It's a long post, folks. You can ctrl+f to "Rocket Science" once you've read the post and want to avoid having to scour through the quote responses to find my opinions.
ProHawk asked:
What if the priest is someone that is quasi inactive/inexperienced?
What if the priests role to protect also blocks the ability of that player to use a role?
1. Then we're pretty screwed anyway. Seers can't ever safely give info.
2. Then we'll see that in the update and we'll have to change from that.
Pf5 said:
We don't want to out this powerole, just to force the priests to protect them, thus wasting the role and possibly our priest(s) too. And if we decide to gambit there's a chance the wolves could decide to call us on it and then we lose Omega.
Just saying we should probably think this through a bit better rather than voting for aplayer just to make them reveal something about someone else.
This isn't a gambit or I wouldn't be relying on other people ie Omega, priests, townies without strong roles. There are literally dozens of safe plays to make now. This is a _better_ safe play.
If you want to think this through, do some thinking. I don't see any new ideas coming from you. And yes, we should be voting for a player for information if it's going to reshape the game.
Cantor said:
The issue is that the other person the seer picks has to actually be a townie for that to work.
Also Napoleon, if it is such a broken role, why did you not acquiesce to use it? It seems like either your role is better than a seer or you did not want him to learn information about you.
Honestly I think Diaz should be lynched in an effort to force gym metagame progression beyond its current stagnant state of vet reverence and doing things that have no town positive, yet allow wolves to do things that are good for them...aka lying, and have a case for escaping judgement for that lie.
1. That's not an issue. That's an aid. If they decline to help they either have a strong role or are an independent (unless of course roleblocking Alpha cancels the night kill but I sincerely doubt that).
2. You've answered your own question there. My role is a 1-for-1; as long as I'm in play it's a risk for wolves to kill me.
3. Your last point isn't grounds for voting. Your others were.
Diaz outlandishly stated:
It isn't that powerful. Requires role-block being accepted. Hasn't worked once this game. Also, priests often come with role-blocks.
It's a seer with a pseudo-double seer. THIS IS BROKEN. It didn't work because Absol clearly has a heavy power role or is an independent. It didn't work on me because I have a 1-for-1.
Who cares if priests come with role-blocks? We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, genius.
Damned if I do... Napoleon refused to help a seer last night to have more control over information. Bump
No, I refused to help a Seer because I will die pointlessly without my role.
@Napoleon, how pissed would you be if you were Omega and I outed you.
If Omega posts that I should out Omega, then I'll do it.
READ THIS AGAIN, FOLKS.
Nice one, amateur! I was TARGETED by Omega. Let's see you flip me as Omega and I'll bring you a wagon and a band to play on it.
So after this storm of failure from Diaz, Pikamaster says:
You're saying we should vote Diaz off JUST because he's a good player and we don't want to vote off good players?
Initially Cantor's reason for voting for (not voting off) Diaz was for information. That comment about veterans is Cantor's self-justification for voting. Whatever. That being said, good players don't make stupid comments like the one I just quoted.
ProHawk asked:
I think your strategy is interesting, but I just cannot fathom how it is pro-town, at all. Outing a seer role just seems like it would only benefit the wolves. After people have more time to sift through this post, I will post some specific points on Napoleon's posts later.
It's a strategy often called "Follow the Cop". Go look it up.
Pikamaster said:
But when a player does lie ON DAY 1 and creates discussion, AND THEN stops it and starts playing well, then I'm not going to lynch him.
If you want to see how to make discussion happen (and how to reaction pull wolves properly) go read my Day 1 play from last game. No lying, more discussion and less superficial junk.
King Piplup asserts that:
What is relavent is whether or not his "lying" was helpful to stimulating discussion of the town. The specific of lying isn't important, what's important is what the actions achieved.
This is too protective of Diaz. "The ends justifies the means" is what you're saying. The difference here is that you're not Machiavelli and in Werewolf that mentality is not a town mentality.
Diaz says:
I acted stupidly early on to create discussion. Did it work? We're still talking about it.
If anything that's a problem. We shouldn't be talking about how unique your play was - we should be talking about _current issues_. That you've branded yourself as a target for LaL is your own cross to bear.
