OOWL Game 1 OVER

[Isgrimnur]

If you're my target, I highly doubt any of my looks at the evidence are going to strike you as insightful.

[Grundbegriff]

If you're my target, I highly doubt any of my looks at the evidence are going to strike you as insightful.

True. But go have a look anyhow.

[pr0ner]

Given the data, I think the wiser course might be for everyone to think hard, say not too much, and then act.

Given the choice between theohall and pr0ner, I'm thinking
 pr0ner 
 

So you would rather follow someone who, like you, is using falsehoods to build a case against me? I demonstrated it for both of you yesterday. Need I do it again?

[theohall]

This is what I think....

With this being a really short, fast-paced style game, both wolves were probably on the Newcastle lynch.

pr0ner - being safe and in the middle is still my likeliest wolf because of how he repeatedly responded almost only when prompted to speak.

Grundbegriff is being overly helpful. Just because he was the Nth vote shouldn't protect him, because of how quickly this will play out. If one of the theories is to never let Grundbegriff live until the 3rd day, that should probably be shortened given the shortened game. Don't be surprised if one of the wolves actually votes for the other wolf to "prove" himself.

Qantaga is darn near impossible to read, because he is good at being "helpful" while not really helping. Have seen this in action from behind the scenes before.

Isgrimnur - seems like a villager

bb2112 - looks like a target setup by the wolves with the triggercut kill.

RMC - seems like a villager.

Wolves: pr0ner, Grundbegriff, and/or Qantaga
Villagers: bb2112, RMC, Isgrminur and I.

It should be noted - lynch, night kill, lynch, night kill = game over if we miss, so it might behoove the Seer to actually say something earlier rather than later. Don't like the idea of the Seer acting, but there isn't any wiggle room in this village.

[bb2112]

How much less quiet would you like me to be? I put my vote on newcastle not through any true belief in his wolfdom, but because we were getting close to a deadline, and us not lynching someone at all is never a good option.

I could easily see going with Grund, as he's marching in the lead role and cast the kill vote. I honestly think that it has the potential for a wolfy play, as we all assume that no wolf would do it and attract attention to himself in that manner.

And then there's Qantaga, who always looks wolfy to me.

With the game being this small, I would have liked it better if you pushed for someone that you think is a wolf instead of just trying for a lynch. To my knowledge we have never missed a lynch deadline and we could have manufactured a lynch last second if needed. But we still had 24 hours at this point and others were still trying to push for lynching wolves.

Reading through everything, I would have to say my top 2 suspects right now are Issy and Grund. Before I place my vote (as Grund pointed out then ignored), our margin for error is getting pretty small, what are your thoughts?

In particular I would like to hear from Issy, on the above quote, and Grund on his supposed let's talk and not vote, then vote and not talk stands coming in relatively close order.

[Grundbegriff]

In particular I would like to hear from Issy, on the above quote, and Grund on his supposed let's talk and not vote, then vote and not talk stands coming in relatively close order.

I reread the evidence of the voting record, with special attention to the earliest votes and the final ones, and I thought about what has already happened today. That led me to see theohall more favorably, so when he jumped right back on his vote against pr0ner, I decided he might have a point.

[Isgrimnur]

I've already stated that I'll vote Grund. Of course, it's your thought exercise as to whether that's me being a villager helping the village or a wolf trying to help railroad another innocent.

[Qantaga]

Observations:

theohall v. pr0ner: theo's main case seems to be that pr0ner has only contributed by responding defensively when poked. pr0ner's main case seems to be righteous indignation, that (from pr0ner's view) theo is building a house of lies against pr0ner. Is it possible that they could be the two wolves intentionally bickering at each other, so that if one is lynched, the other looks golden? That would be quite risky, but the payoff would be big. More likely, though, is that one is evil and one is good. However, there is the possibility that they are both good and are sniping at each other by the very force of their own game personalities. theo is acting very "theo" and pr0ner is acting very "pr0ner."

Grund:

In particular I would like to hear from Issy, on the above quote, and Grund on his supposed let's talk and not vote, then vote and not talk stands coming in relatively close order.

