-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hmm. I would prefer a more even field, guys. Personally, I think we have a few too many al-Aziz voters currently. I don't want a bandwagon when we have viable alternate candidates. (MC)
You are not concerned by the lack of communication and speed to swing up these two?
[video=youtube;KNZSXnrbs_k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNZSXnrbs_k[/video]
Because communication is key to the village winning.
So you don't want the village winning then?
Am I wrong in assuming Aziz was jumping ahead by 2-3 votes when I commented.
On that note...vote count plz.
Al-Aziz jumping up like that doesn't necessarily mean wolves are driving her up. The case on her is pretty good, and the lack of a counter effort could be attributed to her packmates not being on, or even MC being one of her packmates and the other wolf is driving her up to save MC. And there's you who's calling her lynch into question after a little suspicious activity. I still think our best bet for today is a tie between Al-Aziz and Madchemist. Votecount would be nice for organizing that.
I agree that Aziz looks suspicious; furthermore remember that Livingstone was asked by MC to make that snipe. Livingstone said so in IRC yesterday and MC didn't deny it.
You agree with your own case? Well that is really surpricing.
Which warning? And yesterday you said you made that snipe because MC asked you to.
Like me MC indeed advocates voting who one finds suspicious and not just keep it close.
I on the other hand find it suspicious how MC most of last evening tried to first have Panzer removed from danger and then he adamantly wanted a TIE; we were some players who didn't necessarily see the good idea in it, but MC wanted it. That doesn't need to be suspicious though.
However, not only does MC find old self suspicious, he also appears to be finding PC less suspicious. He makes sure to qualify his statement, but doesn't it seem like he's trying to influence votes off of Panzer? Not incriminating in and of itself, but keep this in mind.
Oh, looky here. After doubts are raised about former self's confidence level, MC decides that former self is a good TIEing candidate. If former self is TIEd with PC, PC can potentially snipe himself out of a TIE. as well, if MC is a wolf, and he knows that PC is a wolf, this is a subtle way of getting rid of another villager. To top it off, because he's suggesting a TIE, if PC does die, he can claim partial credit for it.
Former self, you have been vindicated. Rejoice in the discovery of your righteousness, and embrace it in the after-life.
By the way, at this point I'd like to have y'all take a look at the last line of my sig. Does it not seem ever the more truthful given our recent circumstances?
Here we have him urging others to vote a villager! (Okay, maybe a little biased.) In reality, however, this is consistent with his course of action that he declared earlier.
What the actual WHAT? *Ahem* Moving on.
And he doesn't know if we got a wolf, but would prefer to see if we pulled off a TIE. (Okay, I'll stop with the BS "evidence" now.
After this, I don't have much on him.
BUT, what do we have on him? Vote and behavior analysis in Werewolf is going back through the thread and analyzing the information that we have gained through bloody combat with the wolf menace. Using this data, principally that I was (and am, before anybody screams crovax) a villager, and that Panzer Commader was a wolf, we see that Panzer is the first player to outright suggest a TIE between MC and anybody else. He suggested putting former self up in a TIE with PC after former self made an unqualified statement. He was the largest supporter (sub EURO, who was being characteristic here, but whom I haven't forgotten) of lynching former self, and the closest to suggesting not lynching Panzer. He clashed with former self, who turned out to be a villager. Given this circumstantial evidence, which we must rely on with a lack of hard evidence provided by the Seer, MadChemist, though not necessarily an assured wolf, is our best candidate. He is the right candidate.And he even killed me jus...*Cough* *Cough*. I mean... He was vehement in his support of all things not Villager! Yeah! For justice!
And now you made Aziz 2 up.
Though you realise it and make a TIE.
2--4.
I also think that Dadarian voting Aziz 2 up isn't suspicious; especially not since he almost immediately switched to MC; and a TIE sounds interesting, since I think both Aziz and MC are suspicious. Both of them for being reluctant to run Panzer up; MC perhaps the most, since he appears to first have tried to save Panzer by having somebody else run up, then when seeing that won't happen orchestrate a TIE which he asks Livingstone to break.
Count:
al-Aziz: 3
aedan777 [308]
Arkasas [336]
EUROO7 [310 Leondark -> 317 Rovsea -> 340]
madchemist: 3
2kNikk [309]
Rovsea [334]
Dadarian [342 al-Aziz -> 345]
Wagonlitz: 1
Wagonlitz [359]
Not voted: 5
madchemist []
al-Aziz []
Dr.Livingstone []
Panzer Commader []
Leondark []
Vote Wagonlitz
to maintain the TIE.
al-Aziz: 3
aedan777 [308]
Arkasas [336]
EUROO7 [310 Leondark -> 317 Rovsea -> 340]
madchemist: 3
2kNikk [309]
Rovsea [334]
Dadarian [342 al-Aziz -> 345]
Wagonlitz: 1
Wagonlitz [359]
Not voted: 5
madchemist []
al-Aziz []
Dr.Livingstone []
Panzer Commader []
Leondark []
Vote Wagonlitz
to maintain the TIE.
You're right, I wouldn't stick my neck out for a packmate who was already certain to die.
Then speak up and explain it. There is a case to be built against me by my votes, but don't be lazy and actually make it.
Yeah, like this.
All right, here's my full explanation for the events of yesterday. I have no defense save for the truth. Let us begin.
I do advocate voting on whom I believe is suspicious. And I was confident that Panzer already had ample votes to be killed without my help. You may recall that I wanted a TIE from the beginning, as I believe that without a seer, it maximizes our information to eliminate as many suspects as soon as possible.
I was rather surprised that OldRovsea were so vehemently opposed to a tie. It made no sense to me, and honestly, it still makes no sense. And that got me thinking that he was a wolf, and that one of the secondary candidates a not improbable wolf as well. Hence my lingering doubts about Panzer, and my increasing suspicion about the player(s) who wanted to kill him alone.
I am reluctant to continue this, as it gives some insight into my playstyle that may help people actually identify me when I am a wolf. But I'd like to survive this game as a villager, so I will do so.
As a villager without any information, my fatal flaw is indecisiveness. I may make a good or very good case and then begin to doubt it because some other vague suspicion catches my eye. On the contrary, as a wolf or as a villager in the JL, I know exactly whom I do not want dead, and I often have a very good idea of whom I do want dead. Oftentimes, as a wolf, that includes wanting my own packmates dead, especially if I feel that they are being overly stupid and suspicious. As a wolf in this game, I would want Panzer to be killed, in such a way that I get credit for killing him. Panzer's death was all but certain, and I have never been one to squander my long-term survival for a stupid short-term gain that would ultimately end up taking down two wolves instead of one. As a wolf, I rarely save packmates, and in particular, I never save packmates who, in my estimation, do not deserve saving. I can say with some confidence that Panzer would have had my vote, quite possibly much earlier, had I been in his pack (or I might have kept him in line and prevented him from acting like an idiot in the first place).
No, what you see here is the honest doubt of a villager, who made an error in judgment yesterday. My behavior is entirely consistent with such uncertainty. I submit the above to your judgment, and I hope that you will realize that I am correct in this.