Werewolf XXXIX: The Lady of La Rochelle–GAME OVER.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Well to have a duel we need less the a majority on either...so we need to keep it low. I say we create a tie between the two of them with both having 7 votes...that should do the trick

We should be able to do that with two candidates as long as we stay even. We shoulnd't need more than two, but I suppose a third will help mitigate against us accidentally ending up with a majority on one.

[Chief Rum]

New diagnosis: Werewolf Depression

Definition: This happens to the patient when he is rarely available for long stretches, but is at the moment, and no one is around, meaning he refreshes the thread repeatedly hoping for a new post. It is da and pathetic and the prognosis is to shoot the patient in the head, ending his pitiful existence.

[Chief Rum]

P.S. "da" == sad.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

New diagnosis: Werewolf Depression

Definition: This happens to the patient when he is rarely available for long stretches, but is at the moment, and no one is around, meaning he refreshes the thread repeatedly hoping for a new post. It is da and pathetic and the prognosis is to shoot the patient in the head, ending his pitiful existence.

Are you suggesting we vote for you?

[path12]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I have no intention of doing so unless another player crosses me harder or Barkeep moves his vote elsewhere. His vote on me shows me he believe I am a musketeer, which I am not. That is offensive enough in my book for a duel. If he moves his vote, I pick up the glove. If he believes me to be a musketeer, I would like the chance to duel him.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, because you know that you're a guard and you're badass skilled, you plan to challenge to a duel anyone who votes for you?

Interesting strategy.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Brian, fouts, lsg, path...those are the 4 low posters in this thread that are playing...not sure who has been quietest since the game actually started, but for the thread those are the 4 with 3 or less posts

You know I normally stay away from the pregame chat and day 1 follies. I also think it's somewhat unfair to use the post-count strategy over a weekend.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Are you suggesting we vote for you?

If you want the game to be quiet and die off, yes, go ahead. If you want to keep good, active players around, vote for someone else.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by path12

You know I normally stay away from the pregame chat and day 1 follies. I also think it's somewhat unfair to use the post-count strategy over a weekend.

What option do we have, though? The game is starting on a weekend, for better or worse, and our sources of information so early in this game are very limited. Particpation can really only be measured by post count or by a subjective measure of the content in the few posts. Or perhaps by past participation in games, but we're not really supposed to do that.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Fouts and BrianD historically are players I enjoy having around. Not that LSG isn't a good player, but there have been a couple of games where she has been pretty much invisible.

I don't like this post, I don;t like what it says, I think it's possibly this side outside the lines for me, or maybe just inside the lines for someone else, but its still near the boundary. I don;t have any idea about the current he said/he said" issues going on in the thread, so until I get a better candidate, and frankly I may not with this post, I will

Vote st. cronin


-Anxiety

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

I don't like this post, I don;t like what it says, I think it's possibly this side outside the lines for me, or maybe just inside the lines for someone else, but its still near the boundary. I don;t have any idea about the current he said/he said" issues going on in the thread, so until I get a better candidate, and frankly I may not with this post, I will

Vote st. cronin


-Anxiety

I think you may have had some typo/word choice problems there, although the gist comes through. Are you saying you're voting for cronin because you don't like that he has brought OOG reasons to play, specifically his opinions of the play of those players in past games?

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Question for Gram: Does fighting to the third blood mean that someone dies if they lose a duel? Presumably a gunshot would be fatal, but are swordfights guarenteed to be the same?

Yes, all duels are to 3rd blood, meaning the loser dies. The winner cannot grant mercy.

[DaddyTorgo]

plenty of time to manuever this still so i'm not going to go and cast a vote now. especially as i will be around after 2pm EST tomorrow for most/all the afternoon hopefully (circumstances willing). that said, I am all for seeing a duel, to establish trust in one player (do we even know if an evil player would be revealed in a duel though?).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

(do we even know if an evil player would be revealed in a duel though?).

I doubt it, and I don't think that was the idea. I think the idea was that we will have some idea of who is a good duelist.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I doubt it, and I don't think that was the idea. I think the idea was that we will have some idea of who is a good duelist.

The rules state faction and role is revealed on death, so we will learn who is good or bad, and what role they have, if any. It doesn't say we will learn abilites, unfortunately, but we will get at least some relational information that could happen (Player X is better than Player Y at firearms or at fencing or however it comes out).