I reread the evidence of the voting record, with special attention to the earliest votes and the final ones, and I thought about what has already happened today. That led me to see theohall more favorably, so when he jumped right back on his vote against pr0ner, I decided he might have a point.

Grund advises us to shy away from voting until we have a chance for discussion (rightly so, with so little room for error today), yet he casts his own vote 11 minutes later. Even for Grund (especially since he was constructing posts with voting records and links during that time), that is a mighty fast turnaround from advising caution to accusing. Grund claims it was from rereading the evidence and thinking about the events of the day. I'm sure Grund can make those intuitive leaps quickly, but casting a vote 11 minutes after he advised us for caution strikes me as odd.

Then, as Isgrimnur observes:

I could easily see going with Grund, as he's marching in the lead role and cast the kill vote. I honestly think that it has the potential for a wolfy play, as we all assume that no wolf would do it and attract attention to himself in that manner.

I can see (and would even expect) a wolfy Grund playing counter to general expectations.

Isgrimnur: He casts the first vote of the game (on RMC) back on page 1. theohall follows that up with a vote on RMC, as well. trggercut comments about a rush. Issy makes three posts on page 1, all defending the so-called "rush." Then, he's gone. He vanishes until the lower half of page 3. So, here's the part that jumped out at me: trig accuses Issy of playing like he did when he was a bad guy in Star Wars. Within 11 minutes of that accusation, Issy pops in to defend himself, agreeing that he is playing that way (his argument being that the evil role in Star Wars fit his normal villager playstyle).

Then, he's gone again (from Monday to Wednesday). By then, Newcastle has three votes. The deadline is approaching, but still almost 24 hours away. I make a post that I'm still content (sadly, in retrospect) with my Newcastle vote and make a statement that I could shift to Isgrimnur because he hasn't been providing data like I hoped he would. Within 4 minutes, Issy pops in and posts that he was hoping to provide more data and that his silence is based on past history of being offed when being active, while he promptly puts Newcastle at n-1.

To his credit, after the new day dawned, he gave a little analysis, but even that was more defensive (how much less quiet would you like me to be?) than self-initiated.

bb2112 and RMC: They may have me completely hypnotized, but I am not seing either one of them as evil for now.


At the moment, my (somewhat convoluted) threat list (from both my previous look at trig's death and from today's reread) is:

Good: bb2112, RMC

Possible Evils: proner -or- theohall, Grund -or- Isgrimnur

I want to be careful about voting for now (deadline is Wednesday). I want to put some more thought into it, but I am inclined to believe that there are two wolves in the group of {pr0ner, theohall, Isgrimnur, Grund}.

As indicated by the -or- above, I think it likely that pr0ner and theohall are of opposite alignments (I find it unlikely that they would be so adamantly bickering, to the extent that they have, if they were evil teammates) and that Grund and Isgrimnur are of opposite alignments (I find it hard to imagine that Isgrimnur would make the above accusation of Grund if they were evil teammates).

At the moment, I would rank them: Grund, Isgrimnur, pr0ner, theohall (although, the order is still fluid and hasn't jelled in my mind, just quite yet).

[Grundbegriff]

theohall v. pr0ner: theo's main case seems to be that pr0ner has only contributed by responding defensively when poked.

He struck me that way too, yesterday. Remember?

pr0ner's main case seems to be righteous indignation, that (from pr0ner's view) theo is building a house of lies against pr0ner. Is it possible that they could be the two wolves intentionally bickering at each other, so that if one is lynched, the other looks golden?

Perhaps. But it's also possible that theohall's right. He certainly seems confident.

[Qantaga]

theohall v. pr0ner: theo's main case seems to be that pr0ner has only contributed by responding defensively when poked.

He struck me that way too, yesterday. Remember?

I do remember. For my observation, though, I was just looking at the theo/pr0ner interactions, especially given that you eventually moved away from pr0ner, while theo has hung on tenaciously.

pr0ner's main case seems to be righteous indignation, that (from pr0ner's view) theo is building a house of lies against pr0ner. Is it possible that they could be the two wolves intentionally bickering at each other, so that if one is lynched, the other looks golden?

