Werewolf XXXIII: Animal Farm (SEE POST #4 FOR ALL UPDATES)

[Alan T]

And sorry if Im coming across a little rude, I don't mean to..

I'm just getting really frustrated that two games in a row I've tried to put out many ideas that I thought would be very helpful and just watch them get ignored or get people accusing me of all kinds of stuff.

Its almost like people refuse to believe anything anyone wants to talk about. Even last game when I was a seer that had the ability to get people to form a trust with me, I still had people who refused to believe me

[Blade6119]

dola, this should go into that space:

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

- Why have I maintained that there has only been one kill per night, while refusing to consider that there may have been more kill attempts?

[RealDeal]

Hoops, you didn't really need to do a role reveal there. I don't think anyone was going to vote to lynch you based on a blade/chubby bandwagon.

[hoopsguy]

The bodyguard role is stronger in this game than most. I do not ever have to self-protect to enjoy the benefit of protection - it is extended to both me and the person I specify. 25% chance I die, 50% chance I learn the ID of the attacker. I have failed on my three protects so far, which is how I know that there have not been multiple attack attempts on any night.

Night 1 - guarded Anxiety (leaving Swaggs for Night 2 when I expected there to be 2 kills)
Night 2 - guarded Swaggs (thought either Revolutionaries or Pilkington, one or the other, would take the known good)
Night 3 - will not reveal, as I cannot defend him tonight

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

How does this explain this:


Why would you being able to guard one person per night make you positive that 2 kills were attempted? Unless your saying you know everything the bad guys are doing, i dont see how you guarding whoever it is your claiming you guarded(or havent claimed yet) allows you to know only 1 night kill was attempted day 2. Please elaborate for me

He's talking about the whole discussion this morning where Chubby refused to believe that night 2 wasn't a blocked kill and there just was only 1 night attack. Hoops was pretty adament about that, and then Chubby accused him of being Pinkerton and working with the wolves to make it look like he was dead.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Even last game when I was a seer that had the ability to get people to form a trust with me, I still had people who refused to believe me

The fact the first person you cleared killed the bodyguard certainly didnt help your case ladt game...lets face it, that screwed us all up for a few days

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Alan T

He's talking about the whole discussion this morning where Chubby refused to believe that night 2 wasn't a blocked kill and there just was only 1 night attack.

Wasnt chubby saying the wolves didnt go out and kill someone, pilkington did. It was hoops who said he didnt believe the wolves didnt hold off their attack. I dont see how hoops guarding swaggs and not seeing a sould translates to the wolves went out and pilkington must be dead.

[hoopsguy]

RealDeal, post #1104 talks about why I revealed. Even after tipping my hand I can still defend myself and another person every night.

Blade, if I have not blocked an attack, and there has only been one kill per night, then only one kill has been attempted per night. I do not see any reason that banking kills helps either Pilkington or the Revolutionaries to achieve their win scenario of a 1:1 relationship.

With this information now public, I hope that the conversation can become more focused rather than the cesspool I felt we were stuck in today. Even if I was not going to be lynched today, a ton of effort was going into defending against Chubby and Blade. And a ton of posts are being generated on this topic for everyone else to wade through, which is distracting from the goal of getting a Revolutionary tonight.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

I have failed on my three protects so far, which is how I know that there have not been multiple attack attempts on any night.

To make sure I understand, you think there was never a 2-attack night because in 3 tries, nobody tried to attack the person you were defending...and you are assuming that the wolves wouldn't take a day off so either there should be two deaths, or you should know about the second attack. I see where you are going now...

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

The fact the first person you cleared killed the bodyguard certainly didnt help your case ladt game...lets face it, that screwed us all up for a few days

Well I guess thats exactly what Im talking about.. people were so sure of their beliefs they refused to see other ideas.. And because of that you ended up dead in what was a good vs good matchup where everyone was 100% sure of their side based on feelings. I think we all have played so many of these games together we can almost predict what people will do.. and almost everything comes across as suspicious from some people.

All I am saying is that a few people have been trying to put out ideas to work on a CoT for a few days here, and other than that handful most have just stepped all over it. I don't think everyone has to agree with my ideas, but people would hopefully at least respond.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Wasnt chubby saying the wolves didnt go out and kill someone, pilkington did. It was hoops who said he didnt believe the wolves didnt hold off their attack. I dont see how hoops guarding swaggs and not seeing a sould translates to the wolves went out and pilkington must be dead.

Well if there was only 1 night kill, and the bodyguard didnt stop a kill.. Wouldn't that lead you to think Pilkington is dead? That was the point this morning.

