Werewolf XXVII - WESTWORLD

Frank WW

Tegan WW wrote: »

Stop touching people

That wasn’t me!!!!!

Tegan WW

Frank WW wrote: »

That wasn’t me!!!!!

WHO IS DOING ALL THE TOUCHING SO AND WHY DOES NO ONE WANT TO TOUCH ME

Frank WW

Jeez Liam, that’s some length of post for a day when nothing has happened

Frank WW

Tegan WW wrote: »

WHO IS DOING ALL THE TOUCHING SO AND WHY DOES NO ONE WANT TO TOUCH ME

Are you boy Tegan or girl Tegan?

Tegan WW

Frank WW wrote: »

Are you boy Tegan or girl Tegan?

Are you trying to assume my gender?

Nigel WW

Liam WW wrote: »

Also Nigel posted this :



I don’t know why, but posts before a munch like this, esp on day zero when anyone can be munched always rub me the wrong way. Then he posts this:



Then :



Not sure if hes serious here or not. Nigel can you at the very least explain what you meant here?

So in summary, while nothing worth lynching anyone has happened yet, the above has stuck out more than anything else so far, roll on day 1. Given its day one AKA International WW Paranoia Day, Im could be guilty of looking at things that are not there too.

Ok so you can read posts and quote them, but dont pay attention to context? I was making fun of the fact there is no meta info to use with these accounts and that one arbitrary way to choose a possible wolf is to use anon account post counts (which is very obviously a silly thing to do).

Why wouldnt i post before the munch? It could have been the last thing i could have done. Anything content in posts before the munch is waffle. You would have to be an idiot to be a wolf and give anything away on n0.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS HOLLY STEVE THING, WHICH I FIND VERY INTERESTING.

Holly, anything?

Frank WW

Tegan WW wrote: »

Are you trying to assume my gender?

Do you want touching or not? Morning will soon be over

Nigel WW

Also, *poof/genie gif* for Liamo.

Holly WW

Nigel WW wrote: »

Ok so you can read posts and quote them, but dont pay attention to context? I was making fun of the fact there is no meta info to use with these accounts and that one arbitrary way to choose a possible wolf is to use anon account post counts (which is very obviously a silly thing to do).

Why wouldnt i post before the munch? It could have been the last thing i could have done. Anything content in posts before the munch is waffle. You would have to be an idiot to be a wolf and give anything away on n0.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS HOLLY STEVE THING, WHICH I FIND VERY INTERESTING.

Holly, anything?

Ask a question, if you have a question!

Don't just Holly anything me?

Liam WW

Nigel WW wrote: »

Ok so you can read posts and quote them, but dont pay attention to context? I was making fun of the fact there is no meta info to use with these accounts and that one arbitrary way to choose a possible wolf is to use anon account post counts (which is very obviously a silly thing to do).

Why wouldnt i post before the munch? It could have been the last thing i could have done. Anything content in posts before the munch is waffle. You would have to be an idiot to be a wolf and give anything away on n0.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS HOLLY STEVE THING, WHICH I FIND VERY INTERESTING.

Holly, anything?

I agree, day 0 is mostly waffle. However you will have wolves trying to blend in on this day. So its good to look closely and highlight anything which stands out for whatever reason. Maybe be nothing, maybe something, either wau its worth highlighting.

I was more wondering about what you exactly you meant be your posts highlight, I wasnt exactly sure where you were coming from.

Intersting that you seem to appear to deflect at the end of your post to Holly and Steve.

Henry WW

Liam WW wrote: »

Hi guys, new game, just caught up there and have a few musings.

Thoughts so far. Its day 1 now and while the majority have been fluff, the amount of fluff is low. But what I’ve noticed so far, its nothing to lynch anyone with yet but Its what Ive noticed.

Jakes game thus far,




















The quoted post in bold caught my attention earlier, don’t know why exactly. In a day 0 with arguably total fluff (despite it being a low amount), this just seemed odd before the munch. Now the posts quoted are all fluff, nothing to hang them for as a lot of peopel like to fluff post on day 0, , but the bolded posted just seems like a wolf attempt to appear helpful on day 0. The “Ive got nothing to really say so Ill discuss the mechanics in an obvious way” post. I think by the OP its quite obvious we don’t know, yet you until it happens, nothing is gained by starting this discussion if you really are team village.

Henry
Like Jake, nothing in first 2 posts, a lot of people have posted fluff…… but then this…….


Such an odd thing to say on day zero………. Surely there is no way to predict anything. How would you come up with such a prediction? A wolf trying to look “non fluffy” perhaps?

Then Henry posts this in response to Fiona.




Fiona didn’t say it was a good thing not to post, yet Henry twists it …….a wolf throwing shade

Tegen liked this post, already getting NRV vibes from him so if Henry is a wolf, Id doubt Tegen is by proxy of she liking Henrys post here.



Steve makes a good point about Holly here. If Holly was around before and after Steves posts, why wait until before the first munch/action to call him on it? A wolf looking for a reason to lynch steve?

