it.

First, I take a side. In this case: Gunnar is evil. (or Ramsus or whoever)
Second: I try to collect all evidence pointing to my side being right. The evidence that doesn't match up or points to someone else is either ignored or accidentally passed by (you aren't looking for it after all, you're looking for the one that you want to put down)
Third: most of the times you win the argument because there is no counter-evidence.

If that is the process you use, that is fine for you. Declaring that you know my thought process is not quite accurate, since you've either skipped an important step or are deliberately "forgetting" something to poke holes in my argument's credibility like you did with Ramsus.

My thought process goes:
A) Keep an eye out for voting trends and odd votes among players.
B) Every day, look at the top 1-2 most suspicious players
C) If this analysis starts to look promising, share it with the thread. If not, keep it to myself and keep an eye on it.
D) When I post an analysis, keep the other person arguing until they either hang themselves as a wolf or say something to get them clear. Most of the time when I do this, I've successfully pointed out a wolf.

The sad part about it is that this third stage comes at a bad time for me. I can't be writing excessively long stories (I am already preoccupied by this one, I honestly almost can't waste the time). I tell you: If you wait till tomorrow afternoon, I'll gladly write you a George R Martin novel.

well, the voting doesn't end until after this deadline.

Nor am I asking you to. Just saying what I've been up to recently, so you can deduce a little bit why I chose what I chose.

aye, and I was aware of that when I analyzed things. It did help me to look at things. Last-minute panic votes instead of being willing to miss a day is the sort of thing I've seen more than one wolf do.

Wait, was that a revenge vote? I didn't use it like that

yes, throwing your accuser's words back at them sounds a LOT like a revenge vote.

You put my name in red, because you wanted to discuss what I've been choosing and doing, right?
Well, that's the same reason why I put your name in red.

yeah, tit-for-tat accusation isn't wolflike at all...

Besides, weren't you revenge-voting me in the first place because I put your name in red the round before?

no, although your poor luck in choosing me did mean that I was curious as to your voting history. If your history had shown someone who didn't particularly stand out, I'd have poked someone else.

Are you feeling threatened?

not nearly as much as you're coming off as. I'll admit that it would be annoying to be lynched today, but I'm not too overly concerned about that. The town would miss out on my analysis for a few days but beyond that, life for my team would move on.

To answer the question: no, not particularly. I encourage people, if you think Gunnar's arguments really do make sense, analyze my voting history and vote for me. If you think my arguments make sense, analyze Gunnar's voting history for yourself and vote for him.

You see, while I believe you're very good at this game, I don't believe you're automatically good.

yes... that's the point of ww games... your point?

Sure, you can deduce who is a wolf and who isn't a good deal of the time (I praise you for that), but in my opinion, people are now almost automatically following your vote, without really thinking about other options.

yeah, I've noticed that too. I've held off on voting for a while after CD does to give others a chance to say things before I start to. I'd hardly say, though, that someone finding my argument persuasive means they are not thinking. Are you asking them to ignore my analysis?

Look at the vote history. A lot of times you voted as first or second for a person, and people began to follow you automatically.

please show evidence of where people have just automatically followed my lead when I have not given much of a reason for my vote before.

Like I told you, I'm very busy atm. But if you'd like I'd love to analyze everyon's voting history this weekend. Choosing you was to see what you had to say (same reason you voted for me).

and if it hadn't been a "me too" defensive vote, I'd believe you.

A: You're busy
B: The GM says: 6 hours (or whatever) to go, this person (gunnar11) has not chosen
A+B= vote to not be one of those missing-a-day-persons.

and missing a day is bad for you how? Unless you're defensive about people analyzing your voting history, having missed a day doesn't hurt you.

Voting against you seems like a crime at this point. It gets you fully analized on any sign that you might be a wolf.
And that even though I only did it for a replacement I-have-to-vote-fast-but-there-is-no-executioner-vote.

and yesterday's vote, other than seeing my name and thus making me curious about who has the cajones to make a vote that sticks out like a sore thumb isn't suspicious. Neither is any one day of your voting taken by itself. Your overall pattern, though, has me quite suspicious.

I believe bladescape did the same thing, before me? Wait, Eternis did it too, or didn't he?

and again, bladescape is neutral and Eternis was target #1 before a seer cleared him.

Let me see... I was in a hurry, I come onto the forum, I see that 2 people have voted executioners pick, and it's weird for me to also choose it?

as a wolf strategy for trying to blend in, it makes perfect sense. Why those two voted? Well, I get Bladescape's vote since he doesn't care to get involved. I was suspicious before Eternis was cleared.

Two people voted the same before me. Wasn't Eternis already a topic of discussion?

wolves following an alternate bandwagon... pretty sure that's a valid thing. This also only addresses ONE of your votes, when it's the overall pattern that is suspicious.

and again, Eternis was before a seer cleared him. If the seer hadn't cleared him and he'd survived, he'd likely be the one I'm pointing at.

you're trying to shift blame to a neutral and a seer-confirmed town. Not helping your case.