That could help immensely down the road in making challenges. In fact, it might even help good more to be a little hazardous in the early going with challenges, and to be sure we never have a clear majority on our votes.

We should only vote clear majority if we are absolutely certain we have a baddie.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I doubt it, and I don't think that was the idea. I think the idea was that we will have some idea of who is a good duelist.

Oh, I see what DT is getting at. st. cronin is right, the survivor we don't learn anything for sure except for that his abilities were likely greater than his opponents. But that still has value.

[Alan T]

UNVOTE Izulde
Vote BrianD

As I have been in favor of quiet person voting in many past games, I am this game as well. Of course this is nothing personal to BrianD, but he's the last man in.

For the record, I still really don't get Izulde and Dubb's move's to come out and just throw away one of the only benefits we get on day 1 unprovoked.

I also really don't think I like Dubb's bullying approach if he even is telling the truth. Both of these are things that can be talked about more as we get to day 2, 3, etc. I right now almost voted for Dubb just to state my disagreement with his approach, and if he wanted to throw down a glove at me, so be it.. but I think I don't like that approach very much right now.

I know the game started on a weekend, but I'll stay with BrianD for now.. however if Izulde doesn't respond to my question any time soon, he'll be next for me..

[Alan T]

Dola,

And I also considered voting for Fouts, but decided my reason would be too out of gamish for my tastes. I debated even giving my reasons, but decided I would anyways. THe fact Fouts has been posting in another WW game and not this one speaks to me that he is deliberately staying under the radar on day 1.

I chose to not vote for him because thats a bit too OOG for my liking, and decided to stick with BrianD for the reasons I stated last post as well as earlier in the day when he was first voted.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I think you may have had some typo/word choice problems there, although the gist comes through. Are you saying you're voting for cronin because you don't like that he has brought OOG reasons to play, specifically his opinions of the play of those players in past games?

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

What option do we have, though? The game is starting on a weekend, for better or worse, and our sources of information so early in this game are very limited. Particpation can really only be measured by post count or by a subjective measure of the content in the few posts. Or perhaps by past participation in games, but we're not really supposed to do that.

Post count, in my opinion, is best utilized after the first couple of days. Plenty of people like to get a few reads before diving in. If it's day 3 and you've only got 20 posts, then yeah, that's a problem, but I don't think it's a wise system on day 1, with the one exception of not checking in at all. I've got no problem with voting that.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Who are the two we've decided on? BrianD and Fouts? Or is it still up for debate?

I have to say that I'm very concerned with how dubb's playing things. If he's going to challenge everyone who votes for him, I don't see how that helps us. Especially if he's as good a swordsman as he claims. By doing so, he's ensuring to kill us lesser skilled guards and doing the work of the musketeers just to salvage his honor.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by path12

Post count, in my opinion, is best utilized after the first couple of days. Plenty of people like to get a few reads before diving in. If it's day 3 and you've only got 20 posts, then yeah, that's a problem, but I don't think it's a wise system on day 1, with the one exception of not checking in at all. I've got no problem with voting that.

I disagree with a small disclaimer. I think looking at postcount alone is not an always telling stat, as sometimes someone can have alot of meaningless posts but still have a higher post count than someone who has fewer posts but contribute meaningful analysis.

My typical early game strategy is to go after people who do not contribute much to the conversation (quality wise, not necessarily quantity wise). Could that person become more involved later in the game? perhaps.. but also perhaps not. There is a very distinct difference between not checking in at all, or just saying I'm here and at least interacting and contributing to the conversation.

My point is that I know most of us know very little.. but we won't learn anything if we don't interact. If everyone chose to not say much until day 3 or 4, the first few days would be rather dull and boring. In the end day 1 is usually all about luck, but I would rather risk being lucky and going after someone who isn't contributing so far than risk being lucky and eliminating someone who might be a vital part of our good guy discussion later.

Its nothing personal, and people don't show up till late on day 1 for all kinds of reasons.. RL stuff, the day it happens to start on, whatever. Just someone has to die is all, and I would rather us reward those contributing to the conversation than punish those contributing to the conversation.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Who are the two we've decided on? BrianD and Fouts? Or is it still up for debate?

