Werewolf XV - Greendale Community College

Barbara WW

Clodagh WW wrote: »

Also, has anybody any ideas as to why Brendan was targeted? All I can see is that he had a good knowledge of our surroundings and he was the other person to speak Spanish with Barbara.

I was actually suspicious of Brendan earlier with his people trying to make people do maths comment earlier:

Barbara WW wrote: »

I'm hoping this is a joke cos if not i see "Let's look out for this super specific thing I just decided on" as super sketchy

But as far as the SK is concerned they don't care who they kill. Roled players would be good for them so the deck is less stacked, but I would think one day one the SK kill would be pretty random

Gabriel WW

Angus WW wrote: »

I don't think Gert died because of breaking a rule, the SK surely just picked him.

I find it absolutely bonkers that someone can be killed by an SK for an accidental rule break or referencing as such. And I find it odd that you buy into it Gab. You trying to confuse the class?

Nope, just looking at one possibility. Largely for reactions. For example someone who dances around things like you have for the last while, pushing questions that have been answered already. Basically I'm trying to figure if you're a dogged villager or a doggie villager. I think ill put that thought into the corner and keep an eye on it.....

Gabriel WW

Riona WW wrote: »

Not really sold on the "punishment theory". Personally think that if the goal of the mods was to deter people from posting in their own accounts accidentally by using rhe chang character as an incentive, it would be in the op.

I think it has to be a secret task.

Isla has claimed at least three characters, well acted like 3 different characters. Pierce with the sperm talk,



abed in a couple of posts





and chang



. Has also posted in Spanish but not sure if this would be a task tbh

The post that i think could be a secret task is substituting "chang" into a sentance 3 at least 3 times.



Imediatly after doing this she posts for people to watch out for secret tasks.



Early thinking is that Isla was creating a lot of character noise to hide her secret chang task. But its early and with one vote only, to early to be certain enough to use it.

I gotta admit, this is interesting. Will try to do a readback on their posts in a bit

Mary WW

Howdy folks,

Nice bit to read back since I was gone the last hour.

On Barb being an SK - I may be wrong but I assumed Kevin was good and wouldnt be aware of being Chang and therefore unable to activate himself. I maybe wrong but tahst my take. However, her answers to Angus lead me to belive she may still be bad but not Chang.

I dont like Gabriels theory either that Gert was killed by a rule break, its too crazy.

Isla quoted Pierce a lot last night, I noticed ther sperm comments but its clearly to obvious to be pierce. He is either hiding his character or just an NRV looking for reactions. Problem is, he could have been a study group member trying to hedge his bets. If hes now bad, hes bad. If hes good, he surely would be on Wolfie radar.

Riona and Angus are rattling cages but that is what it is. Could be NRVs playing with caution to the wind or wolfies confusing us all.

We should be careful with our votes. Wait until the last half hour before making a choice.

Angus WW

Gabriel WW wrote: »

Nope, just looking at one possibility. Largely for reactions. For example someone who dances around things like you have for the last while, pushing questions that have been answered already. Basically I'm trying to figure if you're a dogged villager or a doggie villager. I think ill put that thought into the corner and keep an eye on it.....

Heres a question that's unanswered so far?

You noted Barbara was defensive earlier, yet you seem quite defensive yourself when I call you on your extremely unlikely theory, why is that? Hiding something?

Angus WW

Mary WW wrote: »

Howdy folks,


On Barb being an SK - I may be wrong but I assumed Kevin was good and wouldnt be aware of being Chang and therefore unable to activate himself. I maybe wrong but tahst my take. However, her answers to Angus lead me to belive she may still be bad but not Chang.

Perhaps your correct, but its the best theory I've got so far.

Gabriel WW

Angus WW wrote: »

Heres a question that's unanswered so far?

You noted Barbara was defensive earlier, yet you seem quite defensive yourself when I call you on your extremely unlikely theory, why is that? Hiding something?

Why is the theory unlikely? Rule 9/10 explicitly says that this activity will incur the wrath of the dean. Because you think the mods wouldn't do it is not the same as unlikely. The only link I've made so far is that gertie broke the rule then shortly after that gertie died. If youd like to offer another competing like, like Riona has for example, then fire away. Otherwise stop pretending you've some sort of insideline to the mods

Mary WW

Gabriel WW wrote: »

Why is the theory unlikely? Rule 9/10 explicitly says that this activity will incur the wrath of the dean. Because you think the mods wouldn't do it is not the same as unlikely. The only link I've made so far is that gertie broke the rule then shortly after that gertie died. If youd like to offer another competing like, like Riona has for example, then fire away. Otherwise stop pretending you've some sort of insideline to the mods

Personally I think its harsh to sign up for the game and look forward to it so much only to be killed because of an accidental mistake. I think its a huge strecth to think they would be killed for an accidental rule break.

I think its more likely the rule break triggered the SK.

