WW LXVII - Heroes (GAME OVER! HEROES WIN!)

[Lathum]

We bailed out on killing Schmidty because he had mentioned somewhere that he trusted me or something.

The reason we didn't kill Alan sooner is because there were so many roles that could seemingly protect themselves or someone else we were certain Alan would be protected.

IMO having at least 3 players who can't be night killed, so many people who have seer abilities and so many that have protect abilities makes in unbalanced.

Put yourselves in our shoes, it nakes it impossible to find an easy night kill

[Poli]

[nfg22]

I think with mutiple people who could watch made it hard on us. Also I sucked as a wolf. So blame me for their demise.

[mauchow]

I nominate me as the team MVP for clearing shit up.

[Narcizo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

and most of the arguments put up against me were pathetic. Several people argued (innocently, as far as I can tell) that I had pushed for a no-lynch when ardent was on the block, which just wasn't true. I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WENT DOWN BETWEEN ALAN AND THOMKAL/PASS. That was a legitimate line of inquiry, I thought - and still do.

I think most villagers would leave it alone as being a bit embarrassing and not really anything worth getting stirring up. It's clearly no real indication of either being a wolf at that stage of the game (later and it could be a sign of game-related stress). I guess it's probably pretty common wolf practice but you seemed to be setting up an Alan - cleared - then Pass lynch move, much the same as you or DT tried in Big City with Blade then hoops. But the arguments against you that I paid most heed to were that you made a couple of subtle attempts to try and divert an Ardent lynch the day before but didn't move your own vote. Barkeep tried to move votes off of you the next day but he did it in a far more overt way and that actually comes off as being much less wolfy in my opinion.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by nfg22

I think with mutiple people who could watch made it hard on us. Also I sucked as a wolf. So blame me for their demise.

You did ok, and I feel like you'll do much better the next time out.

[Neon_Chaos]

st.cronin, are you still intent on lynching hoops as a villager?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Narcizo

But the arguments against you that I paid most heed to were that you made a couple of subtle attempts to try and divert an Ardent lynch the day before but didn't move your own vote.

This is actually not true, my mentality that day was "focus on no-lynch as a bad play." To the extent that it is true, its a misread of what I was saying that day. I would never, ever play a lynch that way that early.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

st.cronin, are you still intent on lynching hoops as a villager?

That ship has sailed.

[Passacaglia]

For interest of full disclosure, from my end of it there wasn't anything ever up between me and Pass. I played it up a bit the first day just because I learned long ago if the wolves think you might be an eventual lynch target in the next few days they will leave you alone at night for a bit. I presented to Pass ideas that I felt were valid, and played up any disagreement a bit.

The next day, Pass seemingly to me seemed to be less confronting of my ideas and in several parts asked my opinion on things. To me that meant he must have had some role which he used the first night to follow or spy on me or something and felt better about me for some reason. I didn't really know if he was good or bad, but leaned towards him being good at that point just slightly. The bigger thing I did there though was give a public front that I felt things were ok between us. When Pass left the game though, it kind of threw a wrench into things because it created some speculation.. but thats what set me off a bit.. I felt some people were playing it up a bit much, and it was that interaction that made me feel Ardent and Cronin were tied together somehow.

I don't think there was ever anything 'up' either -- I mean, all I did was put a Day 1 vote on him, and I did it before I knew we could vote No Lynch. Once people realized we could do that, I figured I might as well keep my vote where it was as a data point. I figured that Alan was smart enough not to get as defensive as he did, if he were a wolf. Plus, he backed off almost as soon as I hinted that I had spy powers -- in post 236, I was replying to a confusing post he made, and I switched up the person of my sentence -- I said 'if *I* can spy' ... he wasn't talking about me directly at all in his post, but I answered it as if he were. It was shortly after that that he started saying he thought he knew my role, so I thought he picked up on that. But mostly, I never thought anything was going on -- just all I had to go on for Day 1.

[Neon_Chaos]

I will still claim a small semi-victory by outlasting the Wolves.

[RendeR]

I claim the ultimate victory, not only did I survive my first ever WW game but I was the SEER!!!

How often does the seer ever live through a game??

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I claim the ultimate victory, not only did I survive my first ever WW game but I was the SEER!!!

How often does the seer ever live through a game??

Well, you were one of many seers.

[hoopsguy]

I claim victory for being alive in this game past Day 4 without the "wait a minute, Hoops must be evil if he is still around!" argument ever surfacing. It was refreshing.

I think this could be the start of a new WW thread - personal WW victories. It would be like the antithesis of the "I died early" thread.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

I think this could be the start of a new WW thread - personal WW victories. It would be like the antithesis of the "I died early" thread.

Putting a positive spin on playing WW is a good thing.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Well, you were one of many seers.

I was the only true seer. no one else could diferentiate all three factions, most everyone that could see anything had a very specific purpose or target so they don't count

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I was the only true seer. no one else could diferentiate all three factions, most everyone that could see anything had a very specific purpose or target so they don't count

Always with the details...

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

I'm OK with no lynch, but a little worried that we could be giving up two kills per night - one to Company, one to Sylar. The kills to Sylar, if it follows the show, equate to him gaining powers. For better or worse, people we lynch don't get eaten by Sylar. And we gain no info from a player on the hot seat if we vote no lynch. No matter the format, werewolf is always about gaining information. Do we really gain more information by not applying any pressure for one day in the thread rather than taking a shot at a bad guy with a largely random Day 1 vote?

Those are the reasons to go against the trend. Just making sure that someone is actually representing them in the thread before we all go down the no lynch path.

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Lathum, I don't know how it is going to work. If I had to guess then I would think the Company kills every night and Sylar every other one while he is out there, but we (villagers) will all get to find out together over the next couple of days.

I just think that people are jumping on the "no lynch" idea pretty quickly. And I generally don't like bandwagons. So I wanted to at least present the opposing viewpoint, which I felt had been under-represented up to this point.

I'm probably going to put a vote on someone rather than go "no lynch", even if it is appears to be futile.

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Lathum, I'm of the opinion that we need to get information - just like an other game of werewolf. Applying pressure is one way to do it. Runaway "no lynch" decisions is not a way to apply pressure to anyone.

Is the pressure applied on Day 1 often misdirected? Yep, especially when the final votes come in. But I'm not wild about the idea of foregoing discussion on players for a day, even if the end result is going to be "No Lynch". In fact, I would much rather see a tight vote - with or without "No Lynch" as one of the options available for voting.

Player A = 7 votes
Player B = 7 votes
No Lynch = 8 votes

That works just fine for me.

No Lynch = 20 votes
Player A = 2 votes
Player B = 1 vote

That doesn't work for me at all, in terms of getting value from the day.

It didn't take long at all to find this - these posts are from Day 1 of the Heroes game. I guess you can argue tone, but I don't think that I was all that over-the-top this time around. But I think I'm pretty consistent in my arguments on "No Lynch" - and Heroes had a ruleset that I thought was more compelling for "No Lynch" than this game.

I'll keep pulling up from other threads if there really is a belief that I'm pushing some kind of different agenda this game than others. But if people really want me to do that it is going to have to happen tonight as I don't think I'll be able to do much post diving tomorrow from work.