Then later:
Drop Diaz (me)
Would I bring up this line of reasoning if I were Ghetsis? Probably would have gone unnoticed if not for me. Go with it momentarily please.
WIFOM harder please?
King Piplup said:
I, King Piplup am not Ghestis, Leader of Team Plasma.
Now aren't we just fabulous!
jellyfisher remarks:
@Cantor: Right now, I am very tempted to vote for you. Out of the eight posts you have made, six of them have been attacking Diaz. I suppose its possible that you are just an over aggressive townie, (I personally think that if someone has made eight posts total, and six of those posts are attacking a single player, they are being over aggressive) but you have been acting like a wolf for this entire game. And when I say that you are acting like a wolf, I am referring to the fact that you are relentlessly targeting Diaz because he faked a speech impediment in an attempt to start discussion.
You keep saying that we should "lynch all liars" and you seem to want to stick to that rule, and make no exceptions, no matter what the situation. In WWXIV, Pikamaster made two lies. I can't remember what the first lie he made was, but the second one was that he had gotten a new role because he had found someone that he had been searching for with his role . He then said that his new role had allowed him to look at three players, and it had told him that one of them was a wolf. There actually was a wolf in that group (He didn't randomly pick three players, he picked the most suspicious players. So it wasn't really surprising that he did name a wolf.) and it wasn't long before he was lynched. So if it hadn't been for Pikamaster's lie, the town probably would have lost that game (I think the wolves were only one night away from winning. There was also an independent that would have won if he had been able to last one more day.) Now what do you think would have happened if we had discovered he was lying, and decided to lynch him?
My point is that "lynch all liars" is not always a good tactic. There are times when a lie can be good for the town, and I think Diaz faking a speech impediment was one of those times.
And to add to my argument of you possibly being a wolf, I would like to point out that almost none of your posts have actually been helpful to the town. As I have said before, almost all of your posts have been about Diaz (I'm not sure if arguing why Diaz should be lynched could be considered "helpful.") In fact, only one of your posts (the other post you made was explaining why you had been inactive) has not been about Diaz. And that post didn't even contain much of anything.
So yeah, don't be surprised if I end up voting for you.
1. Yes, tunnelling is wolfy.
2. LaL is pretty much a rule up until Seers start revealing information. I'm not going to sit here and argue theory, though.
3. I want to see evidence.
4. Why not just vote for him...
TheKing has this gem:
So I still think what discussion you caused was pointless, no I don't think that speculation about your false speech impediment is going to help us find wolves, or be of any help at all. YOu can't honestly think that the random guesses about what the songs or the challengeswere would possibly help us later on.
And this is an extremely true point.
King Piplup again on the Ghetsis? issue:
I was just stating the truth.
It'd be foolish to believe me just on that.
Yay, a post that you can quote later on to confirm you've been saying you're not Ghetsis since Day 3 and trick some people into believing you. I don't even know.
TheKing AGAIN WITH MORE GEMS:
Well [Diaz's] reason isn't that great either. You could be a wolf who offered up this idea and by taking yourself out of that list, could easily get 2+ townies lynched.
Hello? Why am I the only person paying attention to this guy? Another good point and yes, Diaz is WIFOM hardcore right now.
King Piplup with his own shovel again:
My main reasons-
If I was scum I wouldn't be posting near as much as I am, and in no way would I be attempting to contribute to scum-hunting as much as I am.
My play hasn't been scummy at all that I can tell.
Take it for what you think it's worth, but I can definitely say I'm not any of the ones your after.
WIFOM to the first and I could care less what you think to the second.
PF5 said:
Prohawk makes a point, but if he do decide to go with the 1/7 gambit today, the odds would be better if we picked another target I think,
I'm also going to say that it's pretty safe to discount Diaz from that list. Yes while that would be an amazing move for a wolf to pull off, the risk outweighs the reward IMO. These sort of plays can generally come back to bite you if you are scum, and if diaz was a wolf i'm sure there's less risky ways of pulling off two early game town lynches.
So just to clarify. I'm not saying AT or Diaz are confirmed non-scum, just that for the moment we have more logical targets to consider.
