Doing this crayola style so I don't miss anyone:
13. Crayola– Not sure how to read her, she sure talks a lot. Didn’t like her saying paws was sketch for throwing shade her way, then she changed her vote to paws early in the game. Agreed with some of her reasoning so far, though her most recent list of sketchy players was useless since everyone was on it lol. Would rather have chatty players in the game though, so will be putting her on a backburner.
close though.
To be clear, it wasn't so much that StayP threw shade my way, but
why. When people point to typical play as a reason to lynch, I think it's bad logic. It could be villager bad logic, but it also could be a wolf trying to start a bandwagon. Because wolves know who wolves are, and they are generally just trying to get a villager lynched, it makes perfect sense to me that they might struggle to find great reasons to support lynching of villagers. So I watch for why someone is calling for a lynch.
In my limited experience, it's serious lapses in logic/judgement that reveals wolves a lot of the time. Sure, there will be a lot that they might say that makes a lot of sense and you agree with, but in those cases a misstep is all the more odd and deserves looking at.
The issue was that StayP was saying I was trying to be distracting like a wolf, when there was nothing about it that wasn't my typical village play (which they have seen) and the irony was that
they were the ones making posts not even related to the game (whereas I asked about a manator... which is related to the game).
Now do we see what bugged me? Ultimately she was acting in all village earnestness, but I didn't know that.
I have slight feels for Crayola. I was initially reading Cray as village, but some of her posts yesterday have me reevaluating her.
I want to read this post as just playful 'no one can be trusted' type thing, but the bolded line makes me think she meant it seriously - in which case, what? Listing every player and saying 'I could lynch any of these people!' without giving us real reads or analysis is not helpful, and does nothing to prevent tunneling.
This post was in response to Britzen's vote for Allieh. Cray mentions her list (which, again, is a list of every player in the game), but then questions Britzen about their vote. The question itself doesn't bother me. Mentioning the 'list of quiet players' as if it was more useful analysis than Britzen's stated reason (that Allieh had been quiet) does bother me.
It is a "playful" thing, but I think what people are missing, is that in a game this quiet, you still have to try to figure
something out. It happens all the time someone says, "so and so is too quiet" when they're at least somewhat fresh in your mind from putting up at least one or two damn posts, meanwhile you'll have another player who hasn't posted since day 1.
Let's face it, there's different levels/types of quiet. There's the thrown up vote right before deadline with no explanation from MJ while he posts elsewhere, and then STL's life excuses bit and SDN silence. There's veterans being quiet, and noobs.
In my mind, each presents a different level of wolf threat. I basically grouped people as best as I could, and I didn't point out that my list of all the live players was essentially ordered from most to least "sketch" in my mind. There isn't more in depth analysis because there aren't a lot of interactions.
I did say I could lynch any, but on the list was "Sketch for other reasons," which included 3 players that had interacted a lot on the thread. I think provided posts where I did an in depth analysis of their interactions (Ceke, StayP, britzen). Because they're the only ones really talking/interacting, it was very tempting to just analyze them and pick one of the 3 most likely to be a wolf (you can probably be forced to make that choice in any random grouping of a handful of posting players).
However, there are just too many quiet players. And for reasons explained, I found StayP sketch for a lapse in logic, and after that, I didn't see any reason to come off my vote. I tend to do that - I need a reason to stop finding sketch sketch or someone else higher priority, like new info on the first person, or more info on someone else.
Ceke I found to be doing typical village play, but a corner turned for me with her as I started to feel like what she said wasn't making sense, or at least was making less sense than usual, and no offense, I was finding her play
extremely distracting. And not, tons of long posts distracting. I mean because it was confusing to me. And now that we know she was a redirector, it makes all the more sense. Having been a redirector once, I can say it's not that easy a role to manage and if you don't use it with laser precision chaos can erupt.
As far as my questioning of Britzen and why the vote for allieh for being quiet, as I said before, Britzen was already on my sketch list for actual reasons and not just silence. So they were the one I was going to question more closely for their vote choices - even if we think I'm not using logic in my list/choices, that doesn't mean I don't want to know theirs. Seriously, why one quiet player over another? I actually did articulate what pattern of posting I found in each players - which is more than just picking one out of a hat. Maybe Britzen knows someone we don't about allieh. So my groupings may represent ignorance - but does her choice reflect something more? I think that's a legit question.
I think I will just make a list of the roster on paper (as I have done in the past) so that I can better keep the loads and loads of quiet players not actively reminding me of their presence by posting on the thread, fresh in mind, because I don't want to just tunnel on the people posting. That's why I said my list might help that.
I found Cyndia's post helpful, although long. Village needs to keep track of everyone and what we collectively think of them, especially in silent game where you're not getting tons of fresh info on each page from players.
I apologize for walls of text. I do try to put thought into the game, but it's hard for me to be concise.
