It is clear enough that all the people with clear conscience - with the possible exception of the seer - will vote for a representative someone s/he thinks has a good judgement and can bring down a wolf or whom s/he thinks is a wolf that could slip under pressure being forced to make a decision on the lynch (or whom s/he would just like to find out in this game - as to see how s/he performs).

As I come to think of it, this game actually seems to favour the wolves as they can hide behind voting "just" for a representative and are thus not forced to vote every Day for a lynch, if not consistently voted a representative. Looking at the brighter side we will have twice the time to discuss things everyDay and the new dynamics might even help us here on the latter parts of the Day to counter the balance back.

But what will be something like a central issue in this game later on after we get some actual data of people behaving in different ways in different stuations & actually voting - and I'm looking forwards to it as it looks like a challenge indeed - is how we should judge the way the wolves will vote and how they will do it in the end.

(Hah, I said this was an unproductive topic and here I go... :rolleyes:)

++No Filibuster So that's out of the way.

I have to go back and read the, like, 2,319 posts I missed, but it seems as though we do want to limit the number of reps for now. 7 seems a reasonable number to me, but then as phantom pointed out, my name is very vowelly.

Obviously, only I would be very careful with that - but I am sure everyone realises: by voting anybody as a Representative, you are placing a responsibility on him, which is good, as you get to see how he acts; however, at the same time, you are giving him power - and possibly even over your own life (if we take this from the most self-centered point of view).
However, all this situation and the model of the game is too new for us, I think, that we have yet to explore the nuances and how actually various choices go and work and impact on the game here...

...which is exactly this. Indeed, the main device of the game now is exploring these possibilities the system gives us (and it is so exciting! I really like it). So, let's just see how this rolls on...

Also.

I'd say we should not shy away from actually trying to suspect people on this first Day as well even if there are a host of interesting new things to speculate upon. We should use the extra time we have to discuss things and to call for all the people to participate. You all know what democracy with 60% partake-rate (too many submarines) and not discussing the actual topics that influence our welfare (the identity of the werewolves) is. Just the "politics as usual" which will get us nowhere.

And just to prevent the all too usual protests: I'm not saying we have too many submarines right now. It's still possible that some Europeans have not gotten from work, study etc. But I truly wish all people will in the end of the Day have participated according to their resources. And I'm trying to encourage that.

I need to take a break now but will come back with hopefuly some more to the point thoughts on players thus far.

Curiosity killed the cat.. I know. :p

I wouldn't try that in the endgame but might well consider trying it on the early Days - knowledgeable of the risk involved. But as you said, we will have to see how this plays out.

I'm with Lommy on the filibustering issue ... oh, or I was until she just changed her mind. I think having a filibuster toDay wouldn't be too much of a problem - it would be a good chance to see how it works, and it would be better to test it out earlier rather than later.

I'm so intrigued by this idea of representatives. I want to see how it works. I think we do need some kind of limit so we don't end up with too many people but I don't think there is any way to control that so we'll just have to see how it goes toDay.

By the way am I right about it being a 4am deadline for GMT?

I concede that as a point in your column, a person voting for a rep will hold different information than a rep casting a vote.

I disagree. I will pick someone who will represent my voice. Period. That doesn't mean we still can't hold people accountable for their own decisions, whether they said they were only going with their constituents or not. "Popular support" is a lame cop out, the person who best expresses their intentions, and his/her intentions fit best with mine, will be my representative. That's a heck of a lot different than me saying I'm going to pick the first person who will suck up to me, by agreeing with me, because you can't throw bull crap past this pig pen raker.

What do you mean by "the intentions of this village?" Do you mean if the the phantom proves he means well in the sense that he can lead the village to lynching wolves? Or do you mean he will prove to serve your own sinister intentions?

If you are speaking as far as Day 1's go, I would agree with that. However, a bold, no holding back wolf will not skirt away from a chance of being a representative and lead us all like sheep in lynching innocencts.

Edit: xed with everyone since's Nogrod's post #81

After this I really need to close the browser without refreshing it or I'll never get out from here...
Fea, just a general question. Can the filibuster only take place at the end of the lynch-vote by the representatives (as I've thought it is) or is it possible to filibuster even when choosing the representatives?

