Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along WW Blog - Game Thread

[Karabiner13]

D2 Final Tally

zen (1) - dubz
dds (2) - pippy, hmoo
LoTF (7) - lis, bjeh, nohika, shelter, caia, coquette, zen
lis () -
hmoo (2) - genny, kcough
shelter (4) - CheezyD, sar, fs, dds
CheezyD (3) - weim, rojo, mj
dubz (1) - LoTF
genny (1) - stl

21/23 voting
missing: nyanko, finnickthedog

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Caia]

My guess is he was blocked and upset about it... It is how raf got a wolf accidentally last game... Idiot savant?

The zoo game? I don't know what you're referring to.

 

[Karabiner13]

Today started like any other as a brand new day with the sun high and the birds singing. Most everyone slowly meandered through attempting to do their part to keep the city safe. It seems LoTF had done enough to make people feel she was wolfy. Her attempts at persuading them otherwise were to no avail despite her excellent pitch. She started off singing like this

♫ There's good in everybody's heart
Keep it safe and sound
With hope, you can do your part
To turn a life around ♫​

As the evening progressed her tune turned sour​

♫ Listen close to everybody's heart
And hear that breaking sound
Hopes and dreams are shattering apart
And crashing to the ground ♫
​

It seems no one would heed her song. The crowd surrounded LoTF not caring for what little defense she was providing.

Dead is @LadyOtheFarm

Spoiler

Driver- a VILLAGER who was vanilla but would eventually gain the ability to move people between groups and PM with them for a cycle

Also welcome back @Animal Midwife who will be taking over for @finnickthedog

It is now Night 2. Night will close at 10am EDT

Roster

Caring Hands Soup Kitchen
1. @nyanko
2. @SARdoghandler - Other Moving Guy
3. @kcoughli
5. @LetItSnow

Captain Hammer's Command Center
6. @Caia
7. @WildZoo
8. @SummerTheLynx
9. @thedrjojo

The Laundromat
11. @Zensing
12. @sheltermed
13. @ddstothecor
14. @Animal Midwife (the player formerly known as @finnickthedog)
15. @hazelmoo

Dr. Horrible's Lab
16. @Coquette22
17. @Frozenshades
18. @WeimMama
19. @bjeh
20. @PippyPony

Caring Hands Homeless Shelter
21. @genny
22. @nohika
23. @Melchizedek
24. @Mad Jack

Midtown Cemetary
4. AM - NBN Newsman
10. LoTF - Driver

 

[thedrjojo]

The zoo game? I don't know what you're referring to.

Raf gave us the clue of don't trust the blocker cause the villager blocker blocked them. Led to us finding the wolf blocker

 

[ddstothecor]

Hey, I give you links to this beautiful show and this is how you repay me?


I'm not a fidget spinner. Don't just toy with me out of boredom.

I'm also not a wolf, just nilla.

I completely get her vote, you had decent reasons for voting Mel since he/she is new and you want to gauge a playing style. Other people may have wanted to see the same. Why would you vote for Mel to put on pressure and then call people out for doing the same thing?

Lynch LIS

When you asked, I had to try a few different combinations to figure it out for myself. In any case, I'm done with this topic.

Game solving question:
Do we think # of people killed correlates with # of wolves or is this going to be a wolves decide as a group and kill one person kind of game?

Is this how all WW games work, or is there some other reason you know how the wolf kills in this game are gonna go...?

****
The Alchemist is my favorite book too. One of my dogs is named Santiago after the main character, and his dog tag says "I love you because the entire universe conspired to help me find you" - a quote from the book
****

Okay. Above is justification (as disclosed more succinctly but less understood by you above).
1) Look at me guys, not a wolf - just plain, crappy vanilla.
2) Oh! Another vote of retaliation by hazelmoo - shocking!
3) Mel - playing the noob card a little to hard?
4) sheltermed - playing dumb even dumber.
5) Oh! A useless post by hazelmoo. Who would've thunk it?!

 

[thedrjojo]

I also am never a fan of reintroducing someone into the game that was already in the game as a sub, but at least in the early game it won't be too much of an issue as AM died n1

 

[Melchizedek]

Please tell me why giving the wolves role information is worth your own personal curiosity.
We don't want to give wolves any info. <--- a fundamental concept you seem to be missing.

