Tol-in-Gaurhoth CXIV – The Evil Breath of Morgoth in Dor-lómin, game thread

[Eönwë]

Also, can we get an official confirmation from Nog about what the final decision is about whether wolves can PM each other within quarantine?

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Also, can we get an official confirmation from Nog about what the final decision is about whether wolves can PM each other within quarantine?

Yes you can.

Yes they can.

[Huinesoron]

And I'm back. Am I the first person to go away and return? No, I see G55 got there first.

Reading through the thread, I was scribbling down names to see who had showed up, and started to worry I was alphabetically first on the list. :O I was very glad when Brinniel and Boromir88 showed up, I can tell you.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Hmm?

It took about five minutes for the thread to load for me after Deadline; I was wondering if we'd managed to overload the Downs. That was all.

Right, I promised to look over the thread so far, didn't I?

A lot has already been said about the no-vote idea, but something that jumped out at me that doesn't seem to have been brought back up is this comment by Pitchwife:

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

OK, Legate, let me ask you: What exactly do we have to gain from the kind of fake vote you're suggesting?
If it is just that, a fake vote with no real lynch as per G55, we've effectively wasted a day[...]
This strikes me as a pseudo-useful suggestion/discussion. *ping*

It really struck me how strongly Pitch seemed to be pinning the no-vote concept on Legate, even though G55 had originally proposed it and (I think) had been the main proponent up to that point. I wondered whether this might be WolfPitch (PitchFector?) trying to put the heat on Legate specifically, but why not let it stay on G55? I think someone suggested that G55's backdown could be a wolf trying to pull away from a bad idea, which could mean WolfPitch was protecting GaladriWolf, but spotting two wolves at once seems a bit much for Day 1.

Or does it? On rethinking, catching wolves by their interactions with each other doesn't seem too far-fetched?

Coming away from that discussion (I feel like Eonwe's opening post covered the actual idea fairly well), one person I've not seen much discussion of who really stuck out to me was Thinlomien. I know it's opening posts, and they tend to be a bit contentless, but this one really grabbed me:

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I'm predicting a somewhat chaotic game, with this large a village and deadline that should work for most of us. (Personally I'm probably almost always going to be around the dl because it's midnight in my time zone and I'm a temporarily unemployed night owl.) Like I'm imanining multiple crossposted votes in the minutes before deadline. I wanted to suggest avoiding this by consciously trying to spread the vote a little, but then again, the last minute flurry can be pretty telling afterwards. But in case someone is wondering, I'm not saying that toDay should amount into a shot in the dark if we can avoid it. I'm still staunchly in camp "Day1 can and does matter" and I'm watching you all.

Also once we have the quarantine let's just be mindful not to focus too much on speculating about that, right? Unless the first person who goes there is a wolf, it would be pretty funny to see how a known dead wolf would vote!

Which almost led me to say "hey dudes, let's lynch a wolf toDay, that would be a really good idea"... well.... surprise.

"It's all going to be CHAOS, here's why we both should and shouldn't spread the vote, ignore the (presumably majority-innocent) QT, and I'm totally not going to say we should lynch a wolf because that would be wolfy (but I'm saying it anyway)".

I know that's a rather glib summary, but this post really rang alarm bells for me. I think it's the 'finding a wolf will be nearly impossible, so there's no point trying' vibe. And then her later posts seemed to be quite confrontational... come to think of it, against G55 and Legate, who were already under a certain amount of fire.

On the flip side, I'm somewhat suspicious of the people who've posted a few times but not really... said anything. I feel like Loslote did this, but mostly in the very early game when nobody was saying much of substance. The Two Bs (Brinniel and Boromir88) struck me the same way, and came in a fair bit later. Though in fairness I was starting to glaze over a little by the middle of page 2, so their later posts might have more in them than I thought.

... I've quote-posted something from Zil but have no idea why. Let me go look at the original.

Oh, right, the requote got stripped out. It was this:

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Hmm. Perhaps.

I have no idea how to spot a cobbler, but it occurs to me that climbing aboard a cobbler-wagon could be a nice way for a wolf to hide. If the village ends up cobbler-hunting rather than wolf-hunting, that can only be a win for the wolves, right? So this sort of mild encouragement of cobbler suspicions raised a little flag for me.

... actually, didn't Lommy bring up the cobbler as well? Yeah, there it is - right back in her first post.

So, general overview: nothing solid (obviously!), but at least a few things to consider. I would like to know why Pitch refocussed the no-vote discussion on Legate, and more generally, whether people agree that cobbler-spotting can be a wolfish tell.

hS

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I have no idea how to spot a cobbler, but it occurs to me that climbing aboard a cobbler-wagon could be a nice way for a wolf to hide. If the village ends up cobbler-hunting rather than wolf-hunting, that can only be a win for the wolves, right? So this sort of mild encouragement of cobbler suspicions raised a little flag for me.

... actually, didn't Lommy bring up the cobbler as well? Yeah, there it is - right back in her first post.

So, general overview: nothing solid (obviously!), but at least a few things to consider. I would like to know why Pitch refocussed the no-vote discussion on Legate, and more generally, whether people agree that cobbler-spotting can be a wolfish tell.

I'm supposed to be working atm so I'll be back with more substance later, but just a quick note on cobbler-spotting: yes, a village that focused extensively on speculating about the cobbler would probably be a happy place for a wolf. That said, I do think it's useful to keep the cobbler in mind - that is, to remember that there is one person around whose aim is to distract us from hunting our actual wolves. So discussing potential cobbler suspicions doesn't necessarily ring alarm bells for me, but I'd be wary of anyone mainly concerned with chasing cobblers (never seen that though) or voting for a suspected cobbler instead of a suspected wolf.

