WW XCIV Group Therapy - Game Over!

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Is that what you're trying to say in Point B? I guess I see that. So is Point A based on the assumption that EF is not a wolf?

Yeah Pass, sorry, I guess it wasn't clear.

Point A- Neither EF and I are wolves, they've criticized the one to nudge things towards me (and Lathum is just a bonus) because I hit on something correctly. I know as I play, I scrutinize nightkills and the wolves' purpose more than I do daykills.

Point B- EF is a wolf and by criticizing him it at least pulls people to neutrality and makes them second guess votes they put on him while nudging it, again, to me.

Look, both might be crazy like all of us but I don't know.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Lathum

All I can say is I have my reasons for voting PB. If others chose to follow that's fine, but I am not going to openly campaign against him. Sorry for being so cryptic but I can't go into more detail.

What the hell does that mean? Either you know he is bad or you don't. Quit playing games, role or not I'm not following you on this vote anymore. Its almost like you are just making things up to sidetrack us.

Unvote PB

[PurdueBrad]

Is it 3-3 and then 1 on Hoops?

[PurdueBrad]

Okay, let me reask that. Is it 3-2 and 1 on Hoops?

[Danny]

That's correct by my count

[hoopsguy]

With Dubb unvoting I think it is 3-2-1 EF/PB/Hoops

[Telle]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

Okay, let me reask that. Is it 3-2 and 1 on Hoops?

3 on EF and 2 on you, yes.

[MartinD]

A quick read through suggests that the main candidates at the moment are PurdueBrad and EagleFan.

My opinion:
A vote for PurdueBrad is basically saying that I am willing to believe that Lathum is one of the good guys, and is playing it straight up by saying that he has a good reason to want to lynch PB. (If we do lynch PB and he turns out good, Lathum is going to have to come up with a good explanation or he'll be a hot favourite for tomorrow...)

A vote for EagleFan is saying that the wolves are trying to build trust in one of their own by sending the Criticizer against a wolf - seems like a legitimate tactic to me. If EF is not a wolf/Needie, why would the wolves stop him from voting today? (and raise suspicion on him with the same action?)


Despite my vote yesterday, I don't have any major bad feelings about PurdueBrad - was going with what I thought was the best option of the choices on offer at the time I was online yesterday evening. I'm also a bit leery about voting for EagleFan - while I could see him being a Needie, I can also see him being a villager as well.

I'm not set on either of the two main candidates at the moment, but need a bit more time than I have at the moment to go through previous posts. Will be back on in a wee while...

[PurdueBrad]

This doesn't help my case but I would *believe* that Lathum is good but I think if you lynch me you then have to lynch him. It's too much of an out-front play on day 2 if he's a wolf.

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I'm not sure how to respond, because I don't know what you're trying to say about my post. I do think you missed some context, though. Yes, I knew we all had roles, but the discussion with hoops was about whether or not two of the roles could have had an overlap such that Lathum's role is similar to ntn's.

Fair enough, I'll go back and read around it. I've just noticed a tendency of wolves to play coy about rules because they generally know a bit more than the village in hidden-info games. But I'm harping in on one line of info, so it's probably nothing.

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

Fair enough, I'll go back and read around it. I've just noticed a tendency of wolves to play coy about rules because they generally know a bit more than the village in hidden-info games. But I'm harping in on one line of info, so it's probably nothing.

Yeah, I definitely read it out of context. You weren't saying you didn't know there were 20 roles, just that you could see two people having similar unlisted roles.

[hoopsguy]

For what it is worth, my vote tracking post from yesterday is missing a couple of votes so I'm going to have to spend some time digging through it in order to accurately represent the vote and totals as people put their votes in. Hope to have it up within the hour.

It is just messy ... the action, as well as my bad counting the first time through

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

Yeah, I definitely read it out of context. You weren't saying you didn't know there were 20 roles, just that you could see two people having similar unlisted roles.

It's probably the question mark in there that made it seem like that -- and that was to convey that I wasn't sure how many players there were in the game.

[dubb93]

Lathum the way you are playing your vote on PB makes me think you could be up to something.

