.png){kind=avatar}
How is that any different from the Audren-Yakman mess, where you consider both to be villagers?
-
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.
How is that any different from the Audren-Yakman mess, where you consider both to be villagers?
Definitely Aedan's cases this game seem absolutely off. Now that I think Aziz is a likely villager and knowing that I'm a villager this new case he made seems the straw that broke the camel's back. So...
Unvote Aziz
Vote Aedan.
Unvote Aziz
Vote Aedan.
Hmm, whilst I am still somewhat adequate I believe that Audren is largely right on his views about checking those who are flying low. As such I'll add another possibility to the list
VOTE YAHMIK
VOTE YAHMIK
Yes, those are reasons. Both of you have been making actions that I find suspicious in your interactions with each other. Al-Aziz pushed the case on you past a reasonable point,, while you made actions I don't think a goodie would make.
Because I expect random nonsense from Yakman, and you didn't actually do anything suspicious to warrant his insanity. Moreover Yakman contacting three random people before going to the thread is not a baddie move. The situation is quite different here with Al-Aziz and De Chatillon.
You're an idiot and I'm sick of people constantly repeating this nonsense about my cases being off this game when they're not. But repeat a lie long enough and people start to believe it, I suppose.
Honestly I'd much rather have Cliges lynched today than Aedan. Part of my suspicion of him is his defense of Cliges, whom I believe to be a wolf. If I am correct, it casts Aedan's actions in a harsher light, while if I'm wrong it goes a long way towards giving him a bit more credibility in my eyes.
Which of your cases have been right? Besides Jackson on Day 1 (which does make you a less likely Red, but as you say yourself, we shouldn't be focusing on them anyway), have you helped in any move against a baddie? Spockyt was a goodie, Health is an unknown, Gorganslayer was a goodie (and your reasoning was that he had contributed nothing, which is just like k-59 and tamius), you advocate Lemeard's death without actually voting him, and Livingstone is an unknown. Yeah, I get that a wrong case isn't necessarily a bad case, but you haven't been right all game! In that light, you can't really claim that accusations of "being off" aren't valid. And you still haven't really outlined what makes al-Aziz v. De Chat different from Audren v. Yakman.
UNVOTE K-59
VOTE AEDAN
Votecount (~2.75 hours to deadline)
aedan: 2
De Chat [1449 Aziz -> 1482]
Audren [1448 Cliges -> 1465 k-59 -> 1486]
Cliges: 2
Aziz [1458]
Dr.Livingstone [1464]
al-Aziz: 1
aedan [1473]
Audren: 1
Yakman [1468]
Yahmik: 1
Health [1483]
Not Voted: 5
@Cliges
@Gen. Marshall
@k-59
@tamius23
@Yahmik
aedan: 2
De Chat [1449 Aziz -> 1482]
Audren [1448 Cliges -> 1465 k-59 -> 1486]
Cliges: 2
Aziz [1458]
Dr.Livingstone [1464]
al-Aziz: 1
aedan [1473]
Audren: 1
Yakman [1468]
Yahmik: 1
Health [1483]
Not Voted: 5
@Cliges
@Gen. Marshall
@k-59
@tamius23
@Yahmik
I did clearly outline how Al-Aziz/DeChatillon is different from Audren/Yakman. Right on this page. How blind are you?
And you might say that you get that wrong cases aren't the same as bad cases, but actually give a reason why any of my cases were bad. People have been claiming they are bad for days, but whenever I press them to give any evidence they disappear. And your point about my vote against gorganslayer being for CAWZ while I'm not voting CAWZ now is absolutely silly. Gorgan was a villager, so I'm less inclined to suspect that CAWZ is a necessarily wolfish action. Plus, the case I'm interested in right now, Al-Aziz/De Chatillon, didn't exist then.
And I advocated tying Lemeard with Gorganslayer, which is what happened. Makes little difference overall, but your wording seems to imply I avoided voting Lemeard for no reason, when in actuality I had no reason to switch because my desired result came about anyways.
Oh, right, this game.
k-59 seems to be not only inactive, but also rather unwilling to present cases of his own. I had him pegged as suspect along with Lemeard in one of my earlier analyses, and he hasn't changed his behaviour, so he seems a more than adequate candidate.
Vote k-59
k-59 seems to be not only inactive, but also rather unwilling to present cases of his own. I had him pegged as suspect along with Lemeard in one of my earlier analyses, and he hasn't changed his behaviour, so he seems a more than adequate candidate.
Vote k-59
You're always insulting when you're a baddie so that's nothing for me. By the other way you're all the game complaining about how people didn't follow your cases. You made a case against Spockyt and was wrong. you made a case against Gorgan and against Tornadoli both wrong as well. Your case against Aziz and me probably is wrong as well and in fact your reasoning for that is stupid being generous. As far as I know you didn't make any good case this game so your complainings about how people aren't following you has no sense at all. Commentaries about how your cases are wrong and absolutely stupids this game are well deserve so my vote remains on you.
Your explanations for al-Aziz and De Chat are vague at best. "You made actions I don't think a goodie would make," what the hell does that mean? "push a case past a reasonable point?" How has Yakman not done the same thing? You haven't provided any concrete information on this. You don't even seem to care which one of them get lynched.
You don't give any insight as to which one you think is more likely to be a wolf, and the only reason you vote al-Aziz over De Chat is because al-Aziz is more likely to be lynched. That's why this is a bad case; you don't have any analysis as to which one would be a more likely baddie, just a vague explanation of their "suspicious" actions and then a strategic vote that's likely to get them killed.
