Game Thread: Werewolf- this time it's real!

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

So... at the start of the Day, when I was getting quite sleepy, thanks quite possibly to alcohol and smoke and a week of too little sleep--well, at that point I was all post-happy and could feel the ideas for analysis sitting just out of conscious thought.

Well now, reverend Form! Bless you!
(btw. at the moment you stand third in my list of suspicions but that is sure subject to change as I will go back to look at everyone...)



Okay, to Brinn's last post then to begin with as I think it's important.

Originally Posted by Brinn

So you're saying I should've been one to make a decisive vote for a second time and it was wrong of me not to? I was given a lot of crap yesterDay for giving the decisive vote to someone I didn't suspect much...

You could say that very same thing as a wolf and as an innocent, so it's not exactly an argument on your behalf. Though I must agree that the only decent reason I have for still doubting my case on you a bit is your vote on Day1. Maybe you were indecisive then - as you claimed toDay you were yesterDay?

Originally Posted by Brinn

But as I stated in an earlier post, I did not care for any of the choices on the lynching block nor did I particularly care to save anyone on it, so why should I vote for one of them if I didn't have a reason to? My main suspects were Sally and Firefoot and I stuck by those suspicions.

Well, if you really suspected Sally and Firefoot - and you were an ordo seeing nothing particularly good/bad in me and Kuru - wouldn't you have wished to persuade some others to see your point? It's more than obvious that both I and Kuru would have been more than ready to discuss an alternative solution - and whatever your thoughts were, shouldn't you have shared them with us others online at that time to try and make it good for the Pub (the village, that is)? But no, you were not interested about the outcome of the vote but of whom do you give a vote that will not be eyed too closely as it's not a decisive vote?

A goodie cares about the outcome of the vote as lynches are basically the only ways of getting the baddies down. To baddies it's not such a big thing unless one of them is in trouble in a critical moment.

Your action yesterDay didn't give the impression of you being bothered as who would be killed, but it gave the impression of you being very interested in not voting for anyone who would get killed and thus would lead into someone scrutinizing you on behalf of that innocent's death.

Also, if you were a goodie you would have wanted to negotiate the lynch with the others. Why do you try to imply to us (in your earlier post toDay) you were having really a tough time deciding between Firefoot and Sally like it was something important (which it wasn't because you left your vote to the last possible instant so that no one could react to your vote) as meanwhile you don't give a damn to who gets lynched by not trying to influence the vote / negotiate it with others still to vote?


--- interlude ---

My vote may have only counted as one but it still made a difference since Sally did almost get lynched. Maybe I should call you the safe voter for giving Sally five votes at the very end which was just one shy of sealing her fate. Since you're all about decisive voting, why not add on one more bonus vote and get her lynched?

That's a story indeed. Just think how mad I was when I realised I had lost four perfectly usable bonus-votes for nothing!

After seeing at .58 that Izzy had given Sally 4 votes, I sighed from relief and had just written Sally's name to my vote post and was counting for like third time how many votes I should spend to make her even with me when I refreshed the screen and saw your vote to Sally - and Nilp's +3 to Kuru.

But Nilp's vote was not highlighted!

It was already .00 and I refreshed the page a few times to see whether Nilp had edited his post to highlight his vote, but it never turned red. I had no idea how many seconds I had left and finally blinked making the post - adding one more bonus vote just in case someone - like Sally - would have given me one more vote in between my last 'refresh the page' and 'submit message' -clicks.

I just couldn't trust Nilp's vote would be accepted as it was not highlighted on .00.


--- end interlude ---


Your idea of calling me the safe-voter or someone shying away from decisive voting is ridiculous even if you didn't notice that error of Nilp not highlighting his vote. Why would I waste four bonus votes for nothing when I'm about to be lynched? Really. At .59 I was still leading the tally. You think someone would love to be indecisive at that kind of minute?

Are you that low on things to throw at me when I got you?

While I agree that some of the baddies are surely saving up their votes, I really don't like the way you're implying that everyone who hasn't used a bonus vote is automatically suspicious. More than half the players haven't used their bonus votes and I don't think we're wrong in choosing so.

I just tried to awaken people to the problem we have in our hands. If you think my theory is bad you should argue for a better one and not blame me for trying. The moment you come up with a better working plan I will abandon mine and change to yours.

Also I disagree with you in principle here (which has nothing to do with whatever suspicions I have about you). In principle the bonus votes are a great asset to the baddies as they know each other and can co-ordinate their votes in real-time via PM's. That's a huge weapon they have - and a terrible disadvantage to us.

So what's the cure? We will never be able to gather all the innocents who are in doubt under one banner to collectively vote together from our solitary confinements, but the "all-knowing" and "all the time PM'ing" baddies can do it. So let's get rid of that power only the baddies can use as soon as we can.

So we need to create an athmosphere where anyone having ten bonus-votes left feels s/he is going to be lynched because of it - or which would be better: we should force the baddies to defend their mate(s) with their bonus-votes, if we just got a good enough threat to them.

For they will fight toDay. If they get through this Day with no extra-votes used and lynching an innocent they will win unless a miracle happens. So we need to force them to fight toDay if we get it right - or at least need to pressurise them to disarm with the threat of lynching.

Suspecting you heavily I think is a good start.

As I said yesterDay: an ordo may think a lot of voting power is her/his ultimate defence but that's not true. We can not organise our votes as the baddies can and a single disagreement may be the end of it.

I didn't post those counts of the worst-scenario numbers in vain. That is a true possibility and we may be practically lost toMorrow morning.

I do find it weird that you suggest that all the innocents use their bonus votes early.

Who has suggested that kind of "tactics"? Not me. I said we should all disarm - as a show of confidence that is - and then lynch those who do not wish to join. And I expressed many reservations to that. And I already kind of deserted the plan in my posts as an impossible one to execute - before I realised it could be accomplished if we could pressure the wolves toDay.

Oh my, enough of this... I'll come back to your other points if you insist but this is getting too long and I should pay attention to other affairs as well.


EDIT: X'd with a host of posts I see...