Please re-read my post, I am advocating that we keep the ability/action secret. I only wanted to know WHO. Someone saying "me!" doesn't reveal anything to wolves, but does allow me to connect some dots on my end.

A wolf isn't going to lie about doing that because it could be easily refuted by the person who actually performed the action. No one playing this game is that stupid.

Never implied stupidity, just that they'd looking to take advantage of the situation. And you just restated my point. I said if it was a WOLF who did it, they wouldn't come forward because they couldn't prove it.

In any case it looks like I can't attempt to solve anything without someone assuming I'm a wolf. It was Day 2. We had squat to go on. I wanted people to take a chance, apparently thats wolfy. Noted.

 

[Glammyre]

Okay. Above is justification (as disclosed more succinctly but less understood by you above).
1) Look at me guys, not a wolf - just plain, crappy vanilla.
2) Oh! Another vote of retaliation by hazelmoo - shocking!
3) Mel - playing the noob card a little to hard?
4) sheltermed - playing dumb even dumber.
5) Oh! A useless post by hazelmoo. Who would've thunk it?!

6) Is there a point to this, or are you just venting sarcasm?

You weren't on my radar during most of today (would actually like to hear more from @Coquette22), but I don't like how quickly you get defensive as soon as someone calls you out as a wolf. It was, what, 15min between when hazel voted and you responded?

 

[sheltermed]

Please re-read my post, I am advocating that we keep the ability/action secret. I only wanted to know WHO. Someone saying "me!" doesn't reveal anything to wolves, but does allow me to connect some dots on my end.


Never implied stupidity, just that they'd looking to take advantage of the situation. And you just restated my point. I said if it was a WOLF who did it, they wouldn't come forward because they couldn't prove it.

In any case it looks like I can't attempt to solve anything without someone assuming I'm a wolf. It was Day 2. We had squat to go on. I wanted people to take a chance, apparently thats wolfy. Noted.

So, just to clarify, you think that the person outing themselves as the person who performed their ability on you would in turn make them SAFER from a kill? If so, why? If that's not the case, please tell me what is.

 

[Caia]

Raf gave us the clue of don't trust the blocker cause the villager blocker blocked them. Led to us finding the wolf blocker

Ohh. I'm not giving raf credit for that.

Nyanko being the wolf blocker and happening to be lynched wasn't tied to that imo. It was ski being villagery and people getting cold feet and doing a random switch that happened to work out.

I think idiot savant is way above him at this time...also I'm not convinced he's not arrogant enough to be a wolf and trying to pull stupid ****.

 

[WeimMama]

Please re-read my post, I am advocating that we keep the ability/action secret. I only wanted to know WHO. Someone saying "me!" doesn't reveal anything to wolves, but does allow me to connect some dots on my end.

I think the point is that even someone saying it was them reveals that they have an ability. So any ability is a more appealing thing for the wolves to remove from the game than them just guessing. So still a sketch thing to ask for, for that reason.

 

[hazelmoo]

Okay. Above is justification (as disclosed more succinctly but less understood by you above).
2) Oh! Another vote of retaliation by hazelmoo - shocking!
5) Oh! A useless post by hazelmoo. Who would've thunk it?!

How was my vote for LIS retaliatory? Have you even been reading the thread? Do I need to go quote the 10 posts by you that have contributed NOTHING to the game thus far?
Lol. Good job finding the ONE useless post by my in a sea of useless posts I suppose you want a cookie now?

 

[Jebb]

Please re-read my post, I am advocating that we keep the ability/action secret. I only wanted to know WHO. Someone saying "me!" doesn't reveal anything to wolves, but does allow me to connect some dots on my end.


Never implied stupidity, just that they'd looking to take advantage of the situation. And you just restated my point. I said if it was a WOLF who did it, they wouldn't come forward because they couldn't prove it.

In any case it looks like I can't attempt to solve anything without someone assuming I'm a wolf. It was Day 2. We had squat to go on. I wanted people to take a chance, apparently thats wolfy. Noted.

I don't think solving things is ever a problem, it's maybe the way you go about it. Also I don't think we have squat to go on for day 2. We don't have a ton of info but we have enough to talk about regarding suspicions, theories, conversations, questions, etc to go on.

 

[Animal Midwife]

I also am never a fan of reintroducing someone into the game that was already in the game as a sub, but at least in the early game it won't be too much of an issue as AM died n1

Is this the welcome I get?