[hoopsguy]

Blade, if there were not multiple attacks on either of the nights that Pilkerton could attack that strongly suggest that he is not around to attack.

Remember, the wolves and Pilkerton cannot communicate with each other. So they cannot coordinate their activities. And even if they could I doubt they would forego kills just to create confusion on this point.

[Alan T]

Ugh, is the forums lagging really bad for anyone else? Its like 2 minutes to refresh any page.

[hoopsguy]

I could buy the idea that Pilkerton missed an evening - didn't submit an action - but twice? Even Ardent, who hasn't gotten votes in for consecutive days, was on during Night 2 and would have been able to submit an action.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Well I guess thats exactly what Im talking about.. people were so sure of their beliefs they refused to see other ideas.. And because of that you ended up dead in what was a good vs good matchup where everyone was 100% sure of their side based on feelings. I think we all have played so many of these games together we can almost predict what people will do.. and almost everything comes across as suspicious from some people.

All I am saying is that a few people have been trying to put out ideas to work on a CoT for a few days here, and other than that handful most have just stepped all over it. I don't think everyone has to agree with my ideas, but people would hopefully at least respond.

Chubby and i have been responding

And your view of who has been working on a COT is different then mine. I think chubby and i have been working on one, while you have done everything possible to use up our seer powers, or even kill them. Chubby and brian are new in my game. Ive been hunting you and hoops since day 1, they just joined in after i made that gigantic post after the lynch. Its very possible they are the 2 bad guys and are latching onto my claims. But the person i have pegged as moses isnt supporting you, which has me worried.

I have to leave for about 2 hours, do try not to swing the vote too much while im gone

[hoopsguy]

Blade, there were multiple times I asked both you and Chubby to go back and re-read my posts and try to assume I was a good guy just to see if it would change your perceptions. I don't think I'm alone in perceiving that you both were not going to move your votes until I was dead or cleared. But only the seer could clear me and I would rather out myself than risk him (if he/she is still alive).

[Alan T]

So everyone is just going to leave their votes on the bodyguard who can't be killed easily at night? Thats just screaming for problems.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Well if there was only 1 night kill, and the bodyguard didnt stop a kill.. Wouldn't that lead you to think Pilkington is dead? That was the point this morning.

Pilkington's kills are not guranteed. Its possible he missed. And to be honest, its possible he IS banking them so you can claim just this. I just dont think bek, who i still believe was clover, would not hint if bullet or anyone was bad. I also dont believe moses would not hint if one of the night kills was a bad guy. Hoops isnt claiming to be moses, so unless you want to claim that role i have trouble seeing him as dead, which is a strong basis for hoops' reveal.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

So everyone is just going to leave their votes on the bodyguard who can't be killed easily at night? Thats just screaming for problems.

I'm planning on going back and doing a re-read to see if this new information gells with what I read. I should be around pretty much from now until the lynch, so I'll have plenty of time to process and adjust accordingly. I have a feeling that I'll be back to having no clue who to vote for.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Blade, there were multiple times I asked both you and Chubby to go back and re-read my posts and try to assume I was a good guy just to see if it would change your perceptions. I don't think I'm alone in perceiving that you both were not going to move your votes until I was dead or cleared. But only the seer could clear me and I would rather out myself than risk him (if he/she is still alive).

I actually re-read your posts like you asked, and i didnt see many hints. Every comment that could be contrued as a bodyguard hint could also be taken as a wolf comment. The ones i saw were very nuetral. The first time through they seemed wolfish, and although i can see where you might claim they were bodyguard comments i can see both sides.

Im really have to go, and will be back around 3:00 pacific time.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Pilkington's kills are not guranteed. Its possible he missed. And to be honest, its possible he IS banking them so you can claim just this. I just dont think bek, who i still believe was clover, would not hint if bullet or anyone was bad. I also dont believe moses would not hint if one of the night kills was a bad guy. Hoops isnt claiming to be moses, so unless you want to claim that role i have trouble seeing him as dead, which is a strong basis for hoops' reveal.

Nope, I am not moses. I am just going off of what I think is pretty sound logic. Maybe I am mistaken, but Path already said he cant bank kills.. so by not using his kill, all he does is lower the number of kills he has available to him..

I guess re-reading the role, his attack failing is a possibility (only 90% success chance), but wouldnt the victim have known he was attacked? Even if they didnt see by whom?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Nope, I am not moses. I am just going off of what I think is pretty sound logic. Maybe I am mistaken, but Path already said he cant bank kills.. so by not using his kill, all he does is lower the number of kills he has available to him..

