Werewolf CXII - Dueling Wizards III - The Living Thread

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Not being part of a game like this before, I'm trying to savvy up on things that are new.

So, the Dead can always read the Living Thread...so they'll be looking at it for ideas of who to empower. How do they know whom on the Living Thread can be trusted?

It's simple, we just somehow figure out - it can be quite random - to make a list, such as for example when there are two dead people, we say "if you have determined that 1 is innocent, vote for X, if 1 is guilty, vote for Y, if 2 is innocent, vote for Z..." Preferably, we try to make it so that the people who are being voted for do not have any super-major impact on the final outcome of the vote (as far as it can be assumed in advance... but really, I think that somehow never came as problem in the last game). Yes, there is a risk of misuse, but based on experience, it was very small. I really believe the only time it got messed up was when the Living decided sometime halfway through the Day to change which vote meant what. Plus we had evil Mac (and others, but mainly him) on the dead thread, but he mostly trolled and didn't harm anybody in the end.

Anyway. I am soon planning to go to sleep. Probably won't stay until the very DL. I think I will in any case try to post some summary on people from my perspective, but otherwise just hope that as many people as possible still post meanwhile, especially those who haven't appeared yet.

EDIT: x-ed with some Boros and Lommys

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

And I recall other safety nets so the Dead doesn't send faulty information...like

"If you don't trust Boro to empower his vote/you don't know the role of (insert dead person)/don't want to give mixed up info than empower Inzil's vote"...which lets the Living know that "ok the Dead don't have the info to give us we asked for"

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

It's simple, we just somehow figure out - it can be quite random - to make a list, such as for example when there are two dead people, we say "if you have determined that 1 is innocent, vote for X, if 1 is guilty, vote for Y, if 2 is innocent, vote for Z..." Preferably, we try to make it so that the people who are being voted for do not have any super-major impact on the final outcome of the vote (as far as it can be assumed in advance... but really, I think that somehow never came as problem in the last game). Yes, there is a risk of misuse, but based on experience, it was very small. I really believe the only time it got messed up was when the Living decided sometime halfway through the Day to change which vote meant what. Plus we had evil Mac (and others, but mainly him) on the dead thread, but he mostly trolled and didn't harm anybody in the end.

Ah, ok. It'll take at least three Dead to be useful that way, though. Since, as Kuru noted, just two dead could vote to reveal one another.

x/d with Steve

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Ah, ok. It'll take at least three Dead to be useful that way, though. Since, as Kuru noted, just two dead could vote to reveal one another.

I assume a Dead person could vote for themselves, and I guess we'll have to trust them to be reasonable and both vote for the first person lynched (since if we don't lynch toDay and the first person is a wolf kill, we can assume they were not themselves a wolf).

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Loslote

I assume a Dead person could vote for themselves, and I guess we'll have to trust them to be reasonable and both vote for the first person lynched (since if we don't lynch toDay and the first person is a wolf kill, we can assume they were not themselves a wolf).

Yeah, if the first unknown doesn't vote for themself, I think they can safely be assumed to be evil.

[Eönwë]

1. Each Night, vote to find out the role of the person who has been around in the Dead Thread longest whose role is unknown. For special cases, see addendum below.
2. Each Day, take an alphabetical list of the full usernames of the living. On odd Days, order them A->Z; on even Days Z->A.
3. If the person whose identity was checked was good, empower the vote of someone in the first half of the alphabetical list (one of the known innocents should state who at the beginning of the Day), if they were evil, empower the vote of someone in the second half. For the purposes of this vote, if there is a username exactly in the middle, it counts as if it were in the first half.

Addendum - special cases
Night after a Wizard's Duel: Test the identity of the person whose full username appears first in the alphabet.
Night after a Hunter kill: Test the hunted. The hunter is a known innocent.
A visitor is present: We will assume the usual. Obviously if the Visitor returns with new rules then we can implement those.

Note: If there has been a 'mutiny', i.e., voting has been overrun by the wolves at any point, continue to vote as if the correct information had been transferred at the appropriate time. This will mean that at least all future information will be correct. The responsibility of the Visitors is to inform the Living Thread of any such 'mutinies' when they return to the Living Thread.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

1. Each Night, vote to find out the role of the person who has been around in the Dead Thread longest whose role is unknown. For special cases, see addendum below.
2. Each Day, take an alphabetical list of the full usernames of the living. On odd Days, order them A->Z; on even Days Z->A.
3. If the person whose identity was checked was good, empower the vote of someone in the first half of the alphabetical list (one of the known innocents should state who at the beginning of the Day), if they were evil, empower the vote of someone in the second half. For the purposes of this vote, if there is a username exactly in the middle, it counts as if it were in the first half.

Addendum - special cases
Night after a Wizard's Duel: Test the identity of the person whose full username appears first in the alphabet.
Night after a Hunter kill: Test the hunted. The hunter is a known innocent.
A visitor is present: We will assume the usual. Obviously if the Visitor returns with new rules then we can implement those.

Note: If there has been a 'mutiny', i.e., voting has been overrun by the wolves at any point, continue to vote as if the correct information had been transferred at the appropriate time. This will mean that at least all future information will be correct. The responsibility of the Visitors is to inform the Living Thread of any such 'mutinies' when they return to the Living Thread.

sure thing

Xed a bunch

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I was, as usual, thinking while typing. I didn't like Lottie discussing what are reasonable strategies for the EW, so my brain went "suspicious", but as you can see towards the end of that paragraph, I kinda reasoned it would have been a weird/bold move from either a wolf or the EW to openly speculate about the EW's startegies in her very first post. HOWEVER, to do a Lommy flip flop now that I think of it, it *might* not be so weird from an EW. Like sure, she'd be drawing attention to herself, but as the EW would be thinking a lot about the EW tactics it might feel natural to her to post about it without thinking much? And for another flip flop: I always suspect Lottie on Day1 so I'm gonna give her the benefit of doubt this time. Probably. But she's really the only one who stands out to me so far, even if it's rather as "someone whose actions caught my attention" as opposed to "someone who's a likely wolf/EW".

Okay, this was about the most confusing thing I have read during the whole Day. To quote a classic, "what dost thou wish to say, Chieftain?"

Anyway.

Nerwen - seems like her classic self, posts in an informative way. No reason to suspect her of anything intoward here.
Inzil - Basically also fairly classic Zil. I don't think there's anything out of the norm here.
Loslote - seems like having a bit more drive than I expected. Is contributing, however, and her initial idea about the no-vote had some good points behind it.
Boro - to be honest, he is a bit all over the place, as in, the in-character posting really surprised me from him. I am not sure what to think about it. But otherwise, his normal contributions to the discussion were there as well and those were normal.
Shasta - sadly absent EDIT: wait no, good! Welcome.
Eomer - had some good points there. I really think his arguments about the lynching are valid. But even objectively, reminds me of his usual self.
Morsul - I could re-quote his signature... although not really; I actually think he sounds very responsible and not unreliable at all. Otherwise he resonates with his classic self. I like how he's engaged in the debate.
Lommy - feels normal? Had a bit noncommital attitude at first, but maybe that was just because of the briefness of her post and the circumstances she posted from (i.e., quickly), then, she came with that super-underipherable thing above. But that's about it for now.
Lalaith - EDIT: ha! Also just appeared. Good.
Mith - good that she appeared. I would like to see more from her to make an opinion, though.
Eönwë - when I originally wanted to start making notes about people, I wanted to write down that he was "very systematic". That was even before all the charts he posted now. Anyway, he's again one of those who seem to take this game very responsibly (same as Morsul, for example).
Nogrod - even more sadly absent, though whispers from beyond this canyon say that he's been somewhat busy lately.
Pervencia Took - likewise absent, I just hope she didn't get scared and run away since this was meant to be her first game.
Brinniel - appeared and contributed to the debate, but nothing very detailed there either. Would like to see more as well.

That's about it for initial impressions, however. Nothing much altogether.

Off to check what happened meanwhile...

EDIT: X-ed with a bunch of people. But nice to see posts.