 

[Caia]

 

[ddstothecor]

6) Is there a point to this, or are you just venting sarcasm?

You weren't on my radar during most of today (would actually like to hear more from @Coquette22), but I don't like how quickly you get defensive as soon as someone calls you out as a wolf. It was, what, 15min between when hazel voted and you responded?

I was giving reasons for my vote. I didn't realize it was a requirement of me. Apparently, my votes are put to scrutiny like the members of Congress.

I like how you say I'm being defensive when I'm only responding to someone questioning my input. Another player, btw, who has added very little to the dialogue or detection of any wolf activity herself. This is not me putting up boundaries, this isn't even sarcasm. Two votes in, tell me what is so suspicious about anyone's voting history. Please point this out to me - including how it's succeeded in the past - how many wolves have succumbed to the crushing pressure of irrational early votes.

That's not even an argument. Let's have a talk after I've cast my stones against a real wolf (look who didn't vote for LoTF), and then we can compare the ledger to parse out the parsimony at the ballot box.

 

[Melchizedek]

So, just to clarify, you think that the person outing themselves as the person who performed their ability on you would in turn make them SAFER from a kill? If so, why? If that's not the case, please tell me what is.

All the wolves would know is that the person has an ability. They can only speculate as to what that ability is. It gives them no info they don't already have. They know people have abilities (even abilities that kick in later re: LotF), they don't know what those are.

I think the point is that even someone saying it was them reveals that they have an ability. So any ability is a more appealing thing for the wolves to remove from the game than them just guessing. So still a sketch thing to ask for, for that reason.

I see this point. Its a game, I was hoping someone would take a chance, didn't realize you'd all take the WW life as if it was your own.

 

[ddstothecor]

How was my vote for LIS retaliatory? Have you even been reading the thread? Do I need to go quote the 10 posts by you that have contributed NOTHING to the game thus far?
Lol. Good job finding the ONE useless post by my in a sea of useless posts I suppose you want a cookie now?

I think you're overestimating your contribution.

 

[hazelmoo]

I was giving reasons for my vote. I didn't realize it was a requirement of me. Apparently, my votes are put to scrutiny like the members of Congress.

I like how you say I'm being defensive when I'm only responding to someone questioning my input. Another player, btw, who has added very little to the dialogue or detection of any wolf activity herself. This is not me putting up boundaries, this isn't even sarcasm. Two votes in, tell me what is so suspicious about anyone's voting history. Please point this out to me - including how it's succeeded in the past - how many wolves have succumbed to the crushing pressure of irrational early votes.

That's not even an argument. Let's have a talk after I've cast my stones against a real wolf (look who didn't vote for LoTF), and then we can compare the ledger to parse out the parsimony at the ballot box.

Where's the originality dds? Everything you've said as your "reasons" have been said again and again by other players.

I didn't vote for LoTF because I wasn't sold that she was a wolf, based on my earlier comments, which you probably didn't even bother to read. You sure are getting really butt hurt over one person calling you out... that seems pretty wolfy to me.

 

[ddstothecor]

All the wolves would know is that the person has an ability. They can only speculate as to what that ability is. It gives them no info they don't already have. They know people have abilities (even abilities that kick in later re: LotF), they don't know what those are.




I see this point. Its a game, I was hoping someone would take a chance, didn't realize you'd all take the WW life as if it was your own.

Ping. Ping.

 

[thedrjojo]

Is this the welcome I get?

Wanna cookie?

I'm just saying I'm not a fan of it.

I'm your manator, I do what I want

 

[sheltermed]

didn't realize you'd all take the WW life as if it was your own.

you mean...WW isn't life..?

 

[thedrjojo]

Thread is feisty

 

[Animal Midwife]

All the wolves would know is that the person has an ability. They can only speculate as to what that ability is. It gives them no info they don't already have. They know people have abilities (even abilities that kick in later re: LotF), they don't know what those are.

Abilities will always be more valuable to wolves than vanillas. Even if it's a seer who's incorrect 98% of the time. They go crunch, crunch on the poor villager.

I see this point. Its a game, I was hoping someone would take a chance, didn't realize you'd all take the WW life as if it was your own.

Well, seeing the high wolf win ratio, we take no chances. Would you reveal your ability (if you have one)?