Not sure if that’s the case, but worth noting myself. I always find day 0/1 fights are usually between edgy villagers more than wolves. That said it was Holly who moved on Conor, would a wolf go for someone so early? Probably not in my eyes. The exchange is worth noting.

The “munch” appears to be flavour. No mention of any WW player dead. No”Liam WW has died” so its just the mods being cool and not killing anyone off to early. Franks rationale is correct, if someone died then they would need to be told so they stop posting. If we all post then we know someone didnt die. Simples.

So we have zero to go on as a result (not that we ever get much from the first munch anyway).

I haven’t watched a whole hunk of Westworld, but I am aware of the show. The OP is extremely vanilla, 1 seer, 1 Vig. So unless we have any reason to be thinking otherwise, that the gospel thus far.

With the munch being flavour in my eyes with no actual kill, Frank posted this before hand.


A taunting of the wolves pehaps or more? Or di Frank know the wolves weren’t getting a munch? Maybe Im looking too much onto this one to be honest.

Also Nigel posted this :



I don’t know why, but posts before a munch like this, esp on day zero when anyone can be munched always rub me the wrong way. Then he posts this:



Then :



Not sure if hes serious here or not. Nigel can you at the very least explain what you meant here?

So in summary, while nothing worth lynching anyone has happened yet, the above has stuck out more than anything else so far, roll on day 1. Given its day one AKA International WW Paranoia Day, Im could be guilty of looking at things that are not there too.

Liam, nice of you to join us. Just on my posts:

My suspicion of the wolf’s posting style is based of several dreams I’ve had over the last couple of years. I like pattern and structure and that is a pretty consistent one. I’d be pretty happy that when I look back after the game it will be pretty accurate. I’m kind of struggling to understand what’s suspicious there though, help me out here?

On Fiona’s post, thanks for including her post also. I think the question I asked there is pretty clear and fair/ untwisted- fiona made a statement that I challenged because I think it’s counter to our interests and hence suspicious. Information is god in this game and anyone who thinks less of that is good deserves solid scrutiny imho

Jake WW

Who is Abigail on the lynch form, is there such a player in the game?

Nigel WW

Liam WW wrote: »

I agree, day 0 is mostly waffle. However you will have wolves trying to blend in on this day. So its good to look closely and highlight anything which stands out for whatever reason. Maybe be nothing, maybe something, either wau its worth highlighting.

I was more wondering about what you exactly you meant be your posts highlight, I wasnt exactly sure where you were coming from.

Intersting that you seem to appear to deflect at the end of your post to Holly and Steve.

As i said, i am insignificant, and the only observation of substance thus far, imo, has been why Holly waiting until Steve was 12 posts into his posting run before she interacted with him.

I will note as well that this is a question i asked long before you popped up with your great little bunch of quoted posts from others.

Perhaps that people were questioning why you were on 0 posts cause you to pop up and post? Which by your definition of deflecting, would mean you TOO were deflecting. See, i can turn that around, just like you did!

Liam WW

Henry WW wrote: »

Liam, nice of you to join us. Just on my posts:

My suspicion of the wolf’s posting style is based of several dreams I’ve had over the last couple of years. I like pattern and structure and that is a pretty consistent one. I’d be pretty happy that when I look back after the game it will be pretty accurate. I’m kind of struggling to understand what’s suspicious there though, help me out here?

On Fiona’s post, thanks for including her post also. I think the question I asked there is pretty clear and fair/ untwisted- fiona made a statement that I challenged because I think it’s counter to our interests and hence suspicious. Information is god in this game and anyone who thinks less of that is good deserves solid scrutiny imho

For me, it was pretty clear what Fiona was implying with her post, (I included her post to show people what she said to cause you to reply, its only fair sugar)

- Less stuff to read through, easier to keep notes on folk

Yet you took her the wrong way and assumed she was somehow suggesting something else. I just found that odd and worth highlighting.

Mary WW

I keep thinking I’m Nigel and read his posts and think “I don’t remember posting that”....

Steve WW

Steve WW wrote: »

No, I'm saying, you said I didn't interact with the two people who were around when I posted. I checked, you posted half an hour before I posted first and 13 minutes after my last post. So were you around during my posting? If so why didn't you interact? If you were not around, why are you saying that two people were around? And also, if you were not around how would I have interacted with you?

Holly WW wrote: »

But not with pointing out that no interaction took place?

Okay.

Well, at least you are interacting now.

Orla WW wrote: »

I like this line of thinking, Why did you wait till he was done posting holly and possibly hoping he was off line?

Steve WW wrote: »

See my previous post about that and my questions for you about whether you were around or not.

The main one being - were you around last night when I was posting?

Nigel WW wrote: »

Holly? Anything?

Holly WW wrote: »

Ask a question, if you have a question!

Don't just Holly anything me?

I've asked a few questions that have gone unanswered.

Liam WW

Nigel WW wrote: »

As i said, i am insignificant, and the only observation of substance thus far, imo, has been why Holly waiting until Steve was 12 posts into his posting run before she interacted with him.

I will note as well that this is a question i asked long before you popped up with your great little bunch of quoted posts from others.