I have to say that I'm very concerned with how dubb's playing things. If he's going to challenge everyone who votes for him, I don't see how that helps us. Especially if he's as good a swordsman as he claims. By doing so, he's ensuring to kill us lesser skilled guards and doing the work of the musketeers just to salvage his honor.

Deadline isnt for 24 hours. I say vote who you think is most wolfish right now and give your reasons. if everyone piles on and says "sounds good" then we don't learn much about people's point of view.

There will be plenty of time tommorrow for vote maneuvering if people feel we should

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by path12

Post count, in my opinion, is best utilized after the first couple of days. Plenty of people like to get a few reads before diving in. If it's day 3 and you've only got 20 posts, then yeah, that's a problem, but I don't think it's a wise system on day 1, with the one exception of not checking in at all. I've got no problem with voting that.

I think that's logically true, but not realistic. You may be right that it is best not to use post counts so early, but we don't have much else. We have very little to go on, but we have to have a lynch/duel at the end of this day. So we go with what we have at the time, because our hands are forced. And if you want to avoid being the target of that, you need to do some posting and make yourself less UTR.

Fortunately for you, you are posting now and I don't think it's likely at all that we would focus on you over Fouts or LSG as an UTR target to pair with BrianD.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Fouts and BrianD historically are players I enjoy having around. Not that LSG isn't a good player, but there have been a couple of games where she has been pretty much invisible.

Cronin, i dont think anyone else took it this way, but be careful you dont come across like you dont want us to lynch one of those two. I highly doubt all 3 of you are wolves, but if one of them is this post looks really bad. Just saying, i saw this post and red flags went up. I dont think it is what it could be, but im just giving you a heads up on being careful as someone else might take it and run with it. It could very easily be interpreted that you and brian are muskateers and this is your subtle way of pushing it in a different direction. Be careful my friend

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Cronin, i dont think anyone else took it this way, but be careful you dont come across like you dont want us to lynch one of those two. I highly doubt all 3 of you are wolves, but if one of them is this post looks really bad. Just saying, i saw this post and red flags went up. I dont think it is what it could be, but im just giving you a heads up on being careful as someone else might take it and run with it. It could very easily be interpreted that you and brian are muskateers and this is your subtle way of pushing it in a different direction. Be careful my friend

This is day 1. There are (usually) no good reasons to vote for somebody on day 1. Likewise, there are usually no good reasons NOT to vote for somebody. Expect my arguments to look very different day 2 and on - in most games, I do about a 180 on day 2.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

This is day 1. There are (usually) no good reasons to vote for somebody on day 1. Likewise, there are usually no good reasons NOT to vote for somebody. Expect my arguments to look very different day 2 and on - in most games, I do about a 180 on day 2.

Im just saying, late in the game if fouts or brian come up bad thats the kind of post people drag up and use to get you lynched...i like you alive, not dead. So do me a favor and dont give them any reason to lynch you...after last game i think they have enough

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Im just saying, late in the game if fouts or brian come up bad thats the kind of post people drag up and use to get you lynched...i like you alive, not dead. So do me a favor and dont give them any reason to lynch you...after last game i think they have enough

*shrug* I'm not worried about getting lynched.

[SnDvls]

I know I have a day for this still, but I'll be limited tomorrow (Real Life 2nd B-day party for my daughter) so I'll put a vote on one of the two people that has been thrown out there.
Vote BrianD

I will try and check back tomorrow (I will be on in the morning to update my game, but not sure when everyone will leave the house tomorrow to get back on.)

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

I have to say that I'm very concerned with how dubb's playing things. If he's going to challenge everyone who votes for him, I don't see how that helps us. Especially if he's as good a swordsman as he claims. By doing so, he's ensuring to kill us lesser skilled guards and doing the work of the musketeers just to salvage his honor.

I fail to see how setting back and letting myself get killed helps either myself or the guard. What kind of agenda do you have exactly Jon? Are you suggesting I allow myself to be killed?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I fail to see how setting back and letting myself get killed helps either myself or the guard. What kind of agenda do you have exactly Jon? Are you suggesting I allow myself to be killed?

I'm not suggesting letting yourself be lynched without stating a case for us not to vote for you. But challenging those that do vote for you and then not removing that challenge when it is asked of you to do so, doesn't help your case.