 

[thedrjojo]

you mean...WW isn't life..?

Blasphemy...

 

[Animal Midwife]

Wanna cookie?

I'm just saying I'm not a fan of it.

I'm your manator, I do what I want

Nah, I just wanted to get a rise out of you.

 

[Animal Midwife]

Contingency Lynch Cheezy

 

[sheltermed]

Abilities will always be more valuable to wolves than vanillas.

At the FULLY KNOWN AND ACCEPTED risk of sounding like a noob for asking, which I know is this huge taboo for sheltermed now, can anyone corroborate this statement and/or provide reasoning for why abilities would be more valuable to wolves than villagers? I have been under the impression that non-wolf folks with abilities are useful for villagers in that those abilities can (usually?) in some way protect the villagers. Is that wrong?

Honestly asking for my own knowledge, as have been the nature of my other questions (though perhaps misguided, judging the responses they've gotten me).

 

[Glammyre]

I like how you say I'm being defensive when I'm only responding to someone questioning my input. Another player, btw, who has added very little to the dialogue or detection of any wolf activity herself. This is not me putting up boundaries, this isn't even sarcasm. Two votes in, tell me what is so suspicious about anyone's voting history. Please point this out to me - including how it's succeeded in the past - how many wolves have succumbed to the crushing pressure of irrational early votes.

*raises hand*
As a wolf, I have a bad habit of ignoring my fellows, and of sounding like I'm trying to force a lynch. Both happened in Back to Basics 2, and were reasons why I was caught and dragged part of the wolf team down with me. Pippy caught onto me doing this during the lynch when I was trying to provoke LotF into answering my questions (and possibly fighting back). Sure, I couldn't think of anything she would say that would convince me it was better to unlynch her, but angry people are unpredictable, and it was possible that she could do something I hadn't thought of.

Yes, reasons are required for lynch votes. You are required to prove you can think independently. There's some leeway early, or when people are busy. Those people are usually consistent, however. You go from barely posting, to chastising people for not posting more, to suddenly posting veerry quickly when challenged. If you can respond that quickly when someone calls you out, why haven't you been posting more?

It's so much easier to learn when you're in a fight than when you have to follow one from outside. Your posts just make me happier to lynch you tomorrow

 

[ddstothecor]

Where's the originality dds? Everything you've said as your "reasons" have been said again and again by other players.

I didn't vote for LoTF because I wasn't sold that she was a wolf, based on my earlier comments, which you probably didn't even bother to read. You sure are getting really butt hurt over one person calling you out... that seems pretty wolfy to me.

Okay. I'm not going to continue engaging you in a useless conversation about the minutiae of my vote. Here's the recap:

You said that my "reasoning" wasn't sound. I responded that I had outlined my thinking above, and that wasn't to your standards. Next, I went back through the thread to give you examples of what I would consider suspicious. Also, I explained that it's asinine to try to go by voting history two votes in without any real information (i.e., who did or did not vote for wolves). Further, I pointed out your attempt to plant a seed for a thinly veiled bandwagon against me (for no reason at all).

According to you, my rationale was not inventive enough for you. Now, I have to be the originator of the thoughts because, somehow, being in agreement about weird and obfuscating posts is not really "reasons." Don't forget to fail to mention my no vote for LoTF either.

It's glaring that no response I give to you will be satisfactory to you as you will just turn around to say, "butthurt...not contributing...wolfy..."

 

[PippyPony]

All the wolves would know is that the person has an ability. They can only speculate as to what that ability is. It gives them no info they don't already have. They know people have abilities (even abilities that kick in later re: LotF), they don't know what those are.

If you don't think wolves can get this info, then you are seriously underestimating the average wolf pack in these games. By approximately D4 in the Lion King game, we (the wolves) had a virtually full roster of everyone's role and ability for all 24+ players because of this kind of thing.

I think the main thing you're missing is that even if they don't know the exact ability, they know it is an ability. And wolves very much like to kill villagers with abilities. Knowledge of existence of ability > no knowledge of ability when it comes to selecting kill targets.

AND, once info like blocking targets comes out on the thread, it helps them narrow down who else might have a given ability based on process of elimination. And a pack of wolves -- working on doing that problem solving together -- are going to be more effective at it than isolated villagers. It's literally the way the game works.

