leo: I'm going to find it wolfy if you don't try to take context into account. Of course I made that post in a rushed fashion. I'm trying to contribute to this game as best as I can on a really limited amount of time. Is it aids? actually I have no idea. I just went with my gut. My gut has a good solid history of d1 reads so we'll find out.

I will promise to do a slower more thorough read of this game this afternoon at some point. Hopefully it will be better. All I'm really going to do right now is make sure I don't completely abandon my duties to the village. If you want to lynch me, go right ahead, but I'm a villager and difficulties with time aside I'll prove it eventually.

That's all I got for now

Okay, you are getting tunnel-vision'y now.

I can understand having a gut reaction like yours to my post when you're already suspecting me. You think I'm a wolf going hard at a villager. But I'm not. You need to actually read and understand the post. He is directly contradicting himself - if you think that he can do this as a villager, that's fine, I think that COULD be the case as well, but I'm not letting him off the hook just yet.

i mean

i see that you found your way to a conclusion that it was wolfy of tappo to vote you for not explaining your read when he never explicitly asked you to

i would ask you why you never just explained it instead of getting into this really weird spat

well named is in a tree right now guys

IN A TREE

Cliffs:

1) tappokone isn't initially bothered by me voting him without explanation and I give him several chances to actually ask me why I am voting him

2) a page later, tappokone is suddenly bothered by me voting him without explanation (and conveniently, it is timed with other people giving me heat at the time as well)

ok leo can be a villager

i have no idea about the thingy thing cause I ain't reading it right now but to go from calling me a wolf to immediately jumping on a different thread shows he's paying attention closely and that's good.

Well, I'm not sure I ever consciously had a reason to not ultimately explain it. I just didn't. Maybe because it was very thin, maybe because I was hoping tappokone would eventually take notice of it.

But to explain it now, in any case:

He had a very distinct non-villagery start to the game. Before I explain any further, it should be said that my method for finding wolves is not to go after the people who are wolfy, but the people who are unconvincingly villagery, seeing as wolves aren't actually trying to be wolfy - they're trying to be villagery, but they are just often unsuccesful at it.

That's the vibe that I got from tappokone's initial posts. His first 5 posts are all safe and too straight forward without any villageriness imo - they're either fluff, mechanics talk, asking a lot of questions or very level 1'ish reads such as his vote for timistere.

Again, it wasn't a strong read or anything. He could easily be a villager making those posts as well. But he had posted and what he had posted wasn't convincing, so I thought that I'd pressure him.

god, hate being pinned for tunnelling. Time to sit back and have a rethink.

Well, you certainly aren't paying close attention. I haven't called you a wolf? :P

Ok, nvm my last post - I misunderstood well named's post

thingy: the person calling me a wolf was leo, not you.

and by "was" I mean "is"

I just realized that the great thing about this game is that if you're ever frustrated and feel alone or ignored or anything, you have a mason to comfort you <3

Too bad me and Herbie haven't been in contact yet, where you at dawg?

or that you guys are wolves pretending to disagree and then get on the same page?

well named

Votes from post 1 to post 190
Night in 6:00:56
---

Votes	Lynch	Voters
3	HerbieGRD/Thingyman	gtpitch/kokiri (25), LeonardoDicaprio/gambit8888 (19), tappokone/DWetzel (14)
2	iversonian/DonkDonkDonkDonk	Forsythio/metsandfinsfan (18), Xkf (9)
2	ReddBoiler/SuqAta8	iversonian/DonkDonkDonkDonk (18), well named/fank009 (17)
1	gtpitch/kokiri	ReddBoiler/SuqAta8 (30)
1	tappokone/DWetzel	HerbieGRD/Thingyman (23)
1	well named/fank009	bhuber2010/timistere (11)
3	not voting	Felix the Cat (0), Klairic/notyouravgdrewbie (0), monk2310 (0)

See, that's no good. Here's what happened:

1.) You vote for me, no reason given.

2.) I ask Timi about his vote. I don't ask you about yours.

3.) You ask me why I didn't ask about your reason.

4.) I answer you. Cliffs: I'm not bothered.

5.) Time passes. You don't explain your original reason or offer any other reason for finding me wolfy.

In step three you implied that I was behaving in a contradictory manner, but you now say that was just a bit of make-believe. For what purpose? Difficult to say. In any case, that's not the reason for the vote.

6.) I conclude that you'd want to tell people what your reason was if you cared about the read. I find your continued silence on the topic wolfy.

NB: This has nothing to do with whether _I_ want to find out your reason. It's about how you chose to pursue your top wolf lean.

7.) You argue as if my conclusion in step six occurred much earlier in the process. It didn't. 6 > 4, for example.

I'm hoping this is a noob villager tell

Predictably, that didn't help me any.

Hmm... That wasn't a villagery reply, but it was a sensible reply with a rational explanation that I can sort of buy.

I didn't say that I particularly cared about the read though (as said, slight lean), I said that I cared about you not asking me about the read. The strength of my read is/was irrelevant to me in being curious about that.

Also, I don't know why you say "For what purpose" about my pressuring you which I explained. That seems like a wolfy mischaracterization of my post.

You still haven't made a villagery post which is troublesome. But if you're a villager, don't mistake my leaving my vote on you currently for me tunnelling you or not wanting to pursue other suspects though - I will get to that.

He was pointlessly confrontational.

thingy,

i don't think either of you look villagery from this spat but i do think tappos other posts are a lot more objectively villagery than any of yours

say what

Alrighty.

So the part in blue has "a rational explanation that [you] can sort of buy." Personally I think it's pretty clear the way I originally phrased it, but whatever. You presumably have no issue with the part in red, given that you said earlier that you lied to pressure me. Looks to me like you should now be AOK with my reasoning. Is that the case?