Werewolf CXII - Dueling Wizards III - The Living Thread

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

And this. This, and hundred times this. I remember very well how it went in the last game where we had a Dead thread, and it was a disaster. Such as when the village switched halfway through what did which votes for whom mean, after people already started casting votes on the Dead thread.

But yes. Something like always saying "if X is innocent, empower Y". I think it worked last time surprisingly well (when the Living didn't mess up the definition).

Ah, I'd totally forgotten to consider the regular communication through empowerment of votes. I meant to add a caveat about how the whole thing was only relevant to visitors, but in that case, this is actually a lot more important, since the Dead Thread is going to be the source of truth for the living.

In that case, I'd like to propose the following:

1. We don't lynch toDay.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 username appears first in the alphabet.
Night after a Hunter kill: Test the hunter first, then the hunted.
A visitor is present: We will assume the usual. Obviously if the Visitor returns with new rules then we can implement those.


edit: x-posted since Zil's #52

[Loslote]

Eönwë's plan is a perfectly fine one, and barring major objections, it might be a good idea to just adopt it as the default moving forward to avoid confusion. If everyone's arguing, it could be hard for the Dead to be clear, so I think it would be better to pick a plan that will work and stick with it than to debate about what the best possible plan would be. However:

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Night after a Hunter kill: Test the hunter first, then the hunted.

I didn't think the Hunter could be evil, shouldn't it be hunted first, then hunter?

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Loslote

Eönwë's plan is a perfectly fine one, and barring major objections, it might be a good idea to just adopt it as the default moving forward to avoid confusion. If everyone's arguing, it could be hard for the Dead to be clear, so I think it would be better to pick a plan that will work and stick with it than to debate about what the best possible plan would be. However:



I didn't think the Hunter could be evil, shouldn't it be hunted first, then hunter?

Oh wait, good point. If the narration is clear about who is who, then the dead should not look at the hunter at all, as they are a known innocent.

[Lalaith]

Eönwë's plan is a perfectly fine one

Is it a fine plan? Maybe. I read over it and felt like I've been asked to find a five pound note in the corner of a round room....just read Inzil's comment though and feel a bit better, I was starting to feel like the group dunce.

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Is it a fine plan? Maybe. I read over it and felt like I've been asked to find a five pound note in the corner of a round room....just read Inzil's comment though and feel a bit better, I was starting to feel like the group dunce.

It's a little lawyer-y, to be sure. But I think it gives both the village and the dead enough flexibility while allowing for clear communication.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Loslote

It's a little lawyer-y, to be sure. But I think it gives both the village and the dead enough flexibility while allowing for clear communication.

Well I just wanted to avoid all sorts of weird ways of abusing the system.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Alright. Things I thought of while reading that might be relevant:

- I DO think that the EW is likely not one of the first people who offered up insight on the game, for this reason; the EW is the only evil right now that it's incredibly bad for the wolf team to lose. And it's useless to say that they aren't "lost" if they're lynched - they're outed, and that's just as bad.

- I DO think the EW is likely to wait a bit to see which way the village wind is blowing before they offer up opinions, for the reason stated above.

- I DO NOT have the current IRL capacity to look back and see who matches what I posited in the first two points. I will get to it as I can, should I be alive to do so.

- I DO think that Boro is a goober and that Nerwen is gorgeous.

That is all for now.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

- I DO think that Boro is a goober and that Nerwen is gorgeous.

Awe, thanks . That means a lot coming from you.

++Boro

I still think it makes more sense to take a shot at lynching a baddie than not to take it.

Boro seems the most fishy (see: list) so he gets my vote.

I also think innocent Boro would be a reliable dead thread presence and a guilty Boro an entertaining one.~Lommy

You know what...I'm not even flustered by that. Usually, I'm fighting tooth and nail for revenge, but that's well reasoned. You've halfway convinced me that I should vote for myself.

Edit, crossed with Lottie. Fixing quote tags

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Is it a fine plan? Maybe. I read over it and felt like I've been asked to find a five pound note in the corner of a round room....just read Inzil's comment though and feel a bit better, I was starting to feel like the group dunce.

No, I'm still trying to wrap my head around it too.

I honestly haven't really factored in the Dead Thread, though it now seems to be a large part of the discussion. I have no recollection of ever playing a WW game with a Dead Thread before, so I'm sure how it all works. As complicated as it seems, I think communication of some sort is a good idea.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Ah, I'd totally forgotten to consider the regular communication through empowerment of votes. I meant to add a caveat about how the whole thing was only relevant to visitors, but in that case, this is actually a lot more important, since the Dead Thread is going to be the source of truth for the living.

In that case, I'd like to propose the following:

1. We don't lynch toDay.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 username appears first in the alphabet.
Night after a Hunter kill: Test the hunter first, then the hunted.
A visitor is present: We will assume the usual. Obviously if the Visitor returns with new rules then we can implement those.

Obviously, you're trying to cause my brain to explode, when I don't even have the benefit of coffee.

x/d with Lottie

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Hi, everyone. Lommy just poked me on FB - thanks, dear - to let me know this had started. Apologies for my absence thus far. Will read what's happened. Back shortly!

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

In that case, I'd like to propose the following:

1. We don't lynch toDay.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 username appears first in the alphabet.
Night after a Hunter kill: Test the hunter first, then the hunted.
A visitor is present: We will assume the usual. Obviously if the Visitor returns with new rules then we can implement those.

I think we have the new phantom here!

Seriously though: yes. Good. I'm too tired to think whether the special cases rules make sense, so I'll get back to that tomorrow.

The only thing I disagree with is that I think we should already start lynching toDay. I'm gonna vote within ten minutes unless someone gives me a very good reason not to. "Caution" or "odds" is not one.

x:ed with everyone I predict

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

The only thing I disagree with is that I think we should already start lynching toDay. I'm gonna vote within ten minutes unless someone gives me a very good reason not to. "Caution" or "odds" is not one.

Well, that's what this was about:

Originally Posted by Eönwë

If we lynch someone now, we have the following situation:
N1: 0 in DT
D1: 0 in DT
N2: 1 in DT
D2: 2 in DT (1/2 known roles) - can vote to strengthen a vote
N3: 3 in DT (1/3 known roles) - can vote to find out a role
D3: 4 in DT (3/4 known roles) - can vote to strengthen a vote
N4: 5 in DT (3/5 known roles) - can vote to find out a role
... etc.

This means that at each Night, there are 2 unknowns. Of course, if we now agree to a certain rule (e.g. always vote for the unknown that's spent the longest time in the DT), then it could be easier, but there's always the chance of a wasted Night vote early on with 2 unknown wolves overpowering the general vote, and there's also a risk of wolves messing stuff up in moments where people would be tempted to break this rule, e.g. when a Visitor is there.

If we didn't lynch someone today, we'd have:
N1: 0 in DT
D1: 0 in DT
N2: 0 in DT
D2: 1 in DT
N3: 2 in DT (1/2 known roles) - can vote to find out a role
D3: 3 in DT (3/3 known roles) - can vote to strengthen a vote
N4: 4 in DT (3/4 known roles) - can vote to find out a role
... etc.

Of course, this is super hypothetical and I can imagine a few situations where it would break down (e.g. Ranger save, Wizards' duel, etc.), but just thought I'd put it out there.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Well, that's what this was about:

At this rate though...with no votes and under an hour to go...we might end up with a lynch anyway if we get flurry deadline voting

[Thinlómien]

Agh I wanted to go to sleep!!! But like if someone's gonna vote I want to vote too! And I don't think we should skip the lynch. Also I don't think it's harmful to lynch anyone toDay when it comes to dead thread communication, it's just not as beneficial as it could be.

Originally Posted by Mith

Lommie, I am sure you mean well and no doubt some were generally innocent of the start - maybe if they were expecting a role pm to trigger an email notification rather than checking the board not realising that only special roles would be notified. However since Kuru stated he was waiting on the selected wizards to confirm their acceptance, saying you didn't know it had started then indicates that that person isn't a wizard. So perhaps need to be careful with this meta info. Pinch of salt or assume knew but detained...

I don't know of anyone not knowing about the game starting. I just assumed, and thought better to message them just in case. But I agree we shouldn't draw any conclusions based on that, or take "I didn't know the game started" at face value.

edit: xed with Brinn

[Thinlómien]

++Boro

I still think it makes more sense to take a shot at lynching a baddie than not to take it.

Boro seems the most fishy (see: list) so he gets my vote.

I also think innocent Boro would be a reliable dead thread presence and a guilty Boro an entertaining one.

Good night!


ps. Legate if you need a clarification I'll write you one toMorrow unless I'm dead.


edit: xed with Eönwë

[Kuruharan]

The deadline has come.

Please stop posting.

Narration(s) to follow.

Maybe a little delayed because my wife wants to eat dinner for some reason.

She doesn't get the value of a good werewolfing...

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I don't know of anyone not knowing about the gamev5 starting. I just assumed, and thought better to message them just in case. But I agree we shouldn't draw any conclusions based on that, or take "I didn't know the game started" at face value.

edit: xed with Brinn

That was all I meant. I took your words as speculation. It is only that in this game it happens to have significance so important just to be wary.

[Loslote]

We have twenty minutes until DL, so it's time to start making decisions. We can still not lynch anyone (ties = no lynch), but we'd have to be very clear about who is voting and how. We can also stick with Lommy's Boro vote. I don't necessarily want to see Boro dead, but I don't have a better candidate, so if we want to play it safe and be sure we don't lynch someone else trying to tie it, I could see adding votes there. What do people want to do?

EDIT: Highlight it, Lalaith!

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

The only thing I disagree with is that I think we should already start lynching toDay. I'm gonna vote within ten minutes unless someone gives me a very good reason not to. "Caution" or "odds" is not one.

We don't need a third person in the dead thread. Having the person first lynched in the dead thread does not enable us to gain any additional information. However, if you feel like you have a strong enough suspicion to vote on, definitely go for it. I don't have any such strong suspicions, and therefore I will not be voting to lynch anyone, since I don't think doing so helps us unless we are confident that the person we lynch is a probable wolf.

EDIT: xed with Eonwe

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Loslote

We don't need a third person in the dead thread. Having the person first lynched in the dead thread does not enable us to gain any additional information. However, if you feel like you have a strong enough suspicion to vote on, definitely go for it. I don't have any such strong suspicions, and therefore I will not be voting to lynch anyone, since I don't think doing so helps us unless we are confident that the person we lynch is a probable wolf.

Agreed. Also, while it would be sub-optimal to have the 1:2 known:unknown ratio on N3, the only way it can really be messed up is if we've lynched 2 wolves, in which case we're probably doing well enough that we can afford to mess up a few signals early on. And hopefully the Visitors will clarify if that's been the case.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Agreed. Also, while it would be sub-optimal to have the 1:2 known:unknown ratio on N3, the only way it can really be messed up is if we've lynched 2 wolves, in which case we're probably doing well enough that we can afford to mess up a few signals early on. And hopefully the Visitors will clarify if that's been the case.

Just to clarify, what I mean here is that by N3, in order for there to be a mutiny, both lynches must have been wolves. After that, unless we somehow continue to lynch only wolves, the side of good should come out on top.

On which note, I think there's another addendum: If there has been such a 'mutiny', ignore it in the next empowerment (or things will get even more confusing).

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Also I don't think it's harmful to lynch anyone toDay when it comes to dead thread communication, it's just not as beneficial as it could be.

I agree with this. That's why I'm not throwing any sort of suspicion on the people who still want a lynch - I don't think it's a baddie tactic or anything, just a difference in opinion. Do we want to take an informal poll, maybe? In favor of lynching vote lynch, in favor of no lynch vote no lynch, like so: ++no lynch, just to get a feel of where the village is at?

EDIT: xed with Lommy

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Well I guess there it goes for the no-lynch option, although I guess the potential option to nullify it is still there if we could make sure to agree on a counter-vote or something.

That said, I also want to go to sleep. It is like 2:40 here. And the DL is fast approaching anyway.

The ++no lynch would still be something I could back up, even though if I had to choose and vote a person, Boro would actually be among those to consider. I just wish this hadn't happened like this with the sort of sudden rush because I honestly would have prefered to go to sleep and leave it at that.

EDIT: x-ed with Mith and onwards

[Mithalwen]

Lommie, I am sure you mean well and no doubt some were generally innocent of the start - maybe if they were expecting a role pm to trigger an email notification rather than checking the board not realising that only special roles would be notified. However since Kuru stated he was waiting on the selected wizards to confirm their acceptance, saying you didn't know it had started then indicates that that person isn't a wizard. So perhaps need to be careful with this meta info. Pinch of salt or assume knew but detained...