Oh look, she gets to talk about her friend again.
Bear in mind that I use the term “accuse” very broadly here…
Daphne analysis:
Day 1
*starts discussing testeriser, limited strategy
*Questioning - rexnervous, 122
*is accused by JC, 123, of hiding in plain sight - backs off in #131
*accuses Tel in a me too fashion, following Zeriel’s post
*Seeker votes to test Daphne based on little but a feeling
*post 200 by the late and innocent FS :
*Tel accuses Daphne, Daphne accuses Tel
*SoT&B claims a link between Daphne and November
*rexnervous says Daphne is creating dissension, #236. Zeriel disagrees, 254
Summary: a lot of suspicion being cast on Daphne with little basis, watched by overreaction on her part. Otherwise, a very helpful player, contributing to the strategy discussions.
Day 2
*me too vote on FS for defending Daphne
*rexnervous suggests a Daphne/FS link #473
*Daphne advocates testing FS, but says her suspicion of FS has been lessened 491
*points out bad strategy from Oredigger 499
*Oredigger makes lengthy accusation about Daphne, followed by a vote 599
Summary: a Day dominated by a heavy attack against FS, which turned out to be a mistake. Continued efforts to drive discussion, as well as defending against accusations
Day 3
*apologises for FS lynch
*starts accusing EH
*was voting for Tel, until the Seeker clusterfuck
*clusterfuck, clusterfuck, clusterfuck
*maintained the position to test Seeker, as he was saying “do not test me”
*Seeker had Daphne on his top 3 list of wolves 893
*post 931
*change of heart in 992, votes for EH over Seeker
Summary: clusterfuck of a Day. Seems to have behaved consistently. The only notable things are the EH accusations and the change of heart from definitely wanting to kill Seeker to deciding EH was a better target - but I myself had a similar reaction. It was, after all, a clusterfuck.
Day 4
*steps up attack on EH after EH votes for Daphne
*also steps up against Oredigger
Overall Summary: Highly consistent, highly vocal player, with surprisingly little fluff. All aspects of strategy have been discussed by her. Reactions range from reasoned to angry, but mostly in self defense.
Conclusion: inconclusive. There is nothing that says that a wlf couldn’t play like this, or that a wolf would. Loud scum is difficult to keep up without slipping, but not impossible. Makes a lot of good points, makes a few bad guesses, as to be expected from high volume poster. Opinions from the innocent players vary - Seeker mistrusted her, FS did not before the voting against her.
PRO TIP: (or at least something I just figured out)
Easy-ish way to review all posts by a single user. This is for Firefox, hopefully should be the same for other browsers
-
On Game Room Forum page, click the # in the “Replies” column. You should get a pop-up that lists each person in the thread and the number of posts they have made in thread
-
In the pop-up, click the # in the “Posts” column. Your main browser window should now reflect a list of ALL of the posts created by that user. Note it may be more than one page.
-
Simply right-click the headline that interests you and open in New Tab. (this is so you don’t lose the list itself). Hell, for fluiddruid, I have 20 tabs open at once.
Makes it easy to see the conversation that flows around any one person. And to easily see who and when they voted.
I’ll do my research a bit later. Please forgive me if it isn’t as in depth as some others. I have a busy day in class(I teach) today and I have to come back at night for some other stuff that is too boring to describe here. Let me take a quick minute to reply to Justin’s analysis of me.
I agree that I haven’t drawn a lot of attention. In fact, I’m surprised you didn’t note that this was discussed either toDay or yesterDay. I suppose it is from my laid back style or something.
By the way, I don’t talk about the testerizer a lot. At least, I don’t think I do. I’ve offered no analysis of how I think it works because I have no idea. In fact, I’ve supported forgetting about using it as a basis for lynching for a long time.
You seriously didn’t notice me much until you were asked to? A vast majority of my posts are not fluff(not including Night and questions to ped). I have accused people and I’ve even been the first to accuse people. I’ve asked questions to other players and analyzed their answers. I’ve been active a lot more than you.