 

[Glammyre]

At the FULLY KNOWN AND ACCEPTED risk of sounding like a noob for asking, which I know is this huge taboo for sheltermed now, can anyone corroborate this statement and/or provide reasoning for why abilities would be more valuable to wolves than vanillas? I have been under the impression that non-wolf folks with abilities are useful for villagers in that those abilities can (usually?) in some way protect the villagers. Is that wrong?

Hint: You'll sound less sketchy if you ease off on the backpedaling. I didn't vote for you tonight because I truly thought I couldn't learn from your reactions - I can't tell new player asking questions from a wolf trying to clutter the thread/get by on the new player card, so I decided to wait until your style seems like more of a hazard to the village than any sketchiness I could detect in others.

What do you mean by "abilities more helpful to wolves than vanillas"? Did you mean "villagers" instead? I don't understand otherwise, so I'll answer as if you did.

Wolves don't like villagers with powers because they interfere with plans. Protectors block important kills and inadvertently clear people if the protector and protectee are notified of attacks, blockers identify wolves by stopping a kill when targeting them, and even the worst seer can blindly find a well-hidden wolf. Thus, villagers with abilities are targets to the wolves.

 

[Caia]

At the FULLY KNOWN AND ACCEPTED risk of sounding like a noob for asking, which I know is this huge taboo for sheltermed now, can anyone corroborate this statement and/or provide reasoning for why abilities would be more valuable to wolves than vanillas? I have been under the impression that non-wolf folks with abilities are useful for villagers in that those abilities can (usually?) in some way protect the villagers. Is that wrong?

Honestly asking for my own knowledge, as have been the nature of my other questions (though perhaps misguided, judging the responses they've gotten me).

I can't. Someone else take this one.

I'm going to bed.

 

[WildZoo]

Nah, I just wanted to get a rise out of you.

 

[Animal Midwife]

At the FULLY KNOWN AND ACCEPTED risk of sounding like a noob for asking, which I know is this huge taboo for sheltermed now, can anyone corroborate this statement and/or provide reasoning for why abilities would be more valuable to wolves than vanillas? I have been under the impression that non-wolf folks with abilities are useful for villagers in that those abilities can (usually?) in some way protect the villagers. Is that wrong?

Honestly asking for my own knowledge, as have been the nature of my other questions (though perhaps misguided, judging the responses they've gotten me).

Anything that helps the village hurts the wolves. Vice versa is also true. I'm sure you saw how catastrophic that can be from the game you were a wolf.

 

[WildZoo]

Oh man, thread is feisty indeed...I need to get to a computer.

 

[WeimMama]

You're that "That's what she said" friend, aren't you

 

[Animal Midwife]

If you don't think wolves can get this info, then you are seriously underestimating the average wolf pack in these games. By approximately D4 in the Lion King game, we (the wolves) had a virtually full roster of everyone's role and ability for all 24+ players because of this kind of thing.

Not me though.

 

[sheltermed]

If you don't think wolves can get this info, then you are seriously underestimating the average wolf pack in these games. By approximately D4 in the Lion King game, we (the wolves) had a virtually full roster of everyone's role and ability for all 24+ players because of this kind of thing.

I think the main thing you're missing is that even if they don't know the exact ability, they know it is an ability. And wolves very much like to kill villagers with abilities. Knowledge of existence of ability > no knowledge of ability when it comes to selecting kill targets.

AND, once info like blocking targets comes out on the thread, it helps them narrow down who else might have a given ability based on process of elimination. And a pack of wolves -- working on doing that problem solving together -- are going to be more effective at it than isolated villagers. It's literally the way the game works.

Hint: You'll sound less sketchy if you ease off on the backpedaling. I didn't vote for you tonight because I truly thought I couldn't learn from your reactions - I can't tell new player asking questions from a wolf trying to clutter the thread/get by on the new player card, so I decided to wait until your style seems like more of a hazard to the village than any sketchiness I could detect in others.

What do you mean by "abilities more helpful to wolves than vanillas"? Did you mean "villagers" instead? I don't understand otherwise, so I'll answer as if you did.

Wolves don't like villagers with powers because they interfere with plans. Protectors block important kills and inadvertently clear people if the protector and protectee are notified of attacks, blockers identify wolves by stopping a kill when targeting them, and even the worst seer can blindly find a well-hidden wolf. Thus, villagers with abilities are targets to the wolves.