I think it is possible the wolves are going out of their way to attempt to steer the vote away from EF today. Looking back making it so he can't vote today is odd. Why EF? What did he do yesterday that scared them? The easy answer is nothing. Then Lathum comes right out of the gate as soon as the night action is posted and votes PB. Again, steering it away from EF. I voted EF yesterday and I've seen nothing to make me less suspecious of him today other than people going out of their way to steer this away from him(Lathum, the wolves in the night action.) With that:

Vote EF

[The Jackal]

I'm leaning towards EF as well at this point.

[Passacaglia]

VOTE HOOPSGUY

This vote is mainly because I'd rather not see EagleFan as a "not-PB" vote. Not to say that I don't have some suspicion of hoops, though.

[PurdueBrad]

I'm going to keep this a three horse race because even if I'm going down, it'll get you more voting information.

vote Hoopsguy

[hoopsguy]

Pass, what suspicion do you have on me right now?

[hoopsguy]

Same question to PB, who I've already asked about the "tunnel vision" comment but not gotten an answer.

[Telle]

VOTE PURDUEBRAD

I really think it's a mistake to ignore the Lathum/PB issue. It'll just come back to bite us in the butt. At worst we'll be missing out on catching a wolf, and at best we'll end up talking about it for days and thus derailing other potential useful conversation.

[Danny]

As of post 1019:

3 - PurdueBrad - Lathum (790), Hoopsguy (822), Telle (1020)
4 - EagleFan - Alan T (951), Autumn (969), DaddyTorgo (971), Dubb (1014)
3 - Hoopsguy - Barkeep (985), Pass (1016), PurdueBrad (1017)

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Pass, what suspicion do you have on me right now?

Similar to BK, I guess. I feel like you're driving to drive us around a little. I know it's not much to give you now, but it's not a very concrete suspicion, either.

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Same question to PB, who I've already asked about the "tunnel vision" comment but not gotten an answer.

Oh, sorry, I must have missed it Hoops. Without looking back, I'm assuming you want to know why I thought you had tunnel-vision. If I'm wrong and that wasn't your question, let me know.

Okay, you are usually not a quick to vote player, even when things seem very clear. You usually hold back and check all angles and rarely slap a quick vote like that down. In addition, you also usually explore a ton of other angles, which I haven't seen you do here, at least like I'm used to.

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Similar to BK, I guess. I feel like you're driving to drive us around a little. I know it's not much to give you now, but it's not a very concrete suspicion, either.

But I'm the best candidate at this point in time?

Look, there is about zero chance I'm going to vote for you today (will stay EF/PB, barring some kind of really strongly worded reveal) but this is very strange given what has been posted up to this point.

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

Oh, sorry, I must have missed it Hoops. Without looking back, I'm assuming you want to know why I thought you had tunnel-vision. If I'm wrong and that wasn't your question, let me know.

Okay, you are usually not a quick to vote player, even when things seem very clear. You usually hold back and check all angles and rarely slap a quick vote like that down. In addition, you also usually explore a ton of other angles, which I haven't seen you do here, at least like I'm used to.

I think the other angles were covered pretty thoroughly in an earlier post. I'll quote it for you in the next post.

I don't expect you to like the conclusions I have drawn, but I'm pretty sure I looked through the angles (as I saw them) before putting down my vote.

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

I've got a few games under my belt with Lathum. I don't think he auto-votes someone with no explanation to start Day 2 without a very good reason.

I'll move it if given a very compelling reason, but none have emerged so far.

VOTE PURDUEBRAD

Hoops, your first post of the day, 822. You covered what angles? Do you usually vote then without thinking it through?

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

We had three people in a vote yesterday. One of them has been proven to be good (NT). So PB is a person of interest for the vote today.

PB would also have been a person of interest for people with good roles and actions last night, although my (stated) preference would have been EF. So with him having a higher likelihood of drawing investigative actions last night, that makes him more interesting than the average bear.

Take these two points, then add in that a player came out and voted him right away today and I think that there is certainly smoke here.