Perhaps. But it's also possible that theohall's right. He certainly seems confident.

Yes, but who would be more likely to seem "confident?" A villager, with no certain knowledge, hunting for truth or a wolf trying to frame someone?

theohall could very well be right about pr0ner, but it's not his confidence that is going to play a part in my concluding that he is correct.

(Of course, there is a situation where I may place significant weight on theo's "confidence," but in reading theo's posts today, I don't get the feeling that he is claiming that particular level of confidence).

[Grundbegriff]

theohall v. pr0ner: theo's main case seems to be that pr0ner has only contributed by responding defensively when poked.

He struck me that way too, yesterday. Remember?

I do remember. For my observation, though, I was just looking at the theo/pr0ner interactions, especially given that you eventually moved away from pr0ner, while theo has hung on tenaciously.

It was the fact that he immediately, without elaboration, returned to his vote that redirected my attention back to the dude who first caught my eye.

I can see these league games are going to go spiffily.

[theohall]

I am not "confident" pr0ner is a wolf, but the reaction to almost pokes which did not include votes stood out to me as odd behavior. He has barely posted otherwise this entire game. This is why he is the first wolf on my list and the one who immediately got my vote again.

Having seen helpful Grundbegriff and helpful Qantaga before when both were actually bad guys, I think one those two could very well be the other wolf.

The rest of the field - no real idea other than what was in my previous post.

[Grundbegriff]

theohall acc pr0ner(1)
bb2112 acc Isgrimnur(1)
pr0ner acc theohall(1)
bb2112 wd Isgrimnur(0)
Grundbegriff acc pr0ner(2)

Against pr0ner(2): theohall, Grundbegriff
Against theohall(1): pr0ner

Majority is 4.
No vote registered: bb2112, Isgrimnur, Qantaga, RMC

[Remus West]

theohall acc pr0ner(1)
bb2112 acc Isgrimnur(1)
pr0ner acc theohall(1)
bb2112 wd Isgrimnur(0)
Grundbegriff acc pr0ner(2)

Against pr0ner(2): theohall, Grundbegriff
Against theohall(1): pr0ner

Majority is 4.
No vote registered: bb2112, Isgrimnur, Qantaga, RMC

heh, was just getting ready to do that. Thanks.

[Grundbegriff]

heh, was just getting ready to do that. Thanks.

I live to serve.

[bb2112]

Ok, if we follow along Q's logic, he is saying either Pr0ner or Theo for group 1. And either Grund or Issy for group 2.

I kind of like both Grund and Issy, and I think Pr0ner and Theo are villagers fighting each other.

I will look at this more tomorrow, but I'm starting to get an idea of how I'm going to vote. I just want to check a couple of things first and it is time to put the kids to bed.

[pr0ner]

In particular I would like to hear from Issy, on the above quote, and Grund on his supposed let's talk and not vote, then vote and not talk stands coming in relatively close order.

I reread the evidence of the voting record, with special attention to the earliest votes and the final ones, and I thought about what has already happened today. That led me to see theohall more favorably, so when he jumped right back on his vote against pr0ner, I decided he might have a point.

A point built around untrue statements? Like your case against me yesterday?

• You're silent.
• A couple of people (which is a lot in a 9-person game, I guess) pile on RMC.
• triggercut calls them out for it.
• RMC accuses triggercut.
• Several people do a spit take.
• RMC gives a plausible explanation, and holds to it when pressed.
• triggercut, famously known for retaliatory votes, seems to accept that account.
• theohall suggests that silents, including you, be poked.
• Suddenly, you (a) appear in response to the mere threat of a poke, and (b) complain about RMC's explanation (since that's where the most recent action was) even though it made sense

Yeah, I see you still haven't explained why you needed to lie to make your case.

Why is that?

[bb2112]

I don't know guys. I don't think we can afford to make another mistake today. Leaving 2 wolves and 3 villagers for tomorrow is too dangerous. We have to nail a wolf today.

