Mini #597 - Swift speed: Werewolves (Game over)

[Johoohno]

Vote count

(9 players alive = 5 to lynch before deadline)
(1) killa seven – Jenter Bronlincani
(1) Jenter Brolincani – Korts

(1) No lynch – Grimmy

Not voting:

donkeyz12212, killa seven, Shy Guy, SleepyPanda, water_foul, Xanatos Roulette

Deadline:

Sunday 25 May 6:00 AM (GMT -5 according to forum clock)

[Jenter Brolincani]

I never thought you were clammy's partner becuase as far as I could make out the linking of you and clammy was him linking to you, it was one-way, he was making a scummy move and you were not.

As for Shy Guy, I hardly think agreeing with someone counts as buddying - I haven't defended him, just said his points make sense...

I answered Mr Blonde's points when he posted them, and her replied as follows;

Okay, I realize that we both were meaning the same thing, and I got stuck in the word "change". This is fine.

and unvoted me. He found my counter argument was fine and did not press me any further, so you can't really say he was suspicious of me close to his death.

More to come...

[donkeyz12212]

I think its WIFOM to assume that just because Mr. Blonde was suspicious of Jenter, that he was killed as a result.

We don't know if Mr. Blonde was killed BECAUSE he suspected Jenter or if he was to frame Jenter. What we can do is simply note who he suspected.

What Korts point out is simply a matter of fence sitting I think by Jenter. He doesn't overly push for anyone's lynch, just gives out one liners with really no concrete evidence. I wouldn't mind favoring a Jenter lynch but I want to give him the chance to respond.

Jenter

How do you feel about the case brought against you by Korts? Don't you think you are fence sitting a bit or not being analytical enough?


I also like to hear from others. It's been a slow day guys. The vote is due tomorrow morning!

[Jenter Brolincani]

lol, simulpost.

[Jenter Brolincani]

I have pushed for people's lynches and I have given evidence when I have voted. I may not have been aggressive enough previously, but I think my case on Killa Seven is good.

[Korts]

I have pushed for people's lynches and I have given evidence when I have voted. I may not have been aggressive enough previously, but I think my case on Killa Seven is good.

The only problem with the case against killa is that most of the points can be countered by bringing meta into the picture, because I have seen killa act this way before. This doesn't rule out the possibility of him being scum, but I can give you a link to a game where he was lynched for a similar attitude. Concentrate on Day 3.

[Jenter Brolincani]

Ok, thanks. I don't normally have time to meta people in games, so I hadn't seen that...

The trouble is, if he acts this way whatever, how are we to know if he's town or scum? I'll keep my vote on for now, if only to see if we can't get him to leave or play properly.

Korts, what do you think of my counter-argumetns to your case?

[Korts]

As for Shy Guy, I hardly think agreeing with someone counts as buddying - I haven't defended him, just said his points make sense...

I only said it might be indicative of a connection. However, this is the weakest point in my case.

I never thought you were clammy's partner becuase as far as I could make out the linking of you and clammy was him linking to you, it was one-way, he was making a scummy move and you were not.

This supposition excludes the possibility of me being smart scum and realizing clammy's clumsy way of defending me, thus pointing it out before anyone else can. If you were wary town, just the possibility, however remote, of a connection should have been enough to FoS me. I know it looks like I'm arguing against myself, but the point is, if you didn't have a personal agenda differing from the town's, you would have had no reason not to FoS me.

I answered Mr Blonde's points when he posted them, and her replied as follows;
Okay, I realize that we both were meaning the same thing, and I got stuck in the word "change". This is fine. and unvoted me. He found my counter argument was fine and did not press me any further, so you can't really say he was suspicious of me close to his death.

Agreed. But still, the most serious of Mr Blonde's suspicions was still you, compared to the other two which were basically only for lurking. This is also a pretty weak point, though.