That's what I think it is (so 6AM here in Finland... :eek:).

Wow, mister Nogrodman actually makes a lot of sense. :D

Yes, things like that did cross my mind but that really hasn't got that much to do with talking about the number of representatives... Because what you talk about is something that depends on every single player's common sense.

Speaking of these issues, I'd rather have lots of "weak" representatives than just a few people who wield immense power. It would strike me as more democratic and less dangerous.

And lastly, since no one has brought it up yet, it's perfectly possible that innocent people will elect one or more wolves as their representatives and thereby wolves could be trying to seem reasonable and trustworthy just to gather innocent rep votes. Which means I'm not going to vote anyone who seems too sane to be my representative. ;)


edit: xed with Nog, Nog, Kath, Boro, Nog

Hello I'm here. Sorry to come so late but a friend of mine begged she coud cook for me and I just didn't have the heart to say no. However, I should write a paper for tomorrow and I am tired and in a rather bad mood so I don't know how much I'm going to post.

I don't care how many representatives we have. I'm going to vote for the one I think will see to my interests the best. Besides the less reps there are, the greater their power, which I don't find a good thing. Also, I don't care if my rep can be around at deadline or not. As for deadline, it is 6am my time and I'm not going to be around that late (nor wake up that early, for that matter). And should anybody vote me for a rep, they would also have to bear in mind that my votes will be cast early.

Haha, yes. :D So, do we have any chance but to trust in you, just in you? ;) By the way, I bet I would be elected as a rep if I sang Be Prepared.

Yeah - after all, this is supposed to be a democracy, not theocracy.

I don't care if there are filibusters or not, at least for now.

Okay I really don't have anything to say. I'll try to get my paper at least half done and then concentrate on coming up with opinions on people.

Yes, although at least for myself, I have decided to use this "two-day" (in fact) system and try to keep my opinons on people for myself for a bit longer than usual, i.e. voicing them only very late in the Day, because I want to make a clearer picture on everybody, not given just by first impressions (and as soon as I say "X looks suspicious" or simply evaluate somebody, it will create a reaction, which I don't want yet. I want to see everybody for a while in their "natural environment" as a mere observer. Call it an experiment for toDay).

That is one way of looking at things, but this, in my opinion, is not as easy as you paint it. Because, I don't believe it will be like: X says "I will lynch Y" and I say "good, I want to lynch Y too, let's make X a Representative!" If I take it just from the minimalistic point of view, there will be the whole next Day between my nomination and X's actual vote, and during that time, X may re-evaluate his opinions etc., whatever. Or, X may have on his suspect list as well Y and Z, while I think Z is innocent and wouldn't like to see him lynched. No: okay, I know we don't know yet how things are going to work in real, but for now, my opinion is, the vote for my representative will be a vote for somebody I know I can trust to make a honest judgement under any circumstances. Imagine I vote for a player, and the only reason for me voting him would be because he supports lynching the people I want to. But suddenly, one of those people reveals as Seer. Or, worse, somebody reveals as Seer and somebody else as a Seer too, and now the Reps have to choose. It doesn't matter who they suspected before, now it's either Seer A or Seer B - one is a liar. And in this situation, I wish my representative to be able to judge for himself. So, I am not nominating anybody just because he by chance happened to suspect the same person as me (although of course I am not saying this can't be a criterion in the choice).

That's actually what I have to see yet. Simply put, I need him to convince me that he a) seems un-sinister enough for me to put my trust in him (which is a thing that concerns everybody in the village), b) I get certain that he does not vote wilfully to whomever his momentary whim points, but behave responsibly according to the position of the Rep that is given to him (and not end up just joking around and behaving, as my RPG players would put it, "like a terrible Chaotic").

EDIT: X-ed since the Boro I am quoting

From what I see on the Admin thread it looks like one can filibuster on both parts of the Day.

Why not vote just one person and give it many votes? "...into the first Gallactic Empaijaa!!!"

(Wow. I never thought before how much, when written, this seems like Finnish... ;) )

Though not, of course, that's why I spoke about some 5 or 6 or so representatives looking as an optimal number from my part. Hauevaa, while you are right that it depends on every player's common sense, it is always worth pointing that out to give others food for thought - and then apply their common sense enrichened by the conscious reflection of what has been said on the topic. Isn't that what we do with all things in WW?