I guess re-reading the role, his attack failing is a possibility (only 90% success chance), but wouldnt the victim have known he was attacked? Even if they didnt see by whom?

Rereading what i wrote, it came out a little weird. What i mean by lower the number of kills he has, instead of going day 2, 5, 8.. he now is up to 4, 7, 10... chances of us going 10 days are far less than 8 days..

So the longer he waits, the bigger the chance that he plays less a factor in this game.. I don't really see much reason why wait other than wanting some reveal to make sure he gets an important role.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Nope, I am not moses. I am just going off of what I think is pretty sound logic. Maybe I am mistaken, but Path already said he cant bank kills.. so by not using his kill, all he does is lower the number of kills he has available to him..

I guess re-reading the role, his attack failing is a possibility (only 90% success chance), but wouldnt the victim have known he was attacked? Even if they didnt see by whom?

We cant make that assumption. Im trying to explore all routes, like hoops asked me to. I just dont believe bek would not hint if he is what i believe he was(despite what you all think of it). Hes quiet till he has something he thinks is important(like the PM plan) then speak up. If bullet or the others were pilington, he would have hinted...i cant shake that belief.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Rereading what i wrote, it came out a little weird. What i mean by lower the number of kills he has, instead of going day 2, 5, 8.. he now is up to 4, 7, 10... chances of us going 10 days are far less than 8 days..

So the longer he waits, the bigger the chance that he plays less a factor in this game.. I don't really see much reason why wait other than wanting some reveal to make sure he gets an important role.

There are 5 bad guys in this game, 4 that know it. So he has 4 guys he can kill randomly(though he knows 1). Id imagine by night 2 he wasnt yet sure who the bad guys were, and wanted to wait until he was sure he wasnt killing another bad guy. Missing 2 villager kills to not make 1 wolf kill is a trade-off i can accept as pilkington. Id imagine he can as well

[Blade6119]

Dola, two games ago the wolves tked dracula greyroofoo. It was a major blow to their side. Id imagine pilkinton would want to avoid a similar event from occuring

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

There are 5 bad guys in this game, 4 that know it. So he has 4 guys he can kill randomly(though he knows 1). Id imagine by night 2 he wasnt yet sure who the bad guys were, and wanted to wait until he was sure he wasnt killing another bad guy. Missing 2 villager kills to not make 1 wolf kill is a trade-off i can accept as pilkington. Id imagine he can as well

Fair enough I suppose, I think though in most cases the simpler solution is most likely. I have already been wrong about Bek once this game, so maybe my assumption of how he would play it out if he was Clover or how he would hint being Clover is entirely incorrect. I guess it just would be helpful if we could look at Bullet's behavior and see if it gave us any clues if he was pilkington.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Fair enough I suppose, I think though in most cases the simpler solution is most likely. I have already been wrong about Bek once this game, so maybe my assumption of how he would play it out if he was Clover or how he would hint being Clover is entirely incorrect. I guess it just would be helpful if we could look at Bullet's behavior and see if it gave us any clues if he was pilkington.

Bek is thought of as pretty quiet around here, but he can be quite forceful and adamant in real life. I just personally have a hard time imagining him sitting on that information..and with that i really am leaving, have fun yall

[hoopsguy]

Blade, here is the elaboration.

I guard a person each night, as well as auto-guarding myself. If I don't succeed in getting a block, then the bad guys didn't attack that person. Which means they get a kill.

There has been one kill per night. So that tells me the Revolutionaries + Pilkington have only attempted one kill per night. If they had attempted more than that I would have either blocked or they would have gotten two kills.

Pilkington gets to attack once every three days, starting on Night 2. There have not been multiple kills on either Night 2 or Night 3.

Both Pilkington and the Revolutionaries when the game when they get to a 1:1 ratio in the game. The chances of them hitting an ally are pretty slim and neither of them have any other action available besides a night kill. So, why would they do anything but use their kill that night?

I don't say I know two kills were attempted. I'm saying I'm POSITIVE ONLY ONE KILL WAS ATTEMPTED EACH NIGHT. Which does not fit with the victory conditions for Pilkington or the Revolutionaries. So why would they ever forego a kill, unless Pilkington is dead (thus not able to kill)?

[BrianD]

This isn't really related to the current discussion, but if Pilkington is dead we probably haven't had the sympathizer activated yet. This game is going to get more complicated.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

So why would they ever forego a kill, unless Pilkington is dead (thus not able to kill)?