Angus WW

Gabriel WW wrote: »

Why is the theory unlikely? Rule 9/10 explicitly says that this activity will incur the wrath of the dean. Because you think the mods wouldn't do it is not the same as unlikely. The only link I've made so far is that gertie broke the rule then shortly after that gertie died. If youd like to offer another competing like, like Riona has for example, then fire away. Otherwise stop pretending you've some sort of insideline to the mods

I imagine being killed for that! It would be a stupid rule that would ruin the game and suggesting as much is either thick or wolfie. And I think your one smart fella.

You want an alternative theory?

Barb said something in Spanish, this triggered YOU (Im implying your Chang BTW) and you took out Gert. Then tried to muddy the waters with your idiotic theory.

Tegan WW

The knives are out already I see.

Angus WW

Tegan WW wrote: »

The knives are out already I see.

Its the best way to skin a wolf, is it not?

Riona WW

I think rule 9 refers to trying to figure out who's who

Mary WW

Angus WW wrote: »

Its the best way to skin a wolf, is it not?

For what its worth, I think all explanations for Changs activation to be plausible yet incorrect.

That being said I dont have an alternative thoery. I have been busy making money to track back on posts like I said I would. Has anyone else seen any other reason for the activation of Chang?

Right now Im sticking with that the spanish talk activated him as its the best of a bad bunch of theoies.

Katie WW

Mary WW wrote: »

On Barb being an SK - I may be wrong but I assumed Kevin was good and wouldnt be aware of being Chang and therefore unable to activate himself.

I'm inclined to think that C-Dog didn't know how to active themselves, but somehow got activated extremely quickly. I'd imagine it wasn't necessarily something that was meant to happen quickly. The wolves had a set time they'd be activated, while he seemed to be activated by something else, to the extent that most presumed he'd be used as a balancer as we went on.

On the off chance, I've decided to take to a superstition that saying his name is giving him some sort of power (given his first kill was the first person to name him), so am not going to use it from here on out...

I dont like Gabriels theory either that Gert was killed by a rule break, its too crazy.

Yeah, I'm leaning less and less towards it. I think the rule break might have put a target on the person's back but wasn't directly linked.

ad hoc ergo proctor hoc. The logical fallacy that because something happened after an event, the event was the cause. I know it can't be ruled out, but it could be a coincidence. We won't be able to prove it unless there's another rule break, BUT we will be able to have a guess it wasn't it if he strikes again. Best bet, don't break the rules (DUH!) but I'd say the best course of action is to presume that's NOT the case, and ignore it for now.

Gabriel WW

Angus WW wrote: »

Heres a question that's unanswered so far?

You noted Barbara was defensive earlier, yet you seem quite defensive yourself when I call you on your extremely unlikely theory, why is that? Hiding something?

Btw, when did i accuse barbara of being defensive? Or more precisely, why exactly are you making up ****?

Abigail WW

So many theories, so little time to read through. Currently cramming for the Pop quiz until 4pm (late exam I know). Will be back after that.

Couple of notes: If Chang was activated by the non-anon (that's a mouthful) accounts posting I would say that he or she got to name their kill.

I doubt the mods would be that ruthless this early on with modkills. Gertie was just the unfortunate soul who got got in this instance and it's more coincidental... Or made to look more coincidental perhaps??

Ta ta for now

Gabriel WW

Katie WW wrote: »

I'm inclined to think that C-Dog didn't know how to active themselves, but somehow got activated extremely quickly. I'd imagine it wasn't necessarily something that was meant to happen quickly. The wolves had a set time they'd be activated, while he seemed to be activated by something else, to the extent that most presumed he'd be used as a balancer as we went on.

On the off chance, I've decided to take to a superstition that saying his name is giving him some sort of power (given his first kill was the first person to name him), so am not going to use it from here on out...



Yeah, I'm leaning less and less towards it. I think the rule break might have put a target on the person's back but wasn't directly linked.

ad hoc ergo proctor hoc. The logical fallacy that because something happened after an event, the event was the cause. I know it can't be ruled out, but it could be a coincidence. We won't be able to prove it unless there's another rule break, BUT we will be able to have a guess it wasn't it if he strikes again. Best bet, don't break the rules (DUH!) but I'd say the best course of action is to presume that's NOT the case, and ignore it for now.

This is an interesting possibility. At the moment we know chang killed gertie but we don't know his exact role. Is he a simple SK? How often does he get a kill? Kill rate matters so the difference of an extra kill per day will be significant

Liam WW

Angus WW wrote: »

I don't think Gert died because of breaking a rule, the SK surely just picked him.

I find it absolutely bonkers that someone can be killed by an SK for an accidental rule break or referencing as such. And I find it odd that you buy into it Gab. You trying to confuse the class?

You sound like someone in the know tbh...

Mary WW wrote: »

Personally I think its harsh to sign up for the game and look forward to it so much only to be killed because of an accidental mistake. I think its a huge strecth to think they would be killed for an accidental rule break.

I think its more likely the rule break triggered the SK.

I agree here, we know who our mods are and I don't think they would be that cruel to modkill for such a silly mistake on day one (or pre day)

My radar is falling on Katie, not sure why but something is pointing her way.