I will post my thoughts later, but right now I would rather not taint everyone with my analysis.

I would like to cross reference everyone's thoughts and see if can come to a consensus without voting just yet.

Can we get everyone to post their top 2 candidates?

Grund
Isgrimnur

[theohall]

In particular I would like to hear from Issy, on the above quote, and Grund on his supposed let's talk and not vote, then vote and not talk stands coming in relatively close order.

I reread the evidence of the voting record, with special attention to the earliest votes and the final ones, and I thought about what has already happened today. That led me to see theohall more favorably, so when he jumped right back on his vote against pr0ner, I decided he might have a point.

A point built around untrue statements? Like your case against me yesterday?

• You're silent.
• A couple of people (which is a lot in a 9-person game, I guess) pile on RMC.
• triggercut calls them out for it.
• RMC accuses triggercut.
• Several people do a spit take.
• RMC gives a plausible explanation, and holds to it when pressed.
• triggercut, famously known for retaliatory votes, seems to accept that account.
• theohall suggests that silents, including you, be poked.
• Suddenly, you (a) appear in response to the mere threat of a poke, and (b) complain about RMC's explanation (since that's where the most recent action was) even though it made sense

Yeah, I see you still haven't explained why you needed to lie to make your case.

Why is that?

I don't see anything made up in this other than yore "you needed to lie" claim. Everything stated can be pulled out in actual posts. Why are you trying to decieve us?

[theohall]

I don't know guys. I don't think we can afford to make another mistake today. Leaving 2 wolves and 3 villagers for tomorrow is too dangerous. We have to nail a wolf today.

I will post my thoughts later, but right now I would rather not taint everyone with my analysis.

I would like to cross reference everyone's thoughts and see if can come to a consensus without voting just yet.

Can we get everyone to post their top 2 candidates?

Grund
Isgrimnur

pr0ner
Qantaga/Grund (one of the two), but don't intend voting for either today. pr0ner is a bad guy who apparently doesn't want to bother to read the thread.

[Isgrimnur]

Grund is tops today, followed by Pr0ner and Qantaga.

I guarantee you that I am a villager.

[theohall]

Grund is tops today, followed by Pr0ner and Qantaga.

I guarantee you that I am a villager.

There are no guarantees in WW, unless you are the Seer and are naming someone we can actually test. You just ticked up on my radar.

[pr0ner]

In particular I would like to hear from Issy, on the above quote, and Grund on his supposed let's talk and not vote, then vote and not talk stands coming in relatively close order.

I reread the evidence of the voting record, with special attention to the earliest votes and the final ones, and I thought about what has already happened today. That led me to see theohall more favorably, so when he jumped right back on his vote against pr0ner, I decided he might have a point.

A point built around untrue statements? Like your case against me yesterday?

• You're silent.
• A couple of people (which is a lot in a 9-person game, I guess) pile on RMC.
• triggercut calls them out for it.
• RMC accuses triggercut.
• Several people do a spit take.
• RMC gives a plausible explanation, and holds to it when pressed.
• triggercut, famously known for retaliatory votes, seems to accept that account.
• theohall suggests that silents, including you, be poked.
• Suddenly, you (a) appear in response to the mere threat of a poke, and (b) complain about RMC's explanation (since that's where the most recent action was) even though it made sense

Yeah, I see you still haven't explained why you needed to lie to make your case.

Why is that?

I don't see anything made up in this other than yore "you needed to lie" claim. Everything stated can be pulled out in actual posts. Why are you trying to decieve us?

You need to go back to the bottom of page 1 to the top of page 2 and look again. You will find that I am right and that you are, once again, wrong.

[theohall]

In particular I would like to hear from Issy, on the above quote, and Grund on his supposed let's talk and not vote, then vote and not talk stands coming in relatively close order.

I reread the evidence of the voting record, with special attention to the earliest votes and the final ones, and I thought about what has already happened today. That led me to see theohall more favorably, so when he jumped right back on his vote against pr0ner, I decided he might have a point.