Like is just said, fear of hitting a bad guy(or even the sympathizer) He knows on revolutionary, so he has to read his actions. He has to discern who is he supporting, and who is he brown nosing. If he went out and killed a bad guy, it would be a major blow.

[Alan T]

Blade is going to be late just like i was yesterday because of this game.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Blade is going to be late just like i was yesterday because of this game.

I told you it was electric crack.

[hoopsguy]

Pilkington does not know four bad guys - he knows one besides him.

Night 2 - we are down to 17 players. He knows the roles of two - himself and one Revolutionary (assumes we did not kill the Revolutionary he knows). So he is picking between 15 players. He could hurt his cause by killing the other Revolutionary, the Sympathizer, or the Squealer. There are twelve people he can kill that help his cause. He has a 90% chance of being successful in killing and an 80% chance of picking a target (12/15) that helps his cause.

Night 3 - we are down to 15 players. Again, he knows the role of two players. Now he is down to a 77% chance or randomly picking a target (10/13) that helps his cause.

You could argue that three percent chance is offset by getting better reads on players. But he is also extending the game longer by not acting on his kill. And he can't win until there is a 1:1 ratio. If Pilkington held onto his kill the last two nights he is not playing logically.

I can't account for the 10% failure - it is possible this is the scenario.

Path - if Pilkington fails his 90% kill, is his next attempt once again at 50%? And if he fails his kill is there any opportunity for his target to know he was attacked?

[hoopsguy]

Any further votes for me are horrible votes and I would encourage anyone to look upon them sternly. I would hope that my disclosure would be sufficient to move off the people already on me.

Can we please start trying to figure out who actually is a Revolutionary instead of working on uber-complicated scenarios where I'm lying here?

[BrianD]

I'm going to take back my vote while we wait to see if anyone else is willing to stand up in support of Hoops or to point fingers at him...

Unvote Hoopsguy

[hoopsguy]

OK, so a question I'll pose to others reading the thread because I'm probably a little biased on this matter:

Did we learn anything from the people who either attacked or defended me between the deadline last night and my reveal this afternoon? Who moves up/down trust lists as a result?

[BrianD]

Most of the arguments started today based on differing views of Pilkington and what should be done with one-time PMs. Since you seemed to have more information than everyone else, it isn't surprising that you ended up arguing against others. My guess is that we've got a lot of villagers trying to figure stuff out and lots of wolves sitting back and letting us point fingers at each other.

[path12]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Path - if Pilkington fails his 90% kill, is his next attempt once again at 50%? And if he fails his kill is there any opportunity for his target to know he was attacked?

I will answer the first part of your question: If Pilkington fails his 90% kill, his next attempt would be at 50%.

[hoopsguy]

I wanted to re-post #985, where I published my assumptions. RealDeal commented on them and Chubby attacked me on them. Hopefully we can get some more discussion going on this because with the dearth of information available in this game I think we have to collectively be willing to critically examine the game and recognize trends that favor the Farm.

Please, let me know if you agree/disagree with my thoughts and absolutely add your own to further the discussion.

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

OK, this seems like a good time to publish my list of assumptions for this game. This should be a way for us to begin establishing some conventional wisdom in the Farm:

- changes to the rules after a Night lynch mean we lynched a good guy
- no changes to the rules after a Night lynch mean we lynched a bad guy
Given these two assumptions, I don't know how the Sympathizer would show.
- Both Cronin and Bek were good guys. Bullet was a bad guy
- given that there has only been one kill on N2 and N3 I believe that Pilkington is dead
- Swaggs is a cleared good


The above represent my impressions and are guiding my actions. It will take a very persuasive argument to change my mind on these points.

Here are a couple of suspicions
- I believe Bulletsponge was Pilkington
- I worry that Anxiety was the seer. If he was not, he was affording me considerably more trust on Day 2 - and continuing to extend it on Day 3 - than I am used to seeing from a vanilla villager this early in a game where I'm uncleared

[hoopsguy]

Another thought - if the "dead seers" accept that I am the bodyguard I would ask that they consider me as an option for their one-time PM as well. I can only protect Swaggs every other night, but I'm de facto protected every night that I'm alive.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

I wanted to re-post #985, where I published my assumptions. RealDeal commented on them and Chubby attacked me on them. Hopefully we can get some more discussion going on this because with the dearth of information available in this game I think we have to collectively be willing to critically examine the game and recognize trends that favor the Farm.

Please, let me know if you agree/disagree with my thoughts and absolutely add your own to further the discussion.