You also haven't answered Chief's question as to whether this is a mechanism of your role, or if this is just how you intend on playing.

And the only agenda I have is to see the musketeers killed. If you can help us do this, then by all means I want you around. But challenging other members of the guard because of perceived slights isn't helping us achieve our mission.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

I'm not suggesting letting yourself be lynched without stating a case for us not to vote for you. But challenging those that do vote for you and then not removing that challenge when it is asked of you to do so, doesn't help your case.

You also haven't answered Chief's question as to whether this is a mechanism of your role, or if this is just how you intend on playing.

And the only agenda I have is to see the musketeers killed. If you can help us do this, then by all means I want you around. But challenging other members of the guard because of perceived slights isn't helping us achieve our mission.

Are you vouching for Lathum, Barkeep and Blade? How do you know they are members of the guard? For all we know, I may have an active challenge out to a musketeer.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

You also haven't answered Chief's question as to whether this is a mechanism of your role, or if this is just how you intend on playing.

Should I do a role reveal while I'm at it on day 1? Isn't revealing my abilities enough?

[dubb93]

BTW, Lathum, I see you lurking. You have a vote on me. I want to know why you have voted for me. YOu have not said one thing about the vote. Saying nothing while you are around RIGHT NOW will not look good upon you.

[Lathum]

OK, my vote for Dubb was anything but Random. I wanted to see his reaction to a random, pile on type vote and he was pretty defensive. That combined with the way he is playing things make me suspicous of him. IT seems he may be trying to establish himself as an important member of the game.

For now I see no reason to unvote him.

[Lathum]

dola- I was at a party all night. IT is saturday...

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Should I do a role reveal while I'm at it on day 1? Isn't revealing my abilities enough?

I don't see why doing a role reveal on day 1 is any better than revealing you are good at swordfighting. It seems like its giving away way too much information.

Only reason I would do a role reveal on day 1 is if you are on the line to be lynched if certain type jobs at least. I'm all for conversation on day 1, but I still don't really understand why people have been coming out and just saying "hey bad guys don't fight me because I'll kill you if you do"

I guess if it was my role, I would probably try to identify at some point day 3-5 who I thought a bad guy likely is and try to goad them into a duel of some sort inconspicuously in a way to use it as an additional kill on a possible bad guy of your choosing. Just like a good guy night assassin role or a duke role, you dont know for sure its a bad guy, but you can try to at least narrow down who you think it is.

I just don't understand the benefit of taking that out of play. Its like being a good assassin, and saying so on day 1 so you can be night killed before even using it on a bad guy. Makes little sense to me, maybe its just a different playstyle I guess.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Lathum

OK, my vote for Dubb was anything but Random. I wanted to see his reaction to a random, pile on type vote and he was pretty defensive.

I'm not following. Seems to me like you actually thought a bandwagon was coming and wanted to get an EARLY vote in. The bandwagon never came.

That combined with the way he is playing things make me suspicous of him. IT seems he may be trying to establish himself as an important member of the game.

I am not going to role reveal. I may or may not have important role, but I'm not going to sit idle while you attempt to get me day 1 lynched, I can tell you that.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Fouts and BrianD historically are players I enjoy having around. Not that LSG isn't a good player, but there have been a couple of games where she has been pretty much invisible.

She's never going to stop being invisible if we start killing her off on the first day every time she plays.

I realize we aren't in the habit of doing this, I'm just saying that now is not the time to be voting on historical patterns.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Alan T

My typical early game strategy is to go after people who do not contribute much to the conversation (quality wise, not necessarily quantity wise).

That's fine after day one, but there ain't no such thing as quality conversation on day one. Nobody knows anything.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

That's fine after day one, but there ain't no such thing as quality conversation on day one. Nobody knows anything.

the wolves do

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

That's fine after day one, but there ain't no such thing as quality conversation on day one. Nobody knows anything.

I disagree to half of this. I think you -can- have quality day one conversations, even if we don't know much or anything.

In larger games we can talk about all kinds of things.

How is the game setup numberswise do we think?

Do we think its just good vs evil? Are there possibly any neutral or third party roles as we see in some games?