A point built around untrue statements? Like your case against me yesterday?

• You're silent.
• A couple of people (which is a lot in a 9-person game, I guess) pile on RMC.
• triggercut calls them out for it.
• RMC accuses triggercut.
• Several people do a spit take.
• RMC gives a plausible explanation, and holds to it when pressed.
• triggercut, famously known for retaliatory votes, seems to accept that account.
• theohall suggests that silents, including you, be poked.
• Suddenly, you (a) appear in response to the mere threat of a poke, and (b) complain about RMC's explanation (since that's where the most recent action was) even though it made sense

Yeah, I see you still haven't explained why you needed to lie to make your case.

Why is that?

I don't see anything made up in this other than yore "you needed to lie" claim. Everything stated can be pulled out in actual posts. Why are you trying to decieve us?

You need to go back to the bottom of page 1 to the top of page 2 and look again. You will find that I am right and that you are, once again, wrong.

What is wrong with triggercut "seems to accept that account" based on his silence after RMC's explanation? Or do you know something we don't having discussed it with your wolf brother?

Don't by you attempting to still deceive us.

[pr0ner]

Because Triggercut hadn't responded, there is no way to know whether he accepted RMC's account or not at the time Grundbegriff made his post. He may not have even read it yet. Pointing out Grundbegriff's error there is not deception - it's pointing out an error, as there is no empirical support to back up what Grundbegriff says.

The deception is all on you. Multiple times, too, as I've pointed out. Especially since you accepted Grundbegriff's inaccurate list as a reason to vote for me.

[theohall]

I completely disagree about that being an error. 2 of us see it the same way. You are the only one countering, pr0ner, and it is still a lame cover for talking only after poked.

[Grundbegriff]

I think that good pr0ner tends to be less emotional than evil pr0ner. Good pr0ner will sometimes take up a fixed position, but evil pr0ner gets snippy and aggressive about it.

What we're seeing here is more like evil pr0ner.

I think we should follow theohall's intuition on this one.

[theohall]

Come to think of it, it is awfully convenient triggercut can't counter. Which helps me define two targets, pr0ner and Grundbegriff.

[pr0ner]

Please note that Theohall and Grundbegriff A) have been consistently in error with their logic as I've pointed out multiple times, and B) refuse to refute said points.

[theohall]

Please note that Theohall and Grundbegriff A) have been consistently in error with their logic as I've pointed out multiple times, and B) refuse to refute said points.

So why has noone even attempted to defend your position over several days. I also find it interesting how defensive you are currently acting after trying so hard not to be defensive.

Wolf

[theohall]

So...you're saying there are three badguys?

Nope. Just 2. You and Grund.

Interesting. Grund said that RMC's explanation sounded plausible, and that when pressed RMC stuck to his guns.

I said I also found it plausible...but I'm not sure I'm totally buying it (and it still seems a little odd.)

The only communication going on is between this villager and another person in this thread. I've got no one else outside the thread to communicate with or to steer my votes.

On the other hand, you breeze in, cast a vote on theohall, and 9 minutes later tell us that it's been a rough day at work (which, sorry about that), and that you'll read the thread and cast a vote afterwards.

Perhaps not the only explanation, but a plausible (there's that word again) one to me is that someone told you to vote for theohall and you mixed up the order of your posts. You weren't actually interested in reading the thread to see if there was a morsel of a clue, you had already decided--based on a PM maybe(?)--that you were going to vote for theohall before you even clicked on this thread.

And so now we have two player who have acted quite curiously and made obvious slips in game in the brief time we've been going (namely you and RMC) posting accuses on theohall.

Are there other things that could explain this? Sure. Absolutely. But you and RMC both are behaving very oddly in the thread so far, and you both had your votes on the same player at that point, and that, to me, smells awfully funny.

Here we go. Pr0ner claims triggercut didn't find RMC plausible??? Who is deceiving us now?

Pr0ner has yet to claim he is a villager also.

[pr0ner]

Did you check when Triggercut posted that? Probably not, so let me spell it out for you.