Do you have the post where Chubby attacked you on your assumptions? RealDeal seemed to not accept your first assumption about the rule changes being meaningful, and all of the rest of his comments questioned your later assumptions based on his disagreement of your first assumption. That seems like a reasonable course.

I disagree with your beliefe that Anxiety was the seer. If he was, his trust level for you wouldn't go down. I think he saw something from you that he liked for the initial trust and later wasn't so sure. I don't think playing up his trust helps your case.

[Grammaticus]

I don't really like the Hoops / Blade showdown. I think we are better off hitting the no vote AE, giving our power roles another night to accumulate.

VOTE ARDENT ENTHUSIAST

Not sure what it means, that Path has not indicated if AE will be a switch or not. I also do not know if he has been online in the interim. I still think not voting is the worst thing that can be traced. I also think that taking a pot shot at someone, makes AE as good a target as any. At this point we have don't have evidence against anyone, so the percentage that AE is bad is as good as anyone else and we are unlikely to get his participation.

[hoopsguy]

Brian, on the seer point I really would like to be wrong since the guy I think was is dead. I'm willing to discuss this further but really the only way we are getting this information is if it is later published by the person who views night kills.

I'll see if I can pull up the post #s for RealDeal and Chubby - the are not far behind my initial post on this topic.

[hoopsguy]

Chubby is Post #989
RealDeal is Post #996

[Grammaticus]

Regarding the "Napoleon is always right" comment that Boxer makes in the book. It starts when the animals get all fired up about animalism and Boxer says "I will work harder". Napoleon takes a group of puppies to train them on animalism. Then Napoleon and Snowball start out planning the future of animal farm, but start to argue and quibble. The big blowout is over whether or not to make a windmill. Snowball gives a big speech to get the animals to support building the wind mill. But Napoleon just utters a few brief words and in come a group of full grown attack dogs. They are the puppies he took to train earlier. The dogs run Snowball of the farm. That is when Boxer nervously states his second maxim "Napoleon is always right". He does not want any of the dogs.

I'm guessing that maxim is part of showing the deterioration of equality amongst the animals. Meaning we are losing control of the farm.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Brian, on the seer point I really would like to be wrong since the guy I think was is dead. I'm willing to discuss this further but really the only way we are getting this information is if it is later published by the person who views night kills.

I'll see if I can pull up the post #s for RealDeal and Chubby - the are not far behind my initial post on this topic.

I don't know that there is a whole lot to discuss dealing with the seer. Blade claims to have an idea who it is, but I have no clue.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I don't really like the Hoops / Blade showdown. I think we are better off hitting the no vote AE, giving our power roles another night to accumulate.

VOTE ARDENT ENTHUSIAST

Not sure what it means, that Path has not indicated if AE will be a switch or not. I also do not know if he has been online in the interim. I still think not voting is the worst thing that can be traced. I also think that taking a pot shot at someone, makes AE as good a target as any. At this point we have don't have evidence against anyone, so the percentage that AE is bad is as good as anyone else and we are unlikely to get his participation.

I kind of clump Ardent, Dodgerchick and Goldeneagle all into one category. I voted for GE on day 2 because of missing the first vote. Dodger has been doing throw away votes (by throw away I mean haven't had any impact in any lynch so far), and Ardent hasn't been around for 2 days. If I have a feeling about someone being bad, I'd rather vote for them. I'll likely for now keep my vote on Brian since I still stand by my feelings on him.

If people don't have any feel on anyone and are going to toss out a random vote, I guess any of these three are as good as anyone else..

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I don't know that there is a whole lot to discuss dealing with the seer. Blade claims to have an idea who it is, but I have no clue.

I don't like Blade or anyone else tossing out things like that.. I don't really care for trying to smoke out the seer to be honest. Remember there is an anti-seer in the game too trying to find them. I'm still worried we'll at some point have the anti-seer come out with an attack on the seer claiming to be the seer, and leaving us in a big mess.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Chubby is Post #989
RealDeal is Post #996

I can't really blame Chubby for his views on your assumptions. Once again, he logic seems decent, but he had no way of knowing that you actually knew more than you let on. I still say we've probably got lots of villagers pointing fingers.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I don't like Blade or anyone else tossing out things like that.. I don't really care for trying to smoke out the seer to be honest. Remember there is an anti-seer in the game too trying to find them. I'm still worried we'll at some point have the anti-seer come out with an attack on the seer claiming to be the seer, and leaving us in a big mess.

I don't see Blade trying to smoke out the seer. He commented that he had an idea who it was, but gave no thoughts beyond that. He may be trying to add more weight to his opinions by claiming some secret seer backing, but I don't think it is anything more than that.