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

[Abe Sargent]

I just said it, no way does he put himself out there with a late vote and whatnot unless he's good. I've seen hoops evil several times before and its not his MO.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

I just said it, no way does he put himself out there with a late vote and whatnot unless he's good. I've seen hoops evil several times before and its not his MO.

Oops, I'm not sure how I read your post and missed your reasoning. I blame the damn cats for not letting me sleep last night.

[Abe Sargent]

NP : ) Let me tell you one thing, you really learn what a person is like when they are the head wolf in the game you run. I feellike I have a good handle on hoopsguy after that because Isaw everything he did, including some things even fellow wolves don;t see. If hoopsguy is evil in this game I will personally request that SkyDog change my nick for a week to Sally Struthers.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

NP : ) Let me tell you one thing, you really learn what a person is like when they are the head wolf in the game you run. I feellike I have a good handle on hoopsguy after that because Isaw everything he did, including some things even fellow wolves don;t see. If hoopsguy is evil in this game I will personally request that SkyDog change my nick for a week to Sally Struthers.

Path, I will pay you big to switch the sympathizer role to Hoops.

[hoopsguy]

Heh, some pretty funny stuff here. I'm almost wishing I was evil right now for the laugh I would get at the end of the game.

But seriously, having been evil for something like seven of the last nine games I really, really, really would prefer not to be the Sympathizer in this one.

Is there anyone who is the Night 1 kill more often than Saldana? Seriously, I think he dies more Night 1 than Blade gets lynched by his fellow villagers on Day 2 or Alan T dies on Day/Night 3.

[hoopsguy]

Another note - I'm not expecting any role reveals from the people with info today, but I do think that I'll wait a little while to see if there is information from night actions to be revealed before diving into heavy speculation.

I'm not auto-voting GE for not getting his vote in. If it was to happen again then I would move towards the "non-participation only helps the wolves" argument but many people miss a single vote in games. Just sucks that he missed a vote (after unvoting) in a tie yesterday.

[BrianD]

I am also hoping we get some info today that will help us along, but I'm not expecting it. If we are going for another random shot today, I might just pick one of the single-vote guys today and hope that the wolves were trying to stay hidden.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

1.) I figure the odds are pretty good that two or three of the seven people that casted "throwaway" votes were evil and trying to stay under the radar and avoid leaving a voting history. Cronin was just a random, day 1 choice from the list of those seven players.

2.) I made an honest mistake with the deadline and Bek, but played it up a little bit afterwards and was a bit more gruff than I would normally be, hoping to get people to get away from the non-grouped votes.

I'm still a couple pages behind but...sorry about giving you the what-for about Bek...I was just trying to see how you would react, heh. And, still, geez, I mentioned Bek eight posts before!!

[saldana]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Is there anyone who is the Night 1 kill more often than Saldana? Seriously, I think he dies more Night 1 than Blade gets lynched by his fellow villagers on Day 2 or Alan T dies on Day/Night 3.

i hate this game

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

I just said it, no way does he put himself out there with a late vote and whatnot unless he's good. I've seen hoops evil several times before and its not his MO.

Normally id agree, but remember that roles are not revealed upon death. He came in at the last second and put the duke into a tie to save you. If your bad, it makes sense.

The fact roles are not revealed upon death makes it more plausible, as it would take clover coming out to damn him, which would be a dream scenario for the wolves.

Not saying hes bad, but the fact we werent supposed to find out swaggs was good makes the play more likely then you seem to think.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by saldana

i dont think so. the odds of a villager v villager scenario are pretty high, so i would guess that it was just a coin flip for whoever had the TB for tonight. of course there is only one way to find out....lynch anxiety.

So we should assume saldana is a villager, right? Might be a good idea to look at some of his posts, then. Here's one.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

So we should assume saldana is a villager, right? Might be a good idea to look at some of his posts, then. Here's one.

Actually, he could be squeler, pilkington, or the sympathizer as well...only the raven knows

[hoopsguy]

Yeah, that is the interesting dynamic about this game. We don't know roles, the bad guys are playing with less than complete information - it definitely changes the dynamic in studying posts.

Going back to some comments from last night, I agree we are lucky to still have Swaggs around today as it gives us at least one known good. But beyond that, we are largely in a holding pattern until a seer picks up a wolf, a bodyguard get a block, or one of the people who can reveal kills speaks up.

