WW 103? - 42 Attempts (Game Over - Conspirators Win)

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Something else about Chief that is keeping me from voting for him. Take a look at his day one voting record. It seems unlikely that a wolf would bounce around changing his vote so much between villagers. Now that we know Darth is good, his vote switch to LSG seems odd of character for a wolf to make.

"odd of character" should be "out of character"

[Autumn]

The comment about Chief likely being scanned is compelling. Despite my worries about Chief I'll probably switch off of him.

[JAG]

VOTE BULLETSPONGE

Same reasoning as Danny to be honest and fits in some with Chief's analysis and my own feelings. He's been rather UTR, he wasn't at the meeting (I respect Lathum's view, but I disagree that we should disregard this entirely as a factor in voting), and if you want to assume the wolves wanted to spread the vote on D1, he's one of two uncleared people on CR. I personally think Jackal is a good candidate as well.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by ntndeacon

well good, Bulletsponge has been pinging my radar too. I do not have a firm reason why. several moves seem off to me. I want to think a bit longer about it today so probably wot vote until later...
And today like Monday, I shall be a little quiet during much of the work day as I have 4 classes today.

ntn and BS have been tops on my suspicion list for a while, so this post was interesting to me. I wonder if this could be planting a seed for later when/if one of them is found out?

Admittedly, I have very little to go on, but the fact that they have been so UTR and haven't really contributed much makes me want to look in their direction today.

Vote ntndeacon

[Schmidty]

Ok, I've caught up.

CR's analysis was very good and well thought out. It just didn't seem wolfish to me. I don't know where to go at this point, so for now I'm going to follow the only true cleared player's lead, especially since he's one of the better players in WW, and I know he's not lying.

Anyway, it could change -

Vote bulletsponge

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I agree with this. I think it likely that he has been scanned already. I think his analysis was flawed and makes me suspicious of him. I mean the entire premise of his final suggested voting strategy is based based on this:



His analysis states that it is very likely that there was exactly one wolf at the meeting. I don't necessarily agree with this, but that is his premise. If in fact that is true, why does he focus on those of us that had success at the meeting when we would be much more likely to find a wolf on those that were NOT at the meeting.

It makes no sense, and usually CR is better at analysis than that. I find that to be suspicious, but I will be placing my vote elsewhere today as I think it very likely he has been scanned already. The truth will come out eventually. And worst case, if the seer is nightkilled before revealing anything, I will come back and re-assess CR at that time.

I am at work, so I don't have a ton of time to respond, but after several of these, I feel I have to say something: KWhit, you are vastly overstating my "confidence" in the analysis or how far I would back it. I merely suggest some interpretations, using a combination of some guesswork, rational analysis, what little in thread evidence we have, and some prior WW experience.

I have done a number of these sorts of analyses over the years, and some of them have been spot on. Some have also been completely wrong. We don't know enough at this point to be sure. I would be hesitant to base an entire village play on this analysis. I only recommend using it as one tool, but for the rest of the village to continue to parse both the evidence we have and the analysis I did to come to their own conclusions.

You also overstate your own position in my "suspicions". You are not high on the list. You're around the middle and a relative unknown. And part of the reason is your non-vote on Day One. Whatever the reason, you have to deal with the consequences of not considering you would not get back on.

FWIW, I think Lathum's "opposite analysis" approach (looking at those outside of the meeting) is an excellent idea. Any trepidation I have about it is based on my doubt of my own analysis, particularly any reliance on there being just one traitor in the meeting room. I think standard logic suggests there should be no more than two conspirators there, and Hitler's speech is possible evidence there is just one. But as Lathum said, there could be more at work as to what made that meeting a success than just numbers. We just don't know enough.

All I intended to offer was some possible interpretations of the data, not hard and fast rules of voting for us to follow. Anyone attributing more than fleeting support from me for buying into my analysis wholesale is either much misguided (mis-reading) or intentional deceiving.

[The Jackal]

I suppose I'll go back to my gut. He's playing his normal UTR game, not much to go on.

VOTE NTN

[EagleFan]

As of Post 657:

bulletsponge 3 - Danny (618), JAG (653), Schmidty (655)
The Jackal 1 - J23 (627)
Telle 1 - Abe Sargent (633)
Chief Rum 1 - Autumn (635)
ntndeacon 2 - KWhit (654), The Jackal (657)


Yet to Vote: Lathum, PurdueBrad, Chief Rum, ntndeacon, Telle, bulletsponge

[Autumn]

In the interest of consolidating a little more, but not too much, and given the assumptions elsewhere that Chief is probably scanned, I'm going to

UNVOTE CHIEF RUN

VOTE TELLE

[Autumn]

Or rather

UNVOTE CHIEF RUM
VOTE TELLE

[JAG]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

I suppose I'll go back to my gut. He's playing his normal UTR game, not much to go on.