I agree with JQ, and as much as it pains me to say it, PMysterious to me just seems like a really newbie player. By now he would have had his fellow wolves SCREAMING at him to pick up his game. Yet he's remained fairly consistent so far. He's tried to improve a bit, but that seems self motivated rather than forced.
That leaves DC, Scott, Jellyfisher, SonOfApollo, Redados and KP
If I had to pick a top 3 from that list, in no particular order I would go
Scott, SonOfApollo and Redados.
I also sort of like what KP is getting at, so for the moment I'm going to go with
Unvote: Benzo (Still FoS though)
Vote: Redados 1
1. 1 in 7 is the way to look at it. Seriously folks. 1/7 to hit a wolf. Let's get real.
2. WIFOM. WIFOM. This vintage presented before me is fine indeed. I say, the grapes of the French were ever to my taste.
3. Let's sit on the fence some more. That's all we've heard from you. Possibilities. We need to think more. I'm not making a decision but we have more logical targets. Far out.
4. More beautiful wine in front of me! So explain to me how you know that his potential fellow wolves aren't just telling him to keep playing like he has so far because it gives him this apparent "Village Idiot Immunity"?
ProHawk says:
Your flippant dismissal of any discussion does not make sense to me. I will be sure and add that to my list for you as well. I had already said that I did not really want to pursue any action against Absol, I must thank you as you helped me notice something interesting in the update.
Again, I do not mean to point fingers at Absol, but I hope that everyone realizes that your (Diaz's) logic is flawed, and you are not analyzing CAREFULLY, but are quick to cast judgement.
Just quoted for truth.
Diaz says weirdly:
Absol, don't worry about the useless attacks on you.
DON'T WORRY BRO, I GOT YO' BACK. Buddy-buddy more.
DragonClyne says:
That lowers us down to a 1/4 shot at finding Ghetsis assuming Diaz's theory is correct.
You haven't even taken the possibility that he's wrong into account in your further writing.
Diaz said:
Really think no wolves voted for SS7 considering they can talk during day?
Textual evidence for this or you're scumslipping.
Absoltrainer responds:
Oh I have no doubt at least one wolf voted for SS7, how deep that goes, I have yet to decide on. If that makes sense?
How do you know?
PCPB's attempted debate:
Cantor might very well earn my vote. He as no real basis to his arguments, he just hides behind big words like "ad homenum (sp?)" to make himself sound logical. He also seems to think that "rules" like "lynch all liars", are to be followed without question. If anything, I consider them more guidelines. Many town-aligned players can and have lied, for varying reasons. In my mind it is very easy for someone to post a "rule" like that. By using sources like Mafiascum, it seems like Cantor is making himself out to be a much better player that he actually is. As Pikamaster pointed out, Cantor attempted to incorrectly use the logical fallacies "strawman" and "ad homenum" in an attempt to best him in discussion. Take those fancy words away, there is no real inherit logic in his posts. Cantor seems to using smoke and mirrors to beef up his non-existent arguments, which to me suggests possible deceit on his part. Without the use of these illusions, Cantor seemingly votes for Diaz only because he is a veteran. This seems rash to say the least, if not completely incriminating.
There were a straw man and ad hom call in Pika's post. So...no.
At this moment, there is not much evidence against Diaz. This might sound funny coming from one of the people who voted for him (and if that was your first thought, kudos to you), but keep in mind the reason I voted was to follow-up on Napoleon's line of play, which at the time I thought was rational. I did however fail to consider the point about the priest, which I'm glad Prohawk pointed out. Napoleon's plan is sound, except for that one piece of the puzzle, in which by revealing "Omega", as we are calling him/her, we can protect Omega but at the cost that Omega will be unable to use their role while protected by the priest. In my mind, this defeats the purpose of the role. What good is a role if it cannot be used? I'm interested in hearing Napoleon's thoughts on this, but at the moment I'm fairly convinced this course of action won't be in our best interest. Because I do not fully believe in this play, I'm going to go ahead and retract my vote.
Initially it was just a pressure play. That doesn't need evidence. The fact that Diaz isn't being coherent anymore is more of a lead than anyone else has.