[SleepyPanda]

Shy Guy-

post 0: random vote winter, no reason, not too big a deal. additional gameplay strat about not letting wagons of 3 lynch at deadline.

post 1: votes chaos for his random vote being "less random". interesting as sg himself doesn't give reason for his vote. fos korts as possible scum buddy.

post 2: vote clammy for defending korts, wagoning phoebus. first to vote clammy.

post 3: irrelavant/nothing suspicious

post 4: donkey says winter play is newbish, sg says he's been around for 2-3 years, fos on winter. why no fos on donkey for defending winter? possible sg-donkey connection.

post 5: continues to fos winter, asks why he jumps on clammy wagon. asks clammy who he finds suspicious. if sg was scum, he could be directing questions to clammy knowing well that he is townie. he also is only asking who he finds suspicious so when clammy turns up town, he can go after those people. (clammy doesn't answer before lynch)

post 6: irrelavant/nothing suspicious

post 7: sg saying he's very disappointed with clammy lynch. says he had questions for clammy to answer. says donkey's hammer was bad play, not scum play. again, hinting towards sg-donkey connection. says donkey's hammer allowed scum not to get nk in. however, seeing as how we had a doctor, i think this point is moot. sg-donkey connection. says he finds water+blonde more town for their near-end votes, again moot because we had doctor. possible buddying towards two townies? first to vote phoebus, for voting donkey. sg-donkey connection. says donkey is MOST town. solely because of hammering clammy/no night kill. again, doctor makes it invalid. sg-donkey connection.

post 8: further trying to explain why donkey is townie for hammer/no nk. makes assumption that scum command got blocked, but not very likely.

post 9: says there's possibility of a power role but simplest explanation is scum caught offguard with donkey's hammer. continues pushing donkey's innocence.

post 10: says followers are needed. i don't agree. people should make up their own minds regardless. don't mindlessly follow unless you agree with that person's argument yourself. continues to go on he doesn't see the reason for grimmy votes. points out reasons why he finds phoebus suspicious. combined with earlier statements for need of followers, possibly trying to start lynch wagon? his statement for need of followers contradicts his statement in his first post, to not let wagons of 3 lynch at deadline. now you're saying followers are good? says he encourages phoebus to be lynched today.

post 11: says phoebus' case against korts weak. asks if he supports grimmy wagon. why does he ask this when he suspects phoebus? if he thinks phoebus is scum, then why would he ask for his support on another wagon? perhaps trying to gain his trust so they can vote same person (as we can see later, phoebus ALSO jumps on the grimmy wagon, for the sole purpose of survival so if this was what sg was trying to do, it worked). says he re-read grimmy, doesn't think agreeing once is scum-tell. says grimmy avoids responsibility by following, which is suspicious. but in your previous post, you said followers are necessary. contradiction.

post 12: says phoebus' suspicions against jenter not bad. says for him to move his vote on phoebus, he needs 3 questions answered. 1) asks if he supports grimmy wagon (continuing to try and recruit people onto grimmy wagon). makes reference to grimmy/jenter's playstyles (phoebus finds jenter suspicious, sg says jenter's playstyle=grimmy's playstyle, jenter vote=grimmy vote?) 2)asks phoebus (who's top suspects were korts, jenter, donkey) 3) question about what phoebus thinks of his reasoning of donkey. again, he's only focusing on people that find donkey suspicious and at the same time, trying to gather people on his side asking them if they agree with his reasoning. (phoebus has already at this point unvoted donkey and says he could believe sg's theory.)

post 13: now i think this is the most suspicious post he has made, and assuming he is scum, his connection to donkey, and phoebus' consequently saying he finds donkey in the clear, he takes his vote off phoebus and places it on grimmy. phoebus saying he no longer finds donkey suspicious means that they both him and his scum partner, donkey, are in the clear. this would explain why he unvotes phoebus, then goes on to vote grimmy. as many has found this move to have been HIGHLY suspicious and his reasons for doing so to be very weak. but if assuming he is scum and donkey is his partner, it would make a very GOOD reason to vote grimmy as he has a townie on his side now.