EDIT: x-ed with Fea. Okay, so I was right :)

Boro and Phantom seem to be nicely buddy-buddy today, don't they? :p

I never knew I'd have to spell it out all here...I mean I thought it was kind of already assumed that you choose a representative who you trust. :rolleyes:

I doubt anyone is going to be choosing their reps on a whim, or based solely on the fact that their rep wants to lynch the same person. I have high expectations. Someone I trust is innocent, and someone who will repesent me, I expect both. End of story. If you can't live up to that, tough luck.

Which is why I'm confused to why exactly you ruled out the phantom so soon? Explain it to me, was it a joke for some laughs, and a little fun at what you promised earlier? I mean really if we follow your logic for not wanting to choose the phantom right now, you can say that about anyone in this village. I see no reason you should trust anyone right now, but right off the bat you said it aint gonna be the phantom. You didn't exclude anyone else, just the phantom.

By no means am I saying the phantom should be a representative, but the question is why should we immediately exclude anyone? Because of the history? Are you afraid history will repeat itself if you make the same mistakes? Why does what Day we're on make any difference?

This is a clean slate, a brand new ball game. If I was to use such a weak excuse as "history" for not choosing a rep, I could come up with some cockamamy reason for anyone in this village except Ilya.

Boro, you could say history doesn't matter, but look at how much Phantom has already said! History tends to repeat itself, after all. :p

I'm slowly catching up on everyone's posts. I'll respond to them a few at a time.

History is an excuse for the faint of heart. I'm not afraid to say Mac totally played me for a fool last time, but if he were in this village now, I would not use that a reason for not wanting him as a rep.

Or look at it this way...if history has any bearing on what will happen now, and if the phantom's a wolf, well we're all screwed now anyway. All we can do now is fight against the inevitable defeat.

That is contrary to the entire point of having representatives. If we just vote for people who would vote the same way as us anyway, then all we're doing is having a mass vote, just like always.

And this goes for the next comment as well-
You say we need a "strong" rep, and yet you don't think that reps who will vote independently and with conviction are a good choice?

That is massive contradiction.

A strong rep will vote the way he feels. A weak rep will hide behind those that elected him.

Nogrod made an excellent point on this matter already-
That is lovely reasoning Nogrod. A Werewolf could simply change his vote and not appear suspicious for it via following the whims of one of his constituents. "Well, you know, I was gonna vote for so-and-so, but since you did elect me and you're leaning this way I'll go ahead and vote that way."

Of course it would be done less obviously than that, but you get the point surely.

I still don't understand the anti-filibuster votes. What's the point? We've been given a unique set up and we're basically voting to normalize it. Where's your spirit of adventure?

Do you actually fear it will be put to use with negative consequences here on Day 1?

Oh well.
On Day 1 it is indeed likely that we will need no assitance in lynching an innocent, but surely the Werewolves must consider their positioning the rest of the game.

If people sit around and then suddenly try to turn themselves into reps after the first couple days then suspicion will go up. I would think it would be best to become a trusted rep as soon as possible. For at least a couple of the Wolves anyway. I'd think you would always want a bit of voting power, just in case.
I agree that it would be unsporty to claim it. But notice that I merely floated it as a possibility.

Di had floated the idea that Fea would show favoritism (make me a Wolf) based on our relationship, and I think I was within bounds to respond and display that the favoritism could also work in the other direction.
It's called fun. You remember fun, don't you? ;)

Perhaps, but not useless. Not to me, anyhow.
*chuckles*

Wait just a minute here. First you are on about how reps should consider everyone else's wishes and not be to self-willed, and then you go and agree with Nogrod about how Reps should stand up and not be wishy-washy?

Just what are you up to, Legate?

(still reading.... on to page 3...)

Yes I am here
 

Good evening, peoples of the world.

Glad I got that out of the way.

*laughs*
++Shasta

see, nothing happened!

Anyway, I can see that Shasta is probably going to be voted as a rep, maybe based on previous game experiences.

Hmmm... Interesting game so far- And its only Day 1!