It is easy for me to support the idea of going after the one-vote people from yesterday since I wasn't in that group. But that only works well if Anxiety is good ... I've been playing with that assumption but just want to make sure others understand that it is an underlying assumption being made to pursue the one-vote strategy.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Actually, he could be squeler, pilkington, or the sympathizer as well...only the raven knows

He could be, but it's a pretty safe assumption he isn't. Anyway, I don't think that gives us much -- lynching saldana could be an attempt to set up Anxiety.

[hoopsguy]

Pass, I'm willing to go down this path with you if you think it is valuable.

So, why would lynching Saldana be an attempt to set up Anxiety? Because Anxiety is still alive after being in a tie with Swaggs yesterday? Going from memory, I believe that Saldana avoided voting for Anxiety or Swaggs yesterday.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Pass, I'm willing to go down this path with you if you think it is valuable.

So, why would lynching Saldana be an attempt to set up Anxiety? Because Anxiety is still alive after being in a tie with Swaggs yesterday? Going from memory, I believe that Saldana avoided voting for Anxiety or Swaggs yesterday.

Saldana voted for Anxiety last time and almost got him killed. Anxiety can't risk another run like that so he kills Saldana. That would be the possible reasoning for Anxiety being bad, and it would be the way to set him up if you want to make him look bad.

[BrianD]

Forget what I said, I got that completely wrong...

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Pass, I'm willing to go down this path with you if you think it is valuable.

So, why would lynching Saldana be an attempt to set up Anxiety? Because Anxiety is still alive after being in a tie with Swaggs yesterday? Going from memory, I believe that Saldana avoided voting for Anxiety or Swaggs yesterday.

Look at saldana's post that I quoted. During Night 1, he advocated lynching Anxiety.

[Alan T]

Checking in during lunch and trying to catch up some... My thoughts on a few things..


I think BrianD is trying to force things a bit here.. I doubt Saldana being killed was because Anxiety is bad. I still stand by my statement that the odds are both of our people in the rundown are good.. it almost -always- happens that way. Of course I can't vouch for Anxiety or anything, but I can't remember the last time we actually had a day 1 good vs bad run off without night 0 help.

I personally wonder why Brian is trying to force this issue some... it just doesn't make much sense.. I also doubt Saldana was killed to "protect" Realdeal either.. I think people are making too much of who he voted for here..

Its an unfortunate fact, the players with the most experience end up typically getting killed first. There is a reason the same people die early every game.. its because they are the most dangerous. My feeling is the bad guys here are likely just following the typical kill off experienced players route.

I doubt we will find out much info today unless we get a lucky break from last night.. but its way too early for most people to come out early with reveals unless it really locks in some good chance for us to win.

As for the voting for people with 1 vote idea.. those people would be:

Conflaguration 1 -- st.cronin (77)
Chubby 1 -- bulletsponge (74)
hoops 1 -- Alan T (75)
Bek 1 -- Dodgerchick (79)
bulletsponge 1 -- Chubby (80)
Greyroofoo 1 -- Blade (85)
st.cronin 1 -- Conflaguration (97)

St.cronin is dead, I'm good, I really don't have a feel one way or another about Blade. Its been so long since I remember him bad in a game, I honestly don't remember what he was like. (Last game I remember him bad was when he and hoops played off each other to try to buy some trust when both of them were bad). Bulletsponge has been about 500% quieter in this game than the last two (no idea why, but its a change in his playing style), Chubby and Dodgerchick are both fairly non existant so far in thoughts, and I think Conflaguration is new, but he has at least been contributing..

Out of that group I guess the red flags for me would be mainly on either Bullet or Chubby, who both have been pretty quiet and did the you vote for me, I vote for you think on day 1. I still think people shouldn't forget about GoldenEagle either though. He was sick on day 1, and missed the vote, but he shouldn't be any less suspicious than the day 1 1 voters either.

I think there have been a few people with funny posts so far this game, but its too early for me to understand why just yet.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Forget what I said, I got that completely wrong...

Just for the record, I made my last post before I read this one.

So just to make sure I understand, you don't think Anxiety is bad now based on Saldana's death? I am just curious primarily since based on day 1 votes, if we think Anxiety might be good, and we know Swaggs is good, you were the next high vote getter. My first assumption about you was that you were trying to shift blame around to try to avoid the noose yourself.

[hoopsguy]

Brian, Saldana voted for RealDeal yesterday (post #237) and said he was staying away from the Swaggs/Anxiety debate - something along the lines of playing more cautiously this game after the debacle he created Day 1 last game.

Ironically, he lived through the last game and is dead Night 1 in this one.

Pass, what do you make out of Saldana's post that you quoted? It is pretty clear that he had no reason to suspect Anxiety of being good, but no one had any information on other players prior to this morning. So I'm not sure how much stock to put into it.

