Werewolf LXXII: Now There's the Truth of It! (Game Thread)

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by wilwarin538

I agree with the submarine thing, someone could very well be innocent but if they don't stand out in anyone's mind then they won't get votes, and then they're done for.

And that's the ingenuinity of this game! If this works (remains to be seen), I'll be suggesting we make this kind of games more often as now it seems that one really needs to post to stay on with the game.


But just an idea then.

Now Sally seemed to request we highlight our votes of confidence.

So how about we come up with a marking of our own to indicate whom everyone of us would like to lynch? I think it would be a good idea if everyone also told the others whom they would like to see lynched already on this Day - and hopefully also why. In that way we could lessen the erratic nature of the last hour choices a little bit more?

Especially if we have people who can only turn out at the last moments of the Day they would have it easier just scrolling the thread and see why some people would like to see some others lynched (if people write long posts and their points are just in the middle of them unmarked a fast skimmer might just miss them).

If someone doesn't get that highlight-rule they might go for the traditional bolding with two pluses, so we should have to come up with some other solution for our unofficial lynch-votes.

How about we marked them like this?

Originally Posted by being an example

-- Nogrod

or

lynch Nogrod

Both would be clear, visible and still no one could mess it up with a vote of confidence (with two pluses & highlighting)?

What do you think?

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So how about we come up with a marking of our own to indicate whom everyone of us would like to lynch? I think it would be a good idea if everyone also told the others whom they would like to see lynched already on this Day - and hopefully also why. In that way we could lessen the erratic nature of the last hour choices a little bit more?

That is quite a good idea, and would be quite practical, but it does seem to go against the whole spirit of this game, because it makes us look at who we want to kill rather than who we want to save, which is the point of this game. Also, it might make some things clearer, but it will also make the mayhem near DL even more chaotic than it would be in this game.

I also think that if we focus on those two sides, then we'll totally forget about the people in the middle, who, if any are wolves, will have a chance to sneak by with one or two votes. If we just focus on those we want to save, it means that those we're not saving need to work harder. If we do decide who we want to lynch it will make the middle people slightly safer.

[Nogrod]

I was just thinking very highly of you Eönwë but then you posted again and I'm not so sure anymore...

Originally Posted by Eönwë

That is quite a good idea, and would be quite practical, but it does seem to go against the whole spirit of this game, because it makes us look at who we want to kill rather than who we want to save, which is the point of this game.

I just don't see the point of this objection. It looks like you'd wish us not to talk of whom we actually suspect so as to let the wolves skip freely in the shadows? It's the point of the game-mechanics that we vote for confidence, but our goal nevertheless is getting the wolves lynched. Or do you have a different goal?

Also, it might make some things clearer, but it will also make the mayhem near DL even more chaotic than it would be in this game.

How would that be?

I also think that if we focus on those two sides, then we'll totally forget about the people in the middle, who, if any are wolves, will have a chance to sneak by with one or two votes. If we just focus on those we want to save, it means that those we're not saving need to work harder. If we do decide who we want to lynch it will make the middle people slightly safer.

Do you focus on everyone with the same effort everyDay in a normal ww-game? So no one manages to sneak from your view, no "middle-people" ever have it safer in normal games? And does that mean you have "totally forgotten" them in a normal game?

I smell more rhetorics than substance here Eönwë. And that makes me suspicious.

Originally Posted by Gwath

It also occurs to me, on another note, that it will be much easier for the wolves to get someone lynched during the day without attracting attention, and much, much harder to assign blame for a player's lynch to any one or two other players. All the wolves have to do is ignore the intended victim. So - time to reassess how we analyze votes.

That's an important point as well. The reading of the votes is a case to be pondered toMorrow, but the fact that the wolves can actually get people lynched in much easier way this time around as they don't have to actually push for the lynching of anyone. They can just ignore people they are okay being lynched.

That's scary. And that's why we need suspicions, even quasi-votes for lynching.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

You're quite right, sorry. Damn consumer mentality getting the better of me...

Heh. Heart you too dear, heart you too.



This is boring. I wonder if I should just give someone five points and let you discuss why I did it. Hmmmm....


(Not that I'd actually do it, as I'm leaving soon anyway, but it'd certainly amuse me.)

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I just don't see the point of this objection. It looks like you'd wish us not to talk of whom we actually suspect so as to let the wolves skip freely in the shadows? It's the point of the game-mechanics that we vote for confidence, but our goal nevertheless is getting the wolves lynched. Or do you have a different goal?

I didn't say don't talk about suspects. Just think about the other side too. That is the point of this game- we don't want it to end up just like any other. Of course, without suspicions you also can't have people that you trust more than those you find suspicious, but "quasi-votes for lynching" (as you call them) on Day 1?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

How would that be?