If I was a wolf, and this person was already to die, mightn't I just choose another person? It doesn't matter anyway, this person is practically dead. I can choose what the hell I want!

yes, true. And on an individual basis, this doesn't reveal much. Your logic for why you "shouldn't" be suspicious only applies on a one-day-at-a-time analysis. Taken as a whole, a pattern emerges of someone who REALLY doesn't want the spotlight.

Besides, I was the first one to ask for an explanation to NightPinguin. I already had my eyes on her before any of you said anything. Look it up, it's there.

... how about you provide the evidence for your own defense? Asking the opposition to provide your own defense is silly.

And we can play a little game. It's called the counting game. How many votes did Devmaar have before I posted Nightpenguin's name in red? 4!
And how many did Nightpenguin have before I put her name in red? 3!
By your logic, I voted Devmaar. 'The safe choice'

But wait, I didn't.

no, you voted for Nightpenguin with 5 votes already on him. The safe choice, as tying up the vote with a likely town would be suspicious.

Eternis voted Executioner before me... (how many times must I repeat this?)
Wait, bladescape voted Executioner AGAIN!

and again, I will say that Eternis' vote makes no sense to me and would have my suspicion if it wasn't for being a confirmed town. Bladescape is neutral and thus isn't interested in getting involved. stop trying to shift blame to non-wolf targets.

So I was actually the third to vote executioner in a hurry, with 12 hours to go, in the middle of studying for exams, AGAIN.

yes, you were third to vote executioner. I don't see how hoping to get a last-minute executioner bandwagon going is helping allay the overall suspicioun of your voting history.

You are an orca playing the piano while dancing ballet in hindsight.

that is just a personal jab. please stop it.

You chose me as a person of interest, and I get it, because everyone could be a wolf, but then you gather evidence that points at me before looking if others could be a wolf, and start bashing into me. That I don't understand. Keep your options open(er).

you are assuming that I openly share every idle musing and suspicion that I have. I do not. Before I learned that TBF was the society founder, I analyzed him at the beginning, and my results said town. This isn't the first time I've thought you sounded like a wolf, this is just the first time you've been priority #1 and I've had enough evidence to show something.

I didn't decide to accuse you then gather the evidence against you. I got suspicious of you (and a few others), quietly kept tabs for a few days, and spoke up about you when everyone that I thought was less suspicious was either cleared or dead.

It's my first time playing this.

and that explains why you're panicking

I might have sounded condescending, is that why you want me dead?

I will admit that I'd prefer it if the people who respond to me weren't condescending and I won't shed a tear if you are in-game killed off so I won't have to hear it, but so far SuperDark33 is the only one who's managed to get a vote from me based primarily on being annoyed with the other person instead of logic. I am not 100% impartial, no. That's called being human. Doesn't mean the major basis of my argument is this and your accusation of such isn't helpful.

And please, if I wanted to obfuscate your logic, believe me, I would've done a better job of it.

again, you are condescending and declare that you are better at "logic" than me. You were either being intentionally obfuscating or you seriously expect me to believe that you spend the time to make that massive post tearing apart my math without bothering to even look up the role of the disguiser who was such a critical piece of the argument.

This wasn't that obfuscating at all.

sure sounded that way to me. NOT spending the 30 seconds to double-check the original roles before engaging in such a long argument based on one of them is something I find less likely than someone intentionally "forgetting" which roles were town or not.

There is no rational reason to vote for anyone else, ergo, it's rational to vote for Ramsus. Townies are rational and will thus choose Ramsus, or am I wrong.

nope, not wrong. Also the first time (and only one of 2) when you've dared to actually vote on a bandwagon. I'll say again that it's your overall pattern and not any one day that's suspicious.

What interests me more on this argument is the irony of it:
I was the second person that day to vote for Ramsus.
The third one was TBFProgrammer
The FOURTH one was you. Tell me, aren't you the one making the safe choice?
I was the second one, not the fourth one. And I bet everything you say now about you being a town and thus choosing Ramsus because he's the most logical choice also applies to me, but if you come up with a better argument, do tell.

on that day, I was a clueless newcomer. Not even I knew my alignment then. I also happened to be asleep when the first three votes went in.

You mean vote what everyone else was voting?
That would make me seem like a wolf, you just said so.
You mean vote what no-one was voting?
That would mean I defend the person that is being lynched, we're both wolves!

And one a case-by-case basis, no one of your votes is overly suspicious. But you've consistently gone with the "safe" vote and tried very hard to not attract attention.

I didn't have time to analyze things. I chose executioner. That's it.

and if you're consistently without the time to really analyze things and are just throwing your vote away with executioner, the town can afford to lose you a lot more than it can afford to let a wolf go.