VOTE NTN

Why does your gut bring you here if he's playing his normal game? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Why did you ask me to get the voting pattern up a couple pages back and then not make use of it?

Frankly I find your play rather suspicious the past day or two.

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by JAG

Why does your gut bring you here if he's playing his normal game? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Why did you ask me to get the voting pattern up a couple pages back and then not make use of it?

Frankly I find your play rather suspicious the past day or two.

My vote for him is also because of his first vote on CR - I definitely looked at what you posted. This was in my reasoning for voting for NTN yesterday, so I didn't feel the need to repeat it, but you're right, it doesn't hurt.

[The Jackal]

I'm sorry if you find my play suspicious, I'm working with no information and don't have a role.

[Chief Rum]

I want to get a vote in early. I'll still occasionally check in, but I work at my second job tonight, so I won't be around at deadline.

I think playing the numbers, The Jackal is the best way to go. He's the highest on my suspicion list who is also on Lathum's "side" of the village split (the non-meeting goers).

VOTE THE JACKAL

[The Jackal]

I'm getting more and more convinced that CR and NTN are both wolves, believe you me.

[J23]

I'm a lot more comfortable with Telle or BS up on the blocks than I was with the two from yesterday to choose between. That being said, I'm still leaning towards Jackal, and will leave it there unless a run-off not involving him becomes apparent.

[The Jackal]

Why are you voting for me exactly, J? Just reading my play as suspicious? Voted for a known villager day one late. Unknown votes on two people day two. *shrug*

[J23]

Jackal - Unfortunately, I don't have anything concrete to give you, but...

Day 1: you put the #6 vote on DT when he was already up 5-3 saying you wanted to make sure it wasn't a tie, which seemed odd to me.

Day 2: you stated that you though both candidates on the block were good candidates, which I felt the complete opposite. While disagreeing with me doesn't make you a wolf, it might be leading to my feeling.

[PurdueBrad]

Of the two options, I feel better about this:

vote Telle

[The Jackal]

Well, I don't have much to go on my votes, so I can't really fault you if you've been reading my play weird.

[Telle]

Self-preservation vote:

vote bulletsponge

[JAG]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

Of the two options, I feel better about this:

vote Telle

2?

As of Post 669:

bulletsponge 3 - Danny (618), JAG (653), Schmidty (655)
The Jackal 2 - J23 (627), CR (664)
Telle 3 - Abe Sargent (633), Autumn (660), PurdueBrad (669)
ntndeacon 2 - KWhit (654), The Jackal (657)


Yet to Vote: Lathum, ntndeacon, Telle, bulletsponge


Now bullet with 4 due to Telle's vote.

[The Jackal]

FYI I won't be around from about 5:30 onwards tonight. Working at 7:30 and headed out afterwards. So I may re-assess my vote before I leave.

[Telle]

I'm taking off.. I have an event to go to this evening, and it will be tight getting back before deadline but I hope to make it.

As far as I can tell the only reason people are voting for me is because of my Day 1 vote on Darth. As I've stated multiple times already in this thread, including when I placed my vote, I was not caught up with the game at the time that I placed my vote.. and thus it did not appear to me to be the "throw away" choice it's seen to be in retrospect. And if I was a wolf would I really have thrown away my vote when I could have easily piled onto DT or gone with the votes on LSG instead?

[Lathum]

Checking in from school real quick. Another thought I has about the whole meeting/ non meeting goers.

I think it possible there could have been 2 conspiritors at the meeting, but only one attempted sabatouge. This way they could learn the power of that mechanic while keeping one safe.

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by JAG

2?

As of Post 669:

bulletsponge 3 - Danny (618), JAG (653), Schmidty (655)
The Jackal 2 - J23 (627), CR (664)
Telle 3 - Abe Sargent (633), Autumn (660), PurdueBrad (669)
ntndeacon 2 - KWhit (654), The Jackal (657)


Yet to Vote: Lathum, ntndeacon, Telle, bulletsponge


Now bullet with 4 due to Telle's vote.

Sorry, I quickly read J23's message regarding the two and went off that. Caught in a couple meetings to end the day and trying to get something in. Although with a 10 pm deadline, I will re-evaluate later.