THose who know the theme better can tell us a little about what to expect, such as I already said every story I have ever seen the muskateers were the good guys, the cardinal and his men were the bad, so this game is obviously reverse that, I am intrigued to what else is different from the traditional 3 muskateer stories we all know.

We can talk about certain types of roles that we might see based on the theme, or talk about parts of the rules that are unique to this game.

Some people have tried to do some of this in regards to duels, etc. I think all of that can be meaningful day 1 information. Its the conversations such as that where sometimes we can find people slip up too and give off something they shouldnt know if they were a cardinal guard. We've seen that happen in games before.

Thats why I am far more likely to vote for someone not contibuting than contributing unless someone comes out and out and makes a big blunder on day 1.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

She's never going to stop being invisible if we start killing her off on the first day every time she plays.

I realize we aren't in the habit of doing this, I'm just saying that now is not the time to be voting on historical patterns.

I realize it's a bad reason to vote for somebody. On day 1, it's the best I have.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Are you vouching for Lathum, Barkeep and Blade? How do you know they are members of the guard? For all we know, I may have an active challenge out to a musketeer.

Do you think one of the musketeers would be goading you into a challenge on the first day?

I can't vouch for any of those three. Unlike you, I'm just a regular member of the guard and have no other information. While you haven't revealed your role, you have already let the wolves know you're a valuable member of our side. Assuming you're good, of course.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Technically, I did. I just didn't want to say it because it was soooo cliche.

Technically, you didn't claim to be in the guard. This is what you said:

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I would say I am a Cardinal guard, but I don't want anyone to think I am just cliche.

Saying, "I would, but," is a way to skirt around the claim.

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, but that's how I see it.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Do you think one of the musketeers would be goading you into a challenge on the first day?

I can't vouch for any of those three. Unlike you, I'm just a regular member of the guard and have no other information. While you haven't revealed your role, you have already let the wolves know you're a valuable member of our side. Assuming you're good, of course.

You are obviously mistaking important with has strong attributes. Important are the bodyguards and seers, I'm just a dumb brute.

Do I think a bad guy would goad me into it? IDK, but I can say that neither Lathum or Blade have goaded me into anything. Barkeep hinted that he wanted to, but still has his vote on me. So if he wants to fight about it, the ball is in his court.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Technically, you didn't claim to be in the guard. This is what you said:



Saying, "I would, but," is a way to skirt around the claim.

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, but that's how I see it.

Consider your hairs akimber then.

[Chief Rum]

I may be out all day tomorrow (working), and might not get back by the lynch. My vote is on Fouts right now as an alternative to BrianD. I'm not sure anyone else has voted that way, but I won't likely be available to switch my vote to another candidate. So I hope someone here is subscribing to my theory that we should work to have a duel between two UTR types (whomever the best candidates are).

If Fouts ends up one with BrianD, then so be it. But if it's LSG or someone else entirely, I recommend we just make sure we have a duel, so we can start to get a read on people's skills.

[Chief Rum]

I don't have too many people I like, and a bunch of people I have no read on at all, but my thoughts on a few...

dubb93-- I don't want this to go by the wayside as we focus on UTR candidates, but dubb's actions don't help good, IMO, and he remains very suspicious to me.

Jonathon Ezarik-- he seems to be questioning me too hard on the Cardinal guard thing. Why? No one says they're a musketeer (a bad guy, whatever), even the bad guys, and yet there are always bad guys. So what's the big point about actually saying "I am a guard" or not? Ask me once, okay, no big. Ask me a second time, much, much later, seems like an attempt to divert attention from oneself.

hoopsguy-- Why? Well, he hasn't contributed hardly anything and that is rather unhoopslike of him. Could just be the weekend. Or maybe he's hiding something.

Lathum-- drive by votes ain't good, no matter how obvious, no matter the day of the week. We have lynched for less (and this on the Day For Lynching For Less).

BrianD, ntndeacon, Fouts, LSG-- a few of the top UTR candidates at the moment, as I see it.

Take all this FWIW--likely nothing when it all comes out.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I don't have too many people I like

You must be a lonely man...

Serious note, i didnt even know hoops was playing until you brought him up..interesting, but we still have another full day to go. Things will hopefully be more clear in about 12-14 hours

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

*shrug* I'm not worried about getting lynched.

what are you hinting at here?