That's just his plan- no-one can ever analyse all his posts so they can't get a good reading on him. ;)

I'd have to agree in some extent to that. Change is inevitable, but some folks and truths are not. I guess after toDay we'll see how much change can happen, hopefully for the better.



I'm going to have to agree with tp on this one. It is definately comforting if someone is always voting for what their base wants, but I don't think we can put our feet up next to the fire entirely when a representative can have as many innocents as wolves in their ranks. The concerning thing is, they don't even have to know it.
I think we're forgetting that a leader is not their own island, and that the 'power supreme' is as much in their lobbyist as is themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one representative had a few puppeteers to act for, and think they we're being free as a bird.

As my dad would say, It's not always the top of the totem pole that is the strongest.

On that note, I have to leave for awhile to take my feline child to the vet for a check up on her stitches. Should be back before any deadlines.

~ Ka

Now I'm picturing a filibuster where all I do is talk about the phantom's posts.

I can taste the possibilities from here.

Giving power to the few is only dangerous if they are on the wrong side. :)
:D
In that case, I must be the Good Wizard, as that was my highest posting game.

Sweet. I can make a new Ranger tonight!
Precisely! It doesn't do any good to suspect me. You can know from reading your Werewolf history that whatever side I'm on benefits greatly from my help. And the vast majority of the time I am good, and thus the odds say that you should keep me around. Simple as that, really. :D

Okay, well, see, it's not like it will be only the phantom - I have more or less some list of players whom I would like to see as Reps and whom I would not, basically given on my experience with how they act in certain situations. That is no outdated history stuff, I believe you are not saying that I'd think something like "X was a Wolf last time, I am not going to vote him". But still, there are basically people I would dare to nominate and those I am - on first thought - reluctant to nominate, at least. Some I won't nominate - for the first Day at least - simply because I don't know them well enough (like Ilya whom I meet for the first time here). With some, I am reluctant, because I simply won't wish to rely on their judgement in hard situation. I named tp in particular because he's a classic character (and no hard feelings, hope, Mr. P. ;) ) and because I told that before-game, right, but that did not serve as basis for my current stance towards him, but merely for a reason to name him in particular in my post. There are others, more, whom I would not vote right now, but I simply did not name them all. I would not have named any, most probably, had I not made that remark about tp before the game. Is that clear, I hope?

May I have a counter-question, Boro, though (if it is clear, if not, ask more) - what was your reason to ask me this? If you only could formulate why are you asking me about that, "why did I name tp in particular". Thank ye.

Yes, that's what I said (several times) - and I would sign the thing you quoted from Nog, too. Maybe I just did not make myself clear. I said here several times, that I believe that Reps who are needed are strong, indeed, reliable people, about whom I am certain that they can make judgements in hard situations, for the good of the village. Not just for their own. That is simply, that I won't vote somebody whom I don't trust in the sense that he could vote just based on a whim or something. That was my point - the slight difference between "strong and independant" and "wilful". I can't think now how to phrase it better than that.

EDIT: x-ed since Phantom I quoted (i.e. with posts after #99)

Gah! Foiled!
 

[^see last post]

I think it would also amuse Fea to make you a WW, so that everyone will vote you as a rep and then you will vote badly (purposefully).

Just to be clear...
My point was that earlier your precise reasoning for not wanting to pick me seemed to be that I fit this exact statement.

At the time you seemed to strongly favor a "weak" rep, who would do the will of the people. But then a couple other people made some points, and you appeared to flip-flop violently.

It would amuse me to do a great deal of things. But I wouldn't rely too much on suspicions in that vein: assuming I did handpick roles (and one should never assume), I highly doubt people (even you, phantom) would be able to trace my motives down to an accurate shortlist, since my motives are rarely traceable.

However I certainly invite you all to try to figure out who I would have picked, had I picked. I like being the center of attention, and it's as good a way to spend Day One as any. :cool:

Why would you say that? I'm "doomed to be forever right, but forever not listened to", according to Wikipedia. :smokin:

Well, I hope you gathered from what I have replied now in the post right above, that I never was for this populism. I never said anything about considering others' wishes! I spoke about the best intentions of the village - but that does not mean listening to a few villagers who whine "uncle Rep, vote that awful guy with the pink hair"! The Rep, once elected, should vote with the best intentions for the village in mind! Once again - and if you read all my posts, you will find it there from the beginning to the end - I say: I believe in reasonable players, who will do what is best, who know what is best, which is the point of this very game - and I am also doing that to see how different outcome such a voting (meaning now the lynch-voting later, which those Reps will make) will be from the usual WW-y voting of the "mindless masses". ;) Clear?

