Werewolf CXII - Dueling Wizards III - The Living Thread

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I had wanted to do a "list" in the classic way (impressions about individual people), but realised there is not really very much to go with. I mean, Day 1, sure, but originally this one started fairly nicely and I hoped for active people; then it all sort of quieted down again. But now it seems to be picking up again, and nice to see more people appearing still.

Also, right now, I am still thinking the no-vote might be an option to consider. The disadvantage is that we lose one lynch, though the counter-argument to that is that anyway new WWs will appear in future Days, so it is not really anything that would help in that regard. The fact is that lynching a Wolf would take one "bullet" away from the Evil Wizard (but then again we enter the jungle of "IF" we lynch a Wolf etc.) But I think Eomer said it nicely that we should not just "try to look busy". The danger of mislynch is a real one.

Originally Posted by Eönwë

I do also think it would be good to have some protocol in place about what should be done in the Dead Thread so that when the Visitors do visit, they can actually be useful to the Living.

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).

[Inziladun]

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).

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?

x/d with Boro

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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?

x/d with Boro

Yes, they just can't post in the Living thread. This time though, the visitors are a new role to Dueling Wizards, so they can return and have a much more concrete communication. But who knows if and when the visitors role gets used. As Legate said, it's been surprisingly successful to use the Dead's empowering vote as a way to communicate what roles the Dead uncover to the living.

[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"

[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.

[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.

[Lalaith]

We've got only a couple hours to deadline and a lot of folks not here. I'm worried we're they're not present because they didn't realize we had started? I

I'm here now. Blasted Kuru, he throws a fantastic party, I'll give you that, but instead of doing his hostly duty with warm showers, hot coffee and cold compresses for our poor heads the next day, he expects us to nurse our hangovers in the bowels of some ghastly charnel house. Bah.
I've been reading over everyone's comments and here are my thoughts on those comments.

ut how would an aborted kill on the Good Wizard look to the wolves? Could they figure his identity that way?

(Inzil)
It would be for the EW to figure this out, wolves are merely his pawns...but yes, that could play into his hands.

but rather how do we want to populate the Dead Thread

(Lottie) yes I was wondering that too.

Now it's time for me to say that weird thing no one likes.

(Morsul) Actually I was half nodding about what you're saying about gifteds there but maybe that's just because I haven't got my head round the rules of this particular game yet.

I concur that it's probably one of each, but the rules would seem to allow for other scenarios

(Nerwen )
This I really am scratching my head about but again, maybe it's because I haven't got my head around this game yet.

If anyone can reach out on social media perhaps?

Who is still left to post? Nogs, Sally, Shasta and Percenvia I think? I can stick something on facebook.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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...