HardcoreUFO - let start by saying two things.
Firstly, you were one of the few villagers who actually were trying to win the game, rather than troll the rest of us, amuse themselves, hang-out with their ww buddies or whatever else went on. I enjoyed playing with you.
Secondly, you did absolutely all time elite flavour for your Brazilian politics game - and more fool the residents of POG if they don't check out and love some of the brilliant music, film and literature you drew their attention to.
However, ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardcoreUFO
even if [vyk] was a neutral, he needed dwetzel to shoot a wolf. we could still trust him.
One problem with this is: the person he told DWetz to shoot
wasn't a wolf.
It seems to me you also managed to cram two other mistakes into these 18 words (i) it's completely untrue that the neutrals needed us to shoot a wolf - we didn't shoot a wolf & they nearly won anyway, and (ii) if he was a neutral we couldn't trust him - the neutrals were trying to kill villagers exclusively (until they killed BJL) with their day-vigs, there's no reason to believe that a neutral vyk wouldn't have had DWetz vig a villa and move on unscathed the next day with just a passing "**** acc he was wolfy anyway"
Quote:
Originally Posted by tchaz
start of d4 imo
also lolvyk magic reads. acc + tchaz wolves --> go play the pit games . gjge
Quote:
Originally Posted by harcoreUFO
that was not information we had when vyk told dwetzel to shoot accobra... meh nevermind I don't wanna be in this discussion anyway.
No - that wasn't what my point was. My post here is just quickly pointing at just a couple of the places in the game where you and vyk went badly wrong. You, I guess, admitted such on some points, although not particularly loud or clearly. vyk .. not so much.
It's fine vyk pointing out in postgame that somewhere he named a bunch of wolves. In fact what he did was tunnel gad for two days and then say "**** gad" after he was revealed a villager. At that point acting the "I'm the villa captain - y'all do what I say" has no credibility in a vacuum - which is where someone like me is wrt his meta with Hold'Em etc. As it happens, DWetz is right - getting rid of Hold'Em ([and .. well .. a list of others I've cut]) was a big plus for the village because that enabled us to actually try to win the game. Summary: you (ie you & he) don't get to say "trust me" and have complete credibility, and refusing to explain why reduces what credibility you have.
In fact we nearly lost anyway. Reasons include:
One. darO makes 1 post more than one line long in a 36hour day - in which he straight out lies about having wolfed with RT, so completely undermining the credibility of anything he says in that post - and dumps a lazy vote. But he probably does this in part because of listening to vyk.
Two, vyk also (and prior ot darO) dumps a lazy vote, wants to play Black-Ops with Vagos for 2 hours, tells us that at this stage there are no reasons - it's all his tone-deaf reads - and ****s off to a birthday party and the the pits at AC.
And you know what? Imo what vyk did is
absolutely fine. ww a just a game. vyk has irl stuff to do. He was bored of playing. That really is ok. All of it.
But please don't pretend that his word is
The Truth when he plays like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harcoreUFO
either way leaning neutral on someone is pretty weird lol. pretty sure only high drafted poggers can do stuff like that
By the time we got to f8 it was imperative to have neutral leans. Arguably the day before as well.
Last edited by tchaz; 11-26-2012 at 04:34 PM.
Reason: should be modkilled for editing post-game typos?