Ten Year Anniversary Game: Living Thread

[Kuruharan]

POST GAME EDIT: Link to Dead Thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=18896)

I'm including the rules here for the convenience of the players.

RULES

General Rules:

There will be no multi-lynches on the Living Thread or multi-vote granting from the Dead Thread. Vote ties in the Living Thread will result in no lynch and vote ties in the Dead Thread will result in no bonus vote being granted that DAY.

Voting should be done as follows: ++Kuruharan. Failure to vote three DAYS in a row will result in murder and sending the player to the Dead Thread. Participation in the Dead Thread is optional as you are already dead and I won't kill you again.

There are no retractable votes.

Living Thread:

Usual Werewolf, except roles are not revealed on death.

Dead Thread:

After there are THREE residents of the Dead Thread, every DAY the dead get to vote on giving one of the living an extra vote. The dead are subject to the same deadline (heh heh) as the living. The living will not know who among them will get an extra vote until it is revealed in the closing narration of the DAY.

Since in the Afterlife (or in the anteroom of the Afterlife) it is hard to hide one's true nature from one's fellow residents, every NIGHT after there are three residents the dead get to vote for one among themselves to determine their true nature. Their specific role will not be revealed but rather the voted player will be described as either PREDATOR or PREY.

The living may not look in the Dead Thread. The dead may continue to read the Living Thread but may no longer post there or interact with the Living in any way except through the mechanism of the Dead Thread bonus vote. The dead can read the whole Dead Thread, not just what happens after one dies. For those roles that resurrect, it is permitted for them to read the entire thread before their death and continue to read and participate in the Dead Thread until the time that I post the narration announcing their return to the Living Thread. After that post, the resurrected player may no longer read any further in the Dead Thread until such time as they return to it. For those who resurrect, they may only paraphrase but NOT directly quote or cite posts in the Dead Thread. However, the Dead may quote and cite posts from the Living Thread.

Please note: It is NOT ALLOWED for a Living Player to click on the post count link of the Dead Thread to check and see how many times Dead Thread players have posted. Obviously you will be able to see how many posts there are in total and who the last poster is, but that is all that is allowed. Do not check who has posted how many times, do not cite who has posted how many times, do not base arguments on it. You are the Living and they are the Dead and you don't know what they are up to.

I think that is pretty much it for the Rules.

Roles:

First things first - there is an undescribed role. The role has a particular power and a few particular vulnerabilities that follow from said power. That's all I'm going to say about it. Everyone (and I mean everyone) will have to keep their wits about them during the game.

The Party (also known as the Village in normal parlance...)

Ordos - ordinary players, with no special powers. Will stay in the Dead Thread after death.

Lovers - Usual lovers in the sense that they can PM each other during the game. Unusual in the fact that if one of them dies, and if the other lover remains alive in the Living Thread, the dead lover will spend one DAY cycle among the dead and then returns to the Living Thread for one DAY. When that DAY is done, the resurrected lover returns to the grave permanently. Note: Unlike the previous game, the living lover is not killed at the death of the resurrected lover but continues to play as usual until death. However, the second lover does not come back after death. The lovers may not PM with each other across the divide of death. If one dies they may only PM during the DAY when the dead lover resurrects. After that, they may only PM each other again after both are in the Dead Thread. The lovers are both on the side of the Party and win and lose with it. They are not a separate category or "side" in this game.

Ranger - Like the lovers, if killed the Ranger will spend one DAY cycle in the Dead Thread and then return to the Living Thread the next DAY. The Ranger has one protection initially. If the Ranger dies and is resurrected, the Ranger then has two protections. The Ranger can self-protect but cannot protect a person twice in a row. The Ranger cannot protect someone from being lynched, nor can the Ranger protect someone from a Hunter kill.

Seer - The Seer has two dreams while in the Living Thread and one dream while in the Dead Thread. While in the Living Thread, the Seer may only dream of players in the Living Thread. While in the Dead Thread, the Seer may only dream of players in the Dead Thread. If they are killed they remain in the Dead Thread.

Hunter - The Hunter may send me one name every DAY and NIGHT of somebody they would like to kill if they themselves are killed during that specific time period. Once they have sent me a pick they cannot change it until the next time period. They may pick the same player every single time or pick a different person every time as they wish. If they are killed they remain in the Dead Thread. EDIT: Since we've just gotten started and the Hunter role seemed so lackluster, I've made a slight change.

The Baddies (also known as the Baddies in normal parlance...) This is where things get fun!

There are two wolf packs of three each: the Grip Pack and the Fang Pack. Because of Evil's inability to get along with itself, the two packs are against each other as well as against the Party. Winning for the Baddies is defined as the number of surviving villagers being equal to the number of surviving members of the most populated pack. After consulting with the Lord High Scorekeeper, it was decided that if there are equal wolves remaining in a Baddie victory the game will be recorded as a tie, so the wolves need to worry about each other as much as the Village.

However, this little spat is impenetrable to the Party and their only goal is to get all six wolves. Additionally, should the Seer dream of a wolf, the Seer will not be able to tell which pack the wolf belongs to. The members of one pack will not know the members of the other pack.

While in the Living Thread members of the same pack can PM each other during the NIGHT. While in the Dead Thread members of the same pack can PM each other at any time. There is no communication across the bounds of death except through the mechanism of the Dead Thread bonus vote, which a wolf will probably want to try to manipulate as best as possible.

You have probably noticed a distinct trend on my part to slow up the non-NIGHT killing somewhat. This is intentional what with two NIGHT kills per cycle plus regular lynchings the Dead Thread is going to populate quickly. Everyone is going to need to be on their toes a bit for this one.

~~~~~~~~~~~ Our Tale ~~~~~~~~~~~

Tragedy had befallen the whole world. A great whiteness had befallen the world severing everyone from each other. Life as it had been known ceased to exist. All was stillness.

But lo! The powers that underlay the world woke anew and brought forth life and movement again to the world! Great was the rejoicing of all at this event!

Among those who celebrated was a mighty throng who gathered at the Halls of Kuruharan and his pet dragon Chrysophylax in the Mountains of Rhun to feast and celebrate the rejuvination of Middle earth. Many friends arrived, some who had not been seen for many a day. The feasting, fireworks, bouncy castles, party games, water balloon fights, and dragon rides for a nominal fee passed all description. After a full day of revels all collapsed exhausted into slumber.

Alas, with the reviving of the world, evil revived with it and not all the guests were what they seemed.

It is now NIGHT 1. Wolves and Lovers may PM. Wolves do not make a NIGHT kill this NIGHT. The Seer dreams some dreams.

The Living:
Formendacil
Rikae
satansaloser2005
Macalaure
Gwathagor
McCaber
Loslote
Boromir88
Aganzir
Nogrod
Nerwen
Rune Son of Bjarne
Firefoot
Thinlómien
Lalaith
Eomer of the Rohirrim
mormegil
Nilpaurion Felagund
Shastanis Althreduin
Legate of Amon Lanc
the phantom
Mithalwen
A Little Green
Kath

[Kuruharan]

Light filtered down from the windows hidden in the mountainside. As the guests arose, there was a palpable sense of unease in the air. Something was very wrong, but what?

They were trapped! All the doors and passages were locked and bolted from the outside. There was no escape!

The surprised inmates congregated in the main hall where they made a curious discovery. In the middle of the hall they found a guillotine next to a large urn. Beside the urn was a large stack of papers.

Taped to the guillotine was a note that read:

Scallywags, Fiends, Trespassers, Bounders!
You have violated the confines of my home
and attempted to murder me in the night!

You are now trapped in here and you will not
escape! I call upon the innocent among you
to ferret out these rascals and kill them!

I have given you the tools to do so! Once
they are dead Chrysophylax and I will emerge
from hiding and the party will resume!

The guests eyed each other with new trepidation and set about the work before them, either to save or destroy.

DAY 1 has begun. Wolves will stop PMing, Lovers may continue to do so.

The Missing or Dead:
Kuruharan

The Living:
Formendacil
Rikae
satansaloser2005
Macalaure
Gwathagor
McCaber
Loslote
Boromir88
Aganzir
Nogrod
Nerwen
Rune Son of Bjarne
Firefoot
Thinlómien
Lalaith
Eomer of the Rohirrim
mormegil
Nilpaurion Felagund
Shastanis Althreduin
Legate of Amon Lanc
the phantom
Mithalwen
A Little Green
Kath

Housekeeping note: I modified the Hunter rules slightly to allow the Hunter to send one pick per DAY and NIGHT.

[McCaber]

Ah, it's good to be back among old friends, even if these aren't the best of circumstances. But hopefully we'll weather this storm in the same fashion we weathered the Silent Times when the only voices heard here whispered "404". And we're here now and our voices can be heard by all.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

++Nilpaurion Felagund

I'm literally sneaking away from my students to post this, so a more substantive post shall come later (and it shall be substantive, I promise.) For now, enjoy! :Merisu:

[Firefoot]

Ah, old friends! Or rather, those I thought were friends. Apparently I really don't know some of you half as well as I ought to, if you're going to go around murdering people in our freshly restored barrow!

Guess we've got about a 25% chance of nailing a baddie today, so good luck to us...

[McCaber]

++Nilpaurion Felagund

Good to see nothing's out of the ordinary here at least.

[Nerwen]

Ah, three posters already!

So which one of you is the wolf?:Merisu:

[Firefoot]

Well, like I said, 1 in 4 of us is a wolf, and you make four posters, Nerwen. So you must be right, one of us must be one. ;) Nilp clearly thinks it's himself.

[Rikae]

Kuru claims someone tried to murder him, yes, but do we have any proof? How do we know this isn't just a plot to get us killing each other off for his sick entertainment?
I think we should find Kuru and have a stern talk about the inappropriateness of kidnapping one's party guests. That's what I think.

[the phantom]

I'm feeling a bit giddy just posting on the Downs again. :)

Would I completely be ruining the mood if I immediately launch into strategy and population/role analysis? :D

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I'm feeling a bit giddy just posting on the Downs again. :)

Would I completely be ruining the mood if I immediately launch into strategy and population/role analysis? :DIf I hadn't a class thrust into me during the time DAY had started, that's exactly what I would've done.

Well, after voting for myself, of course.

[Loslote]

My question is, what sort of creature could cause our host and his pet dragon to hide in fear? :eek:

[the phantom]

If I hadn't a class thrust into me during the time DAY had started, that's exactly what I would've done.
Too bad you didn't have time for it. I'm itching to start things rolling.

But the self-vote... Was it just tradition, or an honest tactic? (i.e. You can't be around much at first anyway so may as well die since you'll still be alive in the Dead Thread and it will dodge the chance of a Gifted being offed Day 1... Sort of a noble kinda-sorta-sacrifice.)

[satansaloser2005]

Would I completely be ruining the mood if I immediately launch into strategy and population/role analysis? :D

Honestly, given our current circumstance, it would be calming. Or at the least, it would give me something else to be stressed about. :smokin:


Meanwhile, my darling boy seems to be settling back in quite nicely. I see you've taken comfort in old habits during this time of tragedy. :Merisu:

Let's keep our focus though, precious. We mustn't lose sight of what's important: Ridding ourselves of these hooligans so we can party!


Full disclosure: ToDay likely will be rather quiet for me, as I have a busy evening tomorrow and am not sure how much I'll be able to (read, remember to) get on the Downs.

[the phantom]

I swear, every time I refresh the Mirth forum I think, "Ooo, haven't read that thread!" and nearly click on the Dead Thread. :rolleyes:

Am I the only person this is happening to?

[satansaloser2005]

I swear, every time I refresh the Mirth forum I think, "Ooo, haven't read that thread!" and nearly click on the Dead Thread. :rolleyes:

Am I the only person this is happening to?

Is this your way of asking us to kill you? Because I think ++Nilp's approach might be more effective. ;)

(Also, yes, me too. I'm going to have to be very careful while on my phone so I don't mix up the two threads.)

[the phantom]

Would I completely be ruining the mood if I immediately launch into strategy and population/role analysis?
Honestly, given our current circumstance, it would be calming. Or at the least, it would give me something else to be stressed about.
Well then, since I have permission, I do believe I'll work on a very non-fluffy post.

[satansaloser2005]

Well then, since I have permission, I do believe I'll work on a very non-fluffy post.

Bless.

[the phantom]

Guess we've got about a 25% chance of nailing a baddie today, so good luck to us...
Indeed, and about a 21% chance of lynching a Gifted. Bleh.

Okay, so the tally is 18-3-3. Let's paint a couple of scenarios...

We lynch an innocent the first two days (not unlikely). At night the Wolves do not kill each other (not unlikely). So we would open day three at 12-3-3, meaning that we could successfully lynch a Werewolf FIVE times in a row and still be down to a final day scenario.
(these numbers represent the tally at the end of the stated period)
D3 12-3-2
N4 10-3-2
D4 10-3-1
N5 8-3-1
D5 8-2-1
N6 6-2-1
D6 6-1-1
N7 4-1-1
D7 4-1-0
N8 3-1-0

Thus on Day 8 there would be one Wolf among 4 villagers, and getting it wrong would equal a Baddie victory.

My point is, in such a case we are absolutely depending on one or more of the following things-
1) Ranger successfully protects someone (but NOT one WW from the opposing WW team, as has happened before :D )
2) Hunter kills a WW
3) WW team A kills WW team B

I think #3 is the most intriguing aspect of this contest. The Baddies definitely don't want to lose the double kill each night (see my chart above for how quickly it diminishes our population), BUT they can't allow the opposing pack to equal or outweigh them, so really I think the WWs will be just as interested in lynching accurately as the rest of us. Lynching the opposition is the way to go, because it buys goodwill and they don't have to waste night kills on offing the other pack- hunting for Gifteds instead.

(let's break this up, it's getting long)

[the phantom]

But anyway, that first scenario might be a bit dark, so let's look at another direction this thing can go...

Seer dreams of two innocents Night 1 and two innocents Night 2 (not that unlikely). We purposefully tie the vote Day 1 and 2 so we don't lynch anyone. Night 2 kills are only Ordos (or a WW and an Ordo, or a protection and an Ordo).

Day 3 Seer reveals himself and 4 innocent dreams and Ranger/Hunter/Lovers also reveal, giving us 9 known innocents. That night the Ranger protects the Seer and the Seer brings us two additional innocents to balance the Ranger/Lover that were offed during the Night. We would at that point have 9 known innocents in a village of 19, thus giving us a 60% chance of lynching a WW. Let's say that night the WWs kill the Seer and other Lover, but the day before the Seer could tell us exactly who he was dreaming that night and whoever he finds innocent he'll make sure the Dead Thread gives a bonus vote to that person (so we have another known) meaning that even if we missed on the lynch yet again the day after we'd be sitting at 7-3-3 with SIX known innocents, thus we'd have a 6/7 chance of lynching a WW. If we missed yet again we'd sit at 4-3-3 with all four innocents being KNOWN, meaning all six Werewolves would then be known. (But then who the heck knows how that would go down, since everyone would know who was guilty and yet the innocents would be outweighed overall 4-6.)

(At least I THINK I did all of that correctly. :rolleyes: )

So, you can see that by just avoiding killing Gifteds and getting good dreams, we can still have a possible win even if we're terrible at lynching.

But back to my earlier scenario, if the Seer (or Seer & Ranger) both die in the first two cycles, then the village could be cut down very swiftly and would be lucky indeed to pull through.

I mean, wow, Kuru- this thing is mighty complicated!

[the phantom]

There Sally. Text to chew on. I even broke it into two pieces so it seems like more. (like sliders)

[Loslote]

So, you can see that by just avoiding killing Gifteds and getting good dreams, we can still have a possible win even if we're terrible at lynching.

And I think we have to assume that we are, since it'll be a while until we get any confirmation one way or the other, and even that won't be as concrete as I would feel comfortable with. I'm intrigued by your plan to tie the vote for the first Day at least. I am a little worried that we would wind up without any evidence to work off of the next Day, but we wouldn't have that solid of evidence even if we do lynch someone, right?

Then again, it seems to me that the best way to set the two packs against each other is simply to kill one wolf from either pack - then the pack which is down a member will by necessity switch its focus from the Gifteds to the other pack, since the only way for them to win would be to kill at least two members of the other pack. Whether or not the other pack switched focus, too - though I think they would soon enough - we would have a bit of a reprieve. Plus, to have two wolves actively and jointly targeting the others would be much more obvious than to have three wolves coasting in the background.

To get back to my point, I think probably we should take any chance we can to bag a wolf, since doing so would not only wittle down the pack numbers, but would also help turn the Night kills away from our Gifteds and towards the other pack. The question is, I guess, is it better statistically to have the chance to potentially turn the Night kills away from the Gifteds, or to avoid the risk that we ourselves might kill a Gifted by mistake? If we kill the Seer Day 1, we're in huge trouble, but I suppose they can still do some good in the Dead Thread. If we kill a wolf, we've gained a lot, and I might be hugely naive here, but I feel like they are less of a threat in the Dead Thread than in the Living Thread. So I would say that I personally think a Day 1 lynch is worth the risk, but that's kind of subjective, and I would definitely like to see other peoples' perspectives.

[Loslote]

Just to clarify, because in hindsight I realized I never did quote it, I was responding in my above post to this comment of the phantom's:

We purposefully tie the vote Day 1 and 2 so we don't lynch anyone.

[A Little Green]

A couple of things.

I think #3 is the most intriguing aspect of this contest. The Baddies definitely don't want to lose the double kill each night (see my chart above for how quickly it diminishes our population), BUT they can't allow the opposing pack to equal or outweigh them, so really I think the WWs will be just as interested in lynching accurately as the rest of us. Lynching the opposition is the way to go, because it buys goodwill and they don't have to waste night kills on offing the other pack- hunting for Gifteds instead.First, I think this is a crucial point. The wolves can (and probably will) engage in completely genuine wolf-hunting during Day phases, which means that we have to think differently than we would in a normal game; we have wolves who don't know everyone's alignment and who have a good motive to hunt bad guys too. That means they're not by default lying when they say they suspect someone, so a fake-looking case alone is not as strong a sign of wolfishness as it usually is. To make things even more muddled, looking at potential pack behaviour could point to the Lovers just as well. There are still the Night kills for clues, I suppose, but I personally never trusted them much, there's too much pure guesswork involved - especially in a game where the wolf packs might have an interest in framing each other as well as the villagers. I foresee a headache.

Day 3 Seer reveals himself and 4 innocent dreams and Ranger/Hunter/Lovers also reveal, giving us 9 known innocents. That night the Ranger protects the Seer and the Seer brings us two additional innocents to balance the Ranger/Lover that were offed during the Night. We would at that point have 9 known innocents in a village of 19, thus giving us a 60% chance of lynching a WW. Let's say that night the WWs kill the Seer and other Lover, but the day before the Seer could tell us exactly who he was dreaming that night and whoever he finds innocent he'll make sure the Dead Thread gives a bonus vote to that person (so we have another known) meaning that even if we missed on the lynch yet again the day after we'd be sitting at 7-3-3 with SIX known innocents, thus we'd have a 6/7 chance of lynching a WW. If we missed yet again we'd sit at 4-3-3 with all four innocents being KNOWN, meaning all six Werewolves would then be known. (But then who the heck knows how that would go down, since everyone would know who was guilty and yet the innocents would be outweighed overall 4-6.)I see a small hitch here. How can we believe anyone's claim if no roles are revealed upon death? There's no way of checking a claim, so basically we could have Seers revealing left, right and centre with no one able to verify which one is telling the truth - or, at least, no one but a resurrected dead person, and even that ony about whoever the dead happen to have checked.


EDIT: x-ed with two Lotties! <3

[the phantom]

And I think we have to assume that we are, since it'll be a while until we get any confirmation one way or the other, and even that won't be as concrete as I would feel comfortable with.
Yeah, that's going to drive me nuts.
*lynch*
Okay, so... Was that a good lynch? Guess I'll find out in a couple days... :rolleyes:
Then again, it seems to me that the best way to set the two packs against each other is simply to kill one wolf from either pack - then the pack which is down a member will by necessity switch its focus from the Gifteds to the other pack, since the only way for them to win would be to kill at least two members of the other pack.
Yep. Yep, yep, yep. The instant a Wolf gets killed this thing completely changes. But I would tentatively say that the Seer is still probably target #1 (because of the double-dream). Maybe. I dunno...
If we kill a wolf, we've gained a lot, and I might be hugely naive here, but I feel like they are less of a threat in the Dead Thread than in the Living Thread.
We gain a lot, yeah, but as far as WWs in the Dead Thread... I'm slightly hesitant to start laying out guidelines for the Dead, because really it'll be up to the Dead to do what they want, but you realize we could choose to empower the Dead.

Basically, we purposefully tie the vote every day and let the Dead decide who gets the bonus vote (and thus who dies). It's possible that it would be a good tactic (because the Dead will always know more than the living as they have access to the roles of the Dead). So basically we just debate which two to place on the chopping block and let the Dead call the shots. I mean, simple odds certainly say that we can trust the dead since 2/3 of them will be Wolf kills (thus unlikely to be Wolves). Plus we'll probably lynch a non-Wolf today.

Anyway, I don't know if it's even realistic to do what I'm talking about. Just putting it out there. Anyone else think about that option?

[the phantom]

The wolves can (and probably will) engage in completely genuine wolf-hunting during Day phases, which means that we have to think differently than we would in a normal game; we have wolves who don't know everyone's alignment and who have a good motive to hunt bad guys too. That means they're not by default lying when they say they suspect someone, so a fake-looking case alone is not as strong a sign of wolfishness than it usually is.
Yeah, it's super weird.
How can we believe anyone's claim if no roles are revealed upon death? There's no way of checking a claim, so basically we could have Seers revealing left, right and centre with no one able to verify which one is telling the truth
Would a WW fake reveal in this contest? If there is a Seer counter then I guess the Ranger would have to protect both that night (ha ha, protecting a WW from the other team), but soon enough they'd both be dead (because the other pack doesn't know which is real) and thus soon enough the dead thread could tell us which Seer was real.
I simply post "Tomorrow I will cast a throwaway vote. If So-And-So was the real Seer, give me a bonus vote tomorrow", the Dead check So-And-So's true identity and then either give or don't give me the bonus vote according to what they found. Bang. We know which Seer was real and what the real Seer dreams were, not to mention the false-reveal WW is now dead which means the diminished pack has to gun for the other pack to avoid losing because they're already down one Wolf.

And if BOTH packs try a counter-reveal, even better, because we'd have a dent into both packs.

Is that right?

[Mithalwen]

:cool:My question is, what sort of creature could cause our host and his pet dragon to hide in fear? :eek:

Me in a party dress, :Merisu:

That is an admission not a confession in case fervid minds get carried away on Day 1.

Oh Nilp.... Mummie is not cross, just disappointed..

Don't suppose Kuru left breakfast? This is going to be a long haul; I may need bacon aswell as caffeine.

[Loslote]

Would a WW fake reveal in this contest? If there is a Seer counter then I guess the Ranger would have to protect both that night (ha ha, protecting a WW from the other team), but soon enough they'd both be dead (because the other pack doesn't know which is real) and thus soon enough the dead thread could tell us which Seer was real.

I think a false reveal is unlikely. But it could still buy the wolves a day or two, flush the real Seer, and maybe allow them to garner trust with the rest of the village by sacrificing one of the pack. I wouldn't write the potential off too easily.

I simply post "Tomorrow I will cast a throwaway vote. If So-And-So was the real Seer, give me a bonus vote tomorrow", the Dead check So-And-So's true identity and then either give or don't give me the bonus vote according to what they found.

I honestly had not thought of this, and it sounds really useful, but I am concerned about trusting the Dead Thread so much - what if they skew the vote? I don't think it's super likely, but all it would take is one wrong vote on the part of the Dead - maybe because of a wolf majority, maybe because of a lack of participation from the dead ordos, maybe from a misled and mistaken Dead - to deceive the whole village for, potentially, the rest of the game.

[Nerwen]

First, I think this is a crucial point. The wolves can (and probably will) engage in completely genuine wolf-hunting during Day phases, which means that we have to think differently than we would in a normal game; we have wolves who don't know everyone's alignment and who have a good motive to hunt bad guys too. That means they're not by default lying when they say they suspect someone, so a fake-looking case alone is not as strong a sign of wolfishness than it usually is.
Indeed. It's similar to the dynamic when there's a Werebear, except that in that case there's the "flag" of a player going on about bear-hunting rather than wolf-hunting.

On the plus side, the division between the wolves does at least mean they can't steer the lynch as easily as if it were one pack of six.

To make things even more muddled, looking at potential pack behaviour could point to the Lovers just as well.
Yes, but that's always the case with lovers.

Edit:x'd with Green at #24.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

This is what happens when you don't get first word in. Y'all have all but covered my essay into the three-party dynamic of this village. :(

Oh, hi Mum. :)

[the phantom]

I honestly had not thought of this, and it sounds really useful, but I am concerned about trusting the Dead Thread so much - what if they skew the vote? I don't think it's super likely, but all it would take is one wrong vote on the part of the Dead - maybe because of a wolf majority, maybe because of a lack of participation from the dead ordos, maybe from a misled and mistaken Dead - to deceive the whole village for, potentially, the rest of the game.
Meh, it won't deceive us for the whole game, because at some point a lover or Ranger will die and come back to the living and shed light on the Dead and what's been happening.

And if there is a majority of Baddies in the Dead Thread, then I'd say we don't need any help because that would mean we are winning handily at that point.

I mean, as long as we give the Dead good options I don't see why they wouldn't cooperate and help us. For instance, if we want to ask them to test the good/bad-ness of the last person we lynched, we just do something like this-
1) Players Y and Z agree to cast throwaway votes for two people not on the chopping block.
2) Tell Dead "If you find player X guilty give your bonus to player Y, if innocent give it to player Z. If you give it to neither of them then that is your right and we won't make assumptions."

That way if the Dead know something even more important and feel their bonus vote is needed to make the lynch go the right way they do not feel forced to follow our plan.

Has anyone else thought about this- passing messages between the Living and Dead? Any other ideas for how to do it? I think it's too useful not to consider.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I sense... death in this place. I hear foul creatures about.

But so great to be back in WW, and I must say, quite a change with this ridiculously lively and overposted thread... so let's get to it.

Then again, it seems to me that the best way to set the two packs against each other is simply to kill one wolf from either pack - then the pack which is down a member will by necessity switch its focus from the Gifteds to the other pack, since the only way for them to win would be to kill at least two members of the other pack. Whether or not the other pack switched focus, too - though I think they would soon enough - we would have a bit of a reprieve. Plus, to have two wolves actively and jointly targeting the others would be much more obvious than to have three wolves coasting in the background.

To get back to my point, I think probably we should take any chance we can to bag a wolf, since doing so would not only wittle down the pack numbers, but would also help turn the Night kills away from our Gifteds and towards the other pack. The question is, I guess, is it better statistically to have the chance to potentially turn the Night kills away from the Gifteds, or to avoid the risk that we ourselves might kill a Gifted by mistake? If we kill the Seer Day 1, we're in huge trouble, but I suppose they can still do some good in the Dead Thread. If we kill a wolf, we've gained a lot, and I might be hugely naive here, but I feel like they are less of a threat in the Dead Thread than in the Living Thread. So I would say that I personally think a Day 1 lynch is worth the risk, but that's kind of subjective, and I would definitely like to see other peoples' perspectives.
I think all in all, this game - at least before we get the hang of it - is going to be such a chaos, that accidentally lynching a Gifted when wishing to lynch a Wolf is about as probable as Wolves killing Wolves from other pack even if they are aiming for Gifted, and so on. Basically at this stage, everyone is probably freaked out equally.

But the main power, in my opinion, lies in the Dead thread. Because we know nothing of the roles upon lynching, as the phantom has so lovelily illustrated, it is hard to form opinions even in regards to whether we were right or wrong. But with the amount of Wolves around and all, we are bound to hit something, and with the amount of Night kills, everything should probably gather up speed in just a couple of Days.

First, I think this is a crucial point. The wolves can (and probably will) engage in completely genuine wolf-hunting during Day phases, which means that we have to think differently than we would in a normal game; we have wolves who don't know everyone's alignment and who have a good motive to hunt bad guys too. That means they're not by default lying when they say they suspect someone, so a fake-looking case alone is not as strong a sign of wolfishness as it usually is. To make things even more muddled, looking at potential pack behaviour could point to the Lovers just as well. There are still the Night kills for clues, I suppose, but I personally never trusted them much, there's too much pure guesswork involved - especially in a game where the wolf packs might have an interest in framing each other as well as the villagers. I foresee a headache.
I understand where you are coming from, but I'd say, personally, that there still is a difference. Really, from my experience, whenever one is playing a Wolf, whatever the circumstances, there is a psychological difference. They may aim to more or less hunt the other pack, but they still have to stick together, avoid getting lynched themselves (of which normal Ordos usually still tend to be a bit more carefree) and so on. As for pack behavior and Lovers, agreed, even though at least the Lovers (resp one of them) come back.

But all in all, I'd say this point about "it being a headache" is not really much of a point, rather an empty complaint. We still do what we do, there are ways to catch Wolves, so I wouldn't totally negate this.

I see a small hitch here. How can we believe anyone's claim if no roles are revealed upon death? There's no way of checking a claim, so basically we could have Seers revealing left, right and centre with no one able to verify which one is telling the truth - or, at least, no one but a resurrected dead person, and even that ony about whoever the dead happen to have checked.
Would a WW fake reveal in this contest? If there is a Seer counter then I guess the Ranger would have to protect both that night (ha ha, protecting a WW from the other team), but soon enough they'd both be dead (because the other pack doesn't know which is real) and thus soon enough the dead thread could tell us which Seer was real.
I simply post "Tomorrow I will cast a throwaway vote. If So-And-So was the real Seer, give me a bonus vote tomorrow", the Dead check So-And-So's true identity and then either give or don't give me the bonus vote according to what they found. Bang. We know which Seer was real and what the real Seer dreams were, not to mention the false-reveal WW is now dead which means the diminished pack has to gun for the other pack to avoid losing because they're already down one Wolf.

And if BOTH packs try a counter-reveal, even better, because we'd have a dent into both packs.

Is that right?
That extra vote idea sounds doable, of course on the account of that you don't have the Dead thread just full of Wolves (from the same pack, who would coordinate... so it shouldn't happen, in fact). So yeah. But in any case, it shouldn't happen in the first place. I really think Seer-revealing is potentially dangerous, still. I mean, if there's suddenly a reveal of seven "Seers", everyone can lynch every single "Seer" just for good measure (and the Wolves, I am sure, would take care of some of the rest). In any case, Wolves still do not want to end up lynched. No matter that the village can't know what you are, you still don't want to be dead. Dead packs don't win, even in a game that is all about death.

Basically, we purposefully tie the vote every day and let the Dead decide who gets the bonus vote (and thus who dies). It's possible that it would be a good tactic (because the Dead will always know more than the living as they have access to the roles of the Dead). So basically we just debate which two to place on the chopping block and let the Dead call the shots. I mean, simple odds certainly say that we can trust the dead since 2/3 of them will be Wolf kills (thus unlikely to be Wolves). Plus we'll probably lynch a non-Wolf today.

Anyway, I don't know if it's even realistic to do what I'm talking about. Just putting it out there. Anyone else think about that option?
I am not sure if I am following, all the maths and statistics goes completely over my head. Besides, I am not sure if a village this big is... manageable. You might just as well end up with Wolves (either pack or rather both) manipulating the vote from inside the village itself.

(x-posted with TP)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I mean, as long as we give the Dead good options I don't see why they wouldn't cooperate and help us. For instance, if we want to ask them to test the good/bad-ness of the last person we lynched, we just do something like this-
1) Players Y and Z agree to cast throwaway votes for two people not on the chopping block.
2) Tell Dead "If you find player X guilty give your bonus to player Y, if innocent give it to player Z. If you give it to neither of them then that is your right and we won't make assumptions."

That way if the Dead know something even more important and feel their bonus vote is needed to make the lynch go the right way they do not feel forced to follow our plan.

Wait, let me get this straight, the mechanic seems decent, but isn't there an illogical extra step? You have the players Y and Z casting throwaway votes for no reason. You could just announce "hey Dead, today, give please your vote either to Y or Z".

Otherwise, I think the main plothole in this is that the WWs could manipulate the Dead thread (at least when there are more of them, and since they can PM between each other). Then again, it's really a problem, if you have already two Wolves of one pack among the Dead, it's not really a good situation for them. Again, once the Dead thread gets populated by, say, 6 people (probably just a couple of days), majorities and such aren't really much of an issue there.

The other problem being also, the Dead, if I got it right, do not really learn 100% the identity of someone. (Although roughly.) But also, if, using your mechanic, we are asking about the identity of a player we lynched just yesterDay, they won't yet know about the player's real identity, since they haven't revealed it yet either. So in fact, that way, we'd probably get any info "back from the grave" only in a couple of Days. Otherwise we might just get an opinion of the Dead, which isn't probably that much better than that of the Living (of course depending on circumstances).

I'd rather be in favour of the mechanic "yo Dead, give your extra vote to one of the people our village is considering, or if you have a Seer among you or somesuch who knows something, then please give an out-of-the-blue vote." Or, to formulate it differently: "Please refrain from giving a vote to a person who is not the village's candidate for lynching, except if you know that random person X should be lynched in your opinion. That way we'll notice that while the village was bickering about whether to lynch Y or Z, you suddenly randomly voted X, so we know we'd better look at X."

And then again, even that is still a bit problematic, since the Dead thread has the same DL as the Living, so the voting has to take place simultaneoustly at least a bit - I doubt everyone will be at the Dead thread voting only just at the DL. But yeah, it is probably easier to coordinate than on the Living thread, sure.

[the phantom]

Just to flesh out the Living-Dead communication thing... (and I see you're posting again on this very matter, Legate)

When someone is lynched they are then dead for the following night, meaning the Dead can check the lynch victim immediately and give us results (via the bonus vote) the following day.

Let's say we lynch Lottie and ask for the Dead to check her. The next day the leading vote receivers partway through are clearly McCaber and Legate, with Rikae, Morm, and Boro casting votes for Legate, and Nerwen, Green, and Eomer casting votes for McCaber. We can then tell the Dead thread, "If Lottie was evil give your bonus vote to Rikae or Nerwen, if she was innocent give it to Morm or Green, if you didn't check her give your bonus vote to someone else.

That way the Dead can impact the voting in any way they wish (push the lynch toward either of the two leaders) and simultaneously give us the information they gained about Lottie's role. If they give the bonus to Rikae then Lottie was evil and they wanted to lynch Legate over McCaber. If they give the bonus to Nerwen then Lottie is evil and McCaber is who they want to lynch. If they didn't check Lottie at all but want to help lynch McCaber then they give their bonus to Eomer. If they didn't check Lottie and don't want to lynch either candidate they give their bonus to someone else hinting that maybe that person's suspicions matched their own. Etc.

First and foremost I think we need to tentatively place some trust in the dead (because they will almost certainly be 50% or more innocent). Second we need to give them opportunities to pass info to us without restricting them too much (give them options), because if we reduce the Dead to being our servants and ordering them around I think that would kind of ruin the fun for them.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Personally I am loving the idea of empowering the dead! It seems like a very barrow-wightish thing to do, and perhaps it could evolve into a religion of sorts.

If we chose to tie the vote, I doubt that we would risk loosing data for us to analyze at a later stage. After all there is more to pack-behavior and whatnot than voting patterns.

Sorry for the shoret cameo, I will return again later.
:smokin:

[the phantom]

All this Dead bonus vote stuff aside, I mainly just don't want the Seer or Ranger to die early. The double-dream and double-protect is amazing! Just as the double-kill reduces the population quickly, the double-dreams reduces the lynchable population quickly. We need to keep our eyes on the break-points of various days (e.g. with X number of players left, if the Seer has Y number of dreams under his belt it would be efficient to reveal now).

I'm not sure what to think about the Lovers. Even if they knew who they were, would the WWs even attempt to off them with the Seer and Ranger still alive? Though the back-from-dead could be quite nice later in the game (so an early kill would negate this possibility), I think the Baddies fear the back-from-dead less than a living Seer/Ranger.

Now the Hunter... When I've been a WW I tend to avoid the Hunter like a landmine, because one shoot-from-the-hip Hunter kill can totally bring a solid Baddie squad crashing down. But in this game it's probably worth it to off the Hunter as soon as possible because odds are he'll kill an innocent. If you leave the Hunter alive a couple days the odds are probably worse for the WWs (plus he'll have more to go on), so as far as intentions go, I figure they'll attempt to kill him early or not at all (unless they're quite certain he has an incorrect pick in mind).

Anyway, it's gotten so late that it's changed into early. I need a bit of rest....

[Firefoot]

A couple thoughts before I go quiet again for most of the day. (For the record, even if you don't hear from me for a while, I will be back to vote before the deadline - can definitely be here within a half hour of it.)

I like the idea of deliberately tying the vote today, if possible. A couple thoughts:

1) It seems likely enough that for some reason we don't pull it off (wolves screw it up, accidental cross-posting, someone doesn't vote) - so we should make a deliberate choice of our possible victims.

2) In order to prevent total chaos at the end, what if we orchestrated the vote (these players vote for this person, those players vote for that). Any deviance from this strategy could also be indicative of a non-cooperative WW (or a lover, I guess).

3) What if we aimed for a three (or even four) way tie? That way even if someone doesn't vote as planned and we don't get a three-way tie, we might still get a two-way tie which is all that is actually necessary.

4) As far as victim choice - sort of a shot in the dark anyway - do we go random? Ask for volunteers (at least we don't get a gifted - but then I guess it narrows the wolves' choice for who is gifted, so maybe that's a poor strategy)? Might as well pick Nilp since he's already got a vote?

[Nerwen]

Just to flesh out the Living-Dead communication thing... (and I see you're posting again on this very matter, Legate)

When someone is lynched they are then dead for the following night, meaning the Dead can check the lynch victim immediately and give us results (via the bonus vote) the following day.

Let's say we lynch Lottie and ask for the Dead to check her. The next day the leading vote receivers partway through are clearly McCaber and Legate, with Rikae, Morm, and Boro casting votes for Legate, and Nerwen, Green, and Eomer casting votes for McCaber. We can then tell the Dead thread, "If Lottie was evil give your bonus vote to Rikae or Nerwen, if she was innocent give it to Morm or Green, if you didn't check her give your bonus vote to someone else.

That way the Dead can impact the voting in any way they wish (push the lynch toward either of the two leaders) and simultaneously give us the information they gained about Lottie's role. If they give the bonus to Rikae then Lottie was evil and they wanted to lynch Legate over McCaber. If they give the bonus to Nerwen then Lottie is evil and McCaber is who they want to lynch. If they didn't check Lottie at all but want to help lynch McCaber then they give their bonus to Eomer. If they didn't check Lottie and don't want to lynch either candidate they give their bonus to someone else hinting that maybe that person's suspicions matched their own. Etc.
This is certainly worth considering, though it's problematic that it requires two separate lots of votes to be coordinated- it seems to me to be that a baddie on either thread might mess up the vote in an accidentally-on-purpose way. But the alternative of course is having *nothing* to go on...

I'm not sure what to think about the Lovers. Even if they knew who they were, would the WWs even attempt to off them with the Seer and Ranger still alive? Though the back-from-dead could be quite nice later in the game (so an early kill would negate this possibility), I think the Baddies fear the back-from-dead less than a living Seer/Ranger.
Now the Hunter... When I've been a WW I tend to avoid the Hunter like a landmine, because one shoot-from-the-hip Hunter kill can totally bring a solid Baddie squad crashing down. But in this game it's probably worth it to off the Hunter as soon as possible because odds are he'll kill an innocent. If you leave the Hunter alive a couple days the odds are probably worse for the WWs (plus he'll have more to go on), so as far as intentions go, I figure they'll attempt to kill him early or not at all (unless they're quite certain he has an incorrect pick in mind).
You talk as though the wolves would be able to pick and choose, tp. I mean, at this point in the game "vaguely gifted-ish" would be all they'd have to go on. (Unless the secret role changes things somehow.)
Edit:x'd with Firefoot.

[Boromir88]

First and foremost...woot! What an anniversary and to see you all back! :D

Reading through the thread and just going to be commenting as I go...

We purposefully tie the vote Day 1 and 2 so we don't lynch anyone.

Well, strategy-maker, I think tying our votes could be useful to attempt to coordinate and leave it in the hands of the Dead who should know more. But to do so today would mean we wouldn't get an active Dead thread until NIGHT 3. It takes 3 Dead to start it, and to have no lynch today would set the Dead thread back 1/2 day.

Granted it would guarantee we didn't lynch the Seer and gives the Seer 2 more dreams (where even if the wolves kill the Seer NIGHT 2, that puts the Seer in the dead thread with 4 dreams instead of 2...hmm, need to think about that). Since there is a delay in finding out information, the best case is to do what it takes to ensure the Seer gets as many double dreams as possible.

Ugh, I love fake reveals when you can immediately know the true from the false...it's going to be a pain with delayed information. I suppose it's too optimistic to think, a fake-reveal from one pack, would be as much of a pain to the rival pack as it is to everyone else.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I'm always cool with getting a few more votes. :)

Anyway, long day, scattered thoughts, many of which has already been commented upon, so I'll say my 'substantive' piece before taking a nap and hoping to wake up at a proper time.

Re the three-party dynamic's effect on gifted reveals:
With competing wolf parties, they will be unsure as to how to deal with a real gifted reveal. For example, both parties might end up wasting their kill on a single target (or less likely, end up not killing the gifted because they expected the other Pack to do so.)

Also, there is little fear of a counterreveal or a false reveal: the revealing Wolf risks giving their Pack a numbers disadvantage against the enemy Pack. And they won't have a way of timing a fake reveal when they gain a numbers advantage over their rivals, because even they won't know if a Wolf not of their Pack has already been killed. (Of course, this information gap could change with the Dead thread activities...)

Re lynch/NIGHT kill analysis:
For obvious reasons, voting analyses (my weapon of choice--or rather, the weapon I use because I have no choice) are quite useless, at least in the opening fog-of-war stage of the game.

So what about NIGHT kill analyses? According my game-theorising*, the Baddies would prioritise killing the Seer, a Wolf from the other Pack, the Ranger, the Lovers, and the Hunter, in that order. Now what do the first two targets have in common? They both possess an above-average knowledge of the alignment of the people in the Village. So posting analysis of the dead could yield information as to why they had been targetted. (Of course, now that I've said it, the Wolves would now probably go after the quiet ones. Hehe. But on a less flippant note, I do realise that making such an analysis public could influence future Wolvish behaviour.)

My scattered thoughts are petering out. I'll be back when my brain cells stop screaming at me.

_____
*As someone who has watched No Game No Life twice (even being an editor for the first two volumes of the novel's English translation), and as someone who has read the Wikipedia article on Nash equilibrium, I believe I am qualified to game-theorise.

[Macalaure]

I had a crazy long post detailing why all those strategies above won't work, but then I realized it was really just an overblown series of quoting and arguing, so I scrapped it. Here's the key points, though.

We have a 25% chance to lynch a wolf toDay (6 in 24)
If we don't, each pack has a 15% chance to kill another wolf at night (3 in 20): P(A)+P(B)-P(A)*P(B)=27.75%.
Even by pure chance, we're actually quite likely to receive some help from the wolves at killing wolves. Not implying, of course, that this means we can be lazy, and definitely not implying that we should tie our votes and not lynch. (In a village of 24, with 6 baddies, and later with an unpredictable extra vote? Impossible to orchestrate. Seriously, people.)

All this trying to arrange an information flow with the dead... elaborate stuff like that never works. Unless a choice is obvious, you always have some people who vote right at the deadline or didn't get a chance to read everything and vote uninformed. Things get messed up, even without revealed or unrevealed baddies in both threads trying to mess with it intentionally.

The dead should give their extra vote to either A: someone they have reason to believe is innocent; or B: someone who has voted for someone they have reason to believe is guilty. This will give us a solid bit of information to go on, actually.

Fake reveals can be a problem. With no immediate knowledge of the role upon death, it's easier to pull off. Anyone remember how nobody believed Nogrod was the seer all game last time? And that was without a contestant (though with cobblers). Then again, would a wolf dare it, knowing that the real beneficiary is the other wolf pack?

Don't have too much faith in the roles that can return from the dead. It can only happen twice at most, and if the timing is off (as it was last time), it can end up much more unhelpful than hoped.

One question for the mod: Will the narrations state which unfortunate soul got killed by which wolf pack? Or was this stated somewhere and I overlooked it? If it is not clear to the village, then the wolves would have extra knowledge and be more adept at killing the other pack than we are. An uncomfortable thought.

I simply post "Tomorrow I will cast a throwaway vote. If So-And-So was the real Seer, give me a bonus vote tomorrow", the Dead check So-And-So's true identity and then either give or don't give me the bonus vote according to what they found.
This I don't get, or maybe I'm missing something. The dead can only find out roles among themselves, and do not see gifteds. They won't know who the real seer is, at least not for certain.


Sorry for being all negative, but all those Day1 strategies... Sweet summer children! No plan survives contact with werewolves. :p


These points I did like, though, so I'll quote them for truth:
First, I think this is a crucial point. The wolves can (and probably will) engage in completely genuine wolf-hunting during Day phases, which means that we have to think differently than we would in a normal game; we have wolves who don't know everyone's alignment and who have a good motive to hunt bad guys too. That means they're not by default lying when they say they suspect someone, so a fake-looking case alone is not as strong a sign of wolfishness as it usually is.
Really, from my experience, whenever one is playing a Wolf, whatever the circumstances, there is a psychological difference.

This. Of course, when looking for this difference, the risk is always to accidentally kill a gifted, since they operate similarly, but the lovers and the ranger have less reason to be afraid in our setup here (especially after a few days), and the hunter generally does, too. So, while the risk is clearly still there, it is smaller than usual, especially considering the number of baddies.

[A Little Green]

When someone is lynched they are then dead for the following night, meaning the Dead can check the lynch victim immediately and give us results (via the bonus vote) the following day.

Let's say we lynch Lottie and ask for the Dead to check her. The next day the leading vote receivers partway through are clearly McCaber and Legate, with Rikae, Morm, and Boro casting votes for Legate, and Nerwen, Green, and Eomer casting votes for McCaber. We can then tell the Dead thread, "If Lottie was evil give your bonus vote to Rikae or Nerwen, if she was innocent give it to Morm or Green, if you didn't check her give your bonus vote to someone else.

That way the Dead can impact the voting in any way they wish (push the lynch toward either of the two leaders) and simultaneously give us the information they gained about Lottie's role. If they give the bonus to Rikae then Lottie was evil and they wanted to lynch Legate over McCaber. If they give the bonus to Nerwen then Lottie is evil and McCaber is who they want to lynch. If they didn't check Lottie at all but want to help lynch McCaber then they give their bonus to Eomer. If they didn't check Lottie and don't want to lynch either candidate they give their bonus to someone else hinting that maybe that person's suspicions matched their own. Etc.
O esteemed Mod, a clarification about the Dead Thread extra vote? After there are THREE residents of the Dead Thread, every DAY the dead get to vote on giving one of the living an extra vote. The dead are subject to the same deadline (heh heh) as the living. The living will not know who among them will get an extra vote until it is revealed in the closing narration of the DAY.So do the dead vote for a living player or double that player's vote? I interpreted it as the former (the Dead Thread vote being simply a ++person-of-their-choice) but the way I understood phantom's theory above, he seems to have interpreted it as the latter (the person chosen by the Dead gets to vote twice). The wording of the rules could mean either.

And while we are on the subject of rules -
All this Dead bonus vote stuff aside, I mainly just don't want the Seer or Ranger to die early. The double-dream and double-protect is amazing!The Ranger only gets their double protect after they're returned from the dead, right? So it won't last long since the Ranger's identity becomes pretty obvious once they're resurrected. And I assume they can't resurrect twice?

...wow, I'm being positive today. :D


EDIT: x-ed with Nilp and Mac

[A Little Green]

Re: the voting schemes. Tying the vote on purpose might have merit later on if we have reason to believe the Dead can make a more informed decision than we can. As for today, however - I don't know. Accidentally hitting a Gifted is a risk, but a relatively small one (though after I've said this I'm sure that's exactly what I'll end up doing :rolleyes: ). On the whole, I agree with Mac; while the wolf packs will undoubtedly attempt to eliminate each other, we can't really afford to leave all wolf hunting to the Night kills and not use our vote. At the same time, I have no idea where to start on forming an even half-informed opinion of anyone. :confused:

Sorry, coughing my head off atm and thus not as coherent as I'd like. :(

[Nerwen]

Firefoot (#37) and Boro (#39), you two are referring to phantom's suggestion at #20?
I had the impression it was off the menu, but if not- look, the problem is that, failing the Seer getting a wolf in that time, it requires not only all the gifteds but all the dreamed innocents not to get eaten until Day 3; meanwhile the wolves are getting 2 kills a Night and we have no chance of lynching a wolf. Plus, there's always the possibility of false reveals.


I like the idea of deliberately tying the vote today, if possible. A couple thoughts:

1) It seems likely enough that for some reason we don't pull it off (wolves screw it up, accidental cross-posting, someone doesn't vote) - so we should make a deliberate choice of our possible victims.

2) In order to prevent total chaos at the end, what if we orchestrated the vote (these players vote for this person, those players vote for that). Any deviance from this strategy could also be indicative of a non-cooperative WW (or a lover, I guess).
So you're not even necessarily expecting this to work, you're just seeing it as a way of possibly flushing a wolf ("or a lover")? Only what would either really have to gain by breaking the tie? The Lovers just want to stay alive, and the wolves have the Night-kill. Besides, my "accidentally-on-purpose" comment on phantom's other plan applies here also- how could you be sure it wasn't just an honest screw-up? (Also, we don't actually want to expose the Lovers...)
4) As far as victim choice - sort of a shot in the dark anyway - do we go random? Ask for volunteers (at least we don't get a gifted - but then I guess it narrows the wolves' choice for who is gifted, so maybe that's a poor strategy)?
Precisely. So why suggest it?
Might as well pick Nilp since he's already got a vote?
Ah, now we come to the other problem: this plan seems to me virtually to ensure that we occupy two or three days with organising pseudo-lynches of randomly-chosen players, instead of, you know, trying to find wolves.

Really doesn't seem the best option to me...

edit:x'd since Nilp at #40.

[the phantom]

The Ranger only gets their double protect after they're returned from the dead, right? So it won't last long since the Ranger's identity becomes pretty obvious once they're resurrected. And I assume they can't resurrect twice?
Ahhh, right you are. Never mind then- the Ranger isn't such a powerhouse then, at least not now. I suppose that means more than ever the Seer is the only viable target at this time.
So do the dead vote for a living player or double that player's vote? I interpreted it as the former (the Dead Thread vote being simply a ++person-of-their-choice) but the way I understood phantom's theory above, he seems to have interpreted it as the latter (the person chosen by the Dead gets to vote twice). The wording of the rules could mean either.
I see what you mean. Well, we could still pass info even if it's interpreted the other way, right? It would just require some tweaking. (I was interpreting it the one way because that's how it worked in the other village where we did this, wasn't it?)
All this trying to arrange an information flow with the dead... elaborate stuff like that never works.
Well yeah, it definitely won't work if we assume it won't and don't try it.
you always have some people who vote right at the deadline or didn't get a chance to read everything and vote uninformed
That's their problem. If people play poorly and screw up well-intentioned plans then we should lynch them (because they might be WWs messing up on purpose). If it turns out to be innocents that are messing things up for us, then at least they'll know it was their fault we lost.

I mean really- we're not going to attempt something useful because we're afraid our own side will suck too much to pull it off? No, no, I'm not okay with that.
This I don't get, or maybe I'm missing something. The dead can only find out roles among themselves, and do not see gifteds. They won't know who the real seer is, at least not for certain.
If the person doesn't appear as Predator then we trust the reveal, right?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Well, there is an obvious split in the camp. Not between heroes and villains (that split is hidden) but between those who love complicated rules and those who are already lost. ;)

I'm sure everything will become easier after a few days; until then, I'm not sure we can challenge the chaos. But am especially keen to observe those who doubt the village's ability to communicate effectively with the Dead.

For anyone interested in omens, mind you, the song I heard today which reminded me to check out this thread - 'The Dead Hate The Living' :D

[Nogrod]

Werewolf is back! And in a headache-producing form... :)

I think I'm siding with Macalaure's points to begin with. Playing orchestrated draws with voting is more or less doomed to fail especially in the early stages (because people miss votes, they don't get the information etc.).

But I'd also say there seems to be a lot of confidence that the Dead Thread will both know what to do and what would be the best for the village - and to be able to execute that. What Mac already referred to: the last game the Dead Thread was as totally confused as the Living Thread.

I'd see the situation as follows: the Dead Thread plays somewhat a normal WW-game where they know the identities of some and not of some (so it will be a chaotic mess of points and counterpoints made), the Living Thread is playing a game where no-one knows anything about anything (so it will be a chaotic mess of points and counterpoints made with not even fleeting evidence to back anything).

That said, I'm somewhat optimistic with our chances as a village: there are so many factors involved, not the least the rivalry between the two competing Wolfgangs *sic*.

Like Lottie (I think) said: the death of the first wolf certainly is a priority (well trying to lynch the most probable wolf should be our first priority every Day - let's talk about possible intentional draws later in the game) and a game-changer.

It's like in a football (soccer) game where two sides can play 0-0 for a long time in an important match and both be very careful just trying to avoid mistakes - but when one side finally scores a goal the game changes dramatically because just avoiding mistakes won't do to the team that is trailing in numbers: the game opens up and that gives chaces to both sides to really make results.


Nice to have this game back in the menu!

[Loslote]

Ah, now we come to the other problem: this plan seems to me virtually to ensure that we occupy two or three days with organising pseudo-lynches of randomly-chosen players, instead of, you know, trying to find wolves.

Especially since we as a village have (as I believe Mac said) a 25% chance of catching a wolf, whereas the Night kills have a 15% chance. I'd also like to add that we as a village have a further 21% (5/24) chance of accidentally killing a Gifted, where the Night kills have a 25% (5/20 - assuming we do not ourselves lynch a Gifted toDay) chance of purposefully killing a Gifted. It's much much riskier to trust the wolf killing to the wolves, since they are far more likely to kill a Gifted than a wolf, whereas we are slightly more likely to kill a wolf than a Gifted.

[Nogrod]

Oh one question on what Greenie said and most people seemed to strongly agree on (maybe I'm just in rust for not playing WW for a long time):
First, I think this is a crucial point. The wolves can (and probably will) engage in completely genuine wolf-hunting during Day phases, which means that we have to think differently than we would in a normal game; we have wolves who don't know everyone's alignment and who have a good motive to hunt bad guys too. That means they're not by default lying when they say they suspect someone, so a fake-looking case alone is not as strong a sign of wolfishness as it usually is.I'm just a bit confused about the last sentence, the conclusion, or the POV of it, that is.

I mean my conclusion from the thoughts above would be that there probably wouldn't be that many fake-looking cases as the wolves don't have to pretend suspecting someone but are actually really suspecting someone for being a baddie - and the more important consequence of that would then be that the best wolf-lynchers shouldn't be regarded as "more probably goodies" just by their "good nose" on lynching baddies (actually it seems other wolves have a slight advance over normal villagers on sniffing the other wolves out).

[the phantom]

there seems to be a lot of confidence that the Dead Thread will both know what to do and what would be the best for the village
They'll know what the Living know plus more, so logically they should be able to help, particularly if the Living provide them with a structure in which to do so.
the last game the Dead Thread was as totally confused as the Living Thread
Yeah they were. Mwu ha ha ha! :D

But that was totally different, because the Dead couldn't confirm roles. If they had been able to do so they would've tested Seer-Nog as soon as you went to the Dead thread and suddenly things would've been different.

There is concrete knowledge available to us in this game. We need to try and grab it.

[Firefoot]

Firefoot (#37) and Boro (#39), you two are referring to phantom's suggestion at #20? Yes.
I had the impression it was off the menu
I didn't realize that? No one seemed to be talking about it much...
So you're not even necessarily expecting this to work, you're just seeing it as a way of possibly flushing a wolf ("or a lover")? Not at all, what the heck? I thought it was an interesting idea and wanted to suggest some considerations, that's all. And I was more interested in it for toDay than future Days. I know it's been a long time since I've done this but I have a lot of memories of really poor day 1 lynches.

[Boromir88]

All this trying to arrange an information flow with the dead... elaborate stuff like that never works. Unless a choice is obvious, you always have some people who vote right at the deadline or didn't get a chance to read everything and vote uninformed. Things get messed up, even without revealed or unrevealed baddies in both threads trying to mess with it intentionally. - Mac

Bottom line: We need some way to get reliable information from the Dead. Now, my understanding is we will know who receives the extra vote from the Dead, and if I'm understanding the phantom correctly, he wants to use the extra vote as a means to relay the predator/prey info revealed to the Dead. Roles who can be resurrected will help, but it would also help to get information some other way. Otherwise, every lynch will just be random and with no idea what's going on and every lynch just becomes a stab in the dark.

It's not a life changing discovery to know the Dead wolves will be working to mess up the Dead thread to cause confusion for the living...but at the same time, with the rival packs they will do what they feel they must to protect their own pack. If that means getting rid of wolves from the rival pack, Dead wolves may be willing to work with the innocents to get rid of their rivals.

I agree with whoever said we can't be lazy and rely on the packs killing each other. Since we CAN'T rely on that, we have to rely on some method to find out about whether are lynches have hit wolves or not. And call me impatient, but I'm not going to wait for the death of a resurrected role to get information from the Dead thread.

Of course it would take the cooperation of the Dead and any method should have a clear and simple understanding. If I know how this works...during the NIGHT phase the Dead vote on who amongst them gets revealed as Predator/Prey. And during the DAY who amongst the living gets the bonus vote? It might be quite complicated, but this is involving some of the brightest and most intelligent minds in the world. I'm sure we can figure it out. (seriously I'm never going to under-estimate the resolve of the 'Downers in getting this place back up and everyone together again)

[Nogrod]

They'll know what the Living know plus more, so logically they should be able to help, particularly if the Living provide them with a structure in which to do so.The Dead will know more - and they should help in the best way they can - but I'm a bit more realist on the issue of how successful they will be just sorting out things among themselves - or how happy they would be to follow strict guidelines given by people in the Living Thread they do not know the alignment of...

There is concrete knowledge available to us in this game. We need to try and grab it.Certainly - and that will be the Dead Thread who has it (and hopefully at some stages also the Living Thread). Fully agreed.

[Loslote]

I have work today, but I'll be back before deadline. A couple last thoughts:

It doesn't make sense to tie before the Dead thread starts up, since we have a better chance at killing wolves and avoiding Gifteds if we lynch than if we leave it to the Night kills (see my above post).

I am also dubious about giving the Dead thread the power to choose who dies in the lynch - I agree that it would be good to set up a system wherein the Dead can let us know who they checked and what the result was, but I would prefer for that system to not give the Dead the ultimate choice. After all, if all we the voters can do is comply with the voting scheme already set out, we do not get nearly as much information on the voters. Even if we don't know the result of the vote, looking at people's votes with an eye to what they appear to be trying to do, who they want lynched, and who they don't gives us a lot of information that we wouldn't get if we gave that power to the Dead.

[Nogrod]

Of course it would take the cooperation of the Dead and any method should have a clear and simple understanding.
...
It might be quite complicated, but this is involving some of the brightest and most intelligent minds in the world. I'm sure we can figure it out. I might see just that as a problem... even if I fully agree it would be nice we had a method of communication with the goodies of the Dead side with a lot of knowledge. The Dead will probably understand a lot things the Living will not, but the baddies on the Dead thread will wish to twist any "message" they give the living - and in the Living Thread some may understand things but others will not - and the baddies will do their best trying to make people not understanding things...

Well, we'll see - for it truly seems a complicated game (I haven't had time yet to really walk myself through the rules and the possibilities they might offer all the sides). But therefore I'd suggest we at least start by trying to lynch a wolf and notb try to enforce a double-lynch on D1 (it most probably will not work anyway).

Contrary to some people's opinion, I think D1 is a good day to hunt for wolves - and I think the stats might even prove me right in this (although I'm not sure of it). So let's see what we can do toDay - I'm coming back later to try and do something for it.

[Macalaure]

I mean really- we're not going to attempt something useful because we're afraid our own side will suck too much to pull it off? No, no, I'm not okay with that.
Day1 is always sketchy in terms of usefulness, but later on? We will do the usual and analyze, as well as we can in this setting, and poke around to see how people are acting. Just because it's not fancy doesn't make it not useful.

If the person doesn't appear as Predator then we trust the reveal, right?
Ah, ok.
I think.
Maybe.
I guess we'll see when we get there.

so a fake-looking case alone is not as strong a sign of wolfishness as it usually is.
I'm just a bit confused about the last sentence, the conclusion
Actually, that's a good catch. Wouldn't the conclusion be: "so a good-looking case is not as strong a sign of innocence as it usually is"? :confused:

But that was totally different, because the Dead couldn't confirm roles. If they had been able to do so they would've tested Seer-Nog as soon as you went to the Dead thread and suddenly things would've been different.
Maybe it's my memory now, but I think they were. Didn't they just chose not to check Nogrod, because he was so obviously a cobbler.

and I think the stats might even prove me right in this
A long time ago I actually compiled stats for it. It's somewhere in the grimoire thread. Day1 had the worst odds to catch a wolf. :D Not saying we shouldn't try, of course.

[mormegil]

For old times sake I must state emphatically that Firefoot did it and should be lynched. (Please reference the first game ever to understand the humor...though please don't read anything into this...I know some of you are already thinking way too much about that comment)

Next we should lynch the phantom...old tummy is making this thread obscenely long.

Finally, how does one get the votes red, that is a standard after my time.

I will post a bit more when I have caught all the way up on the thread. However I'm not sure I fully understand the logic on the intentionally tying the vote and having the dead break the tie. I don't think the dead will know the guilty or innocent, will they? It seems like a clever ploy to disguise your voting patterns by having everyone vote in a fairly prescribed way.

[Nerwen]

O esteemed Mod, a clarification about the Dead Thread extra vote? So do the dead vote for a living player or double that player's vote? I interpreted it as the former (the Dead Thread vote being simply a ++person-of-their-choice) but the way I understood phantom's theory above, he seems to have interpreted it as the latter (the person chosen by the Dead gets to vote twice). The wording of the rules could mean either.
I suppose they could, but your version would mean that the Dead can participate in the lynch *directly*, which would seem to me to rather miss the point of the whole "death" thing. But I could be wrong.

But I'd also say there seems to be a lot of confidence that the Dead Thread will both know what to do and what would be the best for the village - and to be able to execute that. What Mac already referred to: the last game the Dead Thread was as totally confused as the Living Thread.
Did the Dead have any way of checking roles that game?
Edit:x'd since Nog at #47.

[Boromir88]

Well, we'll see - for it truly seems a complicated game (I haven't had time yet to really walk myself through the rules and the possibilities they might offer all the sides). But therefore I'd suggest we at least start by trying to lynch a wolf and notb try to enforce a double-lynch on D1 (it most probably will not work anyway).

I'm coming at it from thinking doing whatever it takes to ensure the Seer at least gets passed today. That way, the Seer has 4 dreams and even if one of the packs makes a lucky pick at night, the Seer is in the Dead thread with 4 known roles. Those 2-dreams a night while living is probably our biggest advantage we need to keep as long as possible. I think now more than any other game, we have to ensure the Seer survives DAY 1

Granted our chances of randomly lynching 1 wolf is far better than randomly lynching the Seer, but it wouldn't be the first time we accidentally lynch the Seer DAY 1, despite the smaller odds.

Either way (tying a vote for no-lynch or getting a lynch today) it's too early to tell whether one is option is better than the other. Let's see how the DAY shakes out with votes and suspicions and go from there.

[the phantom]

Maybe it's my memory now, but I think they were. Didn't they just chose not to check Nogrod, because he was so obviously a cobbler.
Seriously?! Okay, if that's true, then that game was even funnier than I remember. :D
old tummy is making this thread obscenely long
Psh. I remember days with considerably more posting than this. Put on your big boy pants and play. :p
However I'm not sure I fully understand the logic on the intentionally tying the vote and having the dead break the tie. I don't think the dead will know the guilty or innocent, will they?
Yes, they will. Only the Dead will know evil/good for certain. They will always know more.

Basically we try and lynch the folks we feel are guilty, and toward the end of the day we make sure our top two or three candidates are tied so that the dead can swing the vote. Of course that would require us to be on the ball and try and finish up an hour before deadline.

And if the Dead go against what my gut tells me I'll probably decide the plan sucks, but logically it's not a bad idea.

Anyway, I'm not committed to that idea, but I think it's worth considering. The only thing I'm truly committed to is giving the Dead the option of passing info to the Living. It would be silly not to take advantage of our only consistent connection to real information.

[Kuruharan]

Will the narrations state which unfortunate soul got killed by which wolf pack? Or was this stated somewhere and I overlooked it? If it is not clear to the village, then the wolves would have extra knowledge and be more adept at killing the other pack than we are. An uncomfortable thought.

No the killing pack will not be stated. From an RP standpoint the Party does not know that there are two wolf packs. The split of the baddies is completely obscure to the Party.

So do the dead vote for a living player or double that player's vote? I interpreted it as the former (the Dead Thread vote being simply a ++person-of-their-choice) but the way I understood phantom's theory above, he seems to have interpreted it as the latter (the person chosen by the Dead gets to vote twice). The wording of the rules could mean either.

The individual empowered by the Dead gets two votes. And has also been alluded to in subsequent conversation, this will be noted in the narration and the individual so empowered will be mentioned explicitly by name.

As has also been noted, but I will state again for clarity's sake, the Ranger has only one protection per NIGHT to use in their first life. Should this individual die and resurrect, then that individual has two protections. Right now as of this moment, the Ranger only has one.

For Morm (and anybody else who doesn't know), the way to highlight is to put the word "highlight" in the brackets, like so -> [highlight] and then do the usual closing of the tags to end it.

[the phantom]

Okay- if we're going to try and lynch someone today is there any intelligent guideline we can set forth? For instance, perhaps we should only be willing to lynch someone who will be around to shout "Ah! No!" just in case we hit worst case scenario (i.e. Gifted).

Granted a WW might fake reveal to save his hide, but then the other WW team will be gunning for him so he's toast eventually anyway.

[Mithalwen]

I may as well state now that I didn't come back to Werewolf to merely be a pawn in anyone's masterplan and I certainly don't want to play if it is a case of "Do what Phantom tells you or it is all your fault". So to be clear, I will vote as I see fit, not as I am told, dead or alive. It is a game, it is meant to be fun. I am not here to be a minion, bullied or bored to sobs.

[mormegil]

Yes, they will. Only the Dead will know evil/good for certain. They will always know more.



I re-read the rules and once there is 3 in dead they will be able to vote to reveal if one of them is good or evil. They will know more than us so the plan has more merit than I originally thought, however my reservation still remains that a prescribed voting pattern takes away one of the clearest evidences we have.

[Macalaure]

Seriously?! Okay, if that's true, then that game was even funnier than I remember. :D
Wait, I remember. The dead could only distinguish wolf or not-wolf, so they couldn't gain any info on "cobbler"-Nogrod. Same rule as now, as far as I can see, but it had more consequence due to having cobblers.

No the killing pack will not be stated.
Well, that sucks now. :(

I may as well state now that I didn't come back to Werewolf to merely be a pawn in anyone's masterplan
This. :)

[Aganzir]

Helloooo.

Well then, since I have permission, I do believe I'll work on a very non-fluffy post.
The opposite of fluffy is smutty, isn't it?

I was going to do the numbers thing but the phantom beat me to it. Hardly surprising considering that I missed the first half of day 1. (I didn't play from work though! Well technically I'm still at the office, only not working anymore but waiting for Lommy).

I see a small hitch here. How can we believe anyone's claim if no roles are revealed upon death? There's no way of checking a claim, so basically we could have Seers revealing left, right and centre with no one able to verify which one is telling the truth - or, at least, no one but a resurrected dead person, and even that ony about whoever the dead happen to have checked.
And how can we know if the seer has died? We may think somebody was killed for "possibly looking like the seer", but even then we won't know for sure. I wouldn't presume to advise the seer (still never having been one), but if they happen to dream of another gifted, establishing a connection (if it can be done discreetly enough not to endanger either party) might not be a bad idea at all. That way at least there'd be somebody to steer the village (discreetly or not) in the right direction at the event of the seer's death.

Basically, we purposefully tie the vote every day and let the Dead decide who gets the bonus vote (and thus who dies). It's possible that it would be a good tactic (because the Dead will always know more than the living as they have access to the roles of the Dead). So basically we just debate which two to place on the chopping block and let the Dead call the shots. I mean, simple odds certainly say that we can trust the dead since 2/3 of them will be Wolf kills (thus unlikely to be Wolves). Plus we'll probably lynch a non-Wolf today.
Ooh I like this idea. It's obviously difficult though because no matter what we do, there will always be the end of day fuss, especially in a village this size, and we just can't prevent cross posting (except with fascistic in-game legislation and vote ordering).

I don't think false reveals are unlikely at all, and I'm willing to bet actual money that we'll see one or more during this game. It's just the kind of brilliant, tempting thing a lot of us are into (not me though, ever!). Ahem, anyway, if a wolf is desperate enough to reveal, she's desperate enough to face the ensuing chaos. Besides wolves like chaos.

I like phantom's idea of passing messages between the living and dead thread and want to think more about it later.

I also like phantom. I don't necessarily find him innocent but I like him. Hey phants I missed you.

I haven't read Legate's posts yet but I'm nominating him for the Nobel Prize for literature. Hah okay he's freaking out. Well for your information man, not all players. (I'm actually quite enjoying myself already.)

If it was possible (which it isn't), I'd like to eliminate one wolf pack at a time. That would get rid of the two night kills. But it won't be possible because wolves are too clever and know how to drive a bandwagon and prey on people's doubts. One can always wish.

We can then tell the Dead thread, "If Lottie was evil give your bonus vote to Rikae or Nerwen, if she was innocent give it to Morm or Green, if you didn't check her give your bonus vote to someone else.
I see a couple of problems here.

If the dead mess it up once, for one reason or other, we'll misinterpret vital information.
Timezones. Let's say we only kill Europeans - we'll have to vote waaay earlier than you and may miss something important that only comes up later in the day.


I really like Firefoot's post #37 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697117&postcount=37). (Have we ever played together? If yes it must have been years and years ago - anyway hi!) I'm strongly in favour of tying the vote today. Normally I'd think it's a rubbish idea, but we learn very little from the lynches, way less than from the wolf kills. That would also save an extra slot for role-finding in the dead thread (it only starts on night 3 in any case, but we can decide whether there's 3 or 4 people to choose from).
4) As far as victim choice - sort of a shot in the dark anyway - do we go random? Ask for volunteers (at least we don't get a gifted - but then I guess it narrows the wolves' choice for who is gifted, so maybe that's a poor strategy)? Might as well pick Nilp since he's already got a vote?
:D
In any case, if we're doing this, I'll be happy to volunteer (oooh is she a selfless ordo? is she a bluffing gifted? is she a bluffing wolf? is she something else? we can never know) provided that it actually works and you don't lynch me by accident. I was one of the lovers in the last Mandos game and died early thanks to my beloved Lúthien getting killed on Night 2 (blows a kiss at Shasta), and while the Dead Thread is a fun place to be, I'm not going there alone. So TL;DR, vote for me all you like, but if you mess it up, it had better not be me or there will be actual consequences (such as every person who votes for you later having a double vote).

Well, strategy-maker, I think tying our votes could be useful to attempt to coordinate and leave it in the hands of the Dead who should know more. But to do so today would mean we wouldn't get an active Dead thread until NIGHT 3. It takes 3 Dead to start it, and to have no lynch today would set the Dead thread back 1/2 day.
Well. They start talking as soon as they land there. But see what I just said - they won't start voting on identity reveals until the first night there's 3 of them, and if we lynch somebody today there'll be 4 not 3 people at the first opportunity.

Anyone remember how nobody believed Nogrod was the seer all game last time?
Makes me chuckle. :D He persistently kept dreaming in the Dead Thread though, only for us to vote to find out his target's "true role" later.

Ah, now we come to the other problem: this plan seems to me virtually to ensure that we occupy two or three days with organising pseudo-lynches of randomly-chosen players, instead of, you know, trying to find wolves.
I'd do it as a one-off thing. There's no sense in continuing it for longer, but today it's as good a plan as any and better than most.

I mean really- we're not going to attempt something useful because we're afraid our own side will suck too much to pull it off? No, no, I'm not okay with that.
This. Thanks phants.

Especially since we as a village have (as I believe Mac said) a 25% chance of catching a wolf, whereas the Night kills have a 15% chance. I'd also like to add that we as a village have a further 21% (5/24) chance of accidentally killing a Gifted, where the Night kills have a 25% (5/20 - assuming we do not ourselves lynch a Gifted toDay) chance of purposefully killing a Gifted. It's much much riskier to trust the wolf killing to the wolves, since they are far more likely to kill a Gifted than a wolf, whereas we are slightly more likely to kill a wolf than a Gifted.
Well, if we lynch an innocent today, the wolves' chance of killing a gifted increases as well. In the end it comes down to whether we want slightly better odds for not killing gifteds, or deaths that give us more information (because what we learn from the unknown day 1 lynch doesn't amount to much in the end).

[mormegil]

Let's say we only kill Europeans

Agan, what are you suggesting here :D.

Actually and more seriously, now that I'm caught up I have noticed something off in somebody's posting. I want to hold on to that name for now to continue to watch her/him. It's just a gut feeling on it, something that feels off, but I've learned to trust those. I'll continue to monitor and let you know a bit later.

[the phantom]

I may as well state now that I didn't come back to Werewolf to merely be a pawn in anyone's masterplan and I certainly don't want to play if it is a case of "Do what Phantom tells you or it is all your fault". So to be clear, I will vote as I see fit, not as I am told, dead or alive. It is a game, it is meant to be fun. I am not here to be a minion, bullied or bored to sobs.
I fully expect you to vote as you see fit. When we vote we simply cast the vote that is the most beneficial to our side. Thus if you can use your Dead vote to reveal an important clue to the Living why not do so?

Basically I don't think the whole passing information plan infringes on your voting rights. When we vote we are always considering outcomes. Sometimes we don't vote for our best candidate but rather our second best because we know our first choice won't get lynched that day, etc.

Or looking at it a different way- if someone tells me, "Phantom, try and vote for a Werewolf!" there is no need for me to object- "I don't have to vote for a Werewolf. I'm free to vote for anyone I want!" Obviously, yes, I can do anything I please with my vote, but in the end I will of course vote in such a way that benefits my cause. I expect people to vote logically and attempt to win. Nothing more.

(You'll note that I built options into my plan (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697111&postcount=34) to allow the Dead maximum vote flexibility while simultaneously passing information. I did this specifically because I knew certain folks would complain if they were asked to participate in anything resembling a plan.)

[Aganzir]

Agan, what are you suggesting here :D.
"We" obviously as in "us villagers", not as in "me and my wolf pack", duh! ;)

Anyway I need to go, will be back later to vote but don't expect massive contributions from me tonight.

[Thinlómien]

I feel like my head is exploding already. I'll be around later to properly think about the rules and write something longer. For now

- I'm never in favour of intentionally abstaining from a lynch; do I really have to remind anyone we only win this game by killing six wolves with two night kills so we better start sooner than later or they'll butcher us in no time at all

(- ...don't I hate those games where the village has less than 50% chance of winning because there are extra baddie parties around... I'm trying to control my pessimism atm but it's hard!)

- whenever talking about communicating with the dead we should keep in mind that how are we going to know if the dead will follow our instructions? and whose instructions if we living have differing opinions? I see a lot of pitfalls here

I'll be back later.


edit: xed with Agan - ...WHAT???? I smell Freud... but whatever I'll look at it when I'm back

[A Little Green]

That said, I'm somewhat optimistic with our chances as a village: there are so many factors involved, not the least the rivalry between the two competing Wolfgangs *sic*.Nog you're killing me! :D:D

Oh one question on what Greenie said and most people seemed to strongly agree on (maybe I'm just in rust for not playing WW for a long time):
First, I think this is a crucial point. The wolves can (and probably will) engage in completely genuine wolf-hunting during Day phases, which means that we have to think differently than we would in a normal game; we have wolves who don't know everyone's alignment and who have a good motive to hunt bad guys too. That means they're not by default lying when they say they suspect someone, so a fake-looking case alone is not as strong a sign of wolfishness as it usually is.
I'm just a bit confused about the last sentence, the conclusion, or the POV of it, that is.
Actually, that's a good catch. Wouldn't the conclusion be: "so a good-looking case is not as strong a sign of innocence as it usually is"?Either way. What I was getting at was trying to figure out how to spot wolves with these dynamics. One of my most common reasons for suspecting anyone is that a case they make seems fabricated, ie. they know the person they're accusing is not actually guilty. I was referring to not being able to base speculations about a player's wolfishness on this since the wolves, too, are essentially hunting wolves they don't know the identities of. Did that help?

It doesn't make sense to tie before the Dead thread starts up, since we have a better chance at killing wolves and avoiding Gifteds if we lynch than if we leave it to the Night kills (see my above post).Word.

I am also dubious about giving the Dead thread the power to choose who dies in the lynch - I agree that it would be good to set up a system wherein the Dead can let us know who they checked and what the result was, but I would prefer for that system to not give the Dead the ultimate choice. After all, if all we the voters can do is comply with the voting scheme already set out, we do not get nearly as much information on the voters. Even if we don't know the result of the vote, looking at people's votes with an eye to what they appear to be trying to do, who they want lynched, and who they don't gives us a lot of information that we wouldn't get if we gave that power to the Dead.This is also a very good point. I would suggest trying to leave the deciding vote for the Dead only if we have good reason to believe they have crucial information we don't.

Well, we'll see - for it truly seems a complicated game (I haven't had time yet to really walk myself through the rules and the possibilities they might offer all the sides). But therefore I'd suggest we at least start by trying to lynch a wolf and notb try to enforce a double-lynch on D1 (it most probably will not work anyway).Sidenote - don't worry, Nog, no double-lynches in this game! A tie will result in no lynch.

Also, thanks Kuru for the clarification! I was confused.


EDIT: x-ed with morm, phantom, Agan and Lommy. Also, can I just say how happy it makes me to type that? I mean, cross-posting with morm and phantom, for the first time in God knows how many years! <3

[Mithalwen]

It is dull, formulaic atd lacks room for inspiration, instinct and idiosyncrasy. It insults my soul. You might as well dispense with people and run it through a computer simulation. I am not a number.

[the phantom]

I also like phantom. I don't necessarily find him innocent but I like him. Hey phants I missed you.
Right back at you, my lion.
And we both know you like me because you don't find me innocent. ;)
Normally I'd think it's a rubbish idea, but we learn very little from the lynches, way less than from the wolf kills.
Yeah. Innocents will be trying to lynch WWs. WWs will be trying to lynch WWs. I'm thinking the Day 1 vote might be very useless. But I doubt we can talk enough folks into forging a tie.
now that I'm caught up I have noticed something off in somebody's posting. I want to hold on to that name for now to continue to watch her/him
Ha ha, that's just the worst. :D

I'm in the same boat- I'm sure I see something here or there but what on earth does it mean? It could easily be Gifted vibes I'm getting. That's why (I've mentioned this in other games) that I often try and lynch an Ordo on Day 1 because the game hasn't been going long enough to begin differentiating Gifted/WW vibes.

[A Little Green]

Basically I don't think the whole passing information plan infringes on your voting rights. When we vote we are always considering outcomes. Sometimes we don't vote for our best candidate but rather our second best because we know our first choice won't get lynched that day, etc.For heaven's sake man, stop sounding like a politician! :D

edit: xed with Agan - ...WHAT???? I smell Freud... but whatever I'll look at it when I'm backI assume you're referring to this:

"We" obviously as in "us villagers", not as in "me and my wolf pack", duh!I don't smell Freud as much as a trolling Agan. Admittedly, I took morm's "Agan, what are you suggesting here" as not a reference to her use of "we" but to her hypothesis of the Dead Thread only being populated by Europeans, and in that regard her reply doesn't really make sense. That doesn't equal Freud-odor, though.


EDIT: x-ed with phantom again!

[the phantom]

It is dull, formulaic atd lacks room for inspiration, instinct and idiosyncrasy. It insults my soul. You might as well dispense with people and run it through a computer simulation. I am not a number.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our collective.
Nog you're killing me!
He can't do that now, silly. It's day.

(And yes, isn't cross-posting exciting!)

[the phantom]

Remember Day 1 of The Republic? 12 pages.

We're slacking. :p

[Kath]

*waves*

My head is reeling from all the rules. Jumped in at the deep end on this one!

While all the discussion about how to organise a lynch on Day 1 is fascinating, the history of Day 1s suggests this is a rather futile strategy. With people forgetting (...who? me!? ...) plus very last minute votes I suspect toDay will be it's usual all-out madness. Also I agree with whoever it was that worked out that missing a lynch toDay means the Dead Thread is half a day behind, which would be a shame as it seems like a really fun addition to the game.

[McCaber]

My own opinion is that every day without a lynch is a day the wolves can build up an uncontested lead and a day that gives us no real information to build off of in the future. Early lynches, arguments, and voting patterns are how you build solid cases and catch inconsistencies. Delaying for three days just leaves us that far behind when it comes to detective work.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

You know what can really open up the game of football? Sepp Blatter resigning... :smokin:

Also I enjoy plans I haven't thought up my self (especially if I can take some credit for them), long walks at the beach, and killing Europeans.

In short: I hate you all for being so active in this way to complicated game.

Have a good night.

[Nogrod]

Sidenote - don't worry, Nog, no double-lynches in this game! A tie will result in no lynch.Sorry about my sloppy expression... That was indeed what I meant to say: double lynch = no lynch - and that is what we shouldn't do. Lynching baddies is how we win games, not by waiting for someone else to do it for us.

Also: what helps us lynching the baddies is having some clues as to who did what and when, but with an agreed upon consensus (even with only some people claiming to take part) for any style of voting we lose a lot (or all) the info voting could give us.

- "Why did you not vote for the guy who turned out a wolf and we all saw as one so clearly?"
- "Well I thought we were still hanging on to this deal we'd leave it to dead to decide!"

So let's not give anyone a "free passage" -card with "I can't explain my vote otherwise, I was only trying this scheme someone talked about".

[the phantom]

So let's not give anyone a "free passage" -card with "I can't explain my vote otherwise, I was only trying this scheme someone talked about".
But I can use that excuse, right? I mean... I was kinda hoping to skate by on that for at least 2 days.

[Rikae]

Anybody who is suggesting an ordo self-sacrifice toDay (Nilp? Phantom? Lottie?) fie on you. With this many wolves, we simply can't throw away chances at lynching them, or innocents who will count in the final tally.

With a 25% chance of getting a wolf now, I say we follow our instincts and vote for someone who is giving off wolf-vibes. We're an experienced group of players - if we're careful, we can avoid the Day 1 traps of confusing "weird" or "seerish" with "wolfy". I, at least, intend to try. Mac, you mentioned the odds of a wolf-lynch being the worst on Day 1, but if I recall correctly, they were still better than pure chance would give.

That said, I like much of Phantom's post #34 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697111&postcount=34). I'm all for a plan that lets us use the extra vote to gain not one, but two additional pieces of information. It also doesn't require much vote-coordination (something I am usually against in principle), only that we agree to an early deadline for the living vote and then designate, after voting, who signifies the last lynchee was guilty or innocent, among the voters for the two biggest wagons. Yes, if there's more than a 1 vote discrepancy the dead won't change the outcome, but knowing their opinion of the runner-up is still desirable.

As for baddies swaying the dead thread, it's unlikely they'll have the numbers there, and if they do, we're doing well. If it comes to that, we do still have the resurrecting roles to inform us of the situation.

But yeah, until the dead thread has three denizens, I intend to play old-fashioned WW and vote at the deadline for someone who seems hairy and/or a little too interested in biting people.

Edit: X'd with Nog and phantom.

[Nogrod]

That said, I like much of Phantom's post #34 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697111&postcount=34). I'm all for a plan that lets us use the extra vote to gain not one, but two additional pieces of information. It also doesn't require much vote-coordination (something I am usually against in principle), only that we agree to an early deadline for the living vote and then designate, after voting, who signifies the last lynchee was guilty or innocent, among the voters for the two biggest wagons. Yes, if there's more than a 1 vote discrepancy the dead won't change the outcome, but knowing their opinion of the runner-up is still desirable. I have nothing against trying to work out ways to communicate with the Dead Thread or letting them guide us when it's possible - later in the game when we know something (or at least can make some inferences as to how this game works and what should be done). And with a situation where we have two (or three or...) strong lynching candidates later in the game it might be reasonable to try and make a tie so that the Dead might - if they knew something on those people and the innocents had the upper hand there - to help us with lynching a wolf with their swinging extra-vote.


Btw. how about we send the phantom into the Dead Thread as our first move? If he is innocent he is a great asset organizing things for us there - and there people could check his alignment (unlike here) so everyone would know whether to trust his ideas or not. It would be a win-win -situation. ;)

[A Little Green]

As for baddies swaying the dead thread, it's unlikely they'll have the numbers there, and if they do, we're doing well. If it comes to that, we do still have the resurrecting roles to inform us of the situation.True, but we can't count on that. For one thing, we might go through the entire game without either a lover or the ranger dying, thus having no one return from the Dead Thread to shed light on things. For another, yes we're doing well if the Dead Thread has a baddie majority, but we won't know that - and taking advice from the dead in such a situation might turn the odds against us surprisingly fast. Finally, we also can't count on everyone who has died to be active on the Dead Thread, which might sway the thread in favour of the wolves even if they were not a numerical majority.

Sorry for being such a pessimist by the way, I think I might be channelling Lommy... :D


EDIT: x-ed with Noggins

[A Little Green]

Btw. how about we send the phantom into the Dead Thread as our first move? If he is innocent he is a great asset organizing things for us there - and there people could check his alignment (unlike here) so everyone would know whether to trust his ideas or not. It would be a win-win -situation.:D:D:D There are times when I'm extremely proud to be related to this man.

[Macalaure]

Grimoire thread, post #190

Chances of lynching wolves, based on the first 31 games played:
Day 1: 29% (sample size: 34)
Day 2: 31% (36)
Day 3: 43% (40)
Day 4: 35% (34)
Day 5: 34% (29)
Day 6: 29% (17)
Day 7: 55% (11)
Day 8: 0% (3)

All better than the random 25% we have, and it looks even better considering that most villages have a smaller wolf ratio than ours.

Now I'm itching to turn these into confidence intervals. :D But the sample sizes are small, so the result would probably not be very good. Maybe if I compiled it for all games played, but do I really want to do that? :rolleyes:

[Nogrod]

True, but we can't count on that. For one thing, we might go through the entire game without either a lover or the ranger dying, thus having no one return from the Dead Thread to shed light on things. For another, yes we're doing well if the Dead Thread has a baddie majority, but we won't know that - and taking advice from the dead in such a situation might turn the odds against us surprisingly fast. Finally, we also can't count on everyone who has died to be active on the Dead Thread, which might sway the thread in favour of the wolves even if they were not a numerical majority.Kudos for well spelled out reasoning Greenie!

We can't trust the Dead help us - or that we understand unanimously how they're doing it if they do. These are two different games after all - just bound togehter - and we shouldn't try to play the other one here or lay our hopes in the other game to play ours.

[Formendacil]

Dear me, if this is when I show up most days, I shall be avalanched trying to keep up with things... whatever possessed me to think I had the analytical stamina to get back into this horrid sport? :p

Getting down to business, my mostly-likely-forgotten antipathy towards Days 1 is not returning with its usual force, because even if there's not actually any useful information we can use NOW for voting, at least the convoluted dynamics of the game require such thorough examination that we can do something productive.

On that note, I haven't been able to sufficiently wrap my head around the ramifications of communicating with the Dead Thread (this being my first Dead Thread game) to have anything intelligent occur to me to say, but I do like the idea of a tied-vote/no-lynchings being our plan for today. For one, this fits nicely with my feeling that Day 1s are useless information for lynching until there's some benefit of hindsight. For another, although 1-in-4 is a reasonably good chance of hitting on a wolf, it's still not as good as the 3-in-4 chance of missing one altogether.

As far as that goes, I'm among those willing to be one of the two lynch victims--but that's a rather paltry sacrifice to make, since I make it in the hopes that we'll tie it up and I won't die--but if there *IS* someone out there who wants to upset the apple-cart and kill off one of the two tied victims (thus revealing in all probability his/her own lycanthropy), at least I'd die in a lynch straightforward enough to have actually been of service to the village.

[the phantom]

I'll be an asset to whatever thread I'm in, Noggie. If you really want me in the Dead thread...

Hey Wolves. Kill me tonight. Ranger. Do not protect me.

There. We'll see if that works.

But no, I'm not going to volunteer for lynching. ;) Totally pointless. If we're not going to purposefully tie the vote then we need to at least take a shot at a Wolf.

[Rikae]

Btw. how about we send the phantom into the Dead Thread as our first move? If he is innocent he is a great asset organizing things for us there - and there people could check his alignment (unlike here) so everyone would know whether to trust his ideas or not. It would be a win-win -situation. ;)

Tempting. :D

His ideas seem pretty sound at this point, though, whatever he is.

True, but we can't count on that. For one thing, we might go through the entire game without either a lover or the ranger dying, thus having no one return from the Dead Thread to shed light on things. For another, yes we're doing well if the Dead Thread has a baddie majority, but we won't know that - and taking advice from the dead in such a situation might turn the odds against us surprisingly fast

Hmm.

The only way to have a majority of allied wolves in the dead thread is either on Night 3 with great luck (two dead wolves and a ranger save within two days), or because one pack is completely dead.

The former is a situation that wouldn't persist for long, and the latter will be obvious because of the one night kill.

If wolves of two separate packs make up the majority of the dead thread (say, 4 wolves and 3 innocents?) they'll be gunning for the remaining living member of the other pack, anyway, as best they can.

[the phantom]

And just so you know, I'm operating under the assumption that any Wolf would be desperate to kill me in case I'm in the opposing pack. :p

[Rikae]

Grimoire thread, post #190

Chances of lynching wolves, based on the first 31 games played:
Day 1: 29% (sample size: 34)
Day 2: 31% (36)
Day 3: 43% (40)
Day 4: 35% (34)
Day 5: 34% (29)
Day 6: 29% (17)
Day 7: 55% (11)
Day 8: 0% (3)

All better than the random 25% we have, and it looks even better considering that most villages have a smaller wolf ratio than ours.

Now I'm itching to turn these into confidence intervals. :D But the sample sizes are small, so the result would probably not be very good. Maybe if I compiled it for all games played, but do I really want to do that? :rolleyes:


Actually I think ours might even be the usual ratio. The average game I remember is something like 16 players, 4 wolves or 12 players, 3 wolves.

Still, slightly better than chance. It is known!

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

So we are not going for a tied non-lynch today?

But rather we are going to at least attempt to get a baddie?

What a splendid idea! We all know what an incredible success rate we have on day 1, and obviously a well meaning effort always gets rewarded. Since when did sincerity become an excuse for failure?

ehm... I guess what I am trying to say, is that I still quite fancy that non-lynch thingy.

Also I will have to vote quite soon.

[A Little Green]

Since when did sincerity become an excuse for failure?Since Immanuel Kant? ...ahem.

[mormegil]

Now I'm itching to turn these into confidence intervals. :D But the sample sizes are small, so the result would probably not be very good.

Now he's talking Stats, must be a wolf! Burn him.

The more I've thought about it I don't like the tied voting because it would give to much ability to be manipulated by a small minority of the people to their advantage.

[Nogrod]

I'll be an asset to whatever thread I'm in, Noggie.I know. But an asset on whose side?

So if you the phantom are a wolf we’d make Werewolf history suitable for the anniversary game by lynching a wolf-phantom on Day1!

If on the other hand you're not a wolf, we’d give you a chance to shine as the organizer of the innocent triumph from the Dead Thread coming up with plots and schemes totally outplaying the baddies.

In the Dead Thread we / they could be sure of your alignment though - and that's an asset over an asset. :rolleyes:



Premature thoughs on toDays's vote.

If we had a good candidate for lycantrophy I would like to try lynching the most probable wolf first - altohugh I have no good candidates at least for the time being. That's the way this game is won - by lynching the wolves. And that's the fun / point of the game, to try and find the wolves.

I do not like the "let's not lynch anyone toDay" -meme (backed by the idea that we might lynch our Seer who is very important in this game) as the chances of lynching our seer are minuscule compared to any normal game and there are such loads of wolves around - and if we were to lynch the seer s/he could act on it before things get nasty thus at least securing another two dreams the next Night when the Ranger covered it for her/him...

There 24 players of which 1 is the Seer. The chances of hitting the Seer on D1 lynching = 1/24.

THere are 3+3 wolves in this game. The chances of getting a wolf on D1 lynching = 6/24 = 1/4. And add to that the practical stats we've just seen (a village is slightly better than random in picking up the villains), so yeah. Let's try and hunt a wolf toDay.


And just so you know, I'm operating under the assumption that any Wolf would be desperate to kill me in case I'm in the opposing pack.Should I interpet this as "a wolvish defence reaction"? :)

[Nogrod]

Since when did sincerity become an excuse for failure?
Since Immanuel Kant? ...ahem. :D:cool:

Love you! :)

There are times when I'm extremely proud to be related to this young woman.

[A Little Green]

There 24 players of which 1 is the Seer. The chances of hitting the Seer on D1 lynching = 1/24.

THere are 3+3 wolves in this game. The chances of getting a wolf on D1 lynching = 6/24 = 1/4. And add to that the practical stats we've just seen (a village is slightly better than random in picking up the villains), so yeah. Let's try and hunt a wolf toDay.Hard to argue with this. Additionally, an organised tie a) won't give us as much to analyse and b) has a fairly good chance of getting accidentally botched by cross-posting, miscounting or just plain not knowing who's going to turn up and vote and who forgets/abstains/is late.


EDIT: x-ed with Nog - well, somebody taught me well. ;)

[Nogrod]

Where b) leads back to an enhanced a).

[Formendacil]

Actually I think ours might even be the usual ratio. The average game I remember is something like 16 players, 4 wolves or 12 players, 3 wolves.

Still, slightly better than chance. It is known!

Even so, we can't calculate OUR odds of lynching a wolf off what has actually happened in the past, any more than you can say the odds of flipping a coin Heads or Tails on a given toss is anything other than 50/50--even if the ACTUAL flipping has come up 52/48 in favour of Heads. Although the Day 1 lynch rate for wolves has certainly been historically better than utter chance would predict, it is nonetheless close to what chance predicts.

So even if past games had a bearing on the chances of this game, we're still in a situation where past frequency predicts that we're better-than-70% likely to lynch an Ordo on Day, leaving me firmly in the camp of preferring that we not lynch anyone at all on Day 1.

The only exception to that would be if someone could correlate the frequency of lynching a Wolf on Day 1 to the likelihood of lynching a wolf on Day 2 (and 3, 4, etc). If, for example, lynching a wolf on Day 1 meant a 50% or greater chance of lynching a wolf on Day 2 vs. lynching an ordo on Day 1 meaning a less-than-50% chance of lynching a wolf on day 2, then there would probably be arguments to be made--but my own training in Statistics reaches no further than the ability to say that 25% chance of getting a wolf is the same as a 75% chance of getting an ordo.

Now, even with this preference for not lynching anyone, I realise that lynching someone today, at the very least, gives us SOME useful information to analyse tomorrow. What I'm not sure about yet is whether or not it's more useful to have that information or more useful to have that extra Innocent vote.

EDIT: X-ed with all posts since Morm #95.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Since Immanuel Kant? ...ahem.

As admirable as the Iron Kingdom and its thinkers was, I am not sure Kant was aware of a world outside Königsberg or even his own mind. In other words: Kant is annoying, don't ever mention him again. Max Weber on the other hand...

[Rikae]

So we are not going for a tied non-lynch today?

But rather we are going to at least attempt to get a baddie?

What a splendid idea! We all know what an incredible success rate we have on day 1, and obviously a well meaning effort always gets rewarded. Since when did sincerity become an excuse for failure?

ehm... I guess what I am trying to say, is that I still quite fancy that non-lynch thingy.

Also I will have to vote quite soon.

Who said anything about "good intentions"? I want people to use reasoning and intuition to vote intelligently. Day 1 too often seems like the day to lynch anyone who behaves erratically, which is, to my recollection, a really bad strategy. When we do catch a wolf based on their posts, it's usually more of a "seems fair and feels foul" situation.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

This has been a rather active first day, hasn't it? I bet Kuru has been spying on us this entire time and cackling madly to himself.

I'll be back shortly - just off work, legs hurt, need a shower, etc.

[Nogrod]

So Form, do you suggest we'd let the baddies kill each other first and not try lynching any of them? Just sit back as sacrificial lambs and wait whether they kill us all or whether they happen to kill each other first, or whether our gifteds save the day or tell us what to do?

Playing this game kind of means we villagers play it as well - and not only those who have roles will play it.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Who said anything about "good intentions"? I want people to use reasoning and intuition to vote intelligently. Day 1 too often seems like the day to lynch anyone who behaves erratically, which is, to my recollection, a really bad strategy. When we do catch a wolf based on their posts, it's usually more of a "seems fair and feels foul" situation.

I don't know if anybody used those words.

You want people to use intuition to vote intelligently?
Is there any meaningful way in which using your intuition, differentiates from reacting to erratic behaviour?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

So Form, do you suggest we'd let the baddies kill each other first and not try lynching any of them? Just sit back as sacrificial lambs and wait whether they kill us all or whether they happen to kill each other first, or whether our gifteds save the day or tell us what to do?

Playing this game kind of means we villagers play it as well - and not only those who have roles will play it.

Pathos much?

[Formendacil]

So Form, do you suggest we'd let the baddies kill each other first and not try lynching any of them? Just sit back as sacrificial lambs and wait whether they kill us all or whether they happen to kill each other first, or whether our gifteds save the day or tell us what to do?

Playing this game kind of means we villagers play it as well - and not only those who have roles will play it.

I suppose I can't expect anyone but myself to remember it, but I have a long-standing dislike against Days 1, and the main reason for that boils down to this very sort of situation. I'm not saying--well, I not trying to say--that we should be docile and let either wolves OR gifteds boss everyone else around and determine the course of the game.

What I'm trying to say is that, unlike the villagers, the wolves HAVE to kill someone toNight. In the normal course of events, where the village lynches someone on Day 1, you could say that the village makes the first move (and 71% of the time, or thereabouts, we get it wrong). By causing Day 1 to be a no-lynch day, we force the wolves to make the first move.

And, in a way, this is the way the game SHOULD be played: the narrative of each game uses the Moderator as a first victim of the wolves, to whose death the village reacts by trying to lynch the werewolves. In PRACTICE, however, the actual participation of the players starts with Day 1--in a real world, if werewolves started killing people in a closed community, we'd have a history of interaction with our neighbours on which to base our lynchings; in the game world, we have nothing but a Day 1 that precedes any actual choices made by the Wolves. The death of the moderator is presented as a fait accompli and we have to try and analyze the actions of people who never actually made any decision to kill that person.

I suppose this is sounding more like a defence for my dislike of Days 1 than anything else, but I think there's a nugget of truth here. The record bears out that Day 1 lynchings get it wrong significantly more than they get it right (better than 2 innocent deaths on Day 1 for every successful wolf-kill). Restoring the natural order of things, where the wolves HAVE to act first means that tomorrow, in what would then be a REAL Day 1-after-wolf-killings, would remove the red herrings of trying to ferret out whose was an ordo, who was a gifted, and who was a wolf in the original lynching.

After all, on Day 1 it could be entirely a list of ordos who lynches an ordo. Or it could be the Seer, Ranger, Hunter, and Loves who cast those votes. My point is that we don't KNOW who will have anyone killed today, but we absolutely will know that the wolves kill whoever is killed at night toNight.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I apologise for the successive posts.

I do really have to leave, and so will have to vote.

I can either vote Formendacil, since he volunteered, or I could vote for Greenie, since I do not care for the buddying up her and Nog is doing (also she mentioned Kant).

++Formendacil

Yup... I don't want to see Form gone, and I would be deeply saddened if this lead to his demise. Though I spoke ill about Greenie, I would hardly say that her actions merits the label "suspicious", "annoying" would be more fitting.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Well, at least the 'nap' worked.

I wasn't planning to post at all, was just reading up on my mobile while trying to recapture sleepiness (bad idea), but some people haven't really caught up to the true implication of the three-party dynamic here. Maybe because I spent the first few days after joining pondering on the metagame of this specific village (before being captured by work, my other work, my other-other work, and Kousaka Reina (http://puu.sh/ia46A/8a0fd94f07.jpg), you beauty (http://puu.sh/ia45e/4e10fc7644.jpg), you. Oh, and some piano/violin cartoon thing.)

Have only caught up to Form's (Hi! :) ) post 88, so if this has already been addressed... you'd ignore or misrepresent me, anyway, so who cares. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So...

Even if the Dead thread does gain a Baddie majority, it is highly likely it's a disparate majority. Again, there are two Wolf Packs. They don't like each other. They don't know each other, except through the mechanism of the Dead thread's NIGHT vote or Seer dreams. They're as interested as us Goodies to find out about Wolves, because all the information they have access to is the knowledge of the roles of two other people (their Packmates).

If one Wolf Pack does gain a majority in the Dead thread, then we'd be well on our way (if not already there) to getting just one kill per NIGHT. I think that's a good thing, yes?

That is all.

[Macalaure]

For another, although 1-in-4 is a reasonably good chance of hitting on a wolf, it's still not as good as the 3-in-4 chance of missing one altogether.
You know, the only time we have a higher random chance to lynch a wolf than to lynch an innocent is when the wolves win. ;)

Even so, we can't calculate OUR odds of lynching a wolf off what has actually happened in the past, any more than you can say the odds of flipping a coin Heads or Tails on a given toss is anything other than 50/50--even if the ACTUAL flipping has come up 52/48 in favour of Heads. Although the Day 1 lynch rate for wolves has certainly been historically better than utter chance would predict, it is nonetheless close to what chance predicts.

You're not leaving me a choice, so here we go. According to math (http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-determine-the-confidence-interval-for-a-pop.html), the interval from 14% to 44% has a 95% chance to contain the population probability for the success of Day 1 lynches.
Yeeah, I expected the interval to be terrible, but not this terrible. Form has a point.

Regardless. The day is a time for lynching, void of scruple or remorse. I will not abstain.


Since Immanuel Kant? ...ahem.
Kant is annoying, don't ever mention him again.
Immanuel Kant was a real ****ant, who was very rarely stable...

Sorry, had to. :D


Ok, enough of this. The next time I post I will actually put down something substantial. Or at least I'll try. :rolleyes:


edit: shaking my head at the forum's auto-censoring

[A Little Green]

The record bears out that Day 1 lynchings get it wrong significantly more than they get it right (better than 2 innocent deaths on Day 1 for every successful wolf-kill).The same holds true for the rest of the Days too, though. According to Mac's statistics, a wolf was lynched in 29 to 35% of the cases on all Days but, for some reason, Day 3 (43%, so still more often a miss than a hit) and the very end of the game (Days 7 and 8). So yes, we're statistically more likely to lynch an innocent than a wolf, but that is sadly not a feature of Day 1 but rather of the entire game.


EDIT: x-ed with Nilp and Mac

[A Little Green]

You're not leaving me a choice, so here we go. According to math, the interval from 14% to 44% has a 95% chance to contain the population probability for the success of Day 1 lynches. Erm... I'm sorry can somebody translate this into English please?

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

So mistress Rikae has already addressed the exact same points I have in post 90, just in a more succinct and understandable manner.

I should be going back to sleep, I guess.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Erm... I'm sorry can somebody translate this into English please?

It's statistics. Many linguists have died trying to translate it into human speech. :D

[Mithalwen]

I don't think there has been much discussion of the wildcard role. Obviously it is hard to discuss an undescribed role but it is a known unknown, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, something we know we don't know. It holds strange powers some of which might well stuff up cleverclogs voting systems.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I don't think there has been much discussion of the wildcard role. Obviously it is hard to discuss an undescribed role but it is a known unknown, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, something we know we don't know. It holds strange powers some of which might well stuff up cleverclogs voting systems.It's one of the things I thought about during my meta-pondering days. Unfortunately, all the information I can glean about it is that it's posted before the Good/Bad categories, meaning it's probably a neutral role. In my notes, I had written down:
Hidden role is neutral? Wizard or Beorning? Cursed villager?
But again, didn't have much to go on, so I just moved on to other things.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Regardless. The day is a time for lynching, void of scruple or remorse. I will not abstain.

Hear, hear! Even if no-one is looking particularly wolvish at the moment, this is the first day of werewolf for AGES, and by gum we oughtta string someone up to satiate our long-frustrated hunger.

So enough with all this numerical babbling for a moment - who do we like the look of?

Personally, I'm always inclined to vote for very many of you, just because - certainly Lommy, Shasta, Nilp and Boro are never wasted lynches, if you ask me.

[the phantom]

I don't think there has been much discussion of the wildcard role. Obviously it is hard to discuss an undescribed role but it is a known unknown, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, something we know we don't know. It holds strange powers some of which might well stuff up cleverclogs voting systems.
Indeed- I considered offering up a bit of mystery role speculation early, but I was worried it was simply too much to handle. What if the Mystery Role can negate dreams? What if MR is immune to either lynch or Wolf kill but is slain by a Ranger protection? What if MR is a Gifted Cobbler (can dream, or protect Wolves from their own kills, etc.)? What if MR can alter the bonus vote from the Dead once per game? What if MR is cursed and will join the WWs if targeted but will be turned Ordo if dreamt? What if MR learns the identity of any lynch victim that he had a hand in lynching? I could go on and on...

Basically I'm afraid of speculating because anything we choose to do could be the exact wrong thing to do because of some MR factor we didn't know about. So unless someone has something to go on maybe we should ignore the presence of the MR until such time as something weird happens.

[Rikae]

I don't know if anybody used those words.

You want people to use intuition to vote intelligently?
Yes. Using a combination of reasoning and intuition is intelligent. I could add "experience" there as well.


Is there any meaningful way in which using your intuition, differentiates from reacting to erratic behaviour?

Speaking for myself, it's the complete opposite. Erratic behavior rarely feels wolfish to me. Why do people vote the "odd" person on Day 1? Maybe it's easy and feels safe. Maybe inexperienced players really think "weird" means "wolf" when it's more often the opposite. I can't say. I've just watched too many "lynch-the-oddball" bandwagons, and when I've seen a successful day 1 lynch, it was generally something different: a wolf slip, someone being smooth but creepy, etc.

I'd encourage everyone to avoid voting people who always look suspicious, often get lynched on Day 1, etc. for now, for that reason. That's just good general Day 1 strategy and it applies to this game, too. Some people are known for false-positive wolf vibes early on.

Anyway, arguing over general werewolfing-theory like this is probably wasting everyone's time.

The real question is, wherever that 29% chance comes from - intuition, reasoning, the will of the gods - do we take it or not. As Nog (I think?) pointed out that our odds of getting a wolf (even based on chance alone) are better, and odds of getting a seer are smaller, than the wolves' odds of doing so.

Even so, we can't calculate OUR odds of lynching a wolf off what has actually happened in the past, any more than you can say the odds of flipping a coin Heads or Tails on a given toss is anything other than 50/50--even if the ACTUAL flipping has come up 52/48 in favour of Heads. Although the Day 1 lynch rate for wolves has certainly been historically better than utter chance would predict, it is nonetheless close to what chance predicts.
Yep, that's what Mac's confidence interval is good for. My best attempt at translating it is: our sample size is still so small that all we can say is that the actual chance is probably between 14% and 44%. So we don't actually know.
(Of course if you know ASOIAF, whenever people say "it is known", it usually isn't!)
However, you'll note the chance of lynching an innocent is higher than the chance of lynching a wolf, historically, until Day 7. Also, the odds on all the days before 7 fall into the confidence interval, meaning the odds might not even improve as the game goes on.

Like Greenie said, it's a feature of the entire game.

[Lalaith]

Dear me, if this is when I show up most days, I shall be avalanched trying to keep up with things... whatever possessed me to think I had the analytical stamina to get back into this horrid sport?

Just what I thought when I saw three pages....not that it's not good to be back, guys and gals, but oh, my brain hurts....anyway, what I always say is when in doubt, re-read... back soonish....

[mormegil]

++Macaclure

Sorry for the earlish vote, not sure what the rest of the night holds and wanted to make sure I get it in. He is the one that seems a bit off to me. I don't recall any previous encounters with him so my perspective is as unbiased as it can be but something in a number of the posts felt off, not the statistics though :p.

Hey, look I did the whole red highlight thing right!

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I wish to cast the first stone (not that it would matter, since I've already voted for myself).

I am suspicious of Mac's pooh-poohing (is that a word? It is now!) phantom's plan of transferring information from the Dead to the Living without suggesting an alternative or even a modification to the original. While I've repeatedly stated that our two Wolf Packs would like to gain the same information as we have, in the end, the information matters far less to them than they do to us. In the absence of anything concrete, they'd just proceed with the business of killing everyone who isn't part of their Pack, which is a simpler plan than anything we as a village have right now.

Also, I was mildly suspicious of someone as well (thought it was Firefoot (Hi! :) ) but turns out not) who, admittedly, just didn't have as firm a grasp of the rules and may have suggested something perilous. I'll read again after doing my morning stuff to see who it was.

Also also, re Rune's 'plan' of 'lynching' Sepp Blatter, Nog's suggestion of lynching phantom would be the next best thing. :) (Not that I'm comparing the two in anyway whatsoever, but he's also a president/commissioner/insert-title-here of his own football federation.)

[Aganzir]

Well I'm home and I just want to go to sleep.

As of now, I have no idea who I should vote, and I'd actually still like a tie->no lynch today (only today, not every day, I don't even know who first twisted it that way). Let me explain once again why.


Whether we lynch somebody on DAY 1 or not, the Dead can only start voting for role reveals on NIGHT 3. If we lynch now, they'll have to choose between 4 people. If we don't, there will only be 3. I see that we'd benefit from narrowing down the options. Especially as the role vote is the only way to find out dead people's alignment until the seer dies.
To people who say voting and lynching is the "way this game is played" and the village's best option: under ordinary circumstances, yes. But in this game it means next to nothing. For the first, we just won't know if a lynch was successful or not. For the second, there are two wolf packs so no matter how essential a part you play in lynching a wolf, you may still be one yourself.
Let's face it, the lynches are far from being our primary way of getting information in this game. The wolf kills are, and the Dead Thread and what happens in there (whether we find a way for the two threads to communicate or not, we will still learn something from who the Dead choose), and eventually hopefully the seer. I think it's more important to keep the Dead Thread under control as best we can and make it as difficult as possible for the wolves to mess it up than it is to lynch a poor random person on DAY 1 just to make a point.


If somebody would like to explain the actual benefits of lynching somebody today, I'm more than willing to reconsider, but as I see it, we're trying to apply old rules to a new concept.

[Formendacil]

(only today, not every day, I don't even know who first twisted it that way).

Wait... there are people taking it that way? Apparently, I missed that.

Just so we're clear, I was only in favour of no lynch today--even with the odds of a successful lynch being no better on subsequent days, I see those as a different situation entirely, since we have different evidence (that is, we HAVE evidence worth mentioning).

[Shastanis Althreduin]

I did this specifically because I knew certain folks would complain if they were asked to participate in anything resembling a plan.

I'm sure I don't have any idea what you're talking about.

In other news, there's an idea running that we shouldn't lynch today? I disagree. Our ability to remove wolves from the game is finite, and I don't think we ought to skip even one of our limited shots.

Now to type up a more substantial post, now that I'm back at the computer.

[Lalaith]

I'm a sentimental old so-and-so, and what I have always really hated about the first-day lynch nomination is that feeling of potentially spoiling someone's else's gaming fun on the very first day.. I'm glad for the Halls of Mandos option, in that respect as it does at least mean that all players can play on in some form or another....:cool:

So far, if I am not mistaken, we have all made contributions except for Gwathagor?
I've read through the thread twice, and I'm finding some people making sense in all the confusion, others just plain confusing. Instinctively, I take against this business of planned tied votes - nor do I like placing all our trust in the voices of the dead.

Well, it's my bedtime and I must vote. It may be because I'm very tired and stupid right now, but some of the most confusing posts for me so far have been Legate's. Not much to base a vote on I know, but on the first day it's as good a reason as any...
++LEGATE

[Aganzir]

Whether we lynch somebody on DAY 1 or not, the Dead can only start voting for role reveals on NIGHT 3. If we lynch now, they'll have to choose between 4 people. If we don't, there will only be 3. I see that we'd benefit from narrowing down the options. Especially as the role vote is the only way to find out dead people's alignment until the seer dies.
To people who say voting and lynching is the "way this game is played" and the village's best option: under ordinary circumstances, yes. But in this game it means next to nothing. For the first, we just won't know if a lynch was successful or not. For the second, there are two wolf packs so no matter how essential a part you play in lynching a wolf, you may still be one yourself.
Let's face it, the lynches are far from being our primary way of getting information in this game. The wolf kills are, and the Dead Thread and what happens in there (whether we find a way for the two threads to communicate or not, we will still learn something from who the Dead choose), and eventually hopefully the seer. I think it's more important to keep the Dead Thread under control as best we can and make it as difficult as possible for the wolves to mess it up than it is to lynch a poor random person on DAY 1 just to make a point.

One additional point:

We're not the only people trying to take out wolves. Other wolves will do it too, purposefully or by accident, by night kills.

[Kuruharan]

Highlight, Lal, highlight! :p

[Thinlómien]

But first a step back:
Let's say we only kill EuropeansAgan, what are you suggesting here [laughing smiley].
"We" obviously as in "us villagers", not as in "me and my wolf pack", duh! [winking smiley]This still exchange related to this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697148&postcount=66)post by Agan sounds rather fishy to me. So, as I read it, Agan is playing with scenarios and makes a joking example of the village only killing (= lynching) Europeans. Morm makes fun of her by implying she actually suggested doing that (since she's European herself, it's kind of double crazy idea). Agan misunderstands that morm is (half-jokingly) calling her out on saying "killing" instead of "lynching", which would imply she's one of the wolves (the term "killing" usually referring to Night kills) and she continues the joke from that angle. Basically I find it curious that Agan would interpret morm's comments in a way that would lead her to make a joking clarification about not making a Freudian slip about being a wolf. Like, I don't know why an innocent player would look at morm's comment from that angle. (Morm please clarify if I'm the one misreading your comment to Agan.)

Okay then...

Btw. how about we send the phantom into the Dead Thread as our first move? If he is innocent he is a great asset organizing things for us there - and there people could check his alignment (unlike here) so everyone would know whether to trust his ideas or not. It would be a win-win -situation.:D I actually laughed aloud. (Also Greenie's reaction (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697170&postcount=85). Have I ever mentioned I love my family?)

Day 1 too often seems like the day to lynch anyone who behaves erratically, which is, to my recollection, a really bad strategy.Or alternatively vote someone whom you always suspect, which is equally bad. For example I had to slap myself today getting bad vibes from Lottie - I always suspect her on Day1, regardless of her role. So I would actually encourage people to go for someone they usually don't suspect if they're wavering between two options as it's less likely they're just falling prey to knee-jerk reactions. (Later addition: okay, I see Rikae said practically the same. Should I start worrying about the number of people I'm aggressively agreeing with?)

In PRACTICE, however, the actual participation of the players starts with Day 1--in a real world, if werewolves started killing people in a closed community, we'd have a history of interaction with our neighbours on which to base our lynchings; in the game world, we have nothing but a Day 1 that precedes any actual choices made by the Wolves. The death of the moderator is presented as a fait accompli and we have to try and analyze the actions of people who never actually made any decision to kill that person.Yes, but you forget the Night kills are hardly the only trail the wolves leave, and they are even less reliable in this game than in your average game since the roles are not revealed upon death. (Of course, the same goes for the usefulness of the lynches, but the lynches are our only weapon against the wolves, and while they might be killing each other, all the six wolves won't die without our help.)

So yes, we're statistically more likely to lynch an innocent than a wolf, but that is sadly not a feature of Day 1 but rather of the entire game.^^ this.

I don't think there has been much discussion of the wildcard role. Obviously it is hard to discuss an undescribed role but it is a known unknown, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, something we know we don't know. It holds strange powers some of which might well stuff up cleverclogs voting systems.As you said, there's little use in discussing it now - however, it's good to keep in mind that if something doesn't add up in this game, it might be thanks to the special role.

certainly Lommy, Shasta, Nilp and Boro are never wasted lynches, if you ask me. Wrong, sir, first off it's you and morm who are never wasted lynches and besides if you go to the grimoire I have an amazing track record of being an ordo in 90% of the games I've played in and a very successful seer in several games in the last 10%, so statistically speaking it's a very bad idea to lynch me. :p

I think it's more important to keep the Dead Thread under control as best we canI disagree. We cannot control the Dead Thread. I've been thinking about this and what I would do if I died and had to vote on the dead thread. First off, I would be likely to start lazing because following two threads and general frustration at being dead, ugh. (I'm being honest here.) Being the good citizen I am, I'd still probably get as far as voting. Now, would I follow the instructions of the living? Possibly, unless we dead people had a better idea. How to convey that to the living? And - I'm emphasizing this again - whose instructions would I follow? Say, the phantom suggests a course of action for the dead thread. Six living people state they agree. Four state they disagree. The rest don't comment. Now, are the living to assume the dead then followed the instructions? How could they know? Or what if two living players had two different ideas for what the dead should do and there was no clear consensus? Whose idea would the dead follow then? And how would the living ever deduce whose idea the dead went with?

Seriously, unless we elect a living village spokesperson or something, there's no way of clearly communicating with the dead. The best we can do is probably use our knowledge of the personalities and the playing styles of the deceased and try to guess what those particular players would do, but that's a little risky. In short, we shouldn't make decisions based on how we can use the dead thread until we have found a way to do so, because it's possible we'll never find one.


edit: xed with Lalaith and onwards

[the phantom]

Tentative list thus far...

Obviously innocent and awesome.
the phantom

Probably innocent and rather cool.
Aganzir
Boro
Sally
Nilp

Hmmm... Innocent?
Rune
Nerwen
Morm
Form
Eomer

Not today. Maybe later.
Green
Rikae
Mith
McCaber
Legate
Shasta
Lommy
Kath
Gwath
Lalaith

Up for lynching consideration.
Nogrod
Loslote
Mac
Firefoot

[Macalaure]

I am suspicious of Mac's pooh-poohing (is that a word? It is now!) phantom's plan of transferring information from the Dead to the Living without suggesting an alternative or even a modification to the original.
Oh no no, that's not correct:
The dead should give their extra vote to either A: someone they have reason to believe is innocent; or B: someone who has voted for someone they have reason to believe is guilty. This will give us a solid bit of information to go on, actually.


I make lists because lists is what I make.

Feeling solid enough, for now:
Rikae, Firefoot, Nilp, Legate, Greenie

Somewhere under the radar, way down low
Sally, McCaber, Loslote, Lommy, Lalaith, Eomer, Shasta, Mith, Kath (so many :( )

Not sure what to do with
Boro, Nogrod, Nerwen, phantom (That's four heavy hitters in there... not happy with the composition of this group.)

Very slightly somewhat suspicious in a vaguely kinda-sorta way
Aganzir - her reply (#69) to morm felt off to me.
Rune - seems a bit more tense than necessary
mormegil - I was originally going to put him under the radar, until I realized I was about to put morm under the radar. Can't be, especially since he did post a few times.

MIA
Gwathagor

[Nogrod]

Form – if you wait for chances to get over 50-50 with lynching you’d need to give up lynching altogether: unless a seer reveals with some solid background knowledge on her/his status, every lynch is less than that.

I think I can see where you come from though (D1 chances are lowish), but trying to lynch people gives one the data one needs to make any inferences. So even if the chances aren’t near 50-50 (rather like 1/3 to 1/4 in practise) on Day1, just saying "let’s skip this Day" will give the wolves a free ride to do their mayhem and us others more or less clueless.

Many Day1 lynches have been unfortunate for the villagers, but more often than not very useful when backtracking on who voted who and why - and even if we can't enjoy the results of those ponderings here in the Living Thread immediately or as such to begin with, the Dead can use them. Let's not focus solely on us living on this Day1 but also in the wider scale - the Dead can use a lot of info if we give it to them. If we do not vote or make excuses to make ties there is little to tell in comparison with a situation where someone is actually facing leaving this thread - a chance nastier for the wolves than for the ordos.

Yes this game is a different beast as Agan reminded, but it is a different one also because the lynched and other dead will keep on playing - and in the end the game will be more or less decided - and is more interesting to play - in the Dead Thread (if it goes far enough). So I might just wish to stick into some gaming principles: do what you can to win and encourage others to play - that's the only way peolpe leave marks to be analysed - for the living or for the dead.

[Thinlómien]

Okay, now seriously kinda thinking about it.

What if we actually elected (toMorrow, as it's getting late toDay) a village spokesperson to direct the dead thread? Or come up with a system where people could volunteer to be the spokesperson and we'd rotate the turn between them?

And everybody would pinky swear that when they're dead, they'd obey the village spokesperson?

That way, we could get about ...80...? percent reliable information from the dead thread, if there isn't an obvious pitfall I didn't see. (Apart from that I don't know how we'd ever get everyone to participate in the spokesperson election and pledging to serve the living in the afterlife.)


edit: xed with Mac and Nog

[Kuruharan]

Just as a note, I'm going to count Lal's vote since she has probably collapsed in bed.

But please, everyone, remember to highlight your votes. Some days I will only have time for a quick read and count before posting narrations to move the game along so it is very helpful to me if your votes stand out.

Thanks.

[the phantom]

Lommy- as far as the village spokesperson thing, I'm willing to immediately jump on board the instant anyone offers an appropriate array of options to the Dead (allowing them to influence the outcome & pass information). Whoever lists sensible options is "the spokesperson" as far as I am concerned. But to list quality options we must first know where the lynch seems headed, meaning we can't be holding votes until the final hour so that we have time to provide the Dead with their choices and let them vote.

Basically if we vote in a timely fashion anyone around should be able to feel out a sensible offering to the Dead, and so long as there isn't a glaring problem with the options the Living can just put their stamp on the plan (thus making the consensus clear to the Dead).

[Nogrod]

I disagree. We cannot control the Dead Thread. Exactly. And the Dead might not wish to be controlled either - they probably even have a better idea about what is going on than people in the living thread and will see the follies we here, or some of us, might think as wisdom.

So I'd be cautious of trying to make deals here on the living thread concerning what to do here based on ideas that the dead will follow rules we set to them - or rules suggested by some willing gamechangers.

[Formendacil]

Form – if you wait for chances to get over 50-50 with lynching you’d need to give up lynching altogether: unless a seer reveals with some solid background knowledge on her/his status, every lynch is less than that.

It's not the odds alone that have me--obviously, if we lynch no one at all, the odds of us winning on Gifteds alone, even with the Wolves killing each other--approaches near-impossible odds.

Arguing that the odds never improve does less to convince me than something Thinlómien said:

Yes, but you forget the Night kills are hardly the only trail the wolves leave, and they are even less reliable in this game than in your average game since the roles are not revealed upon death. (Of course, the same goes for the usefulness of the lynches, but the lynches are our only weapon against the wolves, and while they might be killing each other, all the six wolves won't die without our help.)

It's not so much that I forgot that the kills weren't revealed as that I'd somehow failed to take that into account in thinking about statistics. Though, now that I am thinking about it, I'm not sure I've changed my mind so much as I've become even more confused.

Whatever the odds, we won't know if we've killed a wolf or innocent today--nor will we know the identities of the victims toNight. So... does it make more sense to play the odds straight (and avoid lynching toDay) or to take the shotgun approach and kill everyone available and hope that when the dust clears we've killed more than they have?

So, while I agree with Nog that backtrackings are valuable... do we have long enough to wait for them? My inclinations are leaning more than ever to lynching no one today, but I'm getting to the point of thinking I have nothing more than gut feeling to go by there.

[Formendacil]

Am I just stating the obvious when I ask what happens if the village spokesman ends up being a wolf? What sort of fail-safes are there if we choose a wolf for such a role.

[Thinlómien]

Okay then the list:

The Good
Rikae - so far so good, seems calm and collected which (sorry dear) Wolfkae often isn't
Mac - well I think I'm usually fairly good at reading him and he seems ok atm
Firefoot - somehow seems pretty good to me or whatsoever no specific reason
morm - I actually think he might be innocent this time?
Nilp - as I see it: self-voted because it was expected of him, since then has been very reasonable and seemingly genuinely trying to figure out what's good for the village
Legate - seems more like his innocent self than not, would not bet large sums of money on it though

The Bad
Sally - under my radar, and in a manner that makes me think of sneaky Sallywolves of the past
Agan - her little "slip" and he shameless advocation of no lynch make me raise my eyebrows to say the least

The Ugly (err sorry I mean the in-between category :Merisu: )
Form - I disagree with his reasoning, but that has nothing to do with his role
Gwath - where art thou?
McCaber - insufficient data
Lottie - acknowledging the fact my bad vibes are probably kneejerk, if they persist, I will have a better look at her
Boro - ...he posted?? in an uncharacteristically unnoticeable manner, then!
Nogrod - so far looking like his usual sinister self and making a lot of sense
Nerwen - all I've got on her is "I hope she votes toDay" :p
Rune - he seems a little... grumpy? nervous? negative? but then again isn't that why we love him
Lalaith - no idea yet, just happy she's playing after a loooooooooong time *waves*
Eomer - seems fairly fine for Eomer actually, haha, but not good enough to be in the good category
Shasta - could be either way, as always
the phantom - I actually think he looks pretty innocent at this point, but he can thank his reputation for me still keeping my eye on him
Mith - innocentish vibes, slightly curiously started talking about the special role out of the blue (throwaway topic, even though that matters a lot less than in an ordinary game)
Greenie - is a meanie, and very sharp, and I adore her, but I'm absolutely not trusting her
Kath - goes to the "has hardly been here" category


edit: xed with da phants and onwards

[the phantom]

Form- if a WW ends up being "spokesperson" I don't really care so long as his communication with the Dead is similar to what I would've put. I mean- it's not like he can just give harmful instructions, because we'll all see them and call BS and the Dead will witness it.

[Nogrod]

At 2am my time I think it's beginning to be a time to wrap it up for my part for toDay.


First: the wolves are not too keen on passing to the realm of the dead. They will fight, at least a little, to not be lynched. An ordo would have no problems changing realms as the game will be quite intense and fun in the Dead Thread in a couple of days time.

Second: the living can't control the thread of the dead and should not imagine they can. the dead are much wiser than the living so even an idea that looks pretty nice in the living thread might be folly seen from the POV of the dead. So let's not fall into hybris here that we know how to handle any forthcoming situations.

Third: the dead thread will be confusing as well. With three possible deaths per day/night -cycle and them being able to check only one during the same interval there will be more unknowns than known people in there (as the Night-kills aren't automatically innocents).

Fourth: if you want to talk of probabilities, the probability of the wolves just nicely killing each other is something like zero. So we should use our weapon which is lynching. And if we make a mistake (which we're bound to do) the people we lynch will still be on the dead thread and can play it from there - being able to try and catch the wolves with their possible knoweldge of the dead wolves.

Fifth: enter all the visits to and fro between the realms, mystery-roles etc. aka. let's just hunt some wolves toDay and try to make more informed tactical decisions later when we have something better to base them on.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

The village spokesperson could be a for-the-DAY position, so that

a) we don't leave the Village in a single person's hand for too long;
b) we can have an additional test re the Dead thread role-knowing thingy. That is, 'vote for Person X if NIGHT kill A was a Wolf, vote for Person Y if NIGHT kill B was a Wolf, vote for person Z if previous DAY's lynch was a Wolf, AND vote for person W if the current spokesperson is a Wolf. If neither are Wolves, vote for person N.'

[Kath]

I have read through the thread and what I have mostly come away with is a vague feeling of horrible nostalgia for my dissertation results section from years back thanks to all these statistics. I am with Greenie, English please!

I am unconvinced about our ability to communicate with the Dead Thread at all. Indeed apart from those roles with the ability to come back and therefore report about what is going on in there, I can't see how we would get any information between the two threads. But I also hadn't realised what aganzir said about Dead Thread voting not starting til Night 3 anyway, which means the fewer people sent there the better really, excepting wolves.

Therefore I am happy to throw my two pence in for this tied lynch toDay. Deadline is late on a school night so this is it for me. Am on mobile so can't check and see how the votes are going but Form volunteered for the position so:

++Formendacil

Hoping that highlights ...

EDIT: It worked. Also fixed an accidental capital letter.

[Aganzir]

xed with Agan - ...WHAT???? I smell Freud... but whatever I'll look at it when I'm back
What, did I say something oedipal?

I like Rikae and phantom and won't be voting for either today. Greenie and Nog make sense but I'm slightly wary of them. Form makes me laugh. A little bit uneasy about Rune for no particular reason except I vaguely disagree with his stuff and am not impressed with calling Greenie annoying.

Like, I don't know why an innocent player would look at morm's comment from that angle
ThinLOLmien is back! So I'm, what, your second oldest friend and suddenly you don't understand why I'd look at something from the villain's point of view? I understood morm's meaning perfectly and chose to continue the joke as I did because it's fun and joking about being a wolf is the closest I can get to being one.

Seriously though, just what would a wolf gain from saying "Hello I'm a wolf" when it would lead the other pack straight to her door? I'd imagine in a game like this, they will go to lengths to look as ordinary as possible, and I just don't understand why you think I'd have reacted like that as a wolf. Granted I'm tired but your trigger-happy jump is so poorly reasoned it genuinely annoys me and gives you a free ride to the top of my suspect list.

Exactly. And the Dead might not wish to be controlled either - they probably even have a better idea about what is going on than people in the living thread and will see the follies we here, or some of us, might think as wisdom.
You're forgetting something. We are the Dead Thread. In a few days we will all be feasting in Valhalla (for we are shiny). We're not thinking of ruling a foreign entity, we're thinking of ways to deliver information back to ourselves.

Remember that we don't need to share all the information we gain with the living - only if we find out somebody is a predator. I'm thinking how to do that but odds are I need to go to bed before I come to any conclusions.

[Thinlómien]

Am I just stating the obvious when I ask what happens if the village spokesman ends up being a wolf? What sort of fail-safes are there if we choose a wolf for such a role.Actually, it's not a problem if the village spokesperson is a wolf. He needs to state what the dead should do to communicate what on the thread, and if the dead have agreed to comply, they will communicate that. The wolf can tell the dead to give us information that he thinks would be misleading or useful for the wolves, but he has to do it in a manner that won't give away his role. So, there's little danger in that, unless of course say two wolves of the pack are dead and the third is the spokesperson, and they have prearranged to give the village false information of a specific sort, but really how likely is that?

I think the bigger problem remains that both the living and the dead should be happy with the spokesperson arrangement. The phantom suggested the dead should have leeway in the arrangement which theoretically would be good, but in practice I only see it as making the system (even more) unreliable. So the way I see it, either the (future) dead pledge themselves to drudgery and assisting the village, or then we will have rather unreliable information. Personally I prefer the first option out of the two, but a middle ground would of course be the most profitable (also because I'm a little worried the dead won't be motivated to participate if participating only means doing as you're told).

I think we can keep talking about it toMorrow, though, and shouldn't get too sidetracked as we still need to vote toDay. (Not trying to start a discussion and kill it instantly, but rather speaking as an East European whose bedtime is past already...)


edit: xed with everyone

[satansaloser2005]

Ah yes, now I remember why I don't ignore the thread for several hours. O_O

I'm here, and I'm reading, but I have to go again in half an hour or so and will either vote by that time or not at all.

[Mithalwen]

Kath it was not a throw away topic just a reminder that it might be mistaken in thinking that we can stitch up the voting to avoid a tie. I didn't notice any other mention and while we can't get very far discussing something which has unknown properties it shouldn't there fore be ignored to the point it is forgotten.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

We're not trying to control the Dead thread, people. We're giving them a framework under which to give us the information they gain while the thread is still an academic exercise. I'm pretty sure (as Mac had also said) that the plans presented probably wouldn't survive first contact with a living, voting Dead villager. But at least we're letting them know of a way of giving us information without having to rely too heavily on the resurrecting Gifteds.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

As far as the dead thread goes, personally, I think the following;

- that we, as the living, should leave the running of the dead thread to the dead players
- that we should, however, have some way of deriving information from the effects the dead thread can have on the living thread
- that, honestly, I don't really know how the two above points can be reconciled.

I can think of one primary hurdle that any plan to have the dead give us information with their extra vote every day will have to overcome - what if voting for the person the dead actually want to vote for will end up causing the living players to think erroneously, based on whatever plan is set up?

For example, say the Seer is dead and has claimed Person X as innocent, and that Person Y is a wolf. In the Living thread, Person Z has voted for Person Y, but earlier, it was stated that if the dead give their extra vote to Person Z, it should signify that Person X is a wolf.

I can't think of any real way to circumvent this problem at the moment, but it's definitely a real one (sort of like getting Manwe lynched after my death during my first run-through as Seer :rolleyes: ).

[mormegil]

But first a step back:
This still exchange related to this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697148&postcount=66)post by Agan sounds rather fishy to me. So, as I read it, Agan is playing with scenarios and makes a joking example of the village only killing (= lynching) Europeans. Morm makes fun of her by implying she actually suggested doing that (since she's European herself, it's kind of double crazy idea). Agan misunderstands that morm is (half-jokingly) calling her out on saying "killing" instead of "lynching", which would imply she's one of the wolves (the term "killing" usually referring to Night kills) and she continues the joke from that angle. Basically I find it curious that Agan would interpret morm's comments in a way that would lead her to make a joking clarification about not making a Freudian slip about being a wolf. Like, I don't know why an innocent player would look at morm's comment from that angle. (Morm please clarify if I'm the one misreading your comment to Agan.)




Home and trying to catch up I'm to this point...Being on the East Coast makes the timing on these quite different than when I was out West...anyway

Yes, it was said in a joking way as I thought it sounded very funny. Her response I took as a bit of a joke too but her follow up reaction raises and eyebrow or two.

[Rikae]

So mistress Rikae has already addressed the exact same points I have in post 90, just in a more succinct and understandable manner.

I should be going back to sleep, I guess.

I prefer gender neutral terms... but thanks for the "succinct and understandable" bit. :D


I am suspicious of Mac's pooh-poohing (is that a word? It is now!) phantom's plan of transferring information from the Dead to the Living without suggesting an alternative or even a modification to the original.

I am somewhat suspicious of it, too. And of Lommy's.

As long as there are at least three players in each wagon, there will always be a way for the dead to opt out of phantom's plan: simply give the extra vote to someone who isn't on the list.

For instance, let's say Nilp, Nog and I voted for Mac, while Mith, Agan and phantom voted for Lommy.

We tell the dead "give phantom or Rikae the extra vote if Legate was guilty, give Nilp or Mith the extra vote if Legate was innocent" (and yes, I think we can coordinate enough to make such a message clear. Anyone muddying the waters will only look wolfish)

If the dead know nothing about Legate, they can simply choose between Nog and Agan for the extra vote, depending on what they think of Mac and Lommy. Seems pretty flexible.

If somebody would like to explain the actual benefits of lynching somebody today, I'm more than willing to reconsider, but as I see it, we're trying to apply old rules to a new concept.

Because, firstly, we have a chance to lynch a wolf: a chance that, historically, is nearly as good (or might even be as good, given the confidence interval) as on Day 2.
Besides, if people are relying on learning much from the night kills toMorrow (not that I ever put that much faith in night-kill analysis anyway), that doesn't apply now. We won't know the roles.

Second, it forces people to leave trails.

Edit: x'd with everybody since Nog #132

[Nogrod]

Am I just stating the obvious when I ask what happens if the village spokesman ends up being a wolf? What sort of fail-safes are there if we choose a wolf for such a role.Before anyone gives me a solid argument why we should go for an imagined "village spokesman" and do what s/he says, or think the dead will follow her/his thoughts / advice / commands / position (aka. that we should interpret what the dead mean based upon whether they give the "spokesperson" the extra-vote or not), I'll be against it and do my best to thwart any actions proposed or interpretations of facts based on such an entity whether living or dead - unless, of course, there is this solid argument why I should think otherwise.

I'm not willing to tie my hands at this point of the game to any such folly - or willing to give any lycantrophe a get-away basing her/his actions or words on a such a thing.

We need to trust our wits and ability to think clearly - which this gang should be capable of - and not tie our hands into some general plans and rules (or give the baddies a chance to claim they did it) some people come by on Day1.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

I began reading what I cross-posted with and had an immediate reaction to this statement of Nogrod's:

First: the wolves are not too keen on passing to the realm of the dead. They will fight, at least a little, to not be lynched. An ordo would have no problems changing realms as the game will be quite intense and fun in the Dead Thread in a couple of days time.

I completely disagree. Whether or not the Dead Thread is as fun as the Living Thread is not the issue here; the issue is that if an ordo is about to be lynched, they know for a fact that a wolf is not. They should absolutely fight to not be lynched.

[Formendacil]

Before anyone gives me a solid argument why we should go for an imagined "village spokesman" and do what s/he says, or think the dead will follow her/his thoughts / advice / commands / position (aka. that we should interpret what the dead mean based upon whether they give the "spokesperson" the extra-vote or not), I'll be against it and do my best to thwart any actions proposed or interpretations of facts based on such an entity whether living or dead - unless, of course, there is this solid argument why I should think otherwise.

I'm not willing to tie my hands at this point of the game to any such folly - or willing to give any lycantrophe a get-away basing her/his actions or words on a such a thing.

We need to trust our wits and ability to think clearly - which this gang should be capable of - and not tie our hands into some general plans and rules (or give the baddies a chance to claim they did it) some people come by on Day1.

In general, I agree with this--which, considering we've disagreed on the merits of lynching on Day 1, and given that agreeing with Nog is historically somewhat troubling, I find somewhat disconcerting. However, since we're trying (against all Day 1 conventions) to think rationally, I shall not not let that sway against my prior thoughts unduly. At best, I think the spokesman idea likely to be one that easily goes astray. At worst, it allows living wolves to steer the village into an obsession with a semi-certainty.

[Aganzir]

It's way past 2 and I have work tomorrow.

I liked Nog's points in #141 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697227&postcount=141), but Shasta has a good point as well.

The village spokesperson could be a for-the-DAY position, so that

a) we don't leave the Village in a single person's hand for too long;
b) we can have an additional test re the Dead thread role-knowing thingy. That is, 'vote for Person X if NIGHT kill A was a Wolf, vote for Person Y if NIGHT kill B was a Wolf, vote for person Z if previous DAY's lynch was a Wolf, AND vote for person W if the current spokesperson is a Wolf. If neither are Wolves, vote for person N.'
Something like this could work. However we'd still face the risk of lynching somebody we didn't want as a result. And if we do decide to employ this system, we need to make sure the dead have a sufficient number of options for situations where information can't for some reason be delivered.

I'm only worried about wolves hijacking the information delivery system - even if it only happens once, the results may be severe.

Anyway bedtime.

++Lommy

She saw a straw and grasped at it.

Her village spokesperson idea was decent but I'm partly kind of offended that she chose to question my intelligence by holding a joke against me and partly suspicious of her "ERMAHGERD SLIP!!!111 Did ya see a SLIP!!!111" approach which would probably feel forced to me even if it wasn't about me.

I'm still in favour of the no-lynch, but I wouldn't mind seeing Lommy bite the dust.

[Nogrod]

About the Dead.

The goodie-dead will try to make the village win - the evil-dead will try to help their wolfpack first and fight against the innocents in general (aka. possibly siding with their rivals if the situation is benefical for it).


The dead will give an extra-vote to someone.

Based on their knowledge and ratios between the good and the evil - and the knowledge they have on each other and therefore the trust they share or do not - they'll give it to someone based on their vote.

So there are a lot of factors as to what ends up being their "decision".

If the goodies rule there, then in the best case they'll most probably give the extra-vote to someone who they deem innocent and whose extra-vote would lynch a baddie they think or know is one - whatever the Living say or think they can require them to do - or what any "spokesperson" nominated by some villagers does.

But then there are a hundred of "buts"...

[Thinlómien]

ThinLOLmien is back! So I'm, what, your second oldest friend and suddenly you don't understand why I'd look at something from the villain's point of view? I understood morm's meaning perfectly and chose to continue the joke as I did because it's fun and joking about being a wolf is the closest I can get to being one.

Seriously though, just what would a wolf gain from saying "Hello I'm a wolf" when it would lead the other pack straight to her door? I'd imagine in a game like this, they will go to lengths to look as ordinary as possible, and I just don't understand why you think I'd have reacted like that as a wolf. Granted I'm tired but your trigger-happy jump is so poorly reasoned it genuinely annoys me and gives you a free ride to the top of my suspect list.
1) I dislike my I'm-not-taking-myself-too-seriously personality being used as a way to discredit my arguments (like, I may be chatty and benevolent and a bit of a clown, but it doesn't mean I'm stupid and you know it and you're trying to use it to your advantage by framing this as "silly Lommy is being silly again" and that irks me)

2) I didn't suggest you intentionally said "hello I'm a wolf" (even though - now that you played the "why would a wolf say that" card I might reconsider...), I suggest you made a Freudian slip of sorts by accidentally revealing your wolvish perspective. And that has absolutely nothing to do with whether you fancy being a villain or not.

3) Well, you also cemented your - rather whimsically assigned; it was the typical Day1 level of reasoning - place on the top of my suspicion list by being so defensive. If you were innocent, you wouldn't be half as annoyed by me remarking on your wolvish perspective, and I suspect you're just enjoying your wolfing in this game with a nice pack and even the tiniest prospect that your enjoyment might be cut short both makes you fight back and gets on your nerves because you dislike being "busted" on something so trivial, especially if you indeed intentionally chose to comment on morm's joke from that angle and I was accusing you on the wrong grounds.

++Agan

This is undoubtedly the best lead I have toDay.


edit: xed with everyone after Sally

[mormegil]

It's interesting to me how much discussion has been around the dead thread and how little has been around who is looking suspicious. The thought of trying to control the dead thread from the living is somewhat absurd, really. I understand that there are many well thought out and reasoned discussions around this but the reality is there will be many unknown variables and situations that present themselves. Suffice it that the dead thread will be doing their best to influence their team to win and little what we say or ask will change their mind.

This whole day has been spent talking about the dead thread, and dang it, it now has me talking more about it. I think there is certainly wolfish influence in this. I actually don't suspect Tummy of it, even though he started the whole blasted conversation. He has a way of hijacking the first day to discuss his plans...really he tries to put in measures of control. I would think those who have helped continue the conversation are those who we should be looking at.

I can't remember who mentioned Mith and her comments about the special role. This didn't strike me as odd. It seemed very much in line and a fairly appropriate topic of discussion albeit pure speculation on the role itself. That role has made me think though I imagine it is to help us as I think Kuru felt the balance might have been too much in the favor of the wolves at this point. But again, that's just my speculation. What it can do is beyond my reasoning to figure out.

As far as suspicious:

Mac (obviously, I did vote for him)
Kath--Too little posting for my tastes and a long history
Nog--He continued the dead thread discussion while seeming very reasonable and thoughtful about it. That was the behavior that made me nervous.

A few others but I'll have to go back and review to pinpoint some detail.

[mormegil]

Ah yes, Agan is also behaving oddly to me.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I should probably just post a list of what I think about different people at the moment, but since I had already made notes (in fact making part of them during the afternoon while I was attending a roleplaying session and trying to kill a Quarut at the same time, and later on the bus home), I am going to just post them here, also for completion's sake. I still have to read through most of the last page properly, but should be back in a moment...

Aside from the "tie or not to tie" discussion and so on, of the moments that "stood out", the only weird thing about the Agan-Morm exchange to me was Greenie's reaction to it, "defensive" one:
I don't smell Freud as much as a trolling Agan. Admittedly, I took morm's "Agan, what are you suggesting here" as not a reference to her use of "we" but to her hypothesis of the Dead Thread only being populated by Europeans, and in that regard her reply doesn't really make sense. That doesn't equal Freud-odor, though.
Just kinda defensive, because I think it seemed pretty clear that it was not meant the way Greenie is interpreting it???

As for my stance on the Day 1-tie idea, I am actually with what Nog and Greenie mentioned somewhere halfway page 3: the chance to lynch a Wolf are still good, the chance to lynch a Gifted considerably smaller, AND it will give us some info to start with, instead of zero info. We'll at least see whom different people voted, or whom they did not vote.

I perfectly understand Form's objections against it and understand his sentiment, but I am personally against the "Day 1 are useless, boo!" (which fortunately didn't appear in this game, thanks to the activity of many) because it's only that attitude which actually makes them useless. And especially in this game, once again saying the same, so chaotic game, any piece of info helps.

Because everyone can talk all they want about whether to have a tie or not, or about gardening, or about Kant, but your actions show what you truly are, not your words. Point.

I don't think there has been much discussion of the wildcard role. Obviously it is hard to discuss an undescribed role but it is a known unknown, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, something we know we don't know. It holds strange powers some of which might well stuff up cleverclogs voting systems.

Good to keep that in mind, but as also Lommy has said, probably not yet the time to speculate much about it. I hope the hidden role is not a Cobbler. That would seriously mess everything up so much more. (Though if so, I'd know of a good candidate... somebody who's filled half the thread with his posts. Even though they were actually constructive. But in large doses, everything becomes just spam.)

The individual empowered by the Dead gets two votes. And has also been alluded to in subsequent conversation, this will be noted in the narration and the individual so empowered will be mentioned explicitly by name.
You didn't use the clearest wording again, O Great Mod. But since you used the word "empowered", so does it mean that unknown person actually gets the extra "weight" to their vote? So if I am the one selected by the Dead, and I vote for the Phantom, the Phantom suddenly jumps up as the candidate for the lynch by two votes instead of just one? Because I was all the time under the impression that the fellow gets simply one more vote leading to his death. Apparently not???

Post with what I actually think of people coming soon.

EDIT: x-ed since about... somewhere around Kath's vote, and I didn't really even read all the posts around it properly yet, like I said. Gotta read everything here now.

[satansaloser2005]

Nutshell version: I would rather lynch someone toDay than orchestrate a tie. While yes, a tie can be handy later on, right now our odds of getting a wolf are as high as they're likely to get, and to squander our opportunity to fight back and allow the baddies two kills in the Night seems wasteful to me. Frittering away our lynches before the dead can impact them really only benefits the wolves.

Crap. I got distracted. I'll give another quick read, but I may not end up voting. Sorry. :(


x'd since more or less my last

[Rikae]

Okay then the list:

The Good
Rikae - so far so good, seems calm and collected which (sorry dear) Wolfkae often isn't


A setup? I don't think I've ever remained calm through any game, ever. Day 1, sure, but eventually I will get mad at someone and then Lommy springs the trap!

Or... is it a clever way to keep me in line?

[Kuruharan]

So if I am the one selected by the Dead, and I vote for the Phantom, the Phantom suddenly jumps up as the candidate for the lynch by two votes instead of just one?

Yes, the Empowered Person gets their one vote doubled to two.

[Boromir88]

I'm back and have been reading.

If I were to vote on vague suspicions of a furry-biter...

Nogrod stands out...the insistence in needing a lynch tonight is pinging on my radar. I get the lynch is a needed weapon to get wolves, but as Form says sometimes it's worth waiting for the enemy to make the first move. And...


I do not like the "let's not lynch anyone toDay" -meme (backed by the idea that we might lynch our Seer who is very important in this game) as the chances of lynching our seer are minuscule compared to any normal game and there are such loads of wolves around - and if we were to lynch the seer s/he could act on it before things get nasty thus at least securing another two dreams the next Night when the Ranger covered it for her/him...

There 24 players of which 1 is the Seer. The chances of hitting the Seer on D1 lynching = 1/24.

THere are 3+3 wolves in this game. The chances of getting a wolf on D1 lynching = 6/24 = 1/4. And add to that the practical stats we've just seen (a village is slightly better than random in picking up the villains), so yeah. Let's try and hunt a wolf toDay.

In the words of Han Solo...never tell me the odds! The bottom line is a Seer living through Day 1 with 4 dreams is a better asset and powerful gifted Seer than any village has arguably ever had. As miniscule as the chance is, it's not something I want to leave to chance, on a Day 1 lynch where we won't know anything about until later (or possibly never).

I'm not optimistic about organizing a tied-vote, there are too many variables and too many who probably would be against it. However, I'll be here for the rest of the night and it's likely what I will have in mind to do when I do vote.

Now to read through page 4 and beyond!

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Mmmm... Regarding the recent-running Agan vs Lommy spat, I can't say that I really see a 'slip' where Lommy does in Agan's comment. However, I do think that Agan's reaction to Lommy's pointing it out is rather... overt? I'm not sure that's the word I'm looking for there. But it does strike me as almost too much, even going so far as to vote her in what looks to me like pure revenge. Although she couched her vote in reasoning, ironically I think I'd feel better about Agan if she'd simply been like "I'm offended that you think that of me, so I'm voting you".

As it stands, Agan does seem defensive to me. Of course, this is the first WW game we've had in a long while, so it might just be that she doesn't want to be the first lynch? Still, it does stick out to me.

[Thinlómien]

An ordo would have no problems changing realms as the game will be quite intense and fun in the Dead Thread in a couple of days time.Speak for yourself - personally I'm not looking forward to following two threads and trying to use my very limited powers for the best while not really being able to contribute to the outcome of the game and hitting my head against the wall when the village does something I consider stupid.

I'm not willing to tie my hands at this point of the game to any such folly - or willing to give any lycantrophe a get-away basing her/his actions or words on a such a thing. That's a good point.

Basically - the intended use of the dead thread is that the dead, who know more than the living, can tip the scale of the village vote by giving an innocent or innocent-looking person a double vote. What we have been discussing is if there's a way to use the dead thread even more to our advantage, by gathering information from their votes. I still think it's a good topic to discuss, but to be realist, the most likely use for the dead thread will be the intended one.

We should keep discussing it, but as morm so nicely points out, not on the expense of trying to find wolves. To be fair, I don't think that's a problem toDay though because we have to talk about something to give any vibes to each other toDay. If people abstain from voting or vote just to create a tie while not seemingly putting any energy in finding the baddies, *then* I might start getting worried.

PS. Her village spokesperson idea was decent but I'm partly kind of offended that she chose to question my intelligence by holding a joke against me and partly suspicious of her "ERMAHGERD SLIP!!!111 Did ya see a SLIP!!!111" approach which would probably feel forced to me even if it wasn't about me.I think we can start a club then because *I* am a little offended you continuously try to frame me as stupid and harmless. I think it's a good strategy on your part, but I dislike it nonetheless. As for my supposed misinterpretation, I still think you could have clarified it in a lot less (passive) aggressive way, and it's likely you resorted to that because it pushed your buttons, which it wouldn't have if you actually were innocent. That's all I have to say about the topic toDay.


edit: xed with morm's #159 and onwards

[Thinlómien]

I don't think I've ever remained calm through any game, ever. Day 1, sure, but eventually I will get mad at someone and then Lommy springs the trap!In my experience, you usually get mad when you feel pressured, and you feel more pressured more often when you're a wolf. That's what I meant. But in a way you are right - there's been little pressure on you yet so maybe I shouldn't be judging yet. You just seem quite relaxed and reasonable so far, so I have little reason to suspect you.

[Macalaure]

I like the points morm and Boro raise about Nogrod. Feeling better about morm now as well.

Leaning towards voting for Aganzir at the moment.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

The bottom line is a Seer living through Day 1 with 4 dreams is a better asset and powerful gifted Seer than any village has arguably ever had. As miniscule as the chance is, it's not something I want to leave to chance, on a Day 1 lynch where we won't know anything about until later (or possibly never).

I don't think lynching someone today changes the odds of the Seer dying toDay or toNight all that appreciably, Boro. I especially don't think it changes the odds enough to forego a 1-in-4 chance of killing a wolf today. Someone more numbers-oriented than I could run the math on that, probably, but the fact that our lynch potential is limited is enough for me to think we should take a shot at a wolf today.

[Formendacil]

The Agan/Lommy fracas smells fishy to me, but that's one of those hindsight things I doubt I'll have a sense for until a couple Days have passed: they could be in cahoots or they could even both be innocent--but I doubt that latter one. One of them is probably a wolf.

It has occurred to me to make a list of people and rate them based on my impressions--but more than half the village would fall under "hasn't said enough for me to have any idea."

Still, I suppose bedtime is nearing (and my attention flagging as it approaches), so I should start to think about who to vote for. It seems the village tends away from a tied vote, so while I prefer that as a plan, I should probably come up with a Plan B.

[Rikae]

For example, say the Seer is dead and has claimed Person X as innocent, and that Person Y is a wolf. In the Living thread, Person Z has voted for Person Y, but earlier, it was stated that if the dead give their extra vote to Person Z, it should signify that Person X is a wolf.

I can't think of any real way to circumvent this problem at the moment, but it's definitely a real one (sort of like getting Manwe lynched after my death during my first run-through as Seer :rolleyes: ).

That's only going to be a problem, though, if ONLY person Z voted for person Y.
Which either means a very small village (as in, the last day) or that person Y has no chance of getting lynched anyway. Most days the village will be big enough that the dead will have lots of options.

Folks, please stop assuming people are trying to dictate to the dead! It's all the way back in post #34: the idea is that the dead have a choice. That way the dead can both cast a vote and send an additional message.
And as for me, if/when I end up on the dead thread, I'd prefer to have as much ability to get information to the living as possible. In fact, I would be rather frustrated with (and suspicious of) anyone who muddles that process. It doesn't matter who decides how the message will be sent. It doesn't require elaborate choosing of spokespeople, just an agreement well before the deadline. The strategy won't make sense if the village gets very small, because the extra vote will carry too much weight in its own right, but early on, it could be very valuable.

It's interesting how many people are arguing that it either can't be done or is somehow oppressive. And by interesting, I mean suspicious.

[Nogrod]

I have two candidates to vote: the phantom and Aganzir.


Aganzir felt bad from the very beginning - like Lommy said enjoying your wolfing in this game with a nice pack and even the tiniest prospect that your enjoyment might be cut short both makes you fight back and gets on your nerves because you dislike being "busted" on something so trivial

But what actually made her into my list of suspects was the totally uncalled for "rubbing the right way" with me on her I liked Nog's points in #141, but Shasta has a good point as well.- when what I said was mostly against what she had been saying all along, and she kind of keeps her position with the actual substance by saying Shasta made good points against mine. So the whole thing of saying something positive on my contributions seems overstreched and unnecessary - and kind of out of place unless it was meant to just make me feel good about her - and she felt there was a need for me to not think of her as a suspect.


The Phantom then would be really cool Day1 wolf-lynch, something worth an anniversary -game! He's a darn good player and would be a real asset to the village if we knew we could trust him - and that could be done in the dead-thread. And if he's a wolf, well then good riddance!

What made me think of this idea more seriously was his reaction - when he went into defensive mode after I made my half-joking comment of us voting him. So first he made this "hey wolves, kill me, ranger don't protect me" which is futile in any way, but then he went to kind of forcing it: And just so you know, I'm operating under the assumption that any Wolf would be desperate to kill me in case I'm in the opposing pack.


One of the two it is then for me toDay.

Of those with votes already I'm kind of understanding what Form is saying (even if I disagree with him in general) and think Macalaure speaks sense - which goes for Lommy too (even if I do wonder her insistence on the spokesperson -idea). I have not enough to say on Legate as yet and Nilp's self vote I'm just disregarding at this point.

Of others (like most of the above) I have little to say - perhaps because I haven't paid that much attention to anyone thus far (which is purely my fault) but I am not going to make a full list of people when it is 3am.

Checking the latest, giving everything a thought and then voting...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Okay, so here is a list of what I think of people so far...

GREEN ZONE
Nog - reasonable, okay, nothing that would require scrutiny so far
Lommy - also reasonable, nothing that would give me reason to doubt her innocence
Form - same thing, I disagree with his view of the situation, but he sounds genuine like a genuine innocent concerned about his village's wellbeing
Kath - very little info, but nothing bad there
Shasta - same thing
Morm - not sure if I played with him ever before, but no problem there so far, reasonable posts and all.
Mith - not any humongous amount of posts (which however on this thread might be an asset...), but certainly no signs of wishing to cast blame around, so, no problem.
Rune - fairly little to go with, but so far so good, as far as I can tell
Nerwen - likewise, been productive in any case and no evil Nerwen-vibes so far

Sally - well. Not sure if it belongs here, since there is literally zero info, probably she should go into "grey" cathegory for now... but can't say anything as of yet.
McCaber, Eomer AND Boro actually belong to the same cathegory; more or less. (And Gwath hasn't posted, or has he?)


YELLOW ZONE
The Phantom - being the spam-maniac he is, he could very well be a mastermind, but I at least think so far he does not seem that he would require removal
Mac - kind of the same thing, been active, trying to sound reasonable, there was a bit of doubt on my side as to the genuine tone of his concerns, but then again, nothing that would really convince me he is a Wolf.
Nilp - I have no idea if I ever played with him before, his style of posting sounds a bit fishy to me at times, but it is not really anything specific, might be just style - would have to really read more from him.
Aganzir - nah, I think she's here just because I don't like her (to be expected, though) jumping in the car with The Phantom and adopting the slightly bossy attitude "I know what's the best for the village and I know it the best".
Rikae - well she could totally be the Wolf, to be honest, but I mean, her points are well-reasoned, she is helpful, regardless of having different opinions on this on that, I could put her as well into the green league for the time being, it is just also that, like other of the "witty" players in this cathegory, her posts do not sound 100% clearly good-intentioned
Loslote - kind of similar, could be green zone. Is kind of like Rikae in a smaller, more quiet package, but effectively so far the impression is fairly similar.
Firefoot - at some point in the beginning did not make much sense, which made it overall a bit hazy (is he intentionally muddling waters, or just happened to phrase something in an unclear way), but otherwise, no reason to really vote for
Lalaith - kind of a similar case, generally there is rather too little to make out anything out of her

ORANGE ZONE
Greenie - just too happy with too many smileys at some point; she had reasonable points, but she is not stupid. I have no idea what to make of the comment to Agan I mentioned above, although now it seems to me like that was rather random. But that's just the sauce; bottom line being, her "I am the nice clever helpful girl next door" attitude is sort of making me wonder whether it is genuine. Probably one of my choices for vote toDay.

RED ZONE
- empty so far -

EDIT: x-ed after my last

[McCaber]

Aside from the "tie or not to tie" discussion and so on, of the moments that "stood out", the only weird thing about the Agan-Morm exchange to me was Greenie's reaction to it, "defensive" one:

Just kinda defensive, because I think it seemed pretty clear that it was not meant the way Greenie is interpreting it???

This also stood out as a weird reaction to me. A strange thing to say and a strange way to take what was said.

In the Agan/Lommy exchanges, I felt that for all I dislike Lommy's reactions (in that they're not what I would do in that situation and to me at least seem counterproductive), it feels more genuine, like how an innocent would respond. Agan's, in contrast, feel like an opportunistic move to try and provoke something that the rest of the village could leap on.

[Rikae]

Before anyone gives me a solid argument why we should go for an imagined "village spokesman" and do what s/he says, or think the dead will follow her/his thoughts / advice / commands / position (aka. that we should interpret what the dead mean based upon whether they give the "spokesperson" the extra-vote or not), I'll be against it and do my best to thwart any actions proposed or interpretations of facts based on such an entity whether living or dead - unless, of course, there is this solid argument why I should think otherwise.


I may be wrong, but my understanding was that by "village spokesperson", people meant the person who states what various dead votes will mean, not the person who gets the dead vote (the empowered person).

Assuming that, I agree with the phantom: the spokesperson is whoever gives a reasonable list when the voting is done. It doesn't matter whether person X or person Y gets the extra vote, when both voted for person Z. It also doesn't matter which meaning we assign to empowering person X or person Y, as long as we're clear on it before DL.

[Thinlómien]

It has occurred to me to make a list of people and rate them based on my impressions--but more than half the village would fall under "hasn't said enough for me to have any idea."Well, did you see my list? :rolleyes: :D

It doesn't require elaborate choosing of spokespeople, just an agreement well before the deadline. The strategy won't make sense if the village gets very small, because the extra vote will carry too much weight in its own right, but early on, it could be very valuable.

It's interesting how many people are arguing that it either can't be done or is somehow oppressive. And by interesting, I mean suspicious.I'm only skeptical how the village will reach an agreement that the dead consider enough of an agreement to act on it. Then again, given how we're toDay kind of sliding towards an agreement that we'll vote as normal and not try to orchestrate a tie, maybe you're right and I'm just being pessimistic. The bottom line being (sorry for being the Captain Obvious here!) we can't of course know whether an "organic" direction by the living towards the dead thread will work or not until we've tried it. (There is a voice in my head asking if we'll know it even after we've tried it, but I'm getting too tired to think it through.)

As for those who consider such direction oppressive, well, I think it's an emotional knee-jerk reaction, and while I don't think they've thought it through, I can definitely see where they're coming from so I don't personally find it very suspicious.

The Phantom then would be really cool Day1 wolf-lynch, something worth an anniversary -game!We can hardly pat ourselves on the back for lynching the phantomwolf on Day1 if we do it just because he's the phantom. Also I'm starting to get a little suspicious of Nog's push to lynch the phantom despite not even suspecting him. Just, why would you do that?

which goes for Lommy too (even if I do wonder her insistence on the spokesperson -idea)Just nitpicking a little, I didn't insist on the spokesperson idea, I merely suggested it. But for the record I think it's still worth thinking about, even though I can't really see how it would be orchestrated without wasting a horrible amount of time and energy. It's very much worth keeping in mind if we ever have a known innocent though.

In any case, I'm going to sleep now as it's past 3am (oops - how I've missed werewolf! :D). Choose well.

[Nogrod]

Assuming that, I agree with the phantom: the spokesperson is whoever gives a reasonable list when the voting is done. It doesn't matter whether person X or person Y gets the extra vote, when both voted for person Z. It also doesn't matter which meaning we assign to empowering person X or person Y, as long as we're clear on it before DL.That sounds like even more far-fetched and flimsy... (Ok I need to check the rules and what was indeed proposed tomorrow - but with my understanding of the suggestion now it sounds ridiculous)

The votes so far.

Nilp -> Nilp
Rune -> Formendacil
Mormegil -> Macalaure
Lalaith -> Legate
Kath -> Formendacil 2
Aganzir -> Lommy
Lommy -> Aganzir


A pause for thought and then a vote.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Yes, the Empowered Person gets their one vote doubled to two.
Thanks for the clarification, Kuru.

Anyway, as for the matter at hand - suddenly I feel the sleep is really coming at me, and it's really getting deeply late. (I do not understand the Finnish people, since it's even one hour more there than where I am at the moment.) My brain simply can't work any more, so just a few quick points.

I am probably going to vote for Greenie, she really strikes me as the most suspicious person toDay.

As for the sudden Lommy-Agan row, aside from probable tiredness of both. It of course is possible that the escalation might be coming from one of them being a Wolf; if so, then personally I'd say Agan. But because it might be really just an escalation of absolute nonsense, I am not really inclined to vote for either just because of that. That said...
Agan's, in contrast, feel like an opportunistic move to try and provoke something that the rest of the village could leap on.
This is what I would think is exactly what happened, but that could be the case whether Agan is a Wolf or innocent. So here, not really much to base strong judgement on.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Anyway, my brain is literally switching off, so

++A Little Green

And good Night, village.

[Boromir88]

Assuming that, I agree with the phantom: the spokesperson is whoever gives a reasonable list when the voting is done. It doesn't matter whether person X or person Y gets the extra vote, when both voted for person Z. It also doesn't matter which meaning we assign to empowering person X or person Y, as long as we're clear on it before DL. - Rikae

We should be able to set up a fail safe too, just in case relayed information via the Dead vote gets tampered with, or in the event the Dead are innocents who know the identity of a living wolf, or a living gifted, we don't know and thus vote accordingly to lynch/save someone. Some sort of fall back to let the Living know "We the Dead, for whatever reason, did not get the information your spokesperson requested. Abort and disregard our vote."

[Nogrod]

Since Aganzir looks far more suspicious to me than Form (who has two votes already) and no one seems to pick on my "let's send the phantom to be checked by the dead" -idea, I'll go with

++ Aganzir

She felt wrong all Day, too happy to be the one who is on top of everything and her totally unnecessary - and weird - "liking my points" when she did not (and was getting to sleep) looks too suspicious. Like trying to feel good as the point of making such a "point".

But let's make sure we know what tp is sooner than later - or there is a firm chance we regret not doing it.

Good night and see you in one of the threads toMorrow.

[Mithalwen]

Well I'm home and I just want to go to sleep.

As of now, I have no idea who I should vote, and I'd actually still like a tie->no lynch today (only today, not every day, I don't even know who first twisted it that way). Let me explain once again why.


Whether we lynch somebody on DAY 1 or not, the Dead can only start voting for role reveals on NIGHT 3. If we lynch now, they'll have to choose between 4 people. If we don't, there will only be 3. I see that we'd benefit from narrowing down the options. Especially as the role vote is the only way to find out dead people's alignment until the seer dies.


If somebody would like to explain the actual benefits of lynching somebody today, I'm more than willing to reconsider, but as I see it, we're trying to apply old rules to a new concept.

Very tired but skimming through looking for oddities, this post by Aganzir struck me. This is surely (deliberate?) misinformation. The dead get their power of voting and enquiry not on the third night but when there are three dead. Since there should be (barring a successful protection or double targeting) one lynching and two night kills that means that it is more likely than not that the dead can start influencing things in the second cycle.

[Rikae]

We should be able to set up a fail safe too, just in case relayed information via the Dead vote gets tampered with, or in the event the Dead are innocents who know the identity of a living wolf, or a living gifted, we don't know and thus vote accordingly to lynch/save someone. Some sort of fall back to let the Living know "We the Dead, for whatever reason, did not get the information your spokesperson requested. Abort and disregard our vote."

Yeah, that's what I was getting at with "at least 3 people in the wagon" earlier. So there is a "neutral" way for the dead to join that particular wagon, if they wish, too.
So, we shouldn't be putting the "signals" into bandwagons of less than 3.

Nog, the only way it's flimsy and far-fetched is if someone insists on jumping in and arguing needlessly about what vote should mean what (and anyone who does that looks very, very furry). As long as the dead have enough options, whatever the first person says should be fine.

[Rikae]

I would think the Lommy vs. Agan stuff looked wolf-on-wolfy, if this were a game where that made sense.

Missed this:

Basically - the intended use of the dead thread is that the dead, who know more than the living, can tip the scale of the village vote by giving an innocent or innocent-looking person a double vote. What we have been discussing is if there's a way to use the dead thread even more to our advantage, by gathering information from their votes. I still think it's a good topic to discuss, but to be realist, the most likely use for the dead thread will be the intended one.


I can't speak for Kuru but when I came up with the idea for the first such game, I was kind of hoping the players would try to use the dead vote in interesting ways like this. So, in a way, it is "the intended use". :D

[Nogrod]

We can hardly pat ourselves on the back for lynching the phantomwolf on Day1 if we do it just because he's the phantom. Also I'm starting to get a little suspicious of Nog's push to lynch the phantom despite not even suspecting him. Just, why would you do that?
I agree it's not the most beautiful way of getting rid of a phantomwolf on D1 to do it "just because" - but it would be a remarkable deed anyway. :)

But looking at this game (with the Dead Thread aka. no one is actually booted out of the game - and that changes everything) I still wonder how differently people think. I mean I'm happy to go to the Dead Thread as I have nothing to worry (if I'm lynched no gifted is lynched - and lynching a wolf is anyway a remarkable deed - so an innocent goes every now and then) and I think an innocent tp would think the same as well. But he clearly doesn't - and that's why I suspect him.

So Lommy: I do suspect him and made the point in my post up there (#172) - like Agan he was overly defensive in his quick reactions.

Nog, the only way it's flimsy and far-fetched is if someone insists on jumping in and arguing needlessly about what vote should mean what (and anyone who does that looks very, very furry). As long as the dead have enough options, whatever the first person says should be fine.It may be I'm missing something from this ingenious plan of yours, but it looks dowright doomed. Why would the dead pick the choices of the living? Why would they go for a "neutral voter" if they had better plans? How would we orchestrate it that they'd be forced to do our picking? How do you tell, if the "decision" of the dead is made by well informed majority of innocents?

The dead will basically know 1/3 of the roles - well alignments - there's a lot of rom for distraction, tom-foolery, laziness, well made plots etc. to twist the vote of the dead not being what the Living would like it to be - or think they could interpret it to be.

[Formendacil]

I'm fading fast from this waking world--which is quite unfair since I still have a good five hours or more on the Europeans--and I don't have a firm idea of who to vote for. If we go for actually lynching someone, my gut says to go with the 50% chance of Agan/Lommy over the 25% chance of "Just Anyone," but that's hardly fair to spring at the last minute after they've gone to bed--and grounded to begin with in a tenuous gut feeling that one of them is probably guilty.

Basically, my suspect list looks something like:

Too Little Information to Guess:

-Some of these people have posted more than others, but they're all still close enough to blank slates to me:
Kath
Shasta
Boromir
Mithalwen
Rune
Sally
McCaber
Eomer
Nerwen
Nilp
Loslote
Firefoot
Lalaith
Greenie
Gwath

The Others:
Morm - In general, he seems sensible, but none of his opinions have stood out one way or another. Good camouflage for a wolf?
Nogrod - The brashest personality offering commentary/suggestions today (setting Lommy and Agan aside). That makes me wary of him, but I think that's his style anyway--and I've agreed with enough of what he said.
Lommy - She seems a bit too defensive, but that's not reason enough to lynch her. I incline to think her more innocent that not.
Aganzir - Slightly more innocent than guilty to me--more flippant than defensive is the vibe I'm getting, for whatever little that's worth. She has the votes (as of starting this post) that we get a tie-waggon rolling between me and her, but I don't see that taking off giving the village response thus far.
The Phantom - Oddly enough, I don't think of him as a wolf, so he probably is one--or worse, he's probably the Special Role and he's playing the a Werebear-Mythomancer. But that's not a concrete reason to lynch him on Day 1--and if we'll regret having him alive, we may regret having him take over the Dead Thread from the beginning just as likely...
Mac - I've liked the statistics, but I'm not honestly sure what he's actually said beyond offering them.
Rikae - Ought to be up with the "Insufficient Information" crew, probably, but posted late enough in the day that my attention has been flagged and... I'm not sure: hasn't said anything alarming, but I agree that something feels off about that... but it's nebulous.
Legate - Similar to Morm in that I think he's contributed but in a camouflaged manner. I probably shouldn't trust him, but for now I do...


Vote coming next post or so, most likely...

[Boromir88]

Very tired but skimming through looking for oddities, this post by Aganzir struck me. This is surely (deliberate?) misinformation. The dead get their power of voting and enquiry not on the third night but when there are three dead. Since there should be (barring a successful protection or double targeting) one lynching and two night kills that means that it is more likely than not that the dead can start influencing things in the second cycle.

I think what she means is on the Dead thread, during the DAY they vote on who gets an extra vote amongst the Living, and during the NIGHT phase, vote on who amongst the Dead gets revealed as a Predator or Prey.

Therefor, they won't cast a vote to reveal one of the Dead's roles until NIGHT 3. If we lynch today, and 2 wolf kills tonight. DAY 2, the 3 dead will be able to vote who in the Living gets an extra vote. And if there's a lynch DAY 2, than NIGHT 3 they make their first role reveal vote, but there's 4 dead now. Where if we don't lynch someone today, and the same plays out...wolves kill 2. The 2 Dead, on DAY 2 aren't enough to grant a Living the extra vote. Then we make a lynch DAY 2, so by the time they reach the 3 Dead residents, it's during a NIGHT phase where they will vote on revealing one of their roles.

[Macalaure]

1 hour to deadline, and people are still discussing dead thread stuff. Wolves trying to look like they're contributing? Innocents who can't let go of a topic now that they've sunk their non-canine teeth into? I'm slightly leaning towards the latter, since in this game wolves don't have to fabricate cases, so there's no need come up with stuff out of thin air, or to look for an alternative to not have to.

I like how, in this game, if someone you suspect votes for somebody else you suspect, it doesn't cause you to second-guess your suspicions. Makes things easier. :D Whether this is a good thing in the larger picture is something else.

I don't really suspect morm anymore now, and I'd rather not vote for Rune. Nogrod made his way up my suspect list, but I feel quite unconfident about it.
Unless something unexpected happens, I will vote for Aganzir.

[Mithalwen]

Hmm maybe.. but it still seems wrong - maybe because it is so passive and seems to give too much of a free rein to the wolves for too long before we do anything. Gah..

[Formendacil]

The votes so far.

Nilp -> Nilp
Rune -> Formendacil
Mormegil -> Macalaure
Lalaith -> Legate
Kath -> Formendacil 2
Aganzir -> Lommy
Lommy -> Aganzir
Legate -> A Little Green
Nogrod -> Aganzir 2



Nine votes. Assuming nothing comes in under the wire, my vote will make ten. That still leaves 14, which is more than enough to tidal wave all that has come before--but we're into the final hour and who knows if all shall vote?

++Formendacil

I still think a tied vote with no lynch is the way to go, so I'm going to put myself up one more. It's either that or not vote at all, and I think not voting would be a worse cop-out than voting for myself. I do think Aganzir could be guilty, but I don't think it strongly enough to put her in the lead. I'd rather trust the village to tie us up--at the very least, maybe this will force the Silent Majority to make a decision between lynching or not.

[the phantom]

Folks, please stop assuming people are trying to dictate to the dead!
the idea is that the dead have a choice. That way the dead can both cast a vote and send an additional message.
And as for me, if/when I end up on the dead thread, I'd prefer to have as much ability to get information to the living as possible. In fact, I would be rather frustrated with (and suspicious of) anyone who muddles that process.
It doesn't matter who decides how the message will be sent. It doesn't require elaborate choosing of spokespeople, just an agreement well before the deadline.
It's interesting how many people are arguing that it either can't be done or is somehow oppressive. And by interesting, I mean suspicious.
the spokesperson is whoever gives a reasonable list when the voting is done. It doesn't matter whether person X or person Y gets the extra vote, when both voted for person Z. It also doesn't matter which meaning we assign to empowering person X or person Y, as long as we're clear on it before DL.
As long as the dead have enough options, whatever the first person says should be fine.
Yes. Yes to everything.

Nog and others- if you are good and Rikae is evil, I do wonder what your excuse is for being so clearly dominated when it comes to exercising common sense. Rikae is just hitting it out of the park.

People seem to be trying to make things more difficult than they have to be. It's like we're trying to hand you a weapon and you don't want to take it.

[Macalaure]

Form, I don't think you can do this. I'm pretty sure Nilp has trademarked senselessly self-voting on Day1.

[Mithalwen]

++ Aganzir

Still feels wrong too tired to look again

[the phantom]

Can someone start at the beginning and explain why Agan is suspicious? I just skimmed over the exchange and it looks like she's suspected because she made a joke, and then she is further suspected because she didn't like being suspected for making a joke. Is that accurate or am I missing something?

[satansaloser2005]

++Formendacil

That's copyright infringement! :eek:


I'm here....ish. Sorry. Replying is a bit of a trick tonight.

[Loslote]

Wow, I forgot how long it takes to read through four pages of Day 1. :eek: Anyway, I'm all caught up now (finally!).

I can kind of see where the Agan suspicion is coming from, since she did seem a little defensive at times, but she's not my top choice. Honestly, the person who jumped out at me most was Nog, who seemed to be pretty conciliatory despite being firmly planted on one side of the biggest debate of the Day. I'd prefer to vote for him if at all possible.

[the phantom]

Yeah, I wouldn't mind voting for Nog, but only if we have an actual real chance of leaping him with or ahead of Form and Agan. Otherwise it feels like a waste.

[Boromir88]

It may be I'm missing something from this ingenious plan of yours, but it looks dowright doomed. Why would the dead pick the choices of the living? Why would they go for a "neutral voter" if they had better plans? How would we orchestrate it that they'd be forced to do our picking? How do you tell, if the "decision" of the dead is made by well informed majority of innocents? ~ Nog

I don't see it as forcing the dead to vote the way they want to vote, but as a way to give us some information about roles revealed in the Dead thread.

Ok, hypothetical, you and me living have 4 votes, and say hypothetically the phantom is dead and the dead wanted to know his role during the NIGHT.

Lommy, spokesperson during the next DAY phase says something like "if you know phantom is a predator give your extra vote to one of Nog's voters (leaving 4 options). If you know phantom is a prey give your extra vote to one of Boro's votes (again leaving 4 options). If you don't know phantom's role, or you know stuff about the Living lynch we don't know...abort. Don't tell us something with your extra vote and give it to anyone who did not vote for Nog or Boro."

That's not forcing the Dead into a box to give an extra vote to only a few people. Although it leaves it up to open to tampering if their are more wolves. But, that would in turn mean we're doing a good job (or the wolves are doing a good job killing each other...or both). Also, a Dead wolf I would imagine shouldn't be completely put off with a chance to work with Dead innocents if it means they help their own pack by weakening their rivals.

If I happen to die soon, the first wolf I'm aware of in the Dead thread, I will certainly make a proposal to make a temporary alliance in an effort to kill off their rival pack. I don't know if any of them will take up that offer, but I can be quite persuasive. :D

[Rikae]

It may be I'm missing something from this ingenious plan of yours, but it looks dowright doomed.

It's basically the phantom's plan, in this post. (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697111&postcount=34)

Not that I trust the phantom, necessarily, but it's a plan that can get us some of the dead's information, and therefore, a good idea.

Why would the dead pick the choices of the living?
I'm not sure what you mean. The living would finish voting early, so the dead would already know who voted for whom before choosing who to empower.


Why would they go for a "neutral voter" if they had better plans?
There would be more than one "neutral" choice.

How would we orchestrate it that they'd be forced to do our picking?

Forced to do our picking? I'm not sure what you mean by that at all.

How do you tell, if the "decision" of the dead is made by well informed majority of innocents?

I addressed the dead wolves issue here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697111&postcount=34) and Nilp did here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697195&postcount=109).


The dead will basically know 1/3 of the roles - well alignments - there's a lot of rom for distraction, tom-foolery, laziness, well made plots etc. to twist the vote of the dead not being what the Living would like it to be - or think they could interpret it to be.

So, you'd rather get less information from them? That doesn't sound like you, Nog. Next thing, you'll be telling the living to post less, because loud wolves create confusion! ;)


Oooh, refreshed and saw this:

Nog and others- if you are good and Rikae is evil, I do wonder what your excuse is for being so clearly dominated when it comes to exercising common sense. Rikae is just hitting it out of the park.

Buttering me up, eh? Wolfish. True, but wolfish.

[Firefoot]

I'm here, I'm caught up, and I'm confused.

The Lommy/Agan thing is odd to me but I'm not sure which one seems more suspicious. I don't know Agan at all so I have no idea if this is normal. Lommy seems snappy though.

I don't have time for any kind of thorough analysis so a vote will be a shot in the dark... one thing that has occurred to me is that it seems unlikely to me that a wolf would be expressing much confusion about the rules, having had the whole previous night to hash some of those issues out with their buddies? Nogrod seems a little too bumbling in the beginning to feel wolfish to me, for example (picking on you because your name is currently being discussed, sorry!).

[Rikae]

Ha!

"True" that I'm hitting it out of the park. Not the "Rikae is evil" part. :D

[Loslote]

Yeah, I wouldn't mind voting for Nog, but only if we have an actual real chance of leaping him with or ahead of Form and Agan. Otherwise it feels like a waste.

I'd be willing to vote for Nog if there was a chance of him overtaking Form and Agan. If not, or if there's only the chance that he'll just add to the tie, I would prefer to vote for Agan and ensure that we do take the opportunity to lynch toDay.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

This whole day has been spent talking about the dead thread, and dang it, it now has me talking more about it. I think there is certainly wolfish influence in this.

Y'know, I don't think there is. At least, not that much. Just going by my past villainous proclivities, in situations like this - where the rules are so complex - I reckon wolves are sitting back and letting people talk.

And I know I'm playing that game too; but it's not through evil intentions, rather difficulty in imagining all these brilliant plans. But wolves don't need to get involved.

This Agan/Lommy thing - I don't buy it. Wolves don't need to be in the spotlight today. No way.

It's probably dogma, but I'm not picking any of you loudmouths today.

[McCaber]

++ Aganzir

Any lynch is still better than no lynch in my book, so out of those who I dislike Agan has the most realistic odds of not leaving a tie.

[Loslote]

This Agan/Lommy thing - I don't buy it. Wolves don't need to be in the spotlight today. No way.

It's probably dogma, but I'm not picking any of you loudmouths today.

If Agan, Lommy, Nog, etc. were quiet and in the background, it would be the biggest tip-off you could get that they were evil. Some players have playing styles such that they can't get away with hiding in the back on Day 1, even if it is the traditional route for wolves. I wouldn't rule them out just because of that.

[Boromir88]

Can someone start at the beginning and explain why Agan is suspicious? I just skimmed over the exchange and it looks like she's suspected because she made a joke, and then she is further suspected because she didn't like being suspected for making a joke. Is that accurate or am I missing something?

What I got is she used the word "kill" instead of "lynch," and morm half-jokingly asked her if that was a Freudian slip, because a wolf would likely see the "lynch" from the POV as "killing."

I didn't read Agan's response carefully enough, but Lommy interpreted her reaction to it as even worse than an innocent Freudian slip.

[Firefoot]

Maybe this is a cop-out, but

++Gwathagor

If someone's not going to talk, might as well get rid of 'em. I just don't have enough time or presence of mind right now to come up with a better reason why someone else should be lynched.

[Rikae]

Ugh. I suspected Agan earlier but she's been looking better to me lately. I also definitely don't want Form lynched. And Nog is creating confusion but I suspect it's just sleep deprivation, not evil, to blame.

Lommy, Greenie and Mac all seem like decent options to me. Or even the phantom, though he has no votes.

[the phantom]

True, but wolfish.
A Wolfish truth is still truth. Basically for the last page you've been poking holes in things that needed it, and in case I got the chance to vote Nog I didn't want there to be any doubt as to why.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I have this flippant wish that, when some of you are Dead, you'd get frustrated about having to give crucial information to the village and not knowing a way to do so in a non-misinterpretable fashion, only to realise that if only you'd discussed in more constructive terms how to organise this information conduit while we are all still here there should have been a better way than hoping they get your attempts to move the coin.

Anyway, for this game, I like lists. As I've said previously, I think the biggest targets of NIGHT kills are those who seem to know more about the village's composition than a blind Ordo, and so Wolves would probably hide under a veneer of being clueless or narrow-minded to hide their opinion of the village as a whole.

Here is mine (;) Boro):

Koala
Rikae - probably because we share a lot of ideas and I like people who agree with me
Boromir88 - ditto. Also, I stole this list heading from him.
Mithalwen - is my mother and I would never suspect her

Shark-infested waters
phantom - his ideas got the whole village moving past the banter stage, and I agree with what he's trying to do. Has also posted a list. But he's the phantom, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
mormegil - has made reasonable innocent villager-like arguments
Shastanis Althreduin - ditto
Nerwen - disagreed with the vote-tying plan, but argued for some means of communication between the living and the Dead.
Loslote - same as Nerwen
Legate of Amon Lanc - has posted a list. Just saddened that he doesn't remember me (I thought I was a, ah, distinctive character. ;_; )
Macalaure - has rebutted my argument for my suspicion (i.e., I am illiterate, lynch me), as well as made a list

Swarm of killer beers [sic]
Aganzir
Thinlómien - The Finnish friends' little spat... well, they are friends, and I generally have a shorter fuse when it comes to my friends. But I echo others' sentiment that it looks Wolf-on-Wolf. (Remember, 'Wolf-on-Wolf' in this village doesn't necessarily mean 'artificially contrived'. Two Packs!) I trust Lommy more because list.
Nogrod - Oh, man... I initially had him in the previous section (pulling out the Voltaire quote even), but... his vehement argument against some form of clue-giving between the living and the Dead is troubling. Post-Mandos game trauma?


Komodo dragon
Kath - Where do I put people whom I have no read on? I'll put them here because I haven't seen a Komodo dragon.
Lalaith
Sallykins
McCaber
Rune Son of Bjarne
Firefoot - has made a substantial contribution to the discussion of the vote-tying plan, but otherwise I have no read on her.
A Little Green - disagreed with the vote-tying plan, contributed the Agan-Lommy fight, so a bunch of contradictory signals from her.
Formendacil - the grump (sorry) of the 'DAY 1 :rolleyes: ' movement (whereas I'm the suicidal lunatic of the movement). Self-voting with a purpose is fun. (Also, I forgot the Mythomancer role. :eek: ) Because he's a true DAY 1 warrior, I have no read on him toDAY.
Gwathagor - scared because I'll beat him again in Arda Cup phantasy (has not yet posted)

Godzilla
Nilpaurion Felagund - lynch him
Kuruharan

Not that this matters, cos I've already voted.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

If Agan, Lommy, Nog, etc. were quiet and in the background, it would be the biggest tip-off you could get that they were evil. Some players have playing styles such that they can't get away with hiding in the back on Day 1, even if it is the traditional route for wolves. I wouldn't rule them out just because of that.

Eh...I'm not sure. This whole Agan/Lommy thing? Seems a bit haphazard to me. Could have been avoided easily if they wanted - I couldn't even tell why there was an argument until multiple posts in - and wolves tend to want to avoid the spotlight.

[Boromir88]

I believe that puts Agan at 4 and Form at 3. Nilp, Mac, Legate, Lommy, Greenie, all with 1.

I guess time for talk is up.

++Nog

[the phantom]

Nilp -> Nilp
Rune -> Formendacil
Mormegil -> Macalaure
Lalaith -> Legate
Kath -> Formendacil 2
Aganzir -> Lommy
Lommy -> Aganzir
Legate -> A Little Green
Nogrod -> Aganzir 2
Form -> Form 3
Mith -> Agan 3
McCaber -> Agan 4
Firefoot -> Gwath
Boro -> Nog

I still want to lynch Nog (and I don't understand how he has zero votes), but it would take five votes at this point. :rolleyes:
(EDIT: Now he does have one.)
Out of Form and Agan I'd say Form is the safest, but frankly I dislike both options.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I dislike both too. I could vote for Nogrod, solely on the basis that I don't buy the other candidates.

[Rikae]

Well, the best hunch I have at the moment, and I hope I'm not alone in it.

Aside from general "vibes", the kill/lynch quibble with Aganzir looked really fabricated to me.

++Lommy

[Macalaure]

++Aganzir

Maybe it was a slip, maybe it wasn't. But if it wasn't, why did the whole thing blow up? I'd imagine an innocent, even if gifted - especially if gifted - would be cooler about it.

I slipped as a wolf before and it's a head-desking experience. You feel so terrible and stupid, it's almost impossible not to get defensive about it once people see it, and eventually of course they do.

It just matches her reaction.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

I could vote for Nog. Probably the biggest thing that's stood out to me today was Nog's comment on how "an ordo would be fine with dying", or something to that effect. I quoted it earlier.

[satansaloser2005]

We can't let Form threaten Nilp's legacy. Also, I don't think he's evil.

Of the ones currently available....Nog? Maybe? I think the Agan thing was blown a bit out of proportion for toDay.

We'll see. Updating the thread again.


x'd since Phantom's last

[the phantom]

Okay then, I'm doing it-

++Nogrod

[Loslote]

I still want to lynch Nog (and I don't understand how he has zero votes), but it would take five votes at this point. :rolleyes:
(EDIT: Now he does have one.)

Six now, but you know what? I'm pretty sure there will be a lynch, and I'm decently content with the way it looks right now, so I'm going to go ahead and

++Nog

because I'm much more confident in his guilt than in Agan's, and I'm feeling a little stubborn today, even if it probably won't happen.

[the phantom]

Nilp -> Nilp
Rune -> Formendacil
Mormegil -> Macalaure
Lalaith -> Legate
Kath -> Formendacil 2
Aganzir -> Lommy
Lommy -> Aganzir
Legate -> A Little Green
Nogrod -> Aganzir 2
Form -> Form 3
Mith -> Agan 3
McCaber -> Agan 4
Firefoot -> Gwath
Boro -> Nog
Rikae -> Lommy 2
Mac -> Agan 5
TP -> Nog 2
Lottie -> Nog 3

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

All right. This is total chaos, but because I don't buy the whole Agan/Lommy thing as wolvish - and because Form is probably innocent -

++NOGROD

[Shastanis Althreduin]

++Nogrod

It ended up being between Agan and Nog for me, and Nog's possible groundwork-laying for suspecting anyone on the grounds of not wanting to be lynched looks more suspicious than Agan's possible slip and general defensiveness.

[Rikae]

++Aganzir

Maybe it was a slip, maybe it wasn't. But if it wasn't, why did the whole thing blow up? I'd imagine an innocent, even if gifted - especially if gifted - would be cooler about it.

I slipped as a wolf before and it's a head-desking experience. You feel so terrible and stupid, it's almost impossible not to get defensive about it once people see it, and eventually of course they do.

It just matches to her reaction.

I hope you're right, but Agan's usually pretty cool as a wolf.

Edit: X'd with Eomer & Shasta

[the phantom]

Watch Gwath run in at the buzzer and swing the vote, ha ha. :D

[the phantom]

Nilp -> Nilp
Rune -> Formendacil
Mormegil -> Macalaure
Lalaith -> Legate
Kath -> Formendacil 2
Aganzir -> Lommy
Lommy -> Aganzir
Legate -> A Little Green
Nogrod -> Aganzir 2
Form -> Form 3
Mith -> Agan 3
McCaber -> Agan 4
Firefoot -> Gwath
Boro -> Nog
Rikae -> Lommy 2
Mac -> Agan 5
TP -> Nog 2
Lottie -> Nog 3
Eomer -> Nog 4
Shasta -> Nog 5

[satansaloser2005]

Well, you know what they say....

You will curse the day you did not do all that the phantom asked of you.

Wait! Why am I agreeing with Phantom? Let us never speak of this again.

Still.

++Nog


x'd since Eomer

[Macalaure]

Not Nogrod... not again! :D

[Shastanis Althreduin]

I didn't realize I was tying it up. Bah.

Edit: X'ed since Phantom, and now it's not tied anymore.

[Macalaure]

You cruel people. :rolleyes: ;)

[Kuruharan]

The deadline has come. Please stop posting.

The narration will be up shortly.

Those who have NIGHTLY business, you know what to do.

[Kuruharan]

The debate raged long and hard throughout the DAY. Point and Counterpoint clashed in a rising crescendo as the inmates argued about their predicament, the meaning of life and death, and philosophy. I mean, if you Kant debate philosophy at a time like this, when can you? (Yes, I realize that was a terrible pun, I couldn't help myself).

Fortunately through it all, somehow, breakfast, lunch, and even dinner had been provided. Sadly, nobody saw how, or even realized it was happening in all the confusion.

Lucky thing too because the argument reached a frenzy rivaling that of an out-of-control roller coaster!

At last a gang of the inmates suddenly seized one of their number, seemingly out of nowhere, thrust him under the guillotine and pulled the lever.

CHOP

The head rolled on the floor.

It held no answers, only less blood than it had up till then.

Suddenly darkness fell and all were cast into sleep.

The Missing or Dead:
Kuruharan
Nogrod

The Living:
Formendacil
Rikae
satansaloser2005
Macalaure
Gwathagor
McCaber
Loslote
Boromir88
Aganzir
Nerwen
Rune Son of Bjarne
Firefoot
Thinlómien
Lalaith
Eomer of the Rohirrim
mormegil
Nilpaurion Felagund
Shastanis Althreduin
Legate of Amon Lanc
the phantom
Mithalwen
A Little Green
Kath

The Wolves may PM again, the Lovers continue to do so. The Seer dreams, the Hunter hunts, the Ranger...err ranges, and those with deep secrets keep them still.

[Kuruharan]

The NIGHT had been dark and full of terrors (I promise that is the last reference I will make...for at least a sentence or so).

Light filtered down into the deeps once more, and with it somehow came breakfast.

The inmates began stirring. It had been a hard NIGHT for all. Sleeping where one could find room had taken a toll on their bodies. There were aches and pains and grumblings all round. One individual had even developed a persistent itch due to the damp from the doors being permanently shut.

However, the NIGHT had been harder on some than on others. The inmates discovered that the phantom and Rune Son of Bjarne had been mauled to death in the NIGHT.

There was clearly still work to do.

The Missing or Dead:
Kuruharan
Nogrod
the phantom
Rune Son of Bjarne

The Living:
Formendacil
Rikae
satansaloser2005
Macalaure
Gwathagor
McCaber
Loslote
Boromir88
Aganzir
Nerwen
Firefoot
Thinlómien
Lalaith
Eomer of the Rohirrim
mormegil
Nilpaurion Felagund
Shastanis Althreduin
Legate of Amon Lanc
Mithalwen
A Little Green
Kath

The Wolves will stop PMing now. The Lovers may continue to do so.

As of toDAY somebody will have their vote doubled.

[Rikae]

Well, I guess that takes care of that.

[Macalaure]

I'm sure Nog and phantom will have some nice words for each other.

To be a fly on the wall. :D

[Rikae]

Ok, so, whatever the phantom was, his plan shall live on!

Although these guys don't actually know anyone's role to signal us about, yet, so it won't come into play until toMorrow. But anyhoo.

That was some wagon yesterDay, wasn't it? I'd say it deserves a closer look.

[satansaloser2005]

Huh. So that happened.

Phantom I understand -who doesn't want to kill Phantom- but why Rune?

[Rikae]

Rune seemed very opposed to a Day 1 vote, and I got the feeling he was worried he'd end up on the chopping block.

I could see someone thinking that was seerish.

[Rikae]

I mean a Day 1 lynch. As opposed to a tie.

[satansaloser2005]

Rune seemed very opposed to a Day 1 vote, and I got the feeling he was worried he'd end up on the chopping block.

I could see someone thinking that was seerish.

I suppose that's possible. So is the rival wolf pack perhaps thinking he was trying to delay a lynch to give the baddies an advantage.

I'll have a go through his posts before I head off to bed. Back soon.

[Nerwen]

I'll look Rune's posts over. (Not phantom's. I mean, come on!)

In other news, I think the narration indicates both Lovers are still alive.

[Macalaure]

First thoughts.

tp was mostly occupied with his scheming, not wolf-hunting. He did suspect four people in #130: Nogrod, Loslote, Firefoot, and me. His innocent list contains exactly four people as well, interestingly. If he was the seer, he would have left some hidden hint as to which two of those four people were actually guilty. I don't see one, however. Maybe it's somewhere I didn't look.

But why was he killed? Just because he looked innocent (many argued with him, but I don't recall anyone suspecting him) and made himself the village leader? Possible. Or maybe there is in fact a wolf (or even two? wishful thinking) among his four suspects. Did Nogrod's mates take revenge? Did wolf-Lottie or wolf-Firefoot get nervous? Possible, but it doesn't seem likely.

Rune didn't do much, but he was, well, tense, without much reason. Could be the wolves took that as a sign of giftedness. His vote was for Formendacil, but it doesn't look like the vote was because he dreamt of him, but just because he was there. He also suspected Greenie, but again, not in a way that looks seer-ish to me. If he was gifted, then he wasn't the seer, and obviously not the hunter either. Losing ranger or lovers this early would hurt us. They're not bringing anything of value back to us at this point.

The voting yesterDay was interesting. A bunch of odd votes for Formendacil, then the bandwaggon for Aganzir, which was overtaken by the Nogrod express train.

Form giving himself the third vote makes it very unlikely that he's gifted (I think I may say this much openly), but I also think it makes it unlikely for him to be a wolf. Very risky move there, and without any pressure.

Aganzir remains suspicious to me, which, before Nogrod started receiving votes, makes me wonder why none of her mates voted for Form. Maybe they already voted earlier, maybe they were waiting, or maybe she's not a wolf after all.

In any case, I think the early Nogrod voters are actually quite innocent-looking at the moment (yes, I know, wolves hunt wolves in this game). There were simply easier targets available to them at that point.

I'm grasping straws a little. :rolleyes:

[mormegil]

I'm sure Nog and phantom will have some nice words for each other.

To be a fly on the wall. :D

My thoughts too! :D

I do agree with Rikae and was thinking that the Nog vote came out of the blue and was very quick to be picked up on. Those things tend to bother me. Here was Tummy's last count and I will add Sally...

Nilp -> Nilp
Rune -> Formendacil
Mormegil -> Macalaure
Lalaith -> Legate
Kath -> Formendacil 2
Aganzir -> Lommy
Lommy -> Aganzir
Legate -> A Little Green
Nogrod -> Aganzir 2
Form -> Form 3
Mith -> Agan 3
McCaber -> Agan 4
Firefoot -> Gwath
Boro -> Nog
Rikae -> Lommy 2
Mac -> Agan 5
TP -> Nog 2
Lottie -> Nog 3
Eomer -> Nog 4
Shasta -> Nog 5
Sally -> Nog 6

Sally sealed the fate but there was a lot and very quickly that led up to that. Agan looked like she would by lynched with 5 votes to everyone else who was maxed at 3 with Form (odd choice too) and then suddenly Nog got 5 votes to pass her up. I didn't think Nog looked all that odd to me. Agan looked at least a bit odd with the Lommy back and forth thing.

I'm trying to determine what this all means and I guess I'm talking myself though it by typing it out. We did have a couple of no votes. I think Gwath ( no post), Nerwen and Green...any others? I understand Day 1 can be a bit crazy but the no vote bothers me too. I suspect Gwath was busy or didn't realize it had started, so there is a pass card. However, Greenie, if I remember, came in sounded reasonable, was safe in her posts and left without a vote...odd to me.

x'ed with Sally Nerwen and Mac

[Boromir88]

But why was he killed? Just because he looked innocent (many argued with him, but I don't recall anyone suspecting him) and made himself the village leader? Possible. Or maybe there is in fact a wolf (or even two? wishful thinking) among his four suspects. Did Nogrod's mates take revenge? Did wolf-Lottie or wolf-Firefoot get nervous? Possible, but it doesn't seem likely.~Mac

Well, Number-cruncher, what do the odds say that none, one, or both victims were wolves?

the phantom did paint a large bulls-eye on his back:

I'll be an asset to whatever thread I'm in, Noggie. If you really want me in the Dead thread...

Hey Wolves. Kill me tonight. Ranger. Do not protect me.

There. We'll see if that works.

[McCaber]

A look at the Rune Son:

Post 35: (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697112&postcount=35) Backs everything that the phantom had just said about giving the dead thread options and about tying the lynch on Day 1.

Post 79: (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697162&postcount=79) Garbage post about the amount of conversation. Still mentions being in favor of phantom's plan.

Post 93: (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697178&postcount=93) Again trying to get a drawn vote, using our lack of previous Day 1 success as evidence.

Post 101: (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697187&postcount=101) Thinks little of Kant.

Post 105: (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697191&postcount=105) Critiquing Rikae's point of view as to how wolves are Fenris'd on Day 1s.

Post 106: (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697192&postcount=106) Criticizes Nogrod's pro-lynch arguments as overly emotional.

Post 108: (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=697194&postcount=108) Votes Formy "because he volunteered", and immediately regrets it in the same post. I think he was trying to draw the vote here as he said he wanted.

So the village lynches Nogrod, and the wolves in the night kill the two people who seemed to disagree with him the most. Or at least one who disagreed and one who backed his arguments. I'm still not sure what to make of it, to be honest.

[McCaber]

the phantom did paint a large bulls-eye on his back:

Yeah, that post was what I immediately thought of this Morning when I saw the lists. Some form of dramatic irony or something.

[satansaloser2005]

Sorry for the delay. I got hugely distracted (and also sleepy).

Runesky

Personally I am loving the idea of empowering the dead! It seems like a very barrow-wightish thing to do, and perhaps it could evolve into a religion of sorts.

If we chose to tie the vote, I doubt that we would risk loosing data for us to analyze at a later stage. After all there is more to pack-behavior and whatnot than voting patterns.

Speaking here in (albeit mild) support of tying the lynch vote, which I still find a suspicious stance to take (more on why in a moment). He is also in favor of empowering the dead, which strikes me as neither innocent nor guilty.

So we are not going for a tied non-lynch today?

But rather we are going to at least attempt to get a baddie?

What a splendid idea! We all know what an incredible success rate we have on day 1, and obviously a well meaning effort always gets rewarded. Since when did sincerity become an excuse for failure?

ehm... I guess what I am trying to say, is that I still quite fancy that non-lynch thingy.

Also I will have to vote quite soon.

Bolding mine. Especially given his clarification here, I find his support of the no-lynch idea rather suspicious. Rather than take the chance of getting a baddie, he prefers we kill no one until the wolves strike in the Night. Better to kill no one at all than to have the possibility of a wolf being killed. (I'm stretching slightly, but note that he never mentions we could lynch an innocent by mistake. He only mentioned baddies.)

I can either vote Formendacil, since he volunteered, or I could vote for Greenie, since I do not care for the buddying up her and Nog is doing (also she mentioned Kant).

++Formendacil

Yup... I don't want to see Form gone, and I would be deeply saddened if this lead to his demise. Though I spoke ill about Greenie, I would hardly say that her actions merits the label "suspicious", "annoying" would be more fitting.

"I'm going to vote Form, but I don't want him to die." :rolleyes: In fairness, no one wants to see anyone go on Day 1, but it is of course necessary. Still, stating it in that way doesn't sit right with me. I have a couple of ideas on why this exchange may have occurred, but with so little information, it's impossible to get a better feel for the situation.

Conclusion: Where wolf? (I'm leaning toward thinking he was sniped by one of the wolf packs for being a potential rival.)


x'd since my last

[mormegil]

Sorry for the delay. I got hugely distracted (and also sleepy).

Runesky



Speaking here in (albeit mild) support of tying the lynch vote, which I still find a suspicious stance to take (more on why in a moment). He is also in favor of empowering the dead, which strikes me as neither innocent nor guilty.



Bolding mine. Especially given his clarification here, I find his support of the no-lynch idea rather suspicious. Rather than take the chance of getting a baddie, he prefers we kill no one until the wolves strike in the Night. Better to kill no one at all than to have the possibility of a wolf being killed. (I'm stretching slightly, but note that he never mentions we could lynch an innocent by mistake. He only mentioned baddies.)



"I'm going to vote Form, but I don't want him to die." :rolleyes: In fairness, no one wants to see anyone go on Day 1, but it is of course necessary. Still, stating it in that way doesn't sit right with me. I have a couple of ideas on why this exchange may have occurred, but with so little information, it's impossible to get a better feel for the situation.

Conclusion: Where wolf? (I'm leaning toward thinking he was sniped by one of the wolf packs for being a potential rival.)


x'd since my last

A very odd conclusion. I would imagine that the wolves would be much more concerned about getting the Seer early on as that is their greatest threat, it's what I would do. You are trying to make a case against a dead man, why? If anything, I would imagine that the wolves thought Rune was the Seer and now a Sallywolf is attempting to have us think differently. Sorry for no bolding, I'm using my phone and it's past bedtime. Goodnight

[Macalaure]

Well, Number-cruncher, what do the odds say that none, one, or both victims were wolves?You want the odds? You can't handle the odds!

[Loslote]

A very odd conclusion. I would imagine that the wolves would be much more concerned about getting the Seer early on as that is their greatest threat, it's what I would do. You are trying to make a case against a dead man, why? If anything, I would imagine that the wolves thought Rune was the Seer and now a Sallywolf is attempting to have us think differently.

I didn't think it was so far fetched. Why shouldn't the wolves try to knock off a potential threat? They have to eventually, and if they think they've spotted one, especially if they don't have any leads on a Gifted - which, since the other pack went with tp, who I at least don't get Gifted vibes from, seems likely to me - why not pick off a Runewolf?

Morm's response here seems weirdly defensive. Potentially a packmate worried that, should Rune be seen as a potential wolf, they (that is, Rune and morm) might be tied together?

Of course, he might have been killed for looking like the Seer, but then why would Sally try to cover it up? Looking at his posts, the only thing I could take from it is that he definitely had not dreamt a wolf yet, since he was so adamant that we would not be able to lynch a wolf that Day. Therefore, if Sally were a wolf, she would not gain anything from trying to cover up his potential Seer gift.

All this to say, I found this post by morm to be highly suspicious.