I don’t know if you are trying to connect me and Daphne, but I just don’t see it. Both of us have been active players, but we haven’t been buddies or anything. I haven’t accused her and I don’t remember her accusing me, but for me, this is because I don’t suspect her right now. Congratulations to Daphne if she fooled me, but she’s not really on my suspect list. I’m not going to start accusing as a response to your analysis.
Now, that is a fluff post that serves no real point.
There are two flaws with this list.
One, you don’t define “midnight”. It is not acceptable in a game like this to assume everyone is in your timezone.
Secondly, why on earth would we trust you to assign people honestly? If you yourself are a Werewolf, you could “rig” the assignments so that two Werewolves check each other out. If you’re going to go random, then make each assignment fully random.
Finally, you have set up three reciprocal testing pairs. I could excuse you with Jimmy and I, since I know I’m town; but why should anyone else believe that? But I can’t know that both Elendil’s Heir and Fluiddruid are not both Werewolves, and neither can I know that about Zeriel and Justin Credible.
Consequently, I don’t think I can agree to do this, at least not as posted. It is fatally flawed. What we need to do is rework the list of reviews of low postcount players by other low postcount players.
The firing order of a straight 6 engine is 1 - 5 - 3 - 6 - 2 - 4. Starting with myself at 1 and working up would have myself reviewing Justin Credible, Justin considering Fluiddruid, Fluid casting her eye over Jimmy Chitwood, Jimmy analysing Zeriel, Zeriel reviewing Elendil’s Heir, and Elendil reading my posts.
Of course you have no reason to trust me either, but it’s objectively better to avoid the possibility of two people scratching each other’s backs isn’t it?
If that’s agreeable I’ll come by again in about 3 hours and start my readings.
As for the deadline, how about 4am Friday morning?
(That’s 4am GMT, of course).
How are “He advocated an incredibly bad play cloaked in what looks on paper like a decent play” and “He claimed to know something that I had not, to that point, revealed (and the last time that happened, he was scum)” equivalent to “personal grudge”?
Personally I don’t really care as long as people are talking.
fluiddruid review
(This is taking much longer than I thought…)
So I look at it in three ways, keep in mind I may have missed a couple things
-
What is he posting
-
Who is he in disputes/conversations with
-
Any voting patterns
**
Posting:**
Overall, a large amount of posts are what I would call “exposition” or “explanation” - not really fluff, but sound reasoning as to how the town and/or newbies should play the game without taking a real position against a single person. Examples: here, here, here, here.
There is little wrong with this per se, esp. as I think his positions make sense - but keep in mind that as an experienced player this could be a way to be a wolf but sound “townie”. In-depth explanations of gameplay mechanics with a bent towards town-friendliness, but playing it close-to-the-vest in terms of making arguments that could lead to slips.
On the flip side, it’s just an experienced yet cautiously restrained townie, who doesn’t believe in just letting accusations fly (as per his post here
Which leads to…conversations/accusations:
Contested Telcontar’s no-lynch theory here. (Note that **Tel **never did respond to **fluiddruid **either on this point)
Went after **Oredigger **a couple of times, hereand here
Has also contested w/ Daphne, hereand here
**Oredigger **and **Daphne **do seem to be the main focus of fluiddruid at this point, which is interesting in that all 3 are experienced players.
Votes:
Does not seem at all to be afraid to vote uniquely.
Was the only person to vote **MHaye **(playing as Lemur) Day 1.
1st or 2nd Freudian Slit vote Day 2.
2nd test vote **MHaye Day 3 (changed later due to the Seeker bombshell)
1st lynch vote/third test vote forOredigger **Day 4 (I believe it was).
From a voting perspective then, **fluiddruid **is not playing conservatively.
FINAL READ:
Can’t really tell, but I’m leaning town. A rational, careful, thoughtful set of postings but not afraid to call someone to the carpet and not afraid to vote early.
Back much later with **Telcontar **- but I’m not sure I’ll be able to do the same thing given Tel’s much higher post count and time running out.
Nice smudge! You will find that I have said pretty much what you said about Mahaloth a few Days back, though.
Review will come later, am busy for most of the afternoon.
Damn, I’ve missed a lot. Unfortunately today is pretty much crap for me but I’ll try to get my reviews done. Otherwise I won’t have a chance until tomorrow morning.
