Werewolf . . A Star Wars Tale .....

Emily WW

I'm going for a couple of hours now, will check in when I am home and put my vote in then

Jake WW

Senan WW wrote: »

I'm away for an hour or two, going to stick a placeholder vote in on Liam

Any reason? Just the low post/ check in from earlier?

Henry WW

I think stating that Abi's only contribution being around munchtime is a little bit disingenuous tbh.

Here's all her posts. Some of them well afterwards. Not much in terms of content... sure. Nothing there at all of any note.

I went back and looked because a wolf once accused me of being on at munch time as a way of trying to shade me when munch and lynch times are the most obvious times that people will be active.

Abigail WW wrote: »

Abigail WW wrote: »

Abigail WW wrote: »

Abigail WW wrote: »

I mean if you want to get technical about it Emily 10.10 isn't munch time.

Abigail WW wrote: »

I too reckon it was a munch post. Would be quite a coincidence for them to modkill someone at munch time and not announce it.

Abigail WW wrote: »

Interesting take Senan. Sorry doesn't necessarily mean that the person is responsible. Sorry for your loss is often said but doesn't mean the person saying sorry was the one responsible.

Never forgot, that is is never too late to say it

Abigail WW wrote: »

I'll leave these here and see if you can guess from their appearance whether they are usually goodies

Thing about Abi is as I said it's just a pile of fluff and explaining how sorry can mean different things.

So for that reason I'd likely have her on my FFA, but not for the munch time thing, I think that's a bit lazy if I'm honest.

Barbara WW

fixXxer wrote: »

Mod Note

No lynch is not an option, all players must vote

Failure to vote for a valid player will count as a self vote.

Enjoy.

Jake WW

Barbara WW wrote: »

Enjoy.

Hey babs, seen anything since your no vote post that you think is noteworthy or suspicious

Doris WW

Henry WW wrote: »

Where am I ordering people around, this false narrative is irritating.

I'm not controlling anything bar myself.

Have you or Frank never heard of the terminology 'rustling branches'

That's what I was playing at with my joke vote, anyone with more than sawdust between their ears would realise that

Oh look at the mocking behaviour.

Mary WW

Out of game. I really wanna vote Henry

In game. I don't think Henry is a wolf. He's giving reasons, he's playing the game. Sure he's mouthy but I don't think this makes him wolf.


Babs, I'm not following your posts at all. I'm finding it difficult to picture you as a helpful villager. What does enjoy mean?

Barbara WW

Jake WW wrote: »

Hey babs, seen anything since your no vote post that you think is noteworthy or suspicious

No.

I'm not voting.

Henry WW

Decided to start looking at those voting for me, seeing as I know I'm good and they're either being silly villagers or just flat out wolves.

Patrick first:

Patrick WW wrote: »

Patrick WW wrote: »

Maybe the rest of the gang will beam in later.....

Patrick WW wrote: »

They needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few or the one.

Patrick WW wrote: »

Review my posts.

Patrick basically self ISOs here. Meh. Star Trek sucks btw. There, I said it.

Patrick WW wrote: »

I'm not defending Mary, but until you come up with better reasoning than lynch the trekies, my vote shall remain were it is. You may be surprised at just how many trekies there are in this game

Responded to this already, but there is a tinge of defending from Paddy to Mary, I get what he's saying, he mentioned Star Trek a few times, I didn't comment.

I wasn't paying attention to the thread till this morning tbh, hence me missing them. I think Babs also has a live long and prosper post.

Patrick WW wrote: »

Yet you clearly do care or you wouldn't bring it up.

Funny that

Gone then and now mocking me as I said the same thing.

Patrick WW wrote: »

voting no lynch would not attract a penalty vote as no lynch is a vote and not a missed vote.

Mechanics talk.

Patrick WW wrote: »

What do you mean by it would be carnage at lynch time?

How would it be carnage?

Is this just you adding negative overdramatics to the act voting 'no lynch', or do you really believe that carnage would ensue?

I remember reading this post and liking it, it does seem to be a fair sentiment. Desmond referring to carnage seems a bit OTT.