Edit: x-ed with Lommy

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

Even with an innocent-majority QT, it would be pretty short-sighted for innocent villagers to wait for a Cutie vote and make their decisions based on it. I mean, sure, if the only Cuties are innocent you can trust they won’t vote for an innocent person on purpose, but while they might have conversations we’re not privy to, they don’t know anything more than we do. (This is barring the existence of a Cutie Seer, obviously, in which case I agree Cutie votes should have more weight in our decision-making.) The reason I’m saying this is that it strikes me as an easy place to hide as a wolf – “Oh sorry I voted for an innocent, I was just following the innocent Cuties’ lead!”

Agreed. If we know that the majority on the QT are innocent, that only tells us that they won't knowingly vote for the good side. A Seer in the QT would have more weight corresponding with the amount of time they'd been there; ie a Seer who had only had one or two dreams before quarantine would be as lost as everyone else by Day 5.

Originally Posted by A Little Green

I also disagree with Gal about lists being vague and useless. I personally find them quite helpful; without them it’s easy to stick to talking about the loudest, most controversial villagers and topics and let others fly under the radar completely. This tends to serve wolves better than innocents since odds are at least some of them are among the quiet, less attention-seeking crowd. I’m not saying everyone should do lists, just that I think they can be just as revealing as fake votes (if not more).

I usually don't do involved lists about everyone, but I've always seen them as a way for some to organize their thoughts.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

It really struck me how strongly Pitch seemed to be pinning the no-vote concept on Legate, even though G55 had originally proposed it and (I think) had been the main proponent up to that point. I wondered whether this might be WolfPitch (PitchFector?) trying to put the heat on Legate specifically, but why not let it stay on G55? I think someone suggested that G55's backdown could be a wolf trying to pull away from a bad idea, which could mean WolfPitch was protecting GaladriWolf, but spotting two wolves at once seems a bit much for Day 1.

I need to go back and reread all that. Legate feels a bit off to me, but I was wondering if it partly was due to the long time since we've played.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

II have no idea how to spot a cobbler, but it occurs to me that climbing aboard a cobbler-wagon could be a nice way for a wolf to hide. If the village ends up cobbler-hunting rather than wolf-hunting, that can only be a win for the wolves, right? So this sort of mild encouragement of cobbler suspicions raised a little flag for me.

The wolves will be reluctant to target the Cobbler, even though xe is technically the enemy. It's in the Cobbler's interest in fact to hint who they are to the wolves.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

So this is the second time toDay that a person implies a lack of evidence in people's early posts *squints at Lommy and Ka*. Are you in cahoots, or you're just both coincidentally trying to subtly turn people away from the idea of focusing on existing evidence and pretending all the evidence will come later?

I didn't get that they were saying everyone's posts should be disregarded as useless fluff, only that Day 1 is by its nature the most random vote. Hence, past suggestions of not voting at all Day 1.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Thing is, if a known CutieWolf casts a vote, the other Cuties are going to use that as their information. Is the known wolf protecting a packmate? Trying to off a suspected gifted? Or bluffing the rest of the Cuties and going wolf-on-wolf, because the Cuties will then vote the opposite way? Or double bluffing? Or just messing with their heads? And if there are two dead wolves, that just complicates the matter further - and if I can remember correctly, I believe they are allowed to PM with dead mates, so they can coordinate this behind the stage. Are they voting together to save a mate? Are they both bluffing? Are they voting differently to confuse everyone? To bluff? To make the QT spread their votes and fail to vote the right way as a result? This is actually an interesting line of QT tactics I haven't considered before.

I think overly analyzing the QT vote is ill-advised. As noted, the predominant alignment of those there will be known, and we just keep that in mind when we see their vote. Even if they're mostly Innocent, they could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Is it, though? Because often the way wolves are spotted is because they are anxious out of proportion to the innocents. The extra scrutiny means extra pressure on everyone, wolves included. As for bandwagons, part of their analysis is who had a good reason to be there vs who just tagged along for the ride, and thus each decision must still be the person's own true belief they are willing to stand behind. I see Ka's argument that innocents might inadvertently look more wolfish, but I also see the flip side of Ka saying she doesn't want more scrutiny. Is it really that much sense, considering all the psychology and analysis remain the same as they are in every WW game?

But all this can be done without people freaking out about being present for a "fake DL" when they might have enough trouble getting here for the real one. And being able to cast doubt on those who failed to fake vote (for valid reasons) could jsut give the wolves a basis for a bandwagon.

Originally Posted by Eönwë

I'm not sure what this means for those who discussed it early on though. G55, the original suggester, has since distanced herself from the idea, but whether this is an innocent realizing the problems with their idea vs. a bold wolf realizing that people aren't buying a bad idea remains to be seen.

I'm trying to decide whether I think Legate or G55 makes me more uneasy.

A lot of RL going on today, including a funeral to attend. I should have no trouble getting back before DL.

x/d with Huey and Kath

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Okay! Back, a quick runthrough of what's been posted meanwhile (I'm kinda glad it's just one page and not seven, as I feared. But it's a long way to DL still...) Responding to various stuff as I go...

Originally Posted by THE Ka

Rushed villagers may not purposefully lie to distract, but if someone is anxious and doesn't have much evidence they might try to