I just want to jump on board with MHaye’s objection. I understand the thinking behind it, but it would be a very manipulable mechanic. Even inadvertently, in the event that rexnervous had entirely townish motivation for suggesting it, but still assigned a configuration that worked out for the wolves, the wolves could 1. soften the accusations against their own and lean on the “objective” results of the research assignments, and 2. throw out accusations against lynchable town players, entirely free of the inherent danger in going after another individual, because after all, I’m only doing what I was assigned, like a good townie.
Now, it’s possible rexnervous is really, really, clever, and this was a giant trap with a specific pro-town scheme in mind that I just screwed up. It’s also possible that he’s not, and it isn’t.
That said, as long as we all keep this in mind, it’s not going to really hurt town for people to be reviewing posts. But I think it’s really important that we be mindful of the free passes this system can and will provide for wolves.
Also, there are two JCs, everyone.
I understand MHaye’s and your objection and think it’s perfectly valid. I didn’t even see the three cross-reviews when I put it together. In fact, there are probably other valid reasons for questioning this that no one’s thought of yet.
I will guarantee you that I am not really really clever. Not even really clever. My idea was exactly what it was - a brainstorm to get people to chat that I threw together on short notice with full knowledge of the very limited time we had prior to lynch vote.
I am heartened to see people at least trying - a full review can be time-consuming and we’re all busy IRL. Not even sure I can do **Telcontar ** fully.
I’m prepared to do a review of someone, provided that they’re not expected to review me. If the other low-count posters are prepared to switch who they’re covering (and may in some cases have already done) then I’m fine with the idea.
In fact, here’s the list of reviewers with my changes to the low count group worked in.Daphne: Mahaloth, MHaye
Maholoth: rexnervous, Zeriel
rexnervous: Telcontar, fluiddruid
Telcontar: Oredigger, Elendil’s Heir
Oredigger: Allwalker, Justin Credible
Allwalker: Jimmy Chitwood, DaphneBlack (sorry Allwalker, have to start back at the top)
Jimmy Chitwood: DaphneBlack, Zeriel
Justin Credible: Mahaloth, Fluiddruid
Elendil’s Heir: rexnervous, MHaye
fluiddruid: Telcontar, Jimmy Chitwood
Zeriel: Oredigger, Elendil’s Heir
MHaye: Allwalker, Justin CredibleThat eliminates the reciprocal evaluations, which is my main objections.
I’ll see if I can get them done tonight, but can’t promise to do them both.
Here is what I think of** rexnervous**. He hasn’t pinged my radar the entire game, and doesn’t now either.
-
I think he’s a townie because he has not done anything particularly scummy.
-
He focused on the testerizer early, but like most of us, has agreed with the diminished importance of us(we haven’t figured it out, so it’s distracting).
-
He’s maintained the Google Doc for us. It’s helpful, but nothing a wolf wouldn’t do to appear townish.
-
He suspects Telcontar. If his suspicion has changed recently, I haven’t seen it. I’m tired and have to get back to work soon(long day), so sorry if he has changed suspicions.
He’s similar to me, in some ways. From the re-read, he hasn’t been highly noticeable, though perhaps that’s just me.
My MHaye analysis:
Sense before re-read: leaning slightly town, lurkery.
Notable Lemur moments:
First bunch of posts are all focused on the testeriser mechanic. Argues against no lynch and continues to talk about testeriser. Discussion of random voting/test-lynch coupling. Comes out pro Lynch-the-lurker (186). Is first vote on november (192). Comes out against claiming before test (455).
490: defends non-reaction to fluiddruid vote as ‘I know my own role, but no one else does. I can expect to be thumped a few times like an underripe cantelope. Suspecting someone merely because they suspected you is a low percentage move.’ Points out wolves would have no reason to move momentum away from november.
MHaye takes over.
Notale MHaye moments:
First post asks if Telcontar had claimed rancher or farmer, as this may inform his vote.
Defends this by saying he preferred to test farmer, as rancher had been tested (we now know this was inaccurate). Theorises about the testeriser and votes for Freudian (one of the latest votes). States that he disagrees with Lemur on Lynch-the-Lurker policy.