I've also weighed a couple of possibilities of how this would not work out well for the villagers. Probably tops on that list is that Lathum is the Sympathizer and is deliberately creating an exercise that wastes our time by creating that 1:1 trade that Clap has been pointing out this morning. But I think Lathum would probably have waited one more day to spring that, especially since the Sympathizer role would "scan good".

Overall, I think the risk/reward on this vote beats a random vote on another villager. I'm willing to move if someone can come out and create a more convincing case for getting a wolf than what I see around PB right now.

Oh, and in the event that Lathum is leading us in the wrong direction then at least PB has told us he has a minor role. So we wouldn't be making a really big mistake lynching him, right? That is a very distant consideration in my decision but I figured I would add it as well to more or less wrap up my thought process on the vote as it stands right now.

The only reason I don't like putting together long posts like this on my thoughts is that it potentially provides an outlet for other people to justify their votes. Normally I like to sit on some of this stuff for at least a little while to see how others read the situation.

PB, here was my thought process leading up to the vote. Not fully spelled out at the time of the vote because I wanted others to have a chance to form their own conclusions without just piggy-backing on this.

[PurdueBrad]

Hoops, that is post 889, 2 and a half hours later.

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

Hoops, your first post of the day, 822. You covered what angles? Do you usually vote then without thinking it through?

Keep reading. I would argue that I've given it more thought, at least in terms of posted thoughts, than anyone without role-specific information one way or the other, in the game.

[PurdueBrad]

So once you got 2 more on me AND 1 UNVOTED, it was okay to get piggybacks?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

But I'm the best candidate at this point in time?

Look, there is about zero chance I'm going to vote for you today (will stay EF/PB, barring some kind of really strongly worded reveal) but this is very strange given what has been posted up to this point.

The suspicion wasn't the reason for the vote, if you'll recall. What's strange about it?

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

Hoops, that is post 889, 2 and a half hours later.

Yep, read the last paragraph of the post.

Honestly, I don't normally post that much detail validating a vote until later in the day. But since Pass had asked multiple times for why I voted the way I did I gave the long version.

[PurdueBrad]

The difference between 3 votes on me and 4 is what again? How does 7:00 differ from 9:30 (still nine and a half hours shy of deadline vs. twelve hours) in making it okay to get piggybacks?

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

So once you got 2 more on me AND 1 UNVOTED, it was okay to get piggybacks?

I have no idea what you are saying here, or responding to.

[EagleFan]

Someone asked who I thought was a better choice. I really don't know at this point to be honest.

These last couple days have really sucked at work as I have become the scape goat for other people not doing their job and following proper procedure (how am I supposed to know something that happened half way around the world and I was not told about it until it became a crisis in the meeting today?). I really haven't had the time and at the moment I don't have the patience to look through the thread. Don't use this last paragraph as anything to base your judgement of me within the game from, just letting you know where my head currently is.

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

So once you got 2 more on me AND 1 UNVOTED, it was okay to get piggybacks?

Or did the push lose steam with the 1 unvote and the questions of Lathum's actual info and so it's time to generate piggybacks.

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

I have no idea what you are saying here, or responding to.

You. You stated that at 7:00 am when you post your vote you don't want to draw piggybacks which is why you didn't post your logic. But at 9:30 it's suddenly okay?

[hoopsguy]

OK, now I understand what you are saying. I posted it at that time because Pass had asked me to clarify why I voted the way that I did. I had already given a short version in my initial post. This time I gave a longer version.

Really, I'm not quite sure what you are arguing here. Your initial point was that I voted blindly. Now you are disputing my thoughts on whether or not people would copy my vote logic?

I cast a vote based on posted logic. I stand behind that vote, barring a set of conditions that drastically change the data as we know it. I do not feel that at any point in time that I've had "tunnel vision" or failed to properly consider how this vote might play out. I'm certainly not targeting you based on any past games ... as much fun as it may be to joke about, it almost never enters my thought processes when I'm trying to make good votes.

If we aren't going to get anywhere with this argument, so be it. You have voted for me, I have voted for you. I was trying to give you the courtesy of expanding on your logic for voting for me in the event that you really are a villager. If you are a wolf, I honestly am not interested in the logic. But if you do outlive me, and are a villager, it might be beneficial to your cause to have a justifiable argument for voting for me.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by dubb93

What the hell does that mean? Either you know he is bad or you don't. Quit playing games, role or not I'm not following you on this vote anymore. Its almost like you are just making things up to sidetrack us.