post 14: says he cannot decide who is more suspicious, grimmy or phoebus. but since all this time, he has been asking phoebus if he supports a grimmy wagon, i don't buy it. if he even found phoebus SLIGHTLY suspicious, he wouldn't be taking the word of a scum and asking him to form a wagon on grimmy.

post 15: says he is not going to change vote, which is obvious. says phoebus has less chance to be scum than grimmy. continues siding with phoebus. his blatant "i am not scum, i don't know why you would think that" statement.

post 16: tries to explain WHY he changed his vote completely off phoebus on to grimmy. says if phoebus turned scum, then he would be suspicious changing his mind after leading charge on him. i think this was why it was such a good scum move. he KNEW phoebus was town. whether phoebus or grimmy is lynched, HE is in the clear. now he goes on to say "I don't really think Grimmy is that likely to be scum." <<<WHAT? he's now trying to completely side with grimmy after urging people to vote grimmy. HUGE CONTRADICTION IN HIS PLAY. now directs suspicion onto korts. "I find Korts fairly suspicious, both for his ill founded reasons for finding me suspicious just now, and his play as a whole; in part I unvoted Phoebus because I agreed with him about Korts." <<<Again, WHAT??? re-read earlier posts, he comes out and says he finds the case against korts unfounded. through day 1 and 2, he has agreed with phoebus' case against korts to be unfounded. now somehow he agrees with him out of the blue? he continues on to point fingers at all the lurker. real helpful.

i know this is somewhat of a lengthy post, but please read it thoroughly as i believe this make total sense for his actions. his complete 180 of defending grimmy, saying this game needs followers, grimmy's SINGLE action alone is not worth lynching, then after he recruits phoebus' vote and confidence, he goes on to switch his vote to grimmy, completely ignoring everything he has said up to this point. i have no idea how you're going to defend his shy guy, because it seems very clear to me that you are without a doubt, scum.

unvote
vote Shy Guy

[SleepyPanda]

There's probably a couple spelling/grammar errors in there as I did very little editing, but for the most part, it should be understandable.

[SleepyPanda]

You can also discount his FOS against people and the like in his earlier posts (posts 1-5) as at the time, I was just summarizing his actions. The good stuff near the middle-end.

[SleepyPanda]

Oh god, 4 posts in a row. Sorry. >_<

If Shy Guy turns up scum, his most obvious connection was to donkey. I also saw hint of connections with water and Xanatos. So if possible, I'd like donkey, water and Xanatos to respond to my post as well.

[SleepyPanda]

Here's a recap of that huge post in case you don't want to read it. Probably better as you can respond to it easier and the thoughts are more organized.

Main points of Shy Guy being scum:
1) Starts with saying be careful of lynches in 3 at deadline. Goes on to saying we need followers later in game.
2) STRONGLY defending donkey through out game (donkey's hammer of clammy, will reference more in later points)
3) Starts off encouraging lynch of Phoebus(post 10), then asking for scum's opinion (if we were to assume SG felt Phoebus was scum) on lynching Grimmy and also whether he found donkey to be innocent (donkey defense).
4) When Phoebus said he agreed donkey could be innocent, SG switches his vote off Phoebus onto Grimmy (donkey defense).
5) Says he doesn't find Grimmy's single action to be worth lynching --and doesn't know why everyone else is voting him-- (post 10). Then going on to vote Grimmy in the end (post 13).
6) After Phoebus is lynched, he says he didn't find Grimmy likely to be scum (Contradiction as he has been voting Grimmy).
7)Not agreeing with Phoebus' case against Korts at all in the beginning(post 11) to saying he agrees with it (post 16).

There's a continuing of pointing fingers at other people's top suspects to sway their vote to his side and somehow always doing a 180 on the exact same point he was making(finds Korts suspicious/doesn't find Kort suspicious, finds Phoebus more suspicious/defends Phoebus, Grimmy not suspect/Grimmy top suspect).