[Lathum]

vote NTNDeacon

gonna go with my gut from yesterday and try and keep things close to see what shakes down.

[EagleFan]

As of Post 677:

bulletsponge 4 - Danny (618), JAG (653), Schmidty (655), Telle (671)
The Jackal 2 - J23 (627), Chief Rum (664)
Telle 3 - Abe Sargent (633), Autumn (660), PurdueBrad (669)
ntndeacon 3 - KWhit (654), The Jackal (657), Lathum (677)


Yet to Vote: ntndeacon, bulletsponge

[JAG]

Hopefully bulletsponge shows up today, haven't seen him post since yesterday.

[Abe Sargent]

I just removed three of my residents for fighting and this is going to be a bit weird for a while, so uber-busy dont; expect me on until l8tr

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I just removed three of my residents for fighting and this is going to be a bit weird for a while, so uber-busy dont; expect me on until l8tr

That sucks, hope things settle down for you.

[bulletsponge]

ok just caught up. i see a lynch mob getting a neck tie ready for me. just to shake things up, ill vote

Vote The Jackal

4 way tie suckas! mass lynching tonight!

sorry im not very good at this game, so much reading

[bulletsponge]

nuts its not a 4 way tie. hmm might change my vote so i dont die alone

[Autumn]

Wow, well that doesn't speak well for bullet. I'll be out again for a while, just catching up. I'm interested to see which direction people go, and should be back well before deadline, so I'm staying put for now.

[The Jackal]

No, that doesn't speak well at all. Not sure if I'm going to change my vote before I leave, but that post doesn't help his cause.

[J23]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Day/Night Three Locations:

Berlin:
Autumn
J23
PurdueBrad
Abe Sargent
KWhit
Chief Rum
JAG

Wolfsschanze:
Lathum
The Jackal

Berchtesgaden:
Schmidty
Danny
ntndeacon
Telle
bulletsponge

Here are tonight's locations for reference. It appears that Berchtesgaden could be a dangerous place if our voting today is accurate at all.

[PurdueBrad]

I'm moving after the last comment.

unvote Telle

vote Bulletsponge

[bulletsponge]

what did i say? if i was a wolf i would keep my pie hole shut and try to save my but by trying to get people to look at others

[Chief Rum]

I don't think many of you newer folks have ever played with bullet. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve scrutiny, but for a good reference point on playing with bullet, see claphamsa. bullet's an old time WW player, and he was known for playing his own style, regardless of what was going on in the game, just like clap does.

My point being, if you feel the concrete evidence (voting, etc.) points to bullet, by all means vote for him. But it's best not to weigh his individual posts or comments too much, because he often makes these sorts of comments, just like clap, and the only result is, most of the time, we all jump on him and he ends up being a villager.

And, besides, I still feel there are a number of stronger candidates.

[JAG]

UNVOTE BULLETSPONGE
VOTE NTNDEACON

After some consideration, I'm switching things up for a couple reasons other than what's already been said. One, unlike for reasons Jackal said, I think ntn has been a bit off his usual tone. Two, it will give more insight to the opening part of D2 when he was a viable candidate before CR / Darth pulled away.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

FWIW, I think Lathum's "opposite analysis" approach (looking at those outside of the meeting) is an excellent idea.

I don't think that was Lathum's position, unless I missed something. I was the one who made the case for looking at people in the group who weren't at the meeting.

In fact, I think Lathum said he thought it was wolfish to specifically play the percentages of looking at the group outside the meeting, and vote for someone only because they were in that non-meeting group. I agree that it isn't the only thing we should look for, but all things being near equal, I think it gives us a better shot.

[ntndeacon]

Originally Posted by KWhit

ntn and BS have been tops on my suspicion list for a while, so this post was interesting to me. I wonder if this could be planting a seed for later when/if one of them is found out?

Admittedly, I have very little to go on, but the fact that they have been so UTR and haven't really contributed much makes me want to look in their direction today.

Vote ntndeacon

I admit that I don't have many posts, but I try to make them at least somewhat informative. I understand the UTR = wolf philosophy. However it seems that this idea is out there. Wolves in general are gonna try to look like they normally do. When Danny is a wolf for example , he still has a lot of posts. When I am a wolf, I won't have a lot of posts. It would be suspicious if I did.

