Ten Year Anniversary Game: Living Thread

[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]

Originally Posted by Rune

Since when did sincerity become an excuse for failure?

Since Immanuel Kant? ...ahem.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

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...

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Now I'm itching to turn these into confidence intervals. 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.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Rikae

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?

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

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.

Originally Posted by Rune

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.

Originally Posted by Form

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.