TWG XIII - Dark Matters: Crow's Best (Game Over)

[QreepyBORIS]

Well then, not to over-analyze the kill, I'm voting QreepyBoris . My innactive strategy, he has been around the forums long enough to know tass, but not the recent events of the game.

O_o?

I'm not even going to try to understand that, sorry. :P


Sorry about the absence, too. I forgot I was playing. -_- We had guests over and I was basically really busy, and so I did not realize the game was on by now. :P


My gut says Flux_ is the guardian. Juist cause ANYONE less new to the game might have protevted Tass. Yes, yes, I know, there is very little chance that that is actually TRUE, but...It's just my gut.


As for wolves? I don't know. I'm going to wait it out a while before voting definitively.

[HansSky]

Well then, not to over-analyze the kill, I'm voting QreepyBoris . My innactive strategy, he has been around the forums long enough to know tass, but not the recent events of the game.

O_o?

I'm not even going to try to understand that, sorry. :P

He means that he's going to try and vote off inactive people who won't help any, to put it bluntly.


At least that's what I think he meant by his "innactive strategy". Anyone, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[evilbutterfly]

Yeah, TPS was in the chat and tried to explain the reasoning to me, but it didn't make any sense. Then he got offended and said I was an elitist jerk and thought I was super awesome at the game and I shouldn't call him stupid, or something like that. I guess I won't criticize him anymore o-O;;

And Qreepy, for future reference, it's not good to point out who the guardian may be, as this may tip off the wolves who hadn't noticed and get a special role killed. That said, you may be right or wrong. Tass isn't the only top tier player that we'd want to keep alive. The guardian may have been experienced enough to know that blah and Tass are both pretty damn good, and they just happened to pick blah when the wolves picked Tass.

And yeah, my thing I posted before really wouldn't work, it was just my way of doing what I said in that post by just posting anything I could. And thinking about it, I see that it would only generate false suspicion. After all, I do what I suggested, and people always suspect me (yet I've only been a wolf once). So yeah...scratch that plan.

[stretchypanda]

Okay, I hate to do this, but at this point, I would have expected much more from Alain. I've seen you online, and I've seen you post in other threads, so you can't tell me you're too busy to check TWG (especially as slow as this thread has been). You've also posted once, so you can't say you forgot you were playing.

I really don't want to use a person's inactivity as a reason to vote, but I'm trying to get something going here. You are usually all kinds of helpful in this game, and this time around we've heard narry a peep from you.

So, let's go. Prove me wrong.

[lightdarkness]

Voting chart please!

[QreepyBORIS]

I donno, I think voting off people who are SPORADICALLY inactive is stupid. And even highly inactive does not get you very far, either, since statistically you are lynching a human.

[Lupin_the_3rd]

since statistically you are lynching a human.

Considering it is night one, I'd say either way, chances are we're lynching a human. This is what they are getting at- it is a lot easier to get a read from an active human than an inactive one. This is where the question comes- Would you rather lynch an active or inactive human. Granted, we still have time to find enough evidence to incriminate someone as wolf, but complete inactivity is almost as bad as an extra wolf.

Voting for inactives can work wonders, as we've seen in your case, qreepy.

[flypie743]

The only thing that has caught my eye is in the chat. Alain said something like "I hope I get wolfed tonight". I don't know his exact wording, but yeah. And Hans and I both asked him why...I never heard him say anything besides "because" or something weird like that. So what's your explanation Alain?

[evilbutterfly]

Voting just for inactivity is bad, but voting for uncharacteristic inactivity isn't so terrible. It's pretty common that you act different, just slightly strange, when you're a wolf. If someone is always active then suddenly drops off the charts one game, they must be hiding something. Of course, I'd like to think Alain knows better. The comment flypie just said about hoping he is wolfed may mean that he doesn't want to play again. As such, may be he isn't being as active. Praps the game isn't as interesting to him anymore? We should wait for an explaination though, I guess.

[stretchypanda]

I'm only voting for him in hopes of drawing out an explanation. If he wants to be removed from the game, he need only ask.

[stretchypanda]

DOUBLE POST!

I present a totally ripped off voting chart:
AlainBryden (2): lightdarkness, stretchypanda
evilbutterfly (1): deltronumbernumber
BlahBlahnumber (1): flux_

EDIT: Forgot Qreepy (1): Tps

[QreepyBORIS]

since statistically you are lynching a human.

Voting for inactives can work wonders, as we've seen in your case, qreepy.

Wait, what'd it do in my case? Bring me in the game? Nah, that was actually coincidence. :P

But I do agree that round one has generally terrible chances of getting wolves. But still, It's better to go off on a limb than to kill someone useless.

On the other hand, killing deadweights in round 1 has its advantages--namely, you can't really get away with it in any other round.

But, still. I'd rather have evidence than this.

[Tps222]

Ok, going wit the statistics, we lynch a human on day one most of the time. Much doesn't usually come out of day 1. So, I think it would be a good idea to lynch an innactive player because

1. They aren't contributing to the conversation
2. The more active people we keep, the more conversation and the chance of a wolf slipping up there is.

I voted for Qreepy mainly because

1. At the time, he hadn'y posted. (obviously I'm changing it now)
2. Qreepy knew that Tass was a power player. He wasnt around the last few games, so he wouldn't know the change in guarding/wolfing patterns. If he had some newb wolfs around him, he could easily persuade them.
3. So, to try and incorporate some idea's in my innactive vote, I included that theory.

Thus, since Qreepy has posted, and I have reconsidered my view on that idea, mainly because of thinking over what EB said, and some doubts in my own mind, I am sticking to my above stated innactive strategy, I'm not going for a wolf on day 1, like most of you are, I'm waiting for the game to develop more, with more evidence, seerings, and slip-ups for voting seriously on someone. Thus, my vote goes to Flux. He onlu has 1 post, and in that post, he gave no credible information for voting for Blah. He is the least active, so nothing personal.

[stretchypanda]

Tps, you are a freaking idiot.

You do not WANT to go for humans, no matter what.

[Lupin_the_3rd]

Tps, you are a freaking idiot.

You do not WANT to go for humans, no matter what.

How do you know for sure that flux is human? How many day one wolf lynches have there been? Not too many, that's for sure. Since statistically we're lynching a human tomorrow, why not vote off the weakest link? Because there's still a 3 in 14 chance we're lynching a wolf, why not run with those odds. I'm not condemning flux in any way, it's just that if no better evidence is brought to the table, then that is probably the best course of action.