Unvote PB

still catching up but cut me some slack, you don't wanna vote with me that's fine, but don't come off like I'm an ass because I am trying to stay within the rules of the game and have strict limitations about what I can say, I've already blown up Danny;s PM box with questions.

FWIW I agree with DT's logic about EF and think he is a solid choice.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

A lot of band wagon jumpers against the person who can't even defend himself with a self defense vote. Strikes me as suspicious.

I agree

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Yep, read the last paragraph of the post.

Honestly, I don't normally post that much detail validating a vote until later in the day. But since Pass had asked multiple times for why I voted the way I did I gave the long version.

Mutiple times?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

This doesn't help my case but I would *believe* that Lathum is good but I think if you lynch me you then have to lynch him. It's too much of an out-front play on day 2 if he's a wolf.

I'm not concerned about being lynched tomorrow.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

I'm going to keep this a three horse race because even if I'm going down, it'll get you more voting information.

vote Hoopsguy

Wow, boom boom on hoopsguy

[hoopsguy]

I'll try to paint cases for voting for the people in the thread:

1.) EF - near lynch yesterday, likely seer scan based on vote results D1. Impact of "no vote" today is probably not weighed as positive or negative.

2.) PB - near top of votes yesterday, somewhat likely seer scan based on vote results D1. Has one player who immediately voted for him after start of day.

3.) Hoops - likely seer scan N1 based on reputation? Perception of floating ideas rather than leading?


As an example of my lack of leadership, perhaps others can follow along here and expand on these ideas in positive/negative light?

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I'm not concerned about being lynched tomorrow.

Okay, now I'm in.

Vote PB

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Lathum the way you are playing your vote on PB makes me think you could be up to something.

I assure you I am up to something. Trying to win the game for the good guys, ask yourself why I would play this way as a wolf?

BTW I fully support the vote on EF.

[The Jackal]

I'm gonna get my vote out there for now.

VOTE EF

[hoopsguy]

Votes as of Post #1045:
4 PB - Lathum (790), Hoops (822), Telle (1020), Abe (1045)
4 EF - Alan (951), Autumn (969), MommyTorgo (971), Dubb (1014)
3 Hoops - Barkeep (985), Pass (1016), PB (1017)

790 - Lathum votes PB 1-0
810 - DT votes PB 2-0
822 - Hoops votes PB 3-0
823 - Clap votes PB 4-0
846 - Dubb votes PB 5-0
875 - Clap unvotes PB 4-0
951 - Alan votes EF 4-1 PB over EF
969 - Autumn votes EF 4-2 PB over EF
971 - DT unvotes PB votes EF 3-3 PB/EF
985 - BK votes Hoops 3-3-1 PB/EF over Hoops
1001 - Dubb unvotes PB 3-2-1 EF over PB over Hoops
1014 - Dubb votes EF 4-2-1 EF over PB over Hoops
1016 - Pass votes Hoops 4-2-2 EF over PB/Hoops
1017 - PB votes Hoops 4-3-2 EF over Hoops over PB
1020 - Telle votes PB 4-3-3 EF over Hoops/PB
1045 - Abe votes PB 4-4-3 EF/PB over Hoops

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Telle

VOTE PURDUEBRAD

I really think it's a mistake to ignore the Lathum/PB issue. It'll just come back to bite us in the butt. At worst we'll be missing out on catching a wolf, and at best we'll end up talking about it for days and thus derailing other potential useful conversation.

I assure you the PB/Lathum dynamic won't come back to haunt us. At some point I will be cleared and at least my alligence will be known.

I know I am being really confusing right now. Blame Danny, I had a different way planned to go about today but he put the kabosh on it so I had to audible.

[The Jackal]

Although if PB turns out to be bad that vote is going to look terrible for me since I voted for him on day one with a Penguins reasoning which could've been wolf on wolf. So I think I'm going to go with Lathum here.

UNVOTE EF

VOTE PB