It's hard enough trying to work out who's ahead on the vote count normally, but in this system it will be many times harder. If quasi-lynch-votes are cast in the last hour it would be quite crazy.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Do you focus on everyone with the same effort everyDay in a normal ww-game? So no one manages to sneak from your view, no "middle-people" ever have it safer in normal games? And does that mean you have "totally forgotten" them in a normal game?

No, but that's what's special about this game. It makes us put people into the "trust" and "don't trust" categories. We have to focus on what everyone says, and everyone has to speak, because if they don't they are likely to die. If we then have a "want-to-lynch", then it leaves us with a "don't-trust-but-don't-want-to-lynch" category, which is probably the safest place for the wolves to hide. If we don't have one, it gives them less self-confidence if they are on it, and will probably feel like they have to prove themselves.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

And that's why we need suspicions, even quasi-votes for lynching.

Of course we need suspicions. But on Day 1, where there is little chance of making an informed decision anyway, I think we should at least give the current system a try before we start making amendments. Firstly, what sort of arguments can we come up with to lynch someone on Day 1 anyway? Secondly, tomorrow we will be able to see the problems that occurred to today and then improve upon them- we've never even tried this.

Also, I think this game makes an easier Day 1 than normal. Usually, you have to try to come up with some (usually very unsubstantiated) argument about why you want to lynch someone, while here you only have to decide about the people you trust more or "feel good about".

edit: x-ed since last post.

[Nerwen]

Back and reading.

[Pitchwife]

Time for a list.

Tend to trust / would like to trust (in alphabetical order):
Eönwë, Gwath, Nienna, Nog. All of them have been posting and making good points.

To a slightly lesser degree, the same goes for:
Izzy, Mira, Nerwen, wilwa; maybe Brinn, if there were just a little more from her.

Not sure whether to trust, but find valuable:
Lottie, Zil. Because they're de facto the only ones who have actively suspected anybody yet (unlike Nog, who's only talking about it).

No idea about:
Fea, Form, Glirdan, Rune.

Suspect:
???

My problem is that because of the special game mechanics, I'm wary of the very kind of people I'd usually trust, while on the other hand I haven't seen anything outstanding yet that calls for suspicion. So I'll probably vote for someone I tend to trust as Simon, but spread some votes among the rest as well.

(x-ed from #80)

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

So I'll probably vote for someone I tend to trust as Simon, but spread some votes among the rest as well.

Actually, it might be quite interesting to make someone you're unsure about Simon this early in the game, as it puts them under a lot of pressure. On the other hand, this probably wouldn't work because everyone gets they're own choices, so unless we decide as a group who we want as Simon, this won't work. And deciding who it is beforehand will just give the wolves another place to hide (was that a third hand or back to the first?).

[Nogrod]

I think you Eönwë and Pitch are making a mountain out of a molehill here. I didn't say we change the rules of the game. What I said was that we should not only concentrate on finding people we trust (which the wolves would love) but also trying to find out the wolves.

I can't see what's the problem.

Okay. I'll go back now anyway to try and say something about people before I go to sleep (the DL - 6AM - is horrendous to me once again and I need to vote early). I hope you guys follow the example of making some suspicions out. Being just loud or talking a lot is not the same thing as actually putting oneself into the fray. As said, wolves might wish to be supportive and generally helpful but would hate to raise any retaliations or opposition in general.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I think you Eönwë and Pitch are making a mountain out of a molehill here. I didn't say we change the rules of the game. What I said was that we should not only concentrate on finding people we trust (which the wolves would love) but also trying to find out the wolves.

I was just telling you to calm down.

We haven't even seen what a day is like with this new concept is like and you're already suggesting we make an alterations before we even try it out. Let's see how people cope with the voting toDay before we start adding stuff. Don't try to turn this back into a normal game already.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

I didn't say don't talk about suspects. Just think about the other side too. That is the point of this game- we don't want it to end up just like any other.

I would hope that you're more concerned with winning than with making sure this game doesn't "end up just like any other."

[Gwathagor]

That's basically a distraction - or could turn into one, I should say.

(Whoa! I'm not in invisible mode. Shoot.)

[Nienna]

Children, children... calm down... its fine... just a game.

[Isabellkya]

I'm not entirely sure as to why people are thinking this is way different than "normal". Quite often, when people vote - it comes down to a "whomever is left".

People will makes lists of their thoughts on every player, putting into categories of "innocentish, won't lynch, slightly suspicious.." etc. Then voting for a person whom either they find suspicious, or whomever is "left over" and they've "no idea about".

Here, we are just placing our votes with/on/for people whom we want to keep around. Not entirely different than making lists. By voting for whom you want to keep around, it already shows whom you may think is suspicious indirectly.