I'm insulting whenever people deserve to be insulted, regardless of my role. And people didn't follow my case against Spockyt first time around, they didn't follow my case against Health, and they didn't follow my case against Dr.Livingstone. And my complaints have been less about people not follow my cases and more about how everyone just ignores them and never gives any commentary or thoughts about them. And once again you make up vague and unsupported claims about my reasoning being wrong.
"Actions I don't think a goodie would make" - means pming another player who's gunning for you and revealing your role. I've explained this repeatedly. And the reason I find Al-Aziz pushing the case against De chatillon over his interactions with Ironhide past a reasonable point as suspicious where Yakman's wasn't is because I hold Al-Aziz to a higher standard, as I have previously explained. "Haven't provided concrete information" is meaningless when I've give clear reasoning based on the information available. As for me not caring about which gets lynched, that's partially due to both of them acting suspicious, and making actions I wouldn't expect them to perform as goodies. I don't give any insight into which I think is more likely because I don't know which is. That doesn't mean I should ignore the issue or go after a worse candidate though. I voted Al-Aziz when she had an extra vote because having a candidate I consider suspicious lynched is better than having a candidate I do not consider suspicious lynched (Cliges). I've previously put votes on candidates I want lynched, but was ignored and my vote ended up meaningless (Livingstone, Tornadoli, Spockyt the first time), and I want to make the most meaningful vote I can.
At least this involved acual reasoning about why you think my case is wrong, rather than random accusations about nothing in particular. Even if it's still wrong.
I already explained why I made contact with Al-Aziz. I was pretty sure about her being a villager and my role isn't important so I thought that she could trust me a little more after that. I didn't think that she would answer the way she did never in a million years and in fact I can't understand why she was so absurdly convinced about me being a baddie. By the other way I'm not in contact with anybody this game and for me this game without contacting another goodies is boring as hell so I could try to make contact when I think I can trust someone. It's something I make far more as a villager than as a wolf in fact because when I'm a wolf I already have contacts with my pack so it's not necessary.
But you've previously said that your role is important, because it is high in the remaining leader order. You even got angry at Al-Aziz when she revealed it in the thread, so clearly you think it is at least somewhat important. And I don't follow the logic of privately communicating one's role to a player clearly bent on getting one lynched to build trust. At the same time I agree that Al-Aziz was very overzealous about her case against you. Thus in my eyes both of you were acting suspiciously, and I think that not only is there much information to be gained here, but there is also a likely chance of lynching a wolf.
You focused on Al-Aziz defending Ironhide as the reason she was a likely wolf, but that's not the only way she could be a wolf. Normally as a wolf Al-Aziz is somewhat inconsistent and reluctant to really push a case. Yet even as a villager she never goes this far with pushing a case on so little. So I think it is likely that she's trying to compensate for her wolfish behavior, and went too far. (I'm using wolf interchangeably with "attached baddie" before anyone gets any odd ideas).
You've "explained this repeatedly?" You've said it once.
This is the only time you've ever directly stated why you thought they were suspicious, besides "they weren't acting like a goodie," which is an empty and nondescript statement. This is the only time you've outlined the case in any detail, where you still give any indication on whether you think one is more suspicious than the other. I get that you want your vote to matter, but you can at least make a case for the one you truly believe in, even if nobody's voting them. Make the case, make it convincing, and if it doesn't work, change your vote later to prevent somebody you don't want lynched from being lynched. No need to be cynical about the odds right from the get go, and you continuing not to have a preference reeks of not caring one way or the other which one gets lynched, because you know they're both not in your pack.
Well it's important to me because it's my role and of course I got angry when she revealed it with no reason at all but it's not so important for the village. Obviously if I was a priest, a witness or something like that I would never tell that so easily. As I said I didn't expect Aziz's reaction so everything there was wrong but I don't feel that her reaction was wolfish. I guess she overreacted then because she was truly convinced about me being a wolf. When of course she could be a wolf and still be convinced about me being a wolf of the other pack, I guess. Anyway I think that your case against her is really weak. And in this moment of the game goodie Aedan uses to make better cases...
Being cynical at this point isn't "right from the get go" though. I've previously sought to make cases and vote based on that, only for my cases to be ignored. So I attempted to preempt that. And you keep acting like my failure to make an arbitrary decision and proclaim one of the two a certain wolf is equivalent to flip-flopping. I voted Al-Aziz because she had another vote at the time, but even after De Chatillon switched, I have remained consistently on Al-Aziz. I'm simply not dismissing the possibility that I'm mistaken about the one I'm voting being a villager, due to the number of goodies I've gone after this game, as you and other have pointed out repeatedly.
I'm not saying you're flip flopping, and I'm not asking you to condemn one of them as a certain wolf. Don't twist my words. I'm just asking (and expecting) you to have some analysis or reasoning for why one of them is better, and you at first dodged this issue, and now admit that there is no reasoning, besides the fact that al-Aziz was more lynchable. If I may be so bold, I'd argue you don't really care which one of them gets lynched, since you know neither of them are in your pack.
If you're actually a villager (which I am increasingly doubtful of), have some courage in your positions. Don't stop making cases for analytical reasons just because others are ignoring you. But, I suspect I'm talking to the wrong person here.
I have given reasoning explaining why I think Al-Aziz is a likely wolf, stop acting like I haven't. I've simply refused to state that I'm certain that she's a more likely wolf than De Chatillon, since he also acted suspicious in their exchange and previously. That's the whole basis you're going off here, don't act like I just arbitrarily chose Al-Aziz to go after and never explained why.
Hmm, aedan's aggresive defence now when he is put in the spotlight doesn't sound to convincing. Should we maybe try to tie him with Cliges today?
vote aedan
vote aedan