Admin Thread for WWLXX: At the Prison of Ice

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well I worked it out– I hoped we'd be able to pick a gifted or two from their failure to understand what the heck Nogrod was talking about. Unfortunately for us, Shasta, it seems, also guessed correctly!

Indeed - or did the Ranger and Hunter PMs also specify the number of wolves? Lottie's apparently didn't.
Actually, Nog, I still don't quite get how you could feel so sure about Roa being a wolf based on the PM reasoning. Even assuming she hadn't got the same message as the ordos, she might still have been Gifted - and being an ordo yourself, you had no way of knowing what was in their PMs. As you can see from the protocols of our Nightly conclaves, the matter puzzled us quite a bit.

Originally Posted by Lommy

they had quite an advantage in having no seer in the game. It's not only that they can't be revealed, but it's also that their kills are suddenly far more traceless.

What do you mean, No seer in the game? What do you mean, We couldn't be revealed? *growl*

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well exactly - that's just one more reason for what I have said. So in other words, simply put: do not lay your trust in meta-game reasoning, it is never 100% foolproof, and even if you see your roommate posting a PM titled "ToNight's Kill", it may as well be so that he/she is having a funny PM title and posting a Seer's dream, or talking to a random non-playing member, excitedly describing what he/she thinks the Wolves will do toNight...

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Well exactly - that's just one more reason for what I have said. So in other words, simply put: do not lay your trust in meta-game reasoning, it is never 100% foolproof, and even if you see your roommate posting a PM titled "ToNight's Kill", it may as well be so that he/she is having a funny PM title and posting a Seer's dream, or talking to a random non-playing member, excitedly describing what he/she thinks the Wolves will do toNight...

I am now officially naming ALL Werewolf PMs "ToNight's Kill."

[satansaloser2005]

Well that explains a lot.

EDIT: x'd with Mnemo

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Actually, Nog, I still don't quite get how you could feel so sure about Roa being a wolf based on the PM reasoning. Even assuming she hadn't got the same message as the ordos, she might still have been Gifted - and being an ordo yourself, you had no way of knowing what was in their PMs.

This is my first post concerning the matter...

Originally Posted by me in the game

Okay, looking at that, I'll brave to voice this concern my wolf spotting has brought me to face.

Roa said...

That was an intentional "mistake". It just has to be.

So Roa tried to mislead us about her knowledge of the situation - and I can't see a reason what a gifted Roa would gain from that against the wolves at Nights as they would not start thinking she's someone they can afford to ignore from that. But a wolf-Roa might gain the edge in a possible tight voting if people thought she was not up to the situation...

So you see, I was pretty much aware of that possibility but Roa herself gave me the license to test it...


But what comes to meta-reasoning as such... well that's a more complicated issue.

First of all I think it is unavoidable from personal perspective. If you notice something that is a meta-reason to either suspect someone or not, then you notice it, and you can not "delete" it from your mind.

Like if I'm an ordo and receive a PM from the mod where it clearly says we have four wolves and then someone comes making a statement there are only three wolves - well she has not received the same PM I have, ergo a wolf (or a gifted...). Well it was wrong - like anything one interpretes from the actual discussion might be right or wrong...

Pay heed also to what followed: it seemed to me both Boro and Eomer noticed it - at least they talked in a round-about way but it seemed they understood what I was saying (I was aware though they might be just cunning wolves making a good guess so I didn't trust them completely). Then came Sally pointing almost head-on what I was saying only followed by Shasta who unhappily revealed the whole thing mentioning the PM (and making me basically 100% sure he was an innocent - I never defended you on that ground Shasta!). Wilwa only declared she understood the point after Shasta's "revelation" concerning the grounds of it, so I didn't let her off the hook as she might have been a wolf who just realised what was the fuzz all about and tried to make herself look better... Heh, just like any suspicion voiced, recalled, argued on, speculated over with gazillion different interpretive possibilities etc...

I had no intention to make it an issue. I was happy to notice Roa might be a wolf already on D1 and to be the one to spot it. I actually thought I could leave it at that... but it was to go otherwise... and I soon regretted my choice to voice it in the first place. And I think I now stand warned about it seeing how it took off.

But the real problem I think is the question of where to draw the line?

For example after playing with same people a number of games one starts automatically to create patterns of their behaviour in different roles. That can be misleading to be sure (like the different amount of time people have at their hands etc. - although many people notify others of their RL rushes), but it's something one can't just wipe out from one's understanding of any given situation. Like some people play very lazily if they have no role but activate when they have one (*coughSleepy Rangercough*), or some are aggressive suspecters when innocent and more smooth when wolves, some are more laid back when innocents but a bit nervous when wolves etc... And these things have been used as arguments, well basically in every game on someone. And that is meta-gaming as well.

I'm not sure what to say.

I think the old ruling that quotes from PM's or things like that should not be produced as evidence in the actual game-thread in any situation, is a good piece of advice. Also knowing something about people's relations in RL should not be argued openly on (didn't we lynch a wolf in one game years ago when someone noticed that the mod had written the first narration of his own death and making his RL-lover kill him with a rose or something?). After one especially epic fail (also years ago) I think the mods have gotten more careful with genders in their narrations and no one's doing that any more (the mod revealed the gender of the last living wolf and the village lynched the wolf...).

Basically anything based on meta-reasons should not be argued explicitly.

But drawing lessons from this one I must say I will myself consider it a few times before I even hint at that kind reason being around to be found.

[Nogrod]

Heh... I forgot to make the defence of why some meta-reasons like the one voiced in this game could be fair... (unless "quoted" or opened in any other way)

If a wolf makes a conscious "error" regarding the number of wolves s/he makes her/himself look very good by the innocents - in a meta-reason level!

Like it or not, but that kind of clumsiness, especially from a seasoned and extremely sharp player, basically whitewashes that person in the back of our heads; not because of what s/he has said in the thread as to suspect or defend, but because of what kind of meta-game impression s/he gives of her/him.

And there must be a way to fight against that kind of tactics as well...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Noggins

For example after playing with same people a number of games one starts automatically to create patterns of their behaviour in different roles.

As I recall, outright discussion of past games was originally frowned upon. Of course, inventive Werewolvers managed to circumvent the rule by referring to the 'Tome of Werewolf Lore', recalling tales of past villages plagued by Werewolves and relating stories of their ancestors who died at the hands of fellow players' ancestors ...

I am not a fan of meta-game reasoning of any type whatsoever. In my view, the in-game discussion should relate solely to events that have happened and things that have been said in the game itself. Now, I am sure that I have been guilty myself on occasion, because it is tempting, and I certainly agree that one cannot exclude meta-reasoning from one's mind. But I would be in favour of a stricter approach by mods, and greater self-discipline from players, in this respect.

As regards the incident in question, I must say that, following the game, I immediately picked up on Roa's reference to the number of Wolves as a possible intentional error to make herself look less Wolfish. I think that there was a perfectly respectable case to put as to her being suspicious on this basis, even without knowledge of what the PMs to ordos said, although I perhaps would not have pushed it quite as strongly as Nog did.

Btw, great game Legate and all. I really enjoyed following it and loved the various twists and turns. I must admit to rooting for the Wolves after Pitch's death, as I always tend to support the underdog.

[Morsul the Dark]

Well then SPAM I'm glad I gave you a win ...