Okay, look. You tell me that you know the Priest also roleblocks. This concept is pretty foreign to me and just takes away much of the validity of even having a Priest in such a large game - any role worth having is made into a vanilla townie once they get Priested. Even if Omega is roleblocked by the priest, we learn something about the priest's role. Information is key. HOWEVER you don't know if the priest roleblocks or not. We need to experiment.
I forget who brought this up, but the point about the seven possible candidates for Ghetsis... I think it is brilliant. The text to me completely suggests that Ghetsis voted for SS7, I do not think there is any reason to believe otherwise.
Oh look, arguments...completely based on subjective flavour text. MOVING ON.
Dragonclyne has been playing excellently so far, I don't think he's suspicious in anyway. In any case, his play does not suggest any possible suspicion. He's been actively contributing to the discussion and there is no reason to presume him guilty, as he has not made any errors or slip-ups as far as I am aware. PMysterious could very well be Ghetsis. Because he's a newcomer to the game and his posts lack any form of content, I can't really get a read on him. He could be Ghetsis, he might not be. There is honestly no way of knowing. Scottistru hasn't been playing a great game at all, he acted very fishy in the last day. During the last game, I gave him a lot of heat because I suspected the person who he replaced. It is was not warranted. He played an excellent game and I wasted a lot of my time targeting him. That is not the case this game. He's been all over the place. He could very well be Ghetsis, his play is noticeably different from the last game. I suspect him slightly more than PMysterious on the basis that I've played in a game before with Scottistru and thus have something to compare his play to. I do not have that luxury with PMysterious. I have no reason to suspect Jellyfisher of being Ghetsis. I think he's actually raised some interesting points, I can't say I disagree with any of them. There's no reason to suspect him, he hasn't done anything remotely suspicious as far as I can tell. Son_Of_Apollo isn't playing nearly as bad as Scottistru and PMysterious, but he hasn't been scotch-free either. His most noticeable offenses are committing at least one bandwagon and his posts generally lack content. However, given that bandwagoning is his most serious crime... which is not to say very serious. I would not lynch him before the others I have mentioned. Redados1 has been posting a lot less and his posts have a lot less content than before. He seems to be deliberately laying low this time, last game he posted more content than this and he had restrictions that disabled him from revealing the contents of his role. That's saying a lot! He has no restrictions 9as far as we know) and he hasn't contributed one unique thought to the entire game. Due to his previous play in the last game, there is a basis of suspicion in that his play is drastically different and in my opinion that makes him worse than PMysterious. PMysterious has no basis, so there is no difference. Redados1 does not have that luxury. KingPiplup has been posting a lot and actively contributing, there is no reason at the moment to suspect him.
Dragonclyne - That's new. So by playing well you don't get lynched? Maybe the wolves should do this!
PMysterious - He very well could be Ghetsis, but you're not sure if he is or isn't. Right. Why say anything?
Scottistru - He very well could be Ghetsis and you suspect him slightly more than PM solely because you've played with him before and he's not playing the same. That's not a basis at all.
Jellyfisher - You agree with him so he's not Ghetsis. That's not even remotely credible.
Son_of_Apollo - No comment needed.
Redados1 - He's laying low and voted for SS7 AHA! Conclusive evidence! No. Also you essentially say that you only justify your comments because you can compare his play to other games. That's not how it works.
King Piplup - Same thing as DragonClyne. He's playing well, so he's town according to you. Drat, if all the wolves played well we'd never be able to find them!
And your reason for voting Redados1 can be translated to Jason. Whoop de freaking doo.
Son_of_Apollo says:
Reread this part, it seems clear that wolves were part of the force that killed SS7. But as you read it closer, it's somewhat ambiguous as to whether ghetsis was actually involved or just ordered the wolves to do it.
Or it's just flavour text?
At the moment there's no clear choice, but I think we're going in a good direction.
Nice to know that you don't know.
And Diaz back again with the transparent ideas!
IMO any players on the list who have a specific role, like gym leaders should name-claim. Odds go up. We have 1 real-life day left.
You removed yourself from the list with a WIFOM argument and then you think you can order other people around? Why not start with your character's name and then Omega's name?