756: ‘slip’ post. says Zeriel has claimed rancher
785: defense of his ‘slip’ as a mere brain fart. Second defence (839).
846: continues to push for testing a claimed farmer.
Interactions with Seeker. Points out that there are some times when keeping a wolf alive is the right idea, but not in this game. Argues against no-lynch, votes Seeker. Answers my question about why he’d be disappointed if Seeker was a rancher with the repeated idea that a farmer would be better for information. Says we should not nec. lynch the testee today.
1067: discussion on power roles.
1103: assert that Zeriel has misrep’d his ‘slip’ from previously. votes to test Zeriel.
1106: clarifies the vote is due to a false assertion.
1154: unvotes Z to avoid a tie. says T ignores cases against him.
1160: defends his choice to unvote to avoid a tie.
Last posts: pointing out flaws in the lists.
Impressions:
The ‘slip’ does not seem so weird and is certainly possible to have been just as MHaye claims; others have been slightly confused on roles as well. However, it is interesting in the context of being so concerned about getting a balance on the test results, which looks like a concern that is not very important now. Focusing on the testeriser is not nec. scummy, but its not the most pro-town thing either. Lemur’s contribution does seem a bit scummy in retrospect; he too was heavily concerned with the testeriser. Fluid’s vote seems reasonable for day One; his reaction is logical and dispassionate.
MHaye’s playstyle is very similar to other games I’ve seen him in; his late vote on Freudian is not terribly helpful. The contretemps with Zeriel is confusing and I said at the time seemed town-on-town. Could be. holding vote in reserve to avoid a tie perhaps slightly anti-town from a record perspective if not a strategy one.
Summary:
Inconclusive; leaning slightly anti-town in focus and playstyle. Lurker. Nothing outright scummy (except the ‘slip’, which could go either way) and nothing hugely pro-town stands out.
Here is what I have observed and think about Zeriel.
-
He initially suspected Elendil and was against the “no-vote”. He has also voted for Telcontar(but switched to november when most of us did).
-
Zeriel claims to be a investigator. He has the ability to discern one players rancher/farmer status and claims that Pedescribe told him that wolves have a rancher/farmer status as well. I asked him about this recently and he confirmed that Ped’s pm to him stated this.
-
Zeriel has not told us who he has asked Ped about regarding rancher/farmer status. He has claimed that the information is not relevant yet. I’m not sure why he won’t just tell us who he has asked about.
I wish Zeriel would explain his motivations for not sharing the names of who he has learned about. I think it is wise, if he is a cop, to not say anything about the results until later.
He has been against Telcontar and since both he and I suspect Telcontar most, I tend to lean toward him being a townie.
I wasn’t necessarily accusing you of anything, just looking at your posts and trying to determine what, if anything, is scummy about them.
It was probably just a slip, as he claimed. Just because he was scum in a previous game doesn’t mean he is in this one. Of course, he might be. So might you. Maybe the two of you agreed to go after each other, so that if one of you is caught, the other can be looked upon as innocent. I’m just trying to consider all possible angles here.
My Mahaloth analysis will be of necessity somewhat less detailed than that of MHaye. It will also be slightly late as I am occupied for the next few hours.
Folks, just checking in that I have been working on Telcontar’s and EH’s (I can probably do Jimmy Chitwood at some point as well from the second list, but I started with these) summaries, but I don’t know if they’ll be in tonight as it’s getting late where I am. I’ll try to get back to it when I get back in the office if I can’t finish it tonight.
I actually just finished work myself and it’s past 11 here, not sure when exactly I’ll get to Tel’s but I’ll get something done by tomorrow a.m.
However, let’s not forget we have a lynch vote due at noon tomorrow, and I hope this idea hasn’t sidetracked us to the point we don’t put out votes.
There are some outstanding, but is that the way we want to go.
Even w/o doing Tel’s review, I am not sure I want to lynch him this week, and he’s the leading vote getting last I saw. I feel the **GREEN **on his testerizer score signifies a townie.
Do we want to use this week to no-lynch?