Let's explore the idea that Anxiety is a revolutionary and finds himself in a tie yesterday.

- If he is a revolutionary, he has 1-2 other teammates (anyone think there would be more)?
- If he is a revolutionary, he would be very concerned about being in a tie unless he or his teammate(s) control the tiebreaker
- The vast majority of the votes were in early yesterday and there was no vote switching in the last hour
- In a game where the bad guys start off with small numbers - at least in terms of people they can coordinate with - Anxiety is playing an aggressive game challenging people

Now on the last point, perhaps it is an adjustment from the previous game where Anxiety was a quiet bad guy and was picked off. But the overall picture, at least as I've just portrayed it, doesn't add up for me with Anxiety as a bad guy. I'm certainly willing to listen to other opinions and be persuaded, but this is how I see Anxiety with the information I have right now.

[path12]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Path, I will pay you big to switch the sympathizer role to Hoops.

Hmmmmm........

[path12]

Current vote count:

GoldenEagle 2 -- Alan T (296), Grammaticus (297)
RealDeal 1 -- Lathum (298)

Not Voting: Most of you.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Brian, Saldana voted for RealDeal yesterday (post #237) and said he was staying away from the Swaggs/Anxiety debate - something along the lines of playing more cautiously this game after the debacle he created Day 1 last game.

Ironically, he lived through the last game and is dead Night 1 in this one.

Pass, what do you make out of Saldana's post that you quoted? It is pretty clear that he had no reason to suspect Anxiety of being good, but no one had any information on other players prior to this morning. So I'm not sure how much stock to put into it.

Let's explore the idea that Anxiety is a revolutionary and finds himself in a tie yesterday.

- If he is a revolutionary, he has 1-2 other teammates (anyone think there would be more)?
- If he is a revolutionary, he would be very concerned about being in a tie unless he or his teammate(s) control the tiebreaker
- The vast majority of the votes were in early yesterday and there was no vote switching in the last hour
- In a game where the bad guys start off with small numbers - at least in terms of people they can coordinate with - Anxiety is playing an aggressive game challenging people

Now on the last point, perhaps it is an adjustment from the previous game where Anxiety was a quiet bad guy and was picked off. But the overall picture, at least as I've just portrayed it, doesn't add up for me with Anxiety as a bad guy. I'm certainly willing to listen to other opinions and be persuaded, but this is how I see Anxiety with the information I have right now.

I think you probably are right about the number of bad guys. We know there is a turncoat, we know there is the farmer, and there is napoleon (and his fellow revolutionaries). The way thats worded makes me think its either 2 + turncoat or 3+ turncoat. I doubt there would be more than that.

I also think it makes sense that if you only have 1 or 2 known bad guys, losing a teammate early in the game is a real bad thing and agree that we likely would have seen more end vote movement. My guess is the bad guy's strategy is probably to try to avoid lynch as long as possible to buy time for the turncoat to be scanned as good (and get him necessary trust for later).

I guess the only way I could really picture Anxiety being bad is in a scenerio that its just napoleon, the farmer and the turncoat, and the other two don't know he is bad. Just from the wording of the rules I think there had to have been at least one more which is why I'm giving Anxiety the benefit of the doubt for now.

[Conflaguration]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

*complicated explanation of why we should lynch Anexity today*

I'm certainly willing to listen to other opinions and be persuaded, but this is how I see Anxiety with the information I have right now.

So even if Anexity hadn't drawn attention to your supposed (by Anexity) strange wolfness, you would have voted for him anyway?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Just for the record, I made my last post before I read this one.

So just to make sure I understand, you don't think Anxiety is bad now based on Saldana's death? I am just curious primarily since based on day 1 votes, if we think Anxiety might be good, and we know Swaggs is good, you were the next high vote getter. My first assumption about you was that you were trying to shift blame around to try to avoid the noose yourself.

I never thought he was bad. Hoops asked why killing Saldana would be a setup for Anxiety. I tried to explain it but then realized I had mixed up a few names. I see no reason to vote for Anxiety today and (so far at least) still plan on voting for a single-vote person. I just don't know who yet.

[Conflaguration]

Oh, right. Yeah, Hoopsguy doesn't think Anexity is a bad guy. I think I should stop speed-reading posts.

[Passacaglia]

I didn't get much sleep last night, but it seems like your reasoning for Anxiety not being a revolutionary is that since there are likely few revolutionaries to start, Anxiety wouldn't be so aggressive. But...has he really been that aggressive?