Angus WW

Katie WW wrote: »

On the off chance, I've decided to take to a superstition that saying his name is giving him some sort of power (given his first kill was the first person to name him), so am not going to use it from here on out...



.

So call him Voldemort

Orla WW

Liam WW wrote: »

You sound like someone in the know tbh...



I agree here, we know who our mods are and I don't think they would be that cruel to modkill for such a silly mistake on day one (or pre day)

My radar is falling on Katie, not sure why but something is pointing her way.

This to me is a classic wolf tactic, I'm going to name a name, with no reasoning and then people will start thinking wolf. It's like accusing someone for no reason hoping someone will agree

Angus WW

Gabriel WW wrote: »

This is an interesting possibility. At the moment we know chang killed gertie but we don't know his exact role. Is he a simple SK? How often does he get a kill? Kill rate matters so the difference of an extra kill per day will be significant

So are you admitting your call is about the rule break equals death is hogwash?

Come on, be straight, its a terrible theory. One Im surprised you came up with. Is it so strange for me to find this odd?

Gabriel WW wrote: »

Btw, when did i accuse barbara of being defensive? Or more precisely, why exactly are you making up ****?

Apologies, It was Katie who called Barb defensive, not you.

But still you've avoided my question, you seem very defensive, why is that?

Angus WW

Im still concerned about Stevies post mimicking Abigails double post too

Gabriel WW

Angus WW wrote: »

So are you admitting your call is about the rule break equals death is hogwash?

Come on, be straight, its a terrible theory. One Im surprised you came up with. Is it so strange for me to find this odd?



Apologies, It was Katie who called Barb defensive, not you.

But still you've avoided my question, you seem very defensive, why is that?

Angus, unlike you it seems, I'm happy explore a range if possibilities right now. The bit I'm struggling on with you is why you're so narrow in your focus. Its like a binary 'cant be this, anything that disagrees is suspicious' . its not wolfey tbf but its not helpful village either

Angus WW

So to clarify -

I think So far my most likely to be a wolf leader board charts are looking like this

Gab - I don't buy his Chang theory and its so absurd that I cant think of a logical reason why hed bring it up other than to confuse us or get us off his scent.

Barb - Ive climbed down on her for reasons that I don't believe she activated herself so early or would be able to. I do believe she isn't an SK but her defensiveness tells me she has something to hide.

Steve - His double post mimic earlier is not much to go on, yet it sticks in my mind.

Isla - I cant read them because they are purposefully trying to hide who they are in an odd way. I suspect they are study group but cant see which side yet. They have gone quiet though.

Feel free to join in with thoughts y'all.

Katie WW

Orla WW wrote: »

This to me is a classic wolf tactic, I'm going to name a name, with no reasoning and then people will start thinking wolf. It's like accusing someone for no reason hoping someone will agree

If anything it makes me wonder if my post hit on something important now...

Liam WW

Orla WW wrote: »

This to me is a classic wolf tactic, I'm going to name a name, with no reasoning and then people will start thinking wolf. It's like accusing someone for no reason hoping someone will agree

Have you never seen any of Tiggers posts? it is called rattling cages my friend. Your reply is more suss

Angus WW

Gabriel WW wrote: »

Angus, unlike you it seems, I'm happy explore a range if possibilities right now. The bit I'm struggling on with you is why you're so narrow in your focus. Its like a binary 'cant be this, anything that disagrees is suspicious' . its not wolfey tbf but its not helpful village either

Im all for keeping options open until ruled out, but your theory is all kinds of wrong. Do you agree it be a disaster for the mods to include this sort of rule?

Ask yourself , how would you feel if you were the one to fall foul of the rule? How would you react?

You'd be angry and appalled at the mods for thinking of such a short sighted rule.

Orla WW

Liam WW wrote: »

Have you never seen any of Tiggers posts? it is called rattling cages my friend. Your reply is more suss

Who's tigger? I never knew of any students enrolled in Greendale with that name?

My reply which points out your baseless accusation is suss? ok so now we have you suspicious of someone for no reason and now me for pointing out you have no reason mentioned?

Gabriel WW

Angus WW wrote: »

Im all for keeping options open until ruled out, but your theory is all kinds of wrong. Do you agree it be a disaster for the mods to include this sort of rule?

Ask yourself , how would you feel if you were the one to fall foul of the rule? How would you react?

You'd be angry and appalled at the mods for thinking of such a short sighted rule. but I won't do that because I'm so certain I'm right /QUOTE]

Fixed that for ya......


So, since you know better, why was Gertie killed?

Angus WW

Gabriel WW wrote: »

Angus WW wrote: »

Im all for keeping options open until ruled out, but your theory is all kinds of wrong. Do you agree it be a disaster for the mods to include this sort of rule?

Ask yourself , how would you feel if you were the one to fall foul of the rule? How would you react?

You'd be angry and appalled at the mods for thinking of such a short sighted rule. but I won't do that because I'm so certain I'm right /QUOTE]

Fixed that for ya......


So, since you know better, why was Gertie killed?

SK was activated, then he picked on Gert. Simple.

Its not about knowing better wee lad, its about using a little bit of logic. Something your theory has zero of.