X'd with Nienna x2.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

I would hope that you're more concerned with winning than with making sure this game doesn't "end up just like any other."

Yeah, but we can at least explore the opportunities of this game before turning it into one "like any other". We have a whole Day with basically nothing to go on today, and it might be useful later on in the game to understand more about "trust-voting" instead of almost ignoring it altogether and basing your suspicions on the conventional methods. This game gives us another wolf-catching tool, let's at least see if we can use it before reverting straight back to the Old Ways.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Yeah, but we can at least explore the opportunities of this game before turning it into one "like any other". We have a whole Day with basically nothing to go on today, and it might be useful later on in the game to understand more about "trust-voting" instead of almost ignoring it altogether and basing your suspicions on the conventional methods. This game gives us another wolf-catching tool, let's at least see if we can use it before reverting straight back to the Old Ways.

I always was one for the Old Ways.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

And that's the ingenuinity of this game! If this works (remains to be seen), I'll be suggesting we make this kind of games more often as now it seems that one really needs to post to stay on with the game.

Blast. There goes my usual strategy of saying as little as possible. It will be interesting to see how this affects folks' playing styles, since it behooves us all, to some extent, to TRY to attract attention. Even though I know meta-game reasoning is a bad idea, I'm going to be tempted to compare how players are playing in this game with their ordinary playing styles.

It also occurs to me, on another note, that it will be much easier for the wolves to get someone lynched during the day without attracting attention, and much, much harder to assign blame for a player's lynch to any one or two other players. All the wolves have to do is ignore the intended victim. So - time to reassess how we analyze votes. Who are people trying to keep around? Who are they not mentioning in their posts? Et cetera.

EDIT: Crossed since post #58.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by the late Gwathagor

It also occurs to me, on another note, that it will be much easier for the wolves to get someone lynched during the day without attracting attention, and much, much harder to assign blame for a player's lynch to any one or two other players. All the wolves have to do is ignore the intended victim. So - time to reassess how we analyze votes. Who are people trying to keep around? Who are they not mentioning in their posts? Et cetera.

A very good point, I think, and one that bears some thinking about. What would be the consequences of this game's dynamics for wolvish voting behaviour? Would they actively vote to keep their packmates around? Not as long as none of them is in serious danger of getting lynched, of course, but otherwise? Also, is wolf-on-wolf more or less likely in this game, or would there be no difference? Thoughts, anybody?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

I don't quite get where all this wave of trust in Nog comes from. As Nerwen just said concerning Form, it's not like our deceased innocents knew anything, they could have been just as mistaken as everybody else.

Lottie's suggestion at #213

Originally Posted by Lottie

You'd almost think she was a seer and dreamed him...maybe that's why the wolves killed her, thinking she *was* the seer.

is more logical. Still highly speculative though– they could have killed Nienna for a completely different reason. After all, she was a good player who also wasn't likely to be Ranger–protected.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

And I don't at all like the way he acts like he knows what is best for us all and everybody who dares to disagree is working against the common good, hence wolvish.

*shrugs* Nogrod does that whatever he is, Pitch. Had you really not noticed before?

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

A very good point, I think, and one that bears some thinking about. What would be the consequences of this game's dynamics for wolvish voting behaviour? Would they actively vote to keep their packmates around? Not as long as none of them is in serious danger of getting lynched, of course, but otherwise? Also, is wolf-on-wolf more or less likely in this game, or would there be no difference? Thoughts, anybody?

What does wolf-on-wolf even mean in this game? If it's just stating suspicions, then I think it's more likely, because it doesn't cost the wolves quite as much as if they were expected to back said suspicions up with a lynch-vote. (Still might result in getting a packmate lynched by default, though).

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

*shrugs* Nogrod does that whatever he is, Pitch. Had you really not noticed before?

No, how could I? That's why I said it wasn't really new, I suppose...
I agree, however, that Lottie has a point there. It also speaks for him that he was the only one who voted for our poor deceased Gwath quite early on.
Which reminds me...

Votes for the dead

Gwath (known innocent):
- Nog

Nienna (known innocent, Hunter):
- Nog (1)
- Lottie (2)
- Izzy (3)

Mira (known wolf):
- Form (1)
- Izzy (2)
- Fea (3)

Votes by the dead
(just summing up for Mira and Nienna, who have been analysed by Lottie and Glirdan above)

Gwath (known innocent):
- Eonwe (2)
- Nog (3)
- Brinn (2)
- Form (-)

Nienna (known innocent, Hunter):
- Rune (2)
- wilwa (5)
- Form (4)
- Nog (5)

Mira (known wolf):
- Glirdan (3)
- Fea (2)
- Form (2)
- Lottie (3)

Mira's stated reasons for her votes:

++Glirdan Also don't want him to get lynched Day 1. Poor kid never gets to play this game anymore.