Patrick WW wrote: »

Can I alert you attention to this thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058056654

This thread is where the voting happens for this game.

Keep an eye on it and the lynch will not be the absolute ****show you are scaremongering.

Public voting means that you can tally all the votes yourself of who is voting for who and who is leading.

At the time of writing this, the tally was
Henry x 2
Barbara x 1

less of the emotive scaremongering please.

This is more aggressive, a bit pushy maybe. Same point as before though.

Patrick WW wrote: »

Self votes cannot bandwagon, as they are on a single person, self.
So, the maximum damage 10 (for example) self votes can do to any lynch if there is no no lynch option and they are considered as missed votes is add +1 to one persons tally.

You seem to care an inordinate amount about a possible +1 to the lynch results. This is not something i'd be worrying about at all.

More discussion with Desmond over self-votes VS No Lynch.

See here's where I don't like people not voting.

It messes up wagonomics for later in the game if we catch a wolf.

No lynch at least produces a wagon where some wolves may hide but as that is not an option imo everyone should vote or it doesn't look good.

Ok my basic level 1 read of Patrick is that he's a villager who likes to stir the pot.

Star Trek posts, forceful on lynch votes talk.. I'd like a few reads from him but I'm happy enough to let him play his own game for now.

Next I'll look at Doris.

Henry WW

Right so Doris...

Doris WW wrote: »

Out!

Doris WW wrote: »

Jesus tis a queer quiet tread.

Two posts prior to munch, meh.

Doris WW wrote: »

Am I right in thinking there is no priest in the op?

Mechanics talk, seems to be correct but given no auto priest I suspect it's a hidden role.

Doris WW wrote: »

Game seems totally suited for the wolves to win. The chaos without auto priest and with a wolf seer seems just mental.

Very negative post, village also have some roles too, why can't the priest be hidden? You'd have to imagine there's some way of transmitting the roles be it via prizes or a hidden role?

Doris WW wrote: »

Do I have to explain? You are ordering people around and mocking other players moves. You say you made a lynch vote in jest yet you want people to take this game very seriously.

It looks to me like you are trying to control the game and anything you are called out on is a joke so I think you are a wolf.

I responded to this already.

Doris WW wrote: »

Oh look at the mocking behaviour.

And this is what I get back. You're the first person who brought up me ordering people around, I've yet to see evidence of that. Also the first person to say I want people to take the game seriously, never said that also.

Anyways there's feck all to go on here.

I dislike how they seem to want to twist my posts into something they aren't a lot. But that's for the rest of youse to decide.

Welcome to my wolf lean pile for now Doris.


Now moving on to Frank the tank

Jake WW

Barbara WW wrote: »

No.

I'm not voting.

You can vote or not as you see fit, I’m just wondering if anything has stuck out for you over the past few hours since you’ve been around polishing that lightsaber of yours as you put it

Jake WW

Ok going to put my money where my mouth is and see if I can find a loud wolf

#ffa1
Henry
Emily
des
Barbara

Went for 4 since there’s only a post between the last two. Could have gone for 5 on the same basis tbh but feck it I’ll stick where I am

Winifred WW

Jake WW wrote: »

Hi Wini, any thoughts for us?

nothing as of yet. just trying to catch up here

Henry WW

Frank's posts

Frank WW wrote: »

Hi everybody.... Frank in the hizouse..

Frank WW wrote: »

Hey all, I'm just going to catch up now

Hello posts, meh.

Frank WW wrote: »

Henry is my lock wolf pick for the day, he is bouncing all over the place

Frank WW wrote: »

In saying that, I would be inclined to vote no lynch if we can get a consensus on it as its the better play.

I will vote it if its in the running,

See these are the two posts I'm referring to, we shall see later Frank is all up in my bizznazz over supposed inconsistencies

Yet here we have two posts consecutively being the model of inconsistent.

Henry is a lock wolf... but I want to vote no lynch.

Surely people can see how infuriating that is when I'm being accused of the same thing with little to no basis.