At 1233 EDT, RMC casts his first vote for Triggercut.

At 1240 EDT, you question it.

At 1305 EDT, Grund piles on.

At 1310 EDT, Trig responds to Grund's pile on.

At 1315 EDT, Trig responds to RMC, saying he'll give RMC a chance to respond.

At 1327 EDT, RMC responds to Trig, and attempts to vote for you. He corrects this at 1328.

At 1415 EDT, I comment that RMC's response to Trig was bizarre.

At 1422 EDT, Grund votes for me in response to my post.

At 1426 EDT, I respond to Grund, asking why.

At 1451 EDT, Grund responds with his infamous list, including the disputed line, "triggercut, famously known for retaliatory votes, seems to accept that account".

At 1832 EDT, Trig finally responds to RMC's answer.

There is more than a 5 hour gap between Triggercut's posts. During this same gap, as shown above, Grund claims that Trig seems to accept that account. How can Grund even possibly use this point to make a case against me at the time he made the post? How could you accept Grund's case, when his fact pattern is demonstrably wrong?

While creating this post, I have caught you in another lie, Theo. You say that no one is defending me? This is wrong. bb2112 noticed the oddity at 2028 EDT last Monday (during Day 1). Clearly, this is not a fabrication on my part, and, again, one on yours.

Once again, Theo, I have proved, without question, that you (and Grundbegriff) are wrong. Why do you feel the need to lie to make your case against me when the facts support me, and not you?

[theohall]

Doesn't change the fact he agreed with Grundbegriff's assessment, which you keep ignoring/denying.

[theohall]

Wolf.

[pr0ner]

Doesn't change the fact he agreed with Grundbegriff's assessment, which you keep ignoring/denying.

Please, show me where I am questioning Triggercut's response to RMC? I continue to question the timing of Grund's fact pattern, not Trig's response to RMC.

By the way, I see you continue to ignore the fact that I have caught you in another lie. If you are a villager, why do you have to lie so much?

[Grundbegriff]

At 1315 EDT, Trig responds to RMC, saying he'll give RMC a chance to respond.
...
At 1832 EDT, Trig finally responds to RMC's answer.

There is more than a 5 hour gap between Triggercut's posts. During this same gap, as shown above, Grund claims that Trig seems to accept that account. How can Grund even possibly use this point to make a case against me at the time he made the post? How could you accept Grund's case, when his fact pattern is demonstrably wrong?

Dude, you've adduced the evidence yourself. triggercut's normal procedure is to retaliate instantly, with no grace period when accused. This maneuver of his has been so conspicuous that, very early, we started describing instant retaliatory votes by referencing "the triggercut principle".

It's extraordinary that triggercut gave RMC a chance to respond-- indeed, an hours-long window.

You're trying to make heavy evidential weather of the fact that I characterized triggercut's response before he responded. But you're missing, or misrepresenting, the point: just the fact that triggercut declined to countervote right away was noteworthy, and indicated a high likelihood that he didn't find RMC's actions all that hard to account for.

Sure enough, once RMC had given the unsurprising explanation, triggercut continued to regard the whole incident as unworthy of his retaliation.

Once again, Theo, I have proved, without question, that you (and Grundbegriff) are wrong.

False.

[pr0ner]

So you're ignoring the fact that RMC responded 12 minutes after Triggercut asked him to?

Your logic isn't infallible, as much as you like to act that it is, oh condescending one.

[Grundbegriff]

So you're ignoring the fact that RMC responded 12 minutes after Triggercut asked him to?

Why do you reckon that's important?

[RMC]

So you're ignoring the fact that RMC responded 12 minutes after Triggercut asked him to?

Why do you reckon that's important?

I guess I would like to know why you think that is important as well??

And how does that prove which way Trig was leaning about someone??

[Grundbegriff]

We know triggercut was giving you the benefit of the doubt, RMC, because you voted against him (in a most peculiar way) at 12:33EST, and when he checked in less than an hour later (at 1:10pm), he declined to cast a retaliatory vote against you, according to his custom.

The timing of your eventual response says little.