Understandable, I think.

++Fea She's much too amusing to kill off this early.

I absolutely concur.

++Form I really don't think a wolf would slip up and post before they were supposed to. Especially one as experienced as Form.

This is interesting - a defense of Form that also just happens to work as a self-defense. Now, of course, we know that one of the Wolves did slip up exactly like that. It's also interesting that Form gave a similar reason for his vote for Mira.

++Lottie No real reason, just have an okay feeling about her.

Nothing suspicious there, as far as I can tell - but again, looking for connections, it's interesting that Form also voted for Lottie. From a wolf, it might be a smart move to vote confidence for someone who has suspected you just a wee bit but not seemed terribly eager to lynch you - makes you look more innocentish, like "See? I've got no reason to fear you".

EDIT: x-ed with Steve

[Pitchwife]

Now please, people, don't go talking all at the same time! It's too much action for my poor old nerves...
Might as well go walk the dogs. See you later.

[Eönwë]

OK, before I do anything else:

Originally Posted by Loslote

#54: Doesn't really commit to Pitchie's suggestion to kill crazy and confusing people;

Firstly, as Pitch has already said, it's the other way around. Also, I don't think any of our two posts were meant totally seriously. Next you'll suggest that Pitchwife was going to create a craziness scale and vote (wait, no, lynch ) people higher up.

#60, #65, #69, #72, #77,#82, and #85 are all debating with Nog about suspecting vs. trusting. I don't know about anyone else, but I found that annoying to read through the first time (when I thought dl was fast approaching and was trying to get caught up) and extremely suspicious the next few times. Steve explains his earlier posts; qualifies his earlier posts; and flip-flops a lot, all the while arguing with Nog.
Firstly, the last of those posts was made when there were three hours until the planned DL. Three hours! If you miscalculated the time then you shouldn't attack me just because you were in a bad mood. Anyway, all I was saying in all of those posts is that in this game we're given a new weapon against the wolves. Why waste it and try to turn this into a normal game when
(a) We haven't yet explored this new style of voting; and
(b) We can't turn this into a normal game anyway because we're voting for the opposite thing?

That's not to say that no-one should post their suspicions (as I have said countless times before now). That's what a large proportion of posts are anyway. That's what needs to be done in order to do anything in this game. It's just that I don't think these fake votes are necessary.

And then everyone assumes that I'm trying to stifle people's opinions?

And since when did Nogrod become He Who Only Speaks The Truth? It seems that everyone has just blindly followed him, because he suggested that we should mention who we find suspicious, which is what we do anyway.

However, I will say this- Yesterday there were quite a few people who didn't mention who they thought was suspicious and in this way maybe Nogrod had the right idea. It was just that I thought a fake vote was going too far.

Originally Posted by Loslote

He suspects Nienna because she "seems to be agreeing lot rather than making any new points." <-*coughdidyoureadherpostsatallcough*.

Have you? A lot of her posts are just agreeing with people. Look at this. #51 is a good point, but #61 is just the obvious (which I'll admit I did neglect to mention in my post just before). Then she comes in with a post count which isn't really that useful. The she does make quite good point in the next post (#90), but I don't think I read that at the time (and she basically just continuing along #51's line of thought anyway). The rest of her posts were after my list.

Originally Posted by Loslote

He says that Pitchie looks "innocent who just overdid it a bit on the non-"Nog-quasi-voting" front." <- HE overdid it?

Ok, I admit it, not only was I hypocritical there, but wrong. Happy now?

Originally Posted by Loslote

And finally, in #190: votes Izzy "because Gwath seems more suspicious."

Well, if you look at my list, Izzy was on the innocent side. On my vote post, I seem to have said "x-ed with Fea" rather than "since Fea". Seeing that Pitch (who I thought more innocent) had got Fea's vote, I wanted to save Izzy too, as it didn't seem like anyone would be voting Gwath (on my suspicious list, by the way). Anything wrong with that?



Now to actually start the Day...

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So how about we come up with a marking of our own to indicate whom everyone of us would like to lynch?

What's the point of first applauding the ingenuity of this game, then suggesting to introduce a classical lynch vote through the back door? Who gets no vote is lynched, period. No need for any extra votes or markings (unless you want to confuse poor alona, who's suffered quite enough recently by having her heart eaten and all that).

Going with the point Eönwë made about modified wolvish behaviour in #48, I must say most of you are acting much too reasonable and eager to help for my peace of mind right now (not that I'm a shiny exception myself, I suppose). Obviously you can't all be wolves, but at the moment I'm tempted to vote for one or two of the quieter and weirder people, just in case.