[Alan T]

I guess my reasoning would be.. if there were 3-4 bad guys and one of their own ended up on the block for day 1, they could easily maneuver a vote where they didnt end up in a tie (especially one with only 3 voters). I guess I should go back and reread which bad guys know each other though.

[hoopsguy]

Pass, I thought Anxiety called out Swaggs pretty aggressively on Day 1. And I thought Swaggs dug his heels in a bit, although I now realize it was because he knew he would not die via lynch as the Duke.

And that is part of the argument, Pass. The other part is that I think the revolutionaries would have tried very hard to allow the tie-breaker to decide if one of their number died on Day 1.

[Bek]

Ok, at this point in time I dont have a good feeling about Brian D and Anxiety

BrianD, made some weird posts earlier, and was getting all butt-hurt over day one voting...seems a little suspicous to me

Anxiety, after the day once lynch and you getting saved just didnt sit well with me...

and then there is GE...he missed out on the day 1 vote do to sickness(this doesnt sound fimiliar)...and i dont think he has said a word today...just throwing my two cents out there...

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

That's a bit unfair considering the fact that the game wasn't even supposed to begin until tomorrow, and yet you are voting for someone who hasn't logged on yet? A bit anxious to vote for someone?


Vote Swaggs

This must be the aggressive post. I see it more as grasping for anything to base a vote on for Day 1. I'm really not trying to call out Anxiety or anything -- just trying to get our impressions straight. He just doesn't seem all that aggressive to me.

[Alan T]

Bek... how does Anxiety getting saved by a -known- good guy (swaggs) make him look bad?

[Bek]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Bek... how does Anxiety getting saved by a -known- good guy (swaggs) make him look bad?

not so much that he got saved by a good guy...,but the tie-breaker went in his favor, i understand that this is a random thing passed through the remaining players, but something just doesnt sit right with me...thats all i was saying....im still on the fence with my vote and trying to see which way i should fall

[Alan T]

Ok reread the rules.. I guess there is a possibility there are more bad guys than I thought..

Revolutionary (Napoleon or one of his attack dogs)
Squealer the Propagandist
Mr. Pilkington
Minimus the Sympathizer

So looks like there are at least 3 + turncoat here, and it mentions attack dogs. I'm assuming that is at least means 1 attack dog if not more? so that would be at least 4 + turncoat if not 5 + turncoat... that seems pretty high numbers with only 20 players.. There must be some reason for so many bad guys..

I guess if there are this many then my reasoning doesn't make as much sense about the day 1 vote, and 1 bad guy is more expendable.. Do we have any idea of which bad guys know each other? Looks like the turncoat doesn't even know they are a turncoat, but that leaves Squealer, the farmer, napoleon and the hounds.. I assume they know each other's identities?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Bek

not so much that he got saved by a good guy...,but the tie-breaker went in his favor, i understand that this is a random thing passed through the remaining players, but something just doesnt sit right with me...thats all i was saying....im still on the fence with my vote and trying to see which way i should fall

Do we know that the tiebreak went in his favor? My assumption was that it didnt even get to a tiebreak and swaggs just sent in his duke order.

[RealDeal]

As always with the early vote, likely subject to change, but I'll jump on the GE didn't vote yesterday bandwagon for a while at least.

vote Golden Eagle

[Bek]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Do we know that the tiebreak went in his favor? My assumption was that it didnt even get to a tiebreak and swaggs just sent in his duke order.

i thought that we all huddled and choosed swaggs, and then when he stepped out he spoke his words of wisdom and then we huddled back up again and went after st.cronin...i could be misreading it but thats what i get our of it...and i believe in the first huddle would have been where the tie-break would have been used???

[hoopsguy]

Swaggs could provide some clarity on the tiebreak aspect of it (did he send in a conditional Duke change?) but Bek's description matches how I read it.

Alan, the way I read the rules indicated that only the leader and attack dogs communicate with each other. The evil seer does not communicate, Pilkington is basically his own faction of one while counting as a bad guy, and the convert thinks he is a good guy.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Bek

i thought that we all huddled and choosed swaggs, and then when he stepped out he spoke his words of wisdom and then we huddled back up again and went after st.cronin...i could be misreading it but thats what i get our of it...and i believe in the first huddle would have been where the tie-break would have been used???

Yeah, just reread it, guess I didn't catch that part. Looks like Swaggs did lose the tiebreak.. and Anxiety won it.. Not sure if that tells us much though.. Does the person with the tiebreak decide it by who they voted for, or sending in a PM in case of a tie, or what? Also I still think its not safe to assume tiebreak = good or bad.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Swaggs could provide some clarity on the tiebreak aspect of it (did he send in a conditional Duke change?) but Bek's description matches how I read it.