This being said, in the situation that you're an independent _OF COURSE_ you want to know who to frisk. You made the comment earlier about keeping your cards close - explain why others have to play theirs when they're in the same if not a better situation than you.
Furthermore, any claim can be made and because of the ambiguity of this type of game it's easy to create a fake claim. You can't counter these claims easily and at this stage not at all.
PCPB with this:
I realize that it IS somewhat of a sacrifice, but losing two wolves in a matter of three days would be so crippling to the wolves at this point that I cannot help but think that it is totally worth it.
So how are we getting two wolves again?
Son_of_Apollo responds:
damn man, way to put me in a bad situation. I'm clay.
PANIC BUTTON!!! THREAT OF BEING VOTED. BETTER ROLE CLAIM. ABORT ABORT!!!
This is not a believable claim in any way.
ultimatedra brings the logic back:
I have to say this right now. I have been against the whole role claiming/naming the whole time. Not a winning strategy without a dire situation.
You gave the name WITHOUT a single vote.
On top of that you HAPPEN to claim to be a gym leader. I find this VERY suspicious.
You had better hope that nobody challenges your claim.
Where have you been all this time?! Finally someone who knows what they're doing amidst the storm.
PCPB:
These three players: name-claim or you shall earn my vote.
This is so scary. I mean seriously. Psycho ain't got nothin' on this hardcore play right here. Better threaten to do nothing in order to get results.
DragonClyne said:
Chill out, bro. I am against name-claiming if I don't need too. I did reveal that I am a GL in order to help narrow the list down a bit.
Nice contradiction there, bro. I like your claim. Bro.
TheKing:
I'm against mass role/name-claiing and even if all seven on the list name-claims, there is always the chance that the wolf finds a good fake-claim. I tgives way too much information to the wolves and you should know that more than anyone else, you claimed Drayden day one and were promptly targeted by the wolves night 2.
Yes. Although that being said we still can't confirm PCPB's role.
PCPB, please stop doing this:
Name-claim or risk my vote.
Reality check, your vote is worth nothing in the grand scheme of things since your arguments aren't really compelling anyone to vote with you. So stop pretending you're actually doing anything,
because you're not.
PMysterious comes out with:
So let me get this straight. I have the possibility of being Ghestis, a lot of people would say that because of my playstyle. But I can say that I'm not a werewolf. I even said that on Day 2.
That doesn't legitimise your claim at all. And then you just go along and repeat what everyone else has said and then bandwagon, throwing on a few numbers and a side of "Wake up, inactives!" to make your post seem new and interesting. It's not.
PCPB says:
People claiming to be town is a scumtell.
No it's not. Stop being a VI.
Diaz:
There’s no way for anyone to refute you if you say you are just a gym leader.
This would make sense in any other situation. Let's assume for a minute that your logic in trying to dissect flavour text is right - which it's not, but I'll humour you. All you need are GL claims and then you can go on to separating those out. You don't need full claims from the get-go.
JewelQuest bringing back the logic:
Dude, you are really starting to annoy me. I don't care if you are town, making people name claim this early in the game with little to none votes is RIDICULOUS. The point of this game is to figure people out. You seem to want to have the win served to you on a silver platter. This game doesn't work this way. We've got to figure this out with our brains.
Also, I highly doubt that they'll name claim with so many of us telling ya how ridiculous this is. I say don't name claim unless you've got quite a few votes on you, and then, only then, should you name claim/role reveal as a last resort.
Agreed.
Dude, everyone in this game "claims" to be town. You wouldn't want to claim to be a wolf, would you? I could use this logic to say that you are suspicious because you've claimed to be town when you claimed to be Drayden.
Pretty much.
TheKing:
Once again, your defense wasn't all that great either
QFT.
Diaz, oh Diaz!:
Got more important things to do than put together a formal defense (I can though). Lets kill wolves instead.
My current list:
DragonClyne725,
PMysterious,
Scottistru,
Jellyfisher,
Redados1,
KingPiplup
It's wolf hunting season! With my 1/6 chance of hitting them (THAT'S RIGHT, WE'VE IMPROVED TO 1/6!!!!) we're sure to put a few bullets where they'll count!
