I've been out of town for 4 days, so I didn't follow the game (not even sure who won), but ....
Jesus people - MJ should have been lynched far earlier.
Hell, just seer me tonight if you want proof, my god.
Me being a wolf wouldn't make sense- the first person I started a convo with was LIS on night 1, who could passively seer people that interacted with him. 1- he didn't say a damn thing about me being a wolf or wolfy in the thread the next day, 2- he trusted me, and 3- why would I kill a person that trusted me and whose seering ability could easily be avoided if I were a wolf? It would just be stupid.
I was super annoyed when I saw this and didn't see him called out for "2- he trusted me". I voted for him Day 1. Other than admitting that I <might> have blinders on with him, I never EVER said I trusted him. I kept him at <least> at 'weak wolf' or higher every time I posted my list.
I never trusted him, and people seem to have just taken his word on it. Anytime someone asserts that a dead person felt some way about them and it is unverifiable - you should immediately discount it completely.
That's what I'm saying, there's NO WAY I could have known that without him telling me. And if I were a wolf, he'd have just told everyone D2, and I certainly wouldn't have let him die N2 when he was the only person that could vouch for me being clear. It's like an onion of stupid.
Similar issue. Y'all should have instantly realized there's no way I'd reveal my role to him like he seems to be indicating ("without him telling me"). I had him as weak wolf on my list. You really think I'd ability-reveal to that?
C'mon folks.
MJ should have been an insta-lynch the day he posted those 4 or 5 posts in a row that were basically "I'm busy" and "Still busy" and "Don't have anything to say". That was sketchy AS HELL, and even more to the point - if that's all you're going to contribute to a game, it's better to vote for that person and get them out of the game. At best you catch a wolf. At worst you unfortunately kill off a villager - but it's one who is openly saying they aren't playing/contributing.
Classic wolf strategy is killing off the contributing/active players. There's no need to help them with that.
I'm not saying automatically lynch inactive players, but .... you SHOULD be taking a good look at them. In this case, look at this game - SP posted *JUST* enough to technically meet the rules, but basically stayed out of the game the entire time (remember when I said "Is SP even playing?"). MJ didn't post enough to meet the requirements and had to be admonished by the mod. Two of the original four wolves were playing a "minimal posting" game.
It's definitely worth watching that kind of thing.
She's contributed nothing of note the entire game, but has been an ample generator of distraction.
Seriously guys. From the person who literally posted 3-5 times IN A ROW THAT HE HAD NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE .... you let this go?
I mean, I get it. You eventually lynched him. But holy amazeballs he should have been lynched earlier. Poor Trilt had to listen to me rant about it in PM.
If I was the seer, we would assume your wolfiness because we have other methods that already showed your wolfiness. Instead, i would likely investigate two people, such as LoTF and Nyanko, with the help of my upgrade ability, which I really have no issue putting on the thread, as it's a day ability so can't be blocked now, and the wolves already know it from you. All hypotheticals of course.
For all that STL and I give each **** about our play, especially me giving him crap about the stupid Savant thing ... this kind of move is so freaking smart. It's this sort of stuff that makes STL a good player, not the 'savant' thing.
He usually just keeps pointing fingers until he's right, but everyone just remembers the correct calls despite his being a broken clock.
I actually think that's true, though I suspect you were saying it to try and weasel out of being lynched at the time. If you look at STL's mid- to early-game suspicion lists ... he was incredibly off-target. I even PM'd Trilt and said "Do you think that STL is actually posting his honest suspicions, or is he trying to sucker the wolves into something?" because he was so off.
I mean, STL is an excellent player. Not taking that away. And he did get back on target a day or so after I had PM'd Trilt with a "WTH do you think is up with STL's suspicion list?" But I don't think the 'savant' thing is really all that on-target. It's just biased sampling.
I suppose that makes sense. It certainly is a lot to sort through.
In regards to me, I find it silly to interject statements that have already been said. I'd rather what I have to say hold more value and original thought than that. I try to only post when I feel something's been overlooked, or can be evaluated differently.
This should have been an alarm to people. It might be true - no doubt - but it is incredibly useful to get players to put a stake in the ground: find out who they agree with and why. Wolves are often pretty reluctant to get too committed to something.
@WildZoo - nice game. You played a solid wolf game. It would have helped me be less suspicious if you contributed slightly more, but you generally contributed jusssssst enough to not ever make it <super> high on my wolf list. Not enough for me to be lynching you. When Trilt told me who the wolves were, you were the one I was most surprised at. MJ was no surprise at all. SP was kinda a 'meh - can never tell with a n00b who is basically not playing/contributing'.
Anyway, I tuned out of SDN right about the point I expect the wolves would have converted someone. Have to go back now and see who they converted, and who won the game.