Pippy's post actually answered it for me, as did yours. And yes, I meant "villagers" and not "vanillas." I edited it to avoid future confusion. Villagers with abilities are targets for wolves - refuting what CheezyD was trying to claim by saying wolves want to keep anyone around that has an ability.

 

[PippyPony]

Don't forget to fail to mention my no vote for LoTF either.

I am in agreement with some parts of your post, but I think* this is the second time you've brought up "I didn't vote for a villager!" as something that makes you less wolfy. I don't know if this was intended to be sarcastic, but if not, then LOL to that.


*disclaimer: I am exhausted, i may be misinterpreting the spat you've got going on with hmoo right now.

 

[WildZoo]

You're that "That's what she said" friend, aren't you

Oh yes. Actually today one of my friends sent a message in our group text specifically to let me and my other gutter-minded friend know that she had made a "that's what she said" comment before she could stop herself. So proud

 

[Glammyre]

Okay. I'm not going to continue engaging you in a useless conversation about the minutiae of my vote. Here's the recap:

You said that my "reasoning" wasn't sound. I responded that I had outlined my thinking above, and that wasn't to your standards. Next, I went back through the thread to give you examples of what I would consider suspicious. Also, I explained that it's asinine to try to go by voting history two votes in without any real information (i.e., who did or did not vote for wolves). Further, I pointed out your attempt to plant a seed for a thinly veiled bandwagon against me (for no reason at all).

According to you, my rationale was not inventive enough for you. Now, I have to be the originator of the thoughts because, somehow, being in agreement about weird and obfuscating posts is not really "reasons." Don't forget to fail to mention my no vote for LoTF either.

It's glaring that no response I give to you will be satisfactory to you as you will just turn around to say, "butthurt...not contributing...wolfy..."

Perhaps I could clarify my complaints?

No one is trying to analyze based on who you voted for. We're analyzing the why.

I don't see hmoo's post as a bandwagon. She was calling attention to suspicious play, and used a lynch vote to ensure it wasn't lost in the crowd. It's not what I would have done, given I wanted to hear from LotF and didn't want to muddy the waters, but it's understandable to me.

Inventiveness doesn't just have to do with your lynch votes, either. Same advice as I gave to LotF - who are you suspicious of (surely it's more than just the person you lynched), who do you trust, and why? We just finished a lynch cycle, and we're all trying to figure each other out - this is a great time to get your full list of suspicions out.

 

[hazelmoo]

Okay. I'm not going to continue engaging you in a useless conversation about the minutiae of my vote. Here's the recap:

You said that my "reasoning" wasn't sound. I responded that I had outlined my thinking above, and that wasn't to your standards. Next, I went back through the thread to give you examples of what I would consider suspicious. Also, I explained that it's asinine to try to go by voting history two votes in without any real information (i.e., who did or did not vote for wolves). Further, I pointed out your attempt to plant a seed for a thinly veiled bandwagon against me (for no reason at all).

According to you, my rationale was not inventive enough for you. Now, I have to be the originator of the thoughts because, somehow, being in agreement about weird and obfuscating posts is not really "reasons." Don't forget to fail to mention my no vote for LoTF either.

It's glaring that no response I give to you will be satisfactory to you as you will just turn around to say, "butthurt...not contributing...wolfy..."

So, you're telling me that piggy backing on other people's reasons without adding one original thought to the thread is good villager play? I'm calling BS here - it doesn't matter how much real "info" you have, if you're paying the slightest bit of attention you should be able to at least vote based off of FEELS.
You not voting for LoTF means nothing to me - you could just as well be a wolf saying "look guys, I didn't vote for the vanilla villager so I must be a villager too!".
Even if you're not a wolf, I think my analysis of you has been 100% fair so far. If you don't like me being suspicious of you, maybe you should give me reason not to be.

Goodnight guys

 

[ddstothecor]

*raises hand*
As a wolf, I have a bad habit of ignoring my fellows, and of sounding like I'm trying to force a lynch. Both happened in Back to Basics 2, and were reasons why I was caught and dragged part of the wolf team down with me. Pippy caught onto me doing this during the lynch when I was trying to provoke LotF into answering my questions (and possibly fighting back). Sure, I couldn't think of anything she would say that would convince me it was better to unlynch her, but angry people are unpredictable, and it was possible that she could do something I hadn't thought of.

Yes, reasons are required for lynch votes. You are required to prove you can think independently. There's some leeway early, or when people are busy. Those people are usually consistent, however. You go from barely posting, to chastising people for not posting more, to suddenly posting veerry quickly when challenged. If you can respond that quickly when someone calls you out, why haven't you been posting more?

It's so much easier to learn when you're in a fight than when you have to follow one from outside. Your posts just make me happier to lynch you tomorrow

Okay. This is along the lines of damned if you do, damned if you don't. As you diver farther and farther down the hole, the shouts get louder and louder.

I understand that you see sarcasm (and humour), but it smacks of derision and defensiveness. However, the convenience of painting someone into a corner by insinuating that they don't post enough, and then all of a sudden, they post too much so they are a wolf is too simple. I'm not trying to "throw" a lynch. I don't have information to make a good decision so I go with what's posted on the thread; the very same information available to everyone. It's very easy to understand the under-the-radar mentality because everyone likes to magnify every part of the conversation into some kind of aha moment.

It's easy to play noob because every question can be disguised as innocence. Assignment of wolves is completely random - as is ability to werewolf regardless of experience or wisdom.

 

[Melchizedek]

Abilities will always be more valuable to wolves than vanillas. Even if it's a seer who's incorrect 98% of the time. They go crunch, crunch on the poor villager.
Well, seeing the high wolf win ratio, we take no chances. Would you reveal your ability (if you have one)?

Alright, noted. Wolves pretty much automatically go for someone who confirms they have an ability.

Contingency Lynch Cheezy

At this point you're voting to lynch me because of assumed sketchiness and incompatible playstyle. I don't think this is a logical vote.

 

[ddstothecor]

Perhaps I could clarify my complaints?

No one is trying to analyze based on who you voted for. We're analyzing the why.

I don't see hmoo's post as a bandwagon. She was calling attention to suspicious play, and used a lynch vote to ensure it wasn't lost in the crowd. It's not what I would have done, given I wanted to hear from LotF and didn't want to muddy the waters, but it's understandable to me.

Inventiveness doesn't just have to do with your lynch votes, either. Same advice as I gave to LotF - who are you suspicious of (surely it's more than just the person you lynched), who do you trust, and why? We just finished a lynch cycle, and we're all trying to figure each other out - this is a great time to get your full list of suspicions out.

You see. This is what makes me think you're trying to get me kilt:

8) No posting strategy between lynch/ night close and the posting of the write-up. Additionally, do not share night results before the write-up is posted

 

[Animal Midwife]

At this point you're voting to lynch me because of assumed sketchiness and incompatible playstyle. I don't think this is a logical vote.

When did I say your play style was incompatible? And my votes are always logical! I'm wonderful!

 

[PippyPony]

Alright, noted. Wolves pretty much automatically go for someone who confirms they have an ability.

*Claps*

And in case there is a question...just to clear things up, on the flipside of this -- village typically has some kind of protector role. Think about what this means for where and how that protection should be used*.

*Paging @WildZoo for innuendo on aisle 7

 

[ddstothecor]

So, you're telling me that piggy backing on other people's reasons without adding one original thought to the thread is good villager play? I'm calling BS here - it doesn't matter how much real "info" you have, if you're paying the slightest bit of attention you should be able to at least vote based off of FEELS.
You not voting for LoTF means nothing to me - you could just as well be a wolf saying "look guys, I didn't vote for the vanilla villager so I must be a villager too!".
Even if you're not a wolf, I think my analysis of you has been 100% fair so far. If you don't like me being suspicious of you, maybe you should give me reason not to be.

Goodnight guys

I'm okay with your suspicion. I take exception to you not giving any reasonable thought to the "FEELS" I do have (as explained again and again). Sarcasm is really impossible to resist for me. I really love your 100% fair analysis.

 

[WildZoo]

I think what I'm seeing with the hazel/dds argument is a lot of talking past each other and a lot of hazel not getting the tone that dds posts with- his "play the game" comment was obvious sarcasm to me, and probably to anyone who has interacted with him at all, especially anyone who has played WW with him and knows even a little bit about his play style.

On first read-through hazel posts look like tunneling, dds I'm not going to say I'm great at reading, but nothing stands out to me as overtly suspicious.

/sideline commentary