I won't be the next to post after this one. Honest!

[Jenter Brolincani]

Ho hum, good post with good points.

I want to see Shy Guy reply before I consider changing my vote though.

[Korts]

post 10: says followers are needed. i don't agree. people should make up their own minds regardless. don't mindlessly follow unless you agree with that person's argument yourself. continues to go on he doesn't see the reason for grimmy votes. points out reasons why he finds phoebus suspicious. combined with earlier statements for need of followers, possibly trying to start lynch wagon? his statement for need of followers contradicts his statement in his first post, to not let wagons of 3 lynch at deadline. now you're saying followers are good? says he encourages phoebus to be lynched today.

It's a bit of a reach, calling this a contradiction. After all, wanting of big wagons and wanting followers aren't directly connected. After all, to have big wagons, it might be justified to agree to having followers.

asks if he supports grimmy wagon. why does he ask this when he suspects phoebus? if he thinks phoebus is scum, then why would he ask for his support on another wagon?

This is a strong point against SG.

says he re-read grimmy, doesn't think agreeing once is scum-tell. says grimmy avoids responsibility by following, which is suspicious. but in your previous post, you said followers are necessary. contradiction.

This is a reasonable point, too.

phoebus finds jenter suspicious, sg says jenter's playstyle=grimmy's playstyle, jenter vote=grimmy vote?

I don't understand this. Could you clarify?

post 13: now i think this is the most suspicious post he has made, and assuming he is scum, his connection to donkey, and phoebus' consequently saying he finds donkey in the clear, he takes his vote off phoebus and places it on grimmy. phoebus saying he no longer finds donkey suspicious means that they both him and his scum partner, donkey, are in the clear. this would explain why he unvotes phoebus, then goes on to vote grimmy. as many has found this move to have been HIGHLY suspicious and his reasons for doing so to be very weak. but if assuming he is scum and donkey is his partner, it would make a very GOOD reason to vote grimmy as he has a townie on his side now.

Again, a bit of reaching.

I agree with you that post 16 contains a lot of contradictions with his earlier posts, the most damning of which is his change of opinion (and trying to change history) regarding Phoebus' case on me.

While I'm not 100% in agreement with your whole case, you make fair observations and have some pretty damning points against SG. All in all a much stronger case than the one against Jenter.

Vote: Shy Guy

[Korts]

Gah.

unvote, vote: Shy Guy

[Jenter Brolincani]

People need to decide on votes now, we really don't want to have to get a randomised lynch.

[Korts]

Actually, if it stays this way, SG will be lynched, since he has two votes.

[Jenter Brolincani]

Actually, considering the deadline

unvote, vote Shy Guy

since SG might not post before deadline anyway and it is indeed a good case.

[Jenter Brolincani]

Korts; Yes, I wrote that before you voted, then posted it later beofre I saw you had posted. Before that, it would ave been random between SG, myself, Killa and No Lynch.

[Korts]

K. It's not like I could've made a case out of it.

[SleepyPanda]

quot;]
phoebus finds jenter suspicious, sg says jenter's playstyle=grimmy's playstyle, jenter vote=grimmy vote?

Mmm, it wasn't too big of a point to focus on. It was to point out how Phoebus found Jenter's playstyle suspicious and SG going on to say how Grimmy's playstyle is not unlike Jenter's to validate his vote against Grimmy. Basically trying to convince Phoebus that voting Grimmy is as vaid as voting for Jenter.

[SleepyPanda]

valid*

[Korts]

1) Do you support a Grimmy wagon? How is Grimmy's play similar or different from Jenter's?

Is this what you're referencing, SP? Cos I don't really think SG was comparing grimmy's play to Jenter's, he was asking Phoebus to do that. Though now you mention it, I don't see how this comparison would have been anywhere near relevant in that debate.

[SleepyPanda]

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. I don't know, I just felt that that statement, SG was trying to convince Phoebus that voting Grimmy wouldn't be a bad choice.