Oh right, as opposed to the brilliant defenses seen previously by goodies of silence and inaction. Yeah I should totally follow their example. This idiot is now at the top of my suspect list after Al-Aziz and De Chatillon.
-
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 say he's less off than he was. After I got a bit passive-aggressive at him for jumping on an easy case he seems to have gone back to his regular self. Couldn't say what that means, though.
Yahmik was pretty involved at yesterday's deadline, and was very keen we lynch Cliges over Wagon. Given the deadline had passed when he made these posts, I'm inclined to say he's not a packmate of Wagon's, as I doubt a packmate would defend him after his death so obviously.
Though I don't think reds are the priority at the moment anyway, so that doesn't mean much.
That's a little unfair - Gorgan didn't seem inclined to make cases at all, and in any case he only made nine posts while he was alive. I've at least come up with cases, although most have been wrong. (and I've made four times as many posts.)
Anyone think there's anything in Audren suddenly deciding activity is the be-all and end-all today, and the most inactive player being hunted last night? Or am I just jumping at shadows.
Actually, yes.
Right now, I think Aziz and Audren are the best choices. Based on behavior rather than votes on so forth.
Right now, I think Aziz and Audren are the best choices. Based on behavior rather than votes on so forth.
No, you could be a bit less agressive and more cooperative. And I certainly agree Aziz is supicious, she is probably my third choice after you and Cliges.
Being cooperative would require mutual trust, which only exists for baddies. Goodies need to be aggressive to be sure that a wolf is not directing their actions. And if a person is being voted on a nonsensical case, then they need to aggressively defend themselves, since they absolutely know that such a lynch would be bad for the village. Wanting to lynch someone for aggressively defending themselves is terrible reasoning, something to be used by wolves to remove difficult villagers.
.png){kind=avatar}
You do admittedly have more to say about al-Aziz, I'll give you that. But I'm convinced that those arguments have much meat, either. In almost every context, you treat both of them as if they're equally suspicious, rarely commenting directly on al-Aziz.
Your first bit of explanation on al-Aziz, which boils down to tunneling on De Chat.
Here's your vote, which is explicitly because al-Aziz has votes. Don't try to suggest there's some other hidden reasoning here. You voted al-Aziz because she had votes and De Chat didn't, and that was your primary reason.
This post also fills me with unease. You paint al-Aziz and De Chat as if one of them is almost certainly a baddie, as if they're a pair in which one is a villager and one is a wolf. This... isn't true, and it gives you a convenient excuse for when one of them turns up goodie, cause surely the other one is a baddie, right?
And here's your other explanation of al-Aziz, similarly based on tunnelling.
I'm not saying you don't have reason to be suspicious of al-Aziz, but I am saying that you don't have any good reason to pick one over the other. You don't have a reason, you never had a reason, and you still don't have a reason. And this isn't the only reason I'm voting you. I am also voting you for subpar voting earlier in the game. It's not just this exchange.
What???
I'm providing the most activity here, and y'all are painting that as a bad thing? I'm not saying being inactive is the only case worth considering (I'm voting Aedan right now, not k-59, or tamius for that matter). How is it suspicious to want activity this late in the game, and consider those players who are unusually inactive as suspicious? Let's be real here, guys.
Votecount (~1.25 hours to deadline)
aedan: 3
De Chat [1449 Aziz -> 1482]
Audren [1448 Cliges -> 1465 k-59 -> 1486]
Yahmik [1500]
Cliges: 2
Aziz [1458]
Dr.Livingstone [1464]
al-Aziz: 1
aedan [1473]
Audren: 1
Yakman [1468]
Yahmik: 1
Health [1483]
k-59: 1
Gen. Marshall [1489]
Not Voted: 3
@Cliges
@k-59
@tamius23
aedan: 3
De Chat [1449 Aziz -> 1482]
Audren [1448 Cliges -> 1465 k-59 -> 1486]
Yahmik [1500]
Cliges: 2
Aziz [1458]
Dr.Livingstone [1464]
al-Aziz: 1
aedan [1473]
Audren: 1
Yakman [1468]
Yahmik: 1
Health [1483]
k-59: 1
Gen. Marshall [1489]
Not Voted: 3
@Cliges
@k-59
@tamius23
Look, I think Cliges is a decent candidate. But I think he's a decent Red candidate, and we shouldn't focus on them right now. We need to be looking for Yellow wolves, and I think both Aedan and k-59 fit better with Yellow than Cliges does. At this stage, it's not enough to lynch a wolf. We have to lynch the right wolf.
No, you're completely misunderstanding. I was finding it odd that you were bringing up people you considered to be inactive on the day after the most inactive player (E_L, 17 posts to k-59's 32) was hunted. In no way am I saying that activity is bad, because it isn't.
Vote Audren
The thing is the case on you is not nonsensical. You have the worst voting record at this point and some of your behaviour is certainly raising red flags. And I dont think being that agressive nets you any goodie points, one thing is being clear with your stance of being a villager another is being offensive and throwing wild accusations around. Now, I agree your case on Aziz has some merit , but you still haven't convinced me that you are not a good lynch today. And your defence of deeply suspicious Cliges isn't helping much.
This is exactly what I think about Aedan's "case". If we lynch Aziz and she's a goodie (it's possible because I think the case against her is weak at best) then he will go against me. A perfect excuse to lynch two villagers and wasting two lynchments for the village. And that's coming from Aedan who we should think he's way better player if he's a goodie. Make such a stupidity is really unlikely from him.
Never claimed otherwise. I have claimed that I had reasons to suspect both, which you also have in that post, but I've never denied that the reason I voted Al-Aziz over De chatillon is because she had a vote already.
Or maybe I wanted to avoid putting doubt into my case, because if I say Al-Aziz and De Chatillon might both be villagers then it seems like I'm making an excuse for if they get lynched anyways. The inactives were and are worth attention, but less so I think than Al-Aziz and De Chatillon are. What would've been a better way to phrase that?
And I've been saying that just because I don't have a reason to choose one over the other doesn't mean I should ignore both of them, when I think they are each the most suspicious players currently alive, just equally so. And again with this "early game subpar voting" nonsense that no one has ever bothered to explain. My cases were wrong, not bad, and that's not wolfish.
Dear lord, I can taste your offense at the villagers putting you in the wrong pack.
Unvote k59
Vote Cliges
Why is that suspicious, and why are you voting me for it, when we have so many better candidates?