I'm still the same person. Wether or not my alignment is good, evil or I don't know, whenever I don't have time to answer, or I simply don't know what to choose I waste my vote, yes.

and I believe I said much the same thing. You didn't know your role, but you're still you and you decided to go with a vote to not attract attention.

Once again, I've been busy.

and I believe you have been.

And more importantly: Don't you dare call me a liar. I never said I have a role that is not analyzable. I said it was recent. And it feels like that way for me.

this game is all about misdirection, paranoia, and lies. Expecting someone to lie is hardly an attack on you as a person. Unless someone openly admits to being a wolf, every wolf lies every day of voting.

and I was calling you out on lying for claiming to have had a role only a few days. You've had yours for 6. That's almost three RL weeks.

Yes, upon further analysis.
You construct your analysis around your point of view.
Gunnar has to be evil/lynched, find the info that says so, post it.
That's your strategy. You've been using it the whole time.

no, it isn't I've already explained so before this, and I'm tired of repeating myself.

Look, I'll just say it this way:
To me, with your arguments, Eternis would be a better option for a lynch.

I'd agree... except that a seer confirmed him as town.

you seem to be tragically ignorant of what's going on, which is understandable for someone who's very busy RL.

And if you do decide to lynch me. Please, other players, promise me you won't just blindly follow everything planswalker says. He's not always right. He just constructs it that way.

I have never claimed to be always right. Stop the ad hominem, please.

I'm so sorry that everyone is just exponentially putting their votes on me, just because planswalker started it (like he has been doing the whole game)
It seems like he is in control of the game now.
That doesn't mean he's evil.
Just in control.

that is a very passive-aggressive and antagonistic statement. it's not helping your case.

And you his sheep.

I don't really think accusing the player base of being sheep is going to endear them to you.

I'd also like to point out that people agreeing with me about who's most suspicious on a given day is not necessarily blind following. You're assigning motives to others without a whole lot of evidence of such.

I still say you're a wolf.

[Tom the Mime]

Bladescape is fully capable of claiming neutral as a wolf and pulling it off. Pengi's scry and hints of relative alignments also make sense if both are wolves and Pengi scried bladescape as such, and tried to surreptitiously tell him he was on the same team. Pengi's death didn't sound the a wolf kill in the narration, especially given that Zar Peter died the same night. Him saying it proves he wasn't a wolf makes me suspect that he was one.

I think I just confused myself here... who was suspicious in this one?

This was more for completeness and reminding people that, while certainly not the most suspicious, bladescape's claim is not above suspicion and there are viable ways where he could be a wolf. Not the most likely but I don't trust bladescape as far I could throw him in these games - he's too tricky by half.

I'm inclined to believe it was not meant to be, but it was by the end of the post to me as a reader. That is one of the problems with the internet, a mental voice from the writer may not match what the reader hears...

It was the sheep comment, oversized bold text, orca hyperbole and the first paragraph reading as very passive aggresive. I know the lack of inflection is one of the big problems without verbal communication and it may just be how I read it but all I can do is call it as I read it.

[Penguinator]

I can't believe I'm getting lynched because I find 6 days of actually having a role 'recently'.

I have yet to have a role for six days.

[Kalrany]

I hope you didn't mind me quoting you extensively -- you just summed up what I was trying to hash out so well that it was easier for me to annotate your post than try to edit mine again.

This was more for completeness and reminding people that, while certainly not the most suspicious, bladescape's claim is not above suspicion and there are viable ways where he could be a wolf. Not the most likely but I don't trust bladescape as far I could throw him in these games - he's too tricky by half.

That's what I thought you meant, but I was not sure. Perhaps it was due to the fact that I had 4 widows open when trying to edit that thing. I don't normally do large posts unless it's prose. (Thought there have been a couple). But that is an interesting observation about bladescape. So it means that he is a good player, right?

It was the sheep comment, oversized bold text, orca hyperbole and the first paragraph reading as very passive aggresive. I know the lack of inflection is one of the big problems without verbal communication and it may just be how I read it but all I can do is call it as I read it.

I agree with you. I was just trying to toss in a breather before this headed off into another argument. Besides, I do try to give people the benefit of doubt, but I admit that I read it the same way you did.

[Penguinator]

Perhaps it was due to the fact that I had 4 widows open when trying to edit that thing.

What... were... you...

[planswalker]

What... were... you...

I guess not everyone uses tabs...

[Penguinator]

I guess not everyone uses tabs...

Don't be silly. I have eleven open right now. Look at what's bolded again.

[planswalker]

Don't be silly. I have eleven open right now. Look at what's bolded again.

yes, I see that. She had four browser windows open instead of opening four tabs in the same window.

What were you meaning by bolding that part?