Frank WW wrote: »

Babs I've literally died on the no lynch cross before, but since ive become older I have realised A its not worth arguing over and B its not worth voting it if not in the running tbh

And this is something I do sort of agree with Frank on actually.

See voting No Lynch (as much as I dislike it) is very very different to just not voting at all.

No Lynch itself creates a wagon which can be analysed later.

I don't agree with No Lynch, but I wouldn't be arsed hanging people over it.

Not voting however is an abdication of responsibility, and not a village trait as it deprives the village of data for later analysis.

Frank WW wrote: »

Well its not a throw away comment as you did it and joke votes for players are ok right?

And a strategy thats helps the village out the most like no lynch id a reason to change vote to someone.

I dislike people not seeing the logic in the no lynch option but I've already said I wont be drawn on it.

Again, Frank seems to be completely misunderstanding my point, which is fueling my frustration with him. I've outlined above the distinct differences between not voting and No Lynch voting.

Frank WW wrote: »

Not much tbh, as I said I think Henry is dodge..

I've a 3 people I have a village lean on at the moment but I wont be sharing that on thread obviously. I need to re read OP again to try make sense of the deflected shot.

Two people - Jake and Senan - thanked this post. Can I ask why?

I'm also interested in these 3 village leans.

Frank WW wrote: »

So you were rustling branches but in such an obvious way that everyone would know you were doing it?

So a pointless exercise then if everyone should know what you are at.

Frank WW wrote: »

If I see inconsistencies in someones game play or reasoning im going to point int out....

I never claimed to be a master no need to be so snippy.

Frank WW wrote: »

Well making joke votes yourself and wanting people to be serious in game.

Saying you are rustling branches to try catch baddies but also saying its really obvious what you are doing anyone can see it.

And after be fairly cool all day, you seem to have gotten mad now you have drawn attention to yourself in a negative way.

These are all things I see as inconsistency in your posts.

Meh, arguing, I've been over this. I'm not gonna make a big deal out of it again, see above for my frustration with you on this, especially the inconsistency part - which seems to be a misunderstanding on your part.

Frank WW wrote: »

For someone who says they were rustling trees you are obviously not used to having your jimmies rustled which they well and truly have been.

And now the old accuse your accuser chestnut.

You are a lock wolf I can feel it in my jimmies and in your jimmies

O wait I thought you had to go back to work what happened there :pac:

Final post, antagonistic, first post I actually don't like from Frank.

The last line is just deliberately leaning, I was going to just ignore but seeing as I'm doing an ISO then I will pick it up again

I clearly did what I said as you can see the time difference between this and my previous post so why try to throw shade on me here?


Anyways, I'm going to let that slide.

Frank is jumping in two footed on me because he thinks I'm being inconsistent, but yet he hasn't actually pointed out anything that I've been inconsistent about.

Aggressive and brash, I mean probably a villager. Put in light village lean for now though I dislike the tone of his last post, it's just overly antagonistic.

He'll likely now have a huge argument with me over something small from this and not read the whole post but sure so be it.

Vernon WW

Voting Liam, I thought I was being quiet but Liam's solitary post
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112628348&postcount=37

Winifred WW

Henry WW wrote: »

Ugh. So we lynch Mary and shoot Patrick, seems like a good day at the office.

i resume this was sarcasm?

Henry WW

Winifred WW wrote: »

i resume this was sarcasm?

Yeah, keep reading, it's a stick being used to beat me over the head now :cool:

Vernon WW

Might as well start a list, not much to go on at the moment

Anon Account List
Abigail WW
Barbara WW
Desmond WW
Doris WW
Emily WW
Frank WW
Henry WW
Isla WW
Jake WW
Liam WW
Mary WW
Nigel WW
Oisin WW
Patrick WW
Phil WW..... Eliminated.....No Priest......Assuming Good and was a munch
Regan WW
Riona WW
Senan WW
Vernon WW
Winifred WW

Henry WW

Anyways fwiw, my #FFA1

Barbara - Not just for the refusal to vote thing. The refusal to engage on anything remotely game related - no reads, nothing.