[ntndeacon]

Originally Posted by JAG

UNVOTE BULLETSPONGE
VOTE NTNDEACON

After some consideration, I'm switching things up for a couple reasons other than what's already been said. One, unlike for reasons Jackal said, I think ntn has been a bit off his usual tone. Two, it will give more insight to the opening part of D2 when he was a viable candidate before CR / Darth pulled away.

Well of the evil people voting for me, I like this reasoning the best. They must be evil, since no TRUE Nazi or true German would vote for me. ( )

[Danny]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I don't think that was Lathum's position, unless I missed something. I was the one who made the case for looking at people in the group who weren't at the meeting.

In fact, I think Lathum said he thought it was wolfish to specifically play the percentages of looking at the group outside the meeting, and vote for someone only because they were in that non-meeting group. I agree that it isn't the only thing we should look for, but all things being near equal, I think it gives us a better shot.

Yeah, it was Kwhit who initially brought this up and then I agreed with him.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I am at work, so I don't have a ton of time to respond, but after several of these, I feel I have to say something: KWhit, you are vastly overstating my "confidence" in the analysis or how far I would back it. I merely suggest some interpretations, using a combination of some guesswork, rational analysis, what little in thread evidence we have, and some prior WW experience.

I have done a number of these sorts of analyses over the years, and some of them have been spot on. Some have also been completely wrong. We don't know enough at this point to be sure. I would be hesitant to base an entire village play on this analysis. I only recommend using it as one tool, but for the rest of the village to continue to parse both the evidence we have and the analysis I did to come to their own conclusions.

You also overstate your own position in my "suspicions". You are not high on the list. You're around the middle and a relative unknown. And part of the reason is your non-vote on Day One. Whatever the reason, you have to deal with the consequences of not considering you would not get back on.

FWIW, I think Lathum's "opposite analysis" approach (looking at those outside of the meeting) is an excellent idea. Any trepidation I have about it is based on my doubt of my own analysis, particularly any reliance on there being just one traitor in the meeting room. I think standard logic suggests there should be no more than two conspirators there, and Hitler's speech is possible evidence there is just one. But as Lathum said, there could be more at work as to what made that meeting a success than just numbers. We just don't know enough.

All I intended to offer was some possible interpretations of the data, not hard and fast rules of voting for us to follow. Anyone attributing more than fleeting support from me for buying into my analysis wholesale is either much misguided (mis-reading) or intentional deceiving.

Maybe you didn't mean to have your analysis be a driving factor that would lead the voting today. However, you did a lot of analysis with the basic assumption that there was likely exactly one traitor at the meeting. You then complete your post with the following:

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So, I think it's fairly likely that Telle, KWhit or PB is a conspirator, and a possibility that if we find the one, the other two will actually look slightly better for it. For obvious reasons, I think Telle stands out in that group, but I suspect all of them at some level (probably Telle then KWhit then PB, in that order).

And while you may not have meant it to lead the discussion our way, it certainly did so. I almost immediately got a vote after you posted that (the first vote of the day, I believe) so I felt that I needed to respond to your analysis.

I have since said that for other reasons I don't think you are likely to be a wolf, but I had to respond.

I'm out for a bit - try to get back later.

[Danny]

I am curious about something since we have an interesting tie mechanic. What are peoples thoughts on potentially having two of the main suspects being lynched?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I just removed three of my residents for fighting and this is going to be a bit weird for a while, so uber-busy dont; expect me on until l8tr

I just had the dad of one of my residents, who literally sucker punched another resident and I kicked her out, call the ACLU on me and is trying to call TV stations.

[ntndeacon]

Vote bulletsponge
I am doing this for two reasons...

The first is as I stated earlier in the day, he has pinged my radar a bit over the course of the first two days. I don't have a good reason, but whether it was his timings of votes or whom he voted for, something added up to traitor.

The Second reason should be blatently obvious...It looks now as if it might be him or me. And since I am a loyal Nazi....if one of us isn't, it must be him.

[ntndeacon]

Originally Posted by Danny

I am curious about something since we have an interesting tie mechanic. What are peoples thoughts on potentially having two of the main suspects being lynched?

I think if we had more of an upper hand it might turn out well, but I think more likely than not we would hurt ourselves more. I know this sounds a little self preservation here, but I would feel the same if say it was someone else like BS and Telle.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Danny

I am curious about something since we have an interesting tie mechanic. What are peoples thoughts on potentially having two of the main suspects being lynched?

Quoted and bolded

This is something I really want to hear peoples thoughts on as I've been debating the worthiness of lynching multiple people and reducing the effect of a night kill. It definitely speeds up the game, but gives more power to the village for better or worse.