Alan, the way I read the rules indicated that only the leader and attack dogs communicate with each other. The evil seer does not communicate, Pilkington is basically his own faction of one while counting as a bad guy, and the convert thinks he is a good guy.

Pilkington's role via the rules I guess answers this for us:

Mr. Pilkington -- You own Pinchfield, a neighboring farm, but that isn't enough -- you want Animal Farm also. You are aware of the plot but decide to take matters into your own hands. Starting night 2 can attempt a night kill every three nights (N2, N5, N8). You will be exposed and your attempt will fail if bodyguard is protecting target or if bodyguard is the target. 1st attempt has a 90% chance of success, 2nd and 3rd attempts 50%. Knows the identity of one revolutionary. Has no PM privledges. You get a minor victory for surviving the game, major victory if you survive and the revolutionaries are successful.


So he knows the identity of only one of the revolutionaries..


Also that name is tough for me to type. I keep wanting to say Pinkerton.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Swaggs could provide some clarity on the tiebreak aspect of it (did he send in a conditional Duke change?) but Bek's description matches how I read it.

Alan, the way I read the rules indicated that only the leader and attack dogs communicate with each other. The evil seer does not communicate, Pilkington is basically his own faction of one while counting as a bad guy, and the convert thinks he is a good guy.

I read that Squealer (the evil seer) does not communicate, but my assumption was that he still knows who the other revolutionaries were?

I guess I had figured The revolutionaries know who each other are, who the seer is and who pilkington is. Pilkington only knows one revolutionary and doesn't know the evil seer. The Evil seer might know everyone but can't communicate with them..

I don't know if the revolutionaries know who the turncoat is, but assume not since he doesn't even know he is the turncoat himself. I guess my point was that the chances are if anxiety was bad, he would have had at least some others know he was bad, or enough to put together some kind of defensive maneuver to save him..

Since that did not happen I had figured it was most likely he was good. Maybe I'm reading way too much into the bad guys descriptions though.

[Bek]

urgghh, why does rl always have to be so important....well i am off to work and wont be back before the deadline, so i have to put in my vote early, with no real evidence and a few hunches i think that this vote is almost as random as my day one vote, except this one isnt out of a hat

Vote BrianD

[hoopsguy]

Alan, I don't think you are reading too much into the bad guy descriptions at all - that is what we have. I had missed the piece on Pilkerton (you watch Deadwood? Figure that might be why Pinkerton is running around in your head) so I'm glad you caught that.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Alan, I don't think you are reading too much into the bad guy descriptions at all - that is what we have. I had missed the piece on Pilkerton (you watch Deadwood? Figure that might be why Pinkerton is running around in your head) so I'm glad you caught that.

I don't really watch Deadwood, I guess I just think of the Pinkerton cops or something.. I think my brain just has a hard time with the Pilker sound.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Does the person with the tiebreak decide it by who they voted for, or sending in a PM in case of a tie, or what?

Let me try to clarify this. For the person who has the tiebreak power:

If they have voted for one of the people who are tied, their vote will count double and break the tie.

If they have voted for someone who is not in the tie, they must PM me with their choice of the players who are deadlocked, and that person will be lynched.

Also, and I know I keep going back and forth on this, I will ask for no reveal of the tiebreak power while the person has it. If they choose to reveal they had the tiebreak after they use it I'm fine with that.

Hopefully this clears it up and can be the final word on the tiebreak.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I read that Squealer (the evil seer) does not communicate, but my assumption was that he still knows who the other revolutionaries were?

Squealer does not know the identity of anyone else.

[Swaggs]

I definitely lost the tiebreak. Whoever owned it picked me to die.

I don't make too much of that, because I think that more than half of us would have picked me to die yesterday, after the way I was behaving.

I think hoops is coming out pretty hard against Anxiety today, considering that he chose to vote with him, against me, yesterday.

[bulletsponge]

ok until GE shows up we have to put some heat on him. and theres so little info to go on anyways

Vote Golden Eagle

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by path12

Let me try to clarify this. For the person who has the tiebreak power:

If they have voted for one of the people who are tied, their vote will count double and break the tie.

If they have voted for someone who is not in the tie, they must PM me with their choice of the players who are deadlocked, and that person will be lynched.

Also, and I know I keep going back and forth on this, I will ask for no reveal of the tiebreak power while the person has it. If they choose to reveal they had the tiebreak after they use it I'm fine with that.

Hopefully this clears it up and can be the final word on the tiebreak.

Since this is a change from yesterday, can you let us know whether or not saldana had the tiebreak power yesterday?