Perhaps that people were questioning why you were on 0 posts cause you to pop up and post? Which by your definition of deflecting, would mean you TOO were deflecting. See, i can turn that around, just like you did!

Insignificant - Thats a matter of opinion and perspective.

I came on and read back, take the timing of when I posted for what you want, i wasnt under any suspcion or avoiding anything when I posted. , No deflection here, just me talking to you.

Holly WW

Nigel WW wrote: »

As i said, i am insignificant, and the only observation of substance thus far, imo, has been why Holly waiting until Steve was 12 posts into his posting run before she interacted with him.

I will note as well that this is a question i asked long before you popped up with your great little bunch of quoted posts from others.

Perhaps that people were questioning why you were on 0 posts cause you to pop up and post? Which by your definition of deflecting, would mean you TOO were deflecting. See, i can turn that around, just like you did!

I didn't wait, i turned on phone and all 12 posts from Steve's burst of posting were there, I posted to try to interact but got no reply, so put phone back to sleep and did the same myself.

Holly WW

Steve WW wrote: »

I've asked a few questions that have gone unanswered.

I think my last post should answer ALL your questions :rolleyes:

Henry WW

Liam WW wrote: »

For me, it was pretty clear what Fiona was implying with her post, (I included her post to show people what she said to cause you to reply, its only fair sugar)

- Less stuff to read through, easier to keep notes on folk

Yet you took her the wrong way and assumed she was somehow suggesting something else. I just found that odd and worth highlighting.

Hmmm, less stuff to read through = less chance of wolves interacting and slipping up in my book. Not really sure why you’d be positioning it any other way tbh? It’s also pretty clear that’s what I was highlighting.

Steve WW

Holly WW wrote: »

I didn't wait, i turned on phone and all 12 posts from Steve's burst of posting were there, I posted to try to interact but got no reply, so put phone back to sleep and did the same myself.

So you turned on and 12 posts were there and then made a post but got no reply? But apparently I was meant to have interacted with you when I wasn't even there.

Nigel WW

Does anyone want to suggest a way of approaching today that might be productive? Not that all this isnt productive, but do we have a time by which we should be finishing FFAs (i would suggest later this afternoon); or do we even wanna do FFAs?

Steve WW

Holly WW wrote: »

I think my last post should answer ALL your questions :rolleyes:

It does somewhat. Why did you say that I didn't interact with the 2 people online at the time? You've just said you weren't online when I was posting.

Holly WW

Steve WW wrote: »

So you turned on and 12 posts were there and then made a post but got no reply? But apparently I was meant to have interacted with you when I wasn't even there.

Conor's post was in the middle of your burst, but you have already told me you had nothing more to say about onion rings so didn't see any reason to talk to him, so fine, you didn't want to talk to Conor.
My post was after you had finished, so understandable that you did not reply to me.

Liam WW

Henry WW wrote: »

Hmmm, less stuff to read through = less chance of wolves interacting and slipping up in my book. Not really sure why you’d be positioning it any other way tbh? It’s also pretty clear that’s what I was highlighting.

I think they meant it from a players POV that its easier to catch up

I dont think she was advocating that we post less, more just stating fact that it was obvious people have posted less thus far and as a result wolves are probably posting to the same level.

Liam WW

Henry WW wrote: »

Hmmm, less stuff to read through = less chance of wolves interacting and slipping up in my book. Not really sure why you’d be positioning it any other way tbh? It’s also pretty clear that’s what I was highlighting.

I forgot to add that, your post suggest you were twisting what she said, implying she was suggesting people post less, which IMO she did not.

Steve WW

Holly WW wrote: »

Conor's post was in the middle of your burst, but you have already told me you had nothing more to say about onion rings so didn't see any reason to talk to him, so fine, you didn't want to talk to Conor.
My post was after you had finished, so understandable that you did not reply to me.

Didn't want to talk to Conor? Conor also made no attempt to say anything to me, so I nothing to add to his two word post. So at least now we're clear that there weren't 2 others active whilst I was posting, but rather one poster who posted two words.

Nigel WW

Older games had a posting rate in opening days similar to this game, and through proper research and detective work, wolves were consistently found.

There is a valid argument, imo, that its easier for wolves to hide in gallons of waffle than it is for them to hide in low post counts.

Henry WW

Nigel WW wrote: »

Does anyone want to suggest a way of approaching today that might be productive? Not that all this isnt productive, but do we have a time by which we should be finishing FFAs (i would suggest later this afternoon); or do we even wanna do FFAs?

I’d be in favor of an ffa today. Not useful right away but might give us information later in the game when we need to stitch things together. Also means the baddies have to come out to play instead of just flopping down an “I’m so confused” vote

Liam WW

Nigel WW wrote: »

Older games had a posting rate in opening days similar to this game, and through proper research and detective work, wolves were consistently found.

There is a valid argument, imo, that its easier for wolves to hide in gallons of waffle than it is for them to hide in low post counts.

I do agree, not adovacting people shouldnt post, but I prefer people post in a serious tone rather than gif spamming.