Abigail - Not for the timing of their posts, but the content. Just a huge amount of fluff basically. And explaining that sorry can mean different things.. just meh.

Doris - I feel their push on me is the most contrived, at least Frank is engaging with me more. Patrick too... if in a more annoying way.


Other than that, looking at Liam's post it does seem a bit bizarre to hope things will pick up then just ghost the thread.

Winifred WW

Senan WW wrote: »

So Isla and Oisin yet to appear with a couple more on one post

Liam checked in at 8.30 but didn’t mention that he’d be busy for the day?





While Wini came in with this


Three others on two posts, Frank has said he’s reading the thread so my

FFA #1
Nigel
Regan
Wini
Liam
Oisin
Isla

weak reason to be voting people.

Henry WW

Senan WW wrote: »

So Isla and Oisin yet to appear with a couple more on one post

Liam checked in at 8.30 but didn’t mention that he’d be busy for the day?





While Wini came in with this


Three others on two posts, Frank has said he’s reading the thread so my

FFA #1
Nigel
Regan
Wini
Liam
Oisin
Isla

Jake WW wrote: »

Ok going to put my money where my mouth is and see if I can find a loud wolf

#ffa1
Henry
Emily
des
Barbara

Went for 4 since there’s only a post between the last two. Could have gone for 5 on the same basis tbh but feck it I’ll stick where I am

Senan & Jake

Why do you have more than three people on your FFAs?

Are ye not familiar with how FFAs work or is there a reason that Senan has 6 people and Jake has 4

Henry WW

Right I'm gonna go chill for an hour.

Be back later seeing as the thread has gone dead

Mary WW

Why can't have FFAs have more than 3? We've got 5 at least wolfii

Mary WW

Winifred WW wrote: »

weak reason to be voting people.

Who would you vote? Given what you've read so far?

Henry WW

Mary WW wrote: »

Why can't have FFAs have more than 3? We've got 5 at least wolfii

The point of FFAs is to narrow down who the village collectively want to vote for.

You're also meant to give reasons other than

Senan - here's the 6 lowest posters

Jake - here's the 4 highest posters.

It's not a decree by law but that's how FFAs are supposed to work.

But by all means, if you have 5 people you find overtly wolfy lash them out there with the reasoning

Jake WW

Henry WW wrote: »

Senan & Jake

Why do you have more than three people on your FFAs?

Are ye not familiar with how FFAs work or is there a reason that Senan has 6 people and Jake has 4

For the reason I gave in my ffa post

Which you don’t appear to have actually read

Why are you asking questions on stuff you haven’t read?

Senan WW

Henry WW wrote: »

Senan & Jake

Why do you have more than three people on your FFAs?

Are ye not familiar with how FFAs work or is there a reason that Senan has 6 people and Jake has 4

I’ve six cause it’s day one and they are all fairly weak reads. There are six wolves so having six people seemed like a good starting point

Jake WW

Henry WW wrote: »

The point of FFAs is to narrow down who the village collectively want to vote for.

You're also meant to give reasons other than

Senan - here's the 6 lowest posters

Jake - here's the 4 highest posters.

It's not a decree by law but that's how FFAs are supposed to work.

But by all means, if you have 5 people you find overtly wolfy lash them out there with the reasoning

Again I had already explained the rationale

Again you don’t appear to have actually read that post

Henry WW

Jake WW wrote: »

For the reason I gave in my ffa post

Which you don’t appear to have actually read

Why are you asking questions on stuff you haven’t read?

So four people, you think there's a loud wolf?

That's it... it's not much of a reasoning tbh.

I dislike both yours and Senan's strategies as you're focusing on the extremes of the spectrum of posting when we all know that most wolves love the middle ground posting wise.

Henry WW

Jake WW wrote: »

Again I had already explained the rationale

Again you don’t appear to have actually read that post

I have read it, I don't like your reasoning. I think it's an easy way to give an FFA without actually having to give reads on players.

Maybe there's a high posting wolf, maybe there isn't. But again, wolves love the middle ground because higher posters tend to be that way because they argue with other higher posters thus creating a nice safe cosy middle for the wolves to nestle into.