Son_of_Apollo said:
But like I said, I think the non-well spoken ones are most likely to be townies. Wolves would tell each other to start making better posts, I'm sure even with SS7 gone they have at least one seasoned player. Basically, if a wolf saw that one of their own was getting suspicion because of bad posting patterns, they would tell them to change.
WIFOM. Not true at all. Your futher logic in your post is also based on sand.
thunderjolt said:
So..............We're just gonna let Jason play as he always does and get away with it. He posted when we put pressure on him, so Vote: Jason. Come on man, you gotta play just like the rest of us. Either post saying you are busy and can't play just right now or post and put in some input.
Well isn't this just a clutch vote in a time of need?
Cantor said:
Yeah. We're using the wrong ones.
Pikamaster made some points about debating. Let's get this straight, you ad hom'd like a champion and you pretty much popped a straw man but nobody cares anymore and it's not an important detail. So let's move on.
And ProHawk rounds it up by putting pressure on Redados for minimal posting which isn't really a scumtell and illogical voting which is subject to opinion.
So approximately 4,600 words later, where are we? Rocket science, that's where!
In regards to Omega:-
Any half-decent player can use the Omega role to find out about two people at the same time. Let's break this down:
Omega targets a player (A).
That player (A) can choose to aid Omega in Seering another player (B).
If (A) refuses, (B) does not get Seered.
If (A) accepts, (B) gets seered for some information which is given to both players.
Omega at all times knows who player (A) is, although player (A) does not ever know who Omega is.
Omega and player (A) both know who player (B) is.
At no time do either Omega or player (A) learn about each other's roles directly.
Essentially there are two situations; player (A) accepts or player (A) does not accept.
If player (A) accepts these are the results:
-Player (A) is a townie with a role which they believe is less important than Seering, or is an independent, and both Omega and (A) get information on (B).
-Player (A) is a wolf seeking to gain free information on Player (B)
If player (A) declines these are the results:
-Omega knows that player (A) has a role which is more substantial than Seering - specifically seering, priesting or 1-for-1 roles.
-Player (A) is an independent with a strong role.
-Essentially, Player (A) is someone with a very powerful role.
Special situations:
-Player (A) and (B) are wolves.
This is fun.
Either player (A) declines and keeps their partner safe or they accept and gambit giving out a wolf in the hope that they can hold out a persona for a long time.
-Player (A) is a wolf and declines even though Player (B) is not a wolf.
This is complex and hard to figure out but balances itself out. The wolves do not get a rare snippet of info but are forced to pretend they have a heavy power role. Results will need to be seen and it's nigh upon impossible to keep a heavy power role claim out without results.
This is where it gets interesting and where the brokenness of Omega begins. Omega has to use their deductive reasoning to decide who they want to reveal they targeted and when to reveal. This is particularly important when it comes to discussing who did not agree to help him investigation.
Of course, if A/AM releases that information in the update that takes a lot of stress off of Omega.
Say later on Omega has already investigated someone. Let's assume for a minute that he can investigate someone twice - pick a new person to help with the investigation. Omega might be able to learn something about the recruited person. The possibilities are endless with a role so vast!
It goes without saying that this is a role which has to co-ordinate with the town! But it's not as simple as Omega coming out and revealing.
Diaz should be forced to say Omega's name because he's simply not a reliable narrator as of this point in time. If he can name Omega correctly and Omega confirms this, we can at least have more security.
In regards to this whole "one from seven" thing:-
One in seven is not good odds for random firing at wolves. However, from an independent perspective, if you ctrl+f "King Piplup" through my post it should become evident why I say now that he leans scum more than any other player.
That being said Diaz leans scum pretty hard too, for inconsistencies and LaL, among other things. Not to mention he should be getting spotlighted hard right now because of what he can tell us and what he's been doing before.
This is a safer and better play to be making than a gambit which relies on a lot of luck. Hence why I'm still voting for Diaz.
That being said, considering the amount I've bashed some people in this post I'm not surprised if few people join this little crusade.
Also if I see any "Great post Napoleon, wow that was long, I agree with you completely /vote" then I will be disappointed.
Shout out to my boys in the freeze locker, if it weren't for your revival bumps this would be much less interesting! :lol:
