-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well I kinda hope Yvanoff shared things with his guild (and my crazy friend isn't playing me for a fool, because as said, he's only seer-cleared), so my ramblings can be corroborated even if only behind the scenes.
Sorry for missing out on today, my mind was focused elsewhere and probably not enough on the game. Good luck village !
So team Arkansasas ought to be stronger as it currently is. The Dedonus lead is the best we got there IMO, so I'll revisit that for now:
Vote Dedonus
Vote Dedonus
Really sorry for missing the vote. We're beginning with the academic year in Spain and it's a busy week
Interesting day yesterday.
Game State:
3 baddies (2 wolves, 1 zealot) from the Bourgeoisie Pack (yellow) down, 1 baddie (wolf) from the Hierarchy Pack (orange) down.
Assuming a 2 pack game, the Bourgeoisie pack may actually be wiped out entirely if the game proportions fit johho's 1/3 rule of thumb. A typical symmetrical setup might look something like: 2 wolves, 1 zealot, 1 cultist per pack. For unattached baddies, I'd assume something like a sorc and possibly an unattached cultist. Note that there don't appear to be apprentices in this game - checked the rules and noticed that omission. 9 or 10 starting baddies seems like a fair enough setup for a 2 pack game. There would probably be a newly unattached cultist if this starting setup were correct. I suppose a 3 pack game is a possibility, but very unlikely with only 29 players. Not sure how the numbers would work in that case.
Assuming the Bourgeoisie (yellow) are still alive (say, 3 wolves per starting pack and 1 zealot - not sure how much room there would be for cultists in that case), everyone who voted for claude is pretty obviously not a Bourgeoisie (yellow): Aedan, Wagon, Beartjah, TheFatWombat, Dedonus, Avernite. But with the yellow pack being decimated and possibly even eliminated, I'm not really sure how clearing a vote for Claude is at this stage.
I do think that Wagon is playing as a goodie, and Avernite left a "message in a bottle" post about Yvanoff when it was an open question whether Avernite would live or die day 3, which tends to indicate goodie status.
Game State:
3 baddies (2 wolves, 1 zealot) from the Bourgeoisie Pack (yellow) down, 1 baddie (wolf) from the Hierarchy Pack (orange) down.
Assuming a 2 pack game, the Bourgeoisie pack may actually be wiped out entirely if the game proportions fit johho's 1/3 rule of thumb. A typical symmetrical setup might look something like: 2 wolves, 1 zealot, 1 cultist per pack. For unattached baddies, I'd assume something like a sorc and possibly an unattached cultist. Note that there don't appear to be apprentices in this game - checked the rules and noticed that omission. 9 or 10 starting baddies seems like a fair enough setup for a 2 pack game. There would probably be a newly unattached cultist if this starting setup were correct. I suppose a 3 pack game is a possibility, but very unlikely with only 29 players. Not sure how the numbers would work in that case.
Assuming the Bourgeoisie (yellow) are still alive (say, 3 wolves per starting pack and 1 zealot - not sure how much room there would be for cultists in that case), everyone who voted for claude is pretty obviously not a Bourgeoisie (yellow): Aedan, Wagon, Beartjah, TheFatWombat, Dedonus, Avernite. But with the yellow pack being decimated and possibly even eliminated, I'm not really sure how clearing a vote for Claude is at this stage.
I do think that Wagon is playing as a goodie, and Avernite left a "message in a bottle" post about Yvanoff when it was an open question whether Avernite would live or die day 3, which tends to indicate goodie status.
Remaining players list (with roleclaims where applicable):
aedan777
Dedonus
MatthewFW190
Culann - Claims Witness
LatinKaiser
the_hdk
De Chatillôn
Sleepyhead
Liefwarrior
Wagonlitz
Audren
Alynkio - Claims OEO. Note that OEO is a bit weird in this game and can be activated, which explains how he knows his role.
Avernite
Witch Agatha
R.Graymarch
Beartjah
Johho
MarcoRossolini
Spockyt
TheFatWombat
deathbywombat
Yakman
I know my role, of course. One other person made a roleclaim to me via PM but I'm keeping that under wraps for now. Avernite's been doing some PMing in the shadows, not sure of anyone else just yet.
Dead Players:
Emperor Ike as Emiliano Zapata the Zealot with Priestly Powers of the Bourgeoisie Pack was hunted Night 0.
Panzer Commader as the Council of Nikea the Blessed Villager and Member of the Revolutionary Committee was lynched Day 1.
Arkasas the Distiller Wolf of the Hierarchy Pack was hunted Night 1.
Capibara as the Council of Chalcedon the Seerish Villager and Member of the Revolutionary Committee was lynched Day 2.
EUROO7 the Hunter Wolf of the Bourgeoisie Pack was hunted Night 2.
Claude LC the Plotter Wolf of the Bourgeoisie Pack was lynched Day 3.
Yvanoff as the Paris Commune the Villager and Member of the Protection Committee was hunted Night 3.
Note that we've seen 4 dead baddies, but none of them on the councils. The only 3 goodies that have died so far were on the councils.
aedan777
Dedonus
MatthewFW190
Culann - Claims Witness
LatinKaiser
the_hdk
De Chatillôn
Sleepyhead
Liefwarrior
Wagonlitz
Audren
Alynkio - Claims OEO. Note that OEO is a bit weird in this game and can be activated, which explains how he knows his role.
Avernite
Witch Agatha
R.Graymarch
Beartjah
Johho
MarcoRossolini
Spockyt
TheFatWombat
deathbywombat
Yakman
I know my role, of course. One other person made a roleclaim to me via PM but I'm keeping that under wraps for now. Avernite's been doing some PMing in the shadows, not sure of anyone else just yet.
Dead Players:
Emperor Ike as Emiliano Zapata the Zealot with Priestly Powers of the Bourgeoisie Pack was hunted Night 0.
Panzer Commader as the Council of Nikea the Blessed Villager and Member of the Revolutionary Committee was lynched Day 1.
Arkasas the Distiller Wolf of the Hierarchy Pack was hunted Night 1.
Capibara as the Council of Chalcedon the Seerish Villager and Member of the Revolutionary Committee was lynched Day 2.
EUROO7 the Hunter Wolf of the Bourgeoisie Pack was hunted Night 2.
Claude LC the Plotter Wolf of the Bourgeoisie Pack was lynched Day 3.
Yvanoff as the Paris Commune the Villager and Member of the Protection Committee was hunted Night 3.
Note that we've seen 4 dead baddies, but none of them on the councils. The only 3 goodies that have died so far were on the councils.
Preliminary Reads so far. No explanation given yet, just throwing these out there to give my current impressions. Curious to know what others have in mind so far.
Mild goodie read:
Alynkio
Culann
Wagonlitz
Witch Agatha
Borderline goodie/null read:
Avernite
Liefwarrior
Unknown/null read:
Aedan
Sleepyhead
Audren
LatinKaiser
Dedonus
MatthewFW190
the_hdk
Beartjah
spockyt
The Fat Wombat
Yakman
De Chatillon
johho
Mild Baddie read:
Marco Rossolini
R Graymarch
Mild goodie read:
Alynkio
Culann
Wagonlitz
Witch Agatha
Borderline goodie/null read:
Avernite
Liefwarrior
Unknown/null read:
Aedan
Sleepyhead
Audren
LatinKaiser
Dedonus
MatthewFW190
the_hdk
Beartjah
spockyt
The Fat Wombat
Yakman
De Chatillon
johho
Mild Baddie read:
Marco Rossolini
R Graymarch
I was using the search function to get an idea of each player's activity level this game and the following three players stood out to me: the_hdk, liefwarrior, and R.Graymarch. I could throw Matthew and MarcoRossolini in this category, too, because of their zombieism, but I want to focus on these three, as they have been voting, but with little activity. Beartjah, too, could be added, although yesterday he requested a sub, which could explain
the_hdk
liefwarrior
R.Graymarch
the_hdk
liefwarrior
R.Graymarch
Accidentally posted an out-of-date draft of my previous post. This is the analysis that should have gone with it.
These posts by the_hdk lack much content. The only saving grace is that he posted more than the other two. But that's not saying much.
Second, Liefwarrior does have the most in-depth analysis of the trio (again, not saying much), but they also have the least amount of posts. In fact, they only have three (3)!
Finally, it is R.Graymarch. They have one more post than Liefwarrior, but one less than the_hdk. They tried some analysis in one post, but nothing to the degree of Liefwarrior's (albeit it was only one post). Yet, at least R.Graymarch tried, unlike the_hdk.
I really like all three, but Liefwarrior's meager 3 posts is a big red flag in my book. Therefore...
VOTE Liefwarrior
These posts by the_hdk lack much content. The only saving grace is that he posted more than the other two. But that's not saying much.
Second, Liefwarrior does have the most in-depth analysis of the trio (again, not saying much), but they also have the least amount of posts. In fact, they only have three (3)!
Finally, it is R.Graymarch. They have one more post than Liefwarrior, but one less than the_hdk. They tried some analysis in one post, but nothing to the degree of Liefwarrior's (albeit it was only one post). Yet, at least R.Graymarch tried, unlike the_hdk.
I really like all three, but Liefwarrior's meager 3 posts is a big red flag in my book. Therefore...
VOTE Liefwarrior
I don't understand why people get so antsy about pure post count, rather than actual contribution. I understand that someone who is only voting and not contributing at all to the discussion of the village is neutral at best and detrimental at worst, but as Dedonus himself says, " have the most in-depth analysis of the trio [of low posters]". If the issue at hand is "activity" or "contribution" to the Council then I absolutely reject Dedonus's quantity based argument. Would my analysis have been any better if I had taken the time to slice it into three separate posts? No, but I would've nearly doubled my post count. Would I be contributing to the village if throughout the day I switched my vote between two candidates like some of my fellow councilmembers? Absolutely not, but then they aren't being singled out as "a big red flag". I agree that the_hdk, and to a lesser extent Graymarch, are possible candidates because they haven't produced much content - not posts, content - and this is a concern for the village, the_hdk is by far the worse offender because at least Graymarch has offered something other than a following vote.
I fully understand that there will be those who see this response as aggressive or desperate and a further sign of guilt. Woe be to them to kill a vanillager, who is merely frustrated that this is the third time in three games that the same charge has been brought against me, and all three times those who were my Barabbas have offered at most four words (unvote x, vote y) where I try to offer an understanding of my thoughts. Further, it is difficult more to be involved in the short exchanges that take part late in the day because the deadline is situated early in my morning, meaning I sleep through that critical final third.
The case for Avernite appears obvious and I will leave it to others to discuss. (I should note, that Avernite began the switch onto Panzer on Day 1)
Similarly the case for the_hdk was kindly outlined by Dedonus (who interestingly then ignored the most obvious candidate he proposed).
Instead I would like to present a case against Alynkio:
On the first day, Alynkio made two votes. The first was on to TheFatWombat, which gained no traction, although did offer the potential of some wombat-wombat combat. The second was onto Matthew, who was one of our two CAWZ candidates of the day, and the one which was quickly shuffled out in favour of potentially strong villager Panzer. On the second day, Alynkio jumped onto me for arguing that we should pressure those that were saved by the CAWZ switch on day one; they did not move at any point. Later that day they claimed that Culann was a witness, but then made no effort to actually save them - their vote stayed on me. Alynkio then argued for continuing to tunnel on me, once more because I argued for targeting those who were late-switching on to villagers, and saving potential wolves. As a class, people who take part in last minute shenanigans are more likely to be wolves, just as those that vote early then don't move are (yes, I know this includes me, but that's time restraints, not wolfdom). The only reason that anybody should not suspect that Alynkio is a wolf is their OEO claim. However, to me that just increases the suspicion. If we know we have a hunter in one pack, why wouldn't we have an OEO in the other. Or even better, why not have Alynkio just claim it even if they don't have it. If Alynkio is a wolf, then Culann falls under suspicion as well, although could well be an innocent who reached out for help.
Now, I've gone through all that effort, but I'm not going to put my money were my mouth is. Instead, I would just like the village to be very careful when considering the words of Alynkio, to watch their hands not just listen to their tongue. There isn't enough evidence for me to jump onto the attack (never mind the accusations of revenge-voting) but there is enough to make me wary. Especially because I know that I am innocent. That said, the_hdk needs to start contributing something, so:
vote the_hdk
I fully understand that there will be those who see this response as aggressive or desperate and a further sign of guilt. Woe be to them to kill a vanillager, who is merely frustrated that this is the third time in three games that the same charge has been brought against me, and all three times those who were my Barabbas have offered at most four words (unvote x, vote y) where I try to offer an understanding of my thoughts. Further, it is difficult more to be involved in the short exchanges that take part late in the day because the deadline is situated early in my morning, meaning I sleep through that critical final third.
The case for Avernite appears obvious and I will leave it to others to discuss. (I should note, that Avernite began the switch onto Panzer on Day 1)
Similarly the case for the_hdk was kindly outlined by Dedonus (who interestingly then ignored the most obvious candidate he proposed).
Instead I would like to present a case against Alynkio:
On the first day, Alynkio made two votes. The first was on to TheFatWombat, which gained no traction, although did offer the potential of some wombat-wombat combat. The second was onto Matthew, who was one of our two CAWZ candidates of the day, and the one which was quickly shuffled out in favour of potentially strong villager Panzer. On the second day, Alynkio jumped onto me for arguing that we should pressure those that were saved by the CAWZ switch on day one; they did not move at any point. Later that day they claimed that Culann was a witness, but then made no effort to actually save them - their vote stayed on me. Alynkio then argued for continuing to tunnel on me, once more because I argued for targeting those who were late-switching on to villagers, and saving potential wolves. As a class, people who take part in last minute shenanigans are more likely to be wolves, just as those that vote early then don't move are (yes, I know this includes me, but that's time restraints, not wolfdom). The only reason that anybody should not suspect that Alynkio is a wolf is their OEO claim. However, to me that just increases the suspicion. If we know we have a hunter in one pack, why wouldn't we have an OEO in the other. Or even better, why not have Alynkio just claim it even if they don't have it. If Alynkio is a wolf, then Culann falls under suspicion as well, although could well be an innocent who reached out for help.
Now, I've gone through all that effort, but I'm not going to put my money were my mouth is. Instead, I would just like the village to be very careful when considering the words of Alynkio, to watch their hands not just listen to their tongue. There isn't enough evidence for me to jump onto the attack (never mind the accusations of revenge-voting) but there is enough to make me wary. Especially because I know that I am innocent. That said, the_hdk needs to start contributing something, so:
vote the_hdk
Accuses Dedonus of creating a case and then ignoring it.
Spends half his post on a case which he then ignores.
Intriguing, or dodgy? Especially with the vague attempt to cast suspicion on me without even explaining anything...
Vote liefwarrior
Dedonus did vote for Claude a baddie so I'm not inclined to continue the case against them. I think the baddies could be hiding among the least active players so let's look at Dedonus's cases. Then I ask the question of what metric should one use? I'm not convinced that quantity of post is better than quality of post. I agree with Liefwarrior posting insight to why one votes does contribute more to the village even if it could be all lies anyhow. That said I'm not opposed to lynching Liefwarrior, I just need a better reason than least number of posts, because voting without rationale to seems to be the literal definition of trying to be "active" while staying under the radar. Liefwarrior is definitely guilty of the latter but the other cases presented by Dedonus are arguably guilty of both.
Unless a more compelling reasons can be brought against Liefwarrior, I'll vote for R.Graymarch who I thought might have been acting wolfish anyways.
Vote R.Graymarch
Unless a more compelling reasons can be brought against Liefwarrior, I'll vote for R.Graymarch who I thought might have been acting wolfish anyways.
Vote R.Graymarch
now why is there a case against me? 
I didn't do anything bad like Avernite? or liefwarrior?
vote liefwarrior
I didn't do anything bad like Avernite? or liefwarrior? vote liefwarrior
Sleepyhead's my candidate for today. Post day 1 he's made four posts total, one of which is purely idle commentary. The others, one per day, are as follows-
Vote Sleepyhead
[/QUOTE]
His day 1 post is fine enough content wise, though unironically using "videonfanning" as a justification for a vote is always exasperating. But all he's done since is keep reiterating his "case" on Dedonus and throwing down a vote there, without any further thoughts or discussion. And his case isn't even a strong or well thought out one, it's literally just "Arkasas may have put an alibi vote on Dedonus." A one off thing, fine, but to bring it up three days in a row and follow through with a vote on it twice is criminally lazy. I'm pretty sure this is wolf sleepy trying to go under the radar.
Vote Sleepyhead
You didn't do anything, bad or good, seems to be the casenow why is there a case against me?
vote liefwarrior
40%, meaning 11 or 12 baddies.
Though, note, three pack games are notoriously fragile and hard to balance, so it could well be more. I don't think it's a three pack game, though, since if it was then having 4 dead baddies and only two packs represented seems a tad unlikely.