…or one hell of a bluffer, NAF1138.
Sure, but why would you make that bluff? If you were a mason, why run the risk of accidentally killing off a fellow mason?
Wow. So my earler read on Winston was correct. There is literally no good reason for a townie to lie and claim mason. None. It’s a zero-percentage play. The only possible benefit is the information gained from the lynch, but there’s less self-destructive ways to do that.
OTOH, I am confident that hocow is scum. The way he was defending Winston indicated that he wasn’t really reading the thread that closely, but was merely using the fact that he knew Winston was innocent (because he himself is scum) to be perceived as defending a townie.
I don’t think there IS much of a risk of that. As of now, the GA is *probably * protecting OAOW, and the townies aren’t going to vote **OAOW ** out, so perhaps **Cookies ** is making sure the wolves don’t target him as a possible Mason. Or something. Maybe. Who the hell knows…
Like I said, if it’s a bluff, it’s one hell of one…
/aside to the n00b:
ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies is female.
Hocow was not scum, just a regular townie. I am starting to think JGoddess is a wolf though.
Well, howcow is wolf chow.
One of her (?) last posts pointed the FOS at jsgoddess, madtheswine, and Richard Parker. I’m beginning to lean more toward jsgoddess as a wolf due to this.
Also, I would guess that there is only one wolf left. Having read up a bit on the game, 3 wolves would be about the maximum for a game of this size without tipping the odds too far away from the townies.
Am I the only one who sincerely doubts that OaOW is a Mason? The only reason we have for believing this is that no Masons stepped forward to accuse him of lying. I think that the other Masons have ample reason for not contradicting him, though, even if he is lying. If I were a Mason, the back-and-forth immediately following OaOW’s claim would have made me question the wisdom of stepping forward - enough confusing arguments and counter-arguments were put forth to make me think I should stay quiet, just to be on the safe side.
Also, I find MadtheSwine highly suspicious, if only because of his obvious role-playing.
Foo. Sorry, hocow, for doubting you. Well, I still think jsgoddess is is town, Wanderers is a mason.
Plankton worries me. He’s one of the leaders, but I’m not entirely comfortable with where his leadership always goes. If he’s scum, he’s savvy and very dangerous.
I would DEFINITELY have counterclaimed in such a situation… the arguments were confusing only because OaOW’s claim was a single data point in isolation.
The most confusing thing that could have come out of that counterclaim would be a full-fledged ‘will the real masons please stand up’ banjo duel, with a large number of werewolves counterclaiming, and probably one nutty townsperson getting in on the act. However, a few lynchings would sort it out, and that would lead to the exposure of a bunch of wolves. (Of course, the real masons would mostly get lunched, but that’s a small price to pay for victory. :D)
Actually, come to think of it, the one time when a counterclaim doesn’t make much sense is if the masons have filed OaOW under ‘nutty townsperson’ - just trying to save his own neck, much like our own Winston. In that case, no, it isn’t worth it to expose him, let the werewolves know that I’m a mason, and get OaOW lynched now when he’s currently a vote mostly on the side of the townspeople, if a somewhat loose one.
That’d be a dumb strategy for the Masons to follow. Only one Mason has to come out to contradict the claim: the townsfolk vote to lynch one of the two Masons. If they lynch the real Mason, that’s too bad, but the fake Mason gets strung up the very next day. The townies have numbers on their side. They can afford a sacrifice like that if it nets a wolf, but the wolves can’t. Plus, the strategic damage caused by allowing a werewolf to succesfully maskerade as a Mason would be considerable. Wanderers’ opinion already has extra weight, because it’s assumed he’s voting from a smaller pool of available suspects. A wolf who succesfully passed as a Mason would be able to steer opinion away from other wolves and onto legitimate townies. Plus, we’ve just seen what happened when Winston called Wanderers a liar two days after he made the claim: his lynching was damn near unanimous. If the Masons let a false role claim stand, what are they going to do when one of their own falls under the FOS? Nobody is going to believe them when they claim to be a Mason at that point.
But keep in mind that many (some?) of the players are inexperienced. Some people provided reasons to counterclaim, and some people provided reasons not to - and who knows which people on which side have honest motivations? Remember how everyone doubted JSexton’s “third on the bandwagon” rule? It’s hard for a newbie to guess how a given situation will tend to play out, and risky to trust other players’ analyses and predictions. (I see Miller’s post on preview, as well. I think you’re right, and I’ll admit that I’m a pretty poor strategist. That’s why I usually lose at Clue. But consider this: how do you know the real Masons aren’t poor strategists as well?)
This reminds me - do you think it’s cheating to post false recaps or analyses that misrepresent the facts? The only situation that has bordered on this, to my knowledge, was when Rubystreak called out Miller as the lurkiest lurker, when in fact he was not (although this was soon set straight).
I think too many people are over-thinking. People are not entirely rational and if the crux of an analysis depends on players being rational, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment. You need to allow for ignorance, emotion, miscalculation and stupidity.
I’m definitely looking for to playing in the next game. 
It’s possible, but it seems unlikely that all the Masons would be such poor strategists. I’m a newbie at this game, too, so it’s not like what I wrote it based on long experience or anything.
Considering that lying is pretty much the entire basis of the game, I’d say no, it wouldn’t be cheating.
Cheating? No, but it sure is stupid. Everyone has the same pool of information to work with, so a lie like that will eventually be caught. Posting intentionally false/contradictory info is basically what got Rubystreak strung up.
Lynch all liars, a townie has no reason to lie.
Nope, not cheating. If you can get away with, it can be a great tactic. If you can’t… you’d better have good excuses. 
I don’t know if this means anything or not, but I posted a response to a thread jsgoddess started, and she’s ignoring me. If you ask me, she’s still sore that I pegged her as a wolf.
I don’t know about that. Was anyone bothering to doublecheck dnooman’s stat posts? I sure wasn’t: that thread’s got twenty pages at this point. He could easily have been making the whole thing up, and I’d never have been the wiser.
Yeah, it’s mostly dnooman’s posts that have me thinking along these lines. Although lately there’s also been a lot of “So-and-so was the first to accuse so-and-so” that I’m wondering about.
As far as the Mason thing, you’re probably right. I’m very suspicious of OaOW based on the sum of his/her other behavior, though, so I guess all I’m sayin’ is that it’s possible.
I suppose you are right. With this many players it is a whole lot easier to get away with half truths. Once the thead hits 15 pages it is unlikely that someone will do a total re read looking to disprove the stats.
Still, its a risky play at best.