EDIT: x-ed since my last post

Here at last. Hello. Sorry for taking so long, it's been a busy day. (And seemingly a busy Day as well.) So, first off, some thoughts on toDay's posts.

Might be - but do we want leadership? I would much prefer consensus to leadership, not only because leadership can be so easily misused, but also because leadership makes a WW game really boring. After all, what's the fun in a game where you have a leader who does all the thinking for you? ;)
My thoughts exactly - I was going to mention this thing in this post but seemingly Mr. Nog did it before me. Though speculating about reps and filibusters is important and all, I'm a bit worried about how little people talk about each other. For myself, I'm going to sleep in a few hours, probably, and would really much like to see something else than rules discussion before I vote for a rep. I'll show example and talk about people after this post.
That's all very well - except that if we all hold back our suspicions all Day and only voice them a bit before deadline, that will not only make it really difficult to choose a representative for the people around at deadline, forcing them to hasty decisions since they get all the information only just before they have to decide, but also makes deciding close to impossible for those who are not able to be around late in the Day. Of course it's not that bad if only one Leggie does that, but if we all operated that way, it would end up quite nasty. Immanuel Kant said: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." That obviously makes you a sinner, which means you are a wolf. Easy, eh? :Merisu: (How come I have become so good at spotting wolves?)

I'll be back with more stuff. Beware.


EDIT: x-ed since, gasp, phantom's #101 - 13 posts before mine! Slow down, people. Really. :p

Well, I hope you understood now from the post above (and hope there'll be no more x-posting anymore), that I have never said anything like you say, and never favoured, as you say, a "weak" rep. Just look at my first post.

Any future direct quotation of Immanuel Kant shall result in modfire. *shudders*

Well, if that is your justification, then I can only say that I am insulted that you would think that an innocent phantom would not have the best intentions of the village in mind. I have done some crazy things as an Ordo (suggested volunteers for lynching, lying about my role, etc) but these things were always done to help the village, even if they couldn't see what I was trying to do until after the fact. And usually I produced very favorable results for the village, which I think speaks for my intentions quite well.

Wish Lalaith was here. She'd be able to testify to the fact that a manipulative-lying-through-his-teeth Phantom can be quite deadly to opposing Werewolves.

Question my means if you'd like, Legate, but never my intentions or motives.

Oh whatever. Your motives are quite clear. You picked four WWs who hate me, didn't you?

This whole village is a set up! Gah! What did I do to you to deserve this, Fea?

But no, there actually aren't any Werewolves, are there? We'll discover at the end that the moral was that the government causes rifts and starts fights, and that the people should rise up above it and excercise their power to stop the madness.

Actually, that's quite an idea.

Werewolves, I have an idea! We can make peace! If you will agree not to kill us during the night, we will agree not to try and lynch you during the day. Why continue this conflict? Let us strike a truce!

I am aware of your point, but a) I know that not everybody will do that, and b) as I said it is an experiment I want to try when there is the chance, but mainly, and most of all, c) if you followed my thoughts, the reason for doing the experiment relies on the fact that I am NOT going to vote my representative, for most part, on who is he going to vote for. I am well aware of the riskiness, but heck, for me it's still worth it. I will vote a representative whom I believe as being capable of making a good decision on behalf of the village, that's the prime qualificiation.

Though point well taken. If we don't post any suspicions or such, we may not judge whether the Rep, who is otherwise a reliable person and whom we'd like to see as a leader, is not actually showing signs of Wolfishness. I am going to post some list on what I think about people, then, soon.

Well, yes, sorry then for insulting you poor innocent phantom :) And apologies in forward to others about whom I am perhaps going to speak in similar terms in future. But you know, this is all just these high politics - one does not avoid saying things which may sound too gruff at times :)