Tol-in-Gaurhoth III (The Saga Continues...) - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Firefoot · 06-03-2005, 12:57 PM

Fordim, your strategy would be excellent for flushing out werewolves if it were mathematically sound. There is a ratio of roughly 4 villagers:1 werewolf; a list of three random people is more likely to include three innocent villagers than even two villagers and one werewolf. At odds of 2 villagers:1 werewolf, such a theory would be plausible, but with only about one-fifth of the people being a werewolf, the odds are pretty bad.

I suppose they're bad anyway, but I'd rather be casting a vote off of a full list that is sure to include werewolves than a random short list which is probable not to have a werewolf.

Your point about not reaching a consensus is understood, but I don't think we need a short list to do so. For the moment, I'd rather keep the field open.

Fordim Hedgethistle · 06-03-2005, 01:01 PM

The point of my strategy Firefoot is, as you rightly note, not to narrow the odds but to force the Wolves' hands...paws. If we generate a random list of three nominees that is the only way to guarantee that the Wolves have no way of influencing that list. If we try to bash out a list of three names ourselves, we can never be sure that the wolves aren't influencing that selection...in fact, we can be sure that they are influencing the selection. They have the advantage of knowledge, randomizing this first round is the only way to reduce that advantage.

At the very least, I would hope that we could move toward a short list of some kind, and that we could spread the votes around to make sure that each one stands out. I also think that we need to make people accountable for their vote (by having those who vote for an innocent be on the next short list) and to force everyone to vote (by having anyone who does not vote put on the short list).

The point is, we need to flush out the wolves from hiding within our numbers!

06-03-2005, 12:57 PM	#1
Firefoot Illusionary Holbytla Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 7,547	Fordim, your strategy would be excellent for flushing out werewolves if it were mathematically sound. There is a ratio of roughly 4 villagers:1 werewolf; a list of three random people is more likely to include three innocent villagers than even two villagers and one werewolf. At odds of 2 villagers:1 werewolf, such a theory would be plausible, but with only about one-fifth of the people being a werewolf, the odds are pretty bad. I suppose they're bad anyway, but I'd rather be casting a vote off of a full list that is sure to include werewolves than a random short list which is probable not to have a werewolf. Your point about not reaching a consensus is understood, but I don't think we need a short list to do so. For the moment, I'd rather keep the field open.

06-03-2005, 01:01 PM	#2
Fordim Hedgethistle Gibbering Gibbet Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Beyond cloud nine Posts: 1,844	The point of my strategy Firefoot is, as you rightly note, not to narrow the odds but to force the Wolves' hands...paws. If we generate a random list of three nominees that is the only way to guarantee that the Wolves have no way of influencing that list. If we try to bash out a list of three names ourselves, we can never be sure that the wolves aren't influencing that selection...in fact, we can be sure that they are influencing the selection. They have the advantage of knowledge, randomizing this first round is the only way to reduce that advantage. At the very least, I would hope that we could move toward a short list of some kind, and that we could spread the votes around to make sure that each one stands out. I also think that we need to make people accountable for their vote (by having those who vote for an innocent be on the next short list) and to force everyone to vote (by having anyone who does not vote put on the short list). The point is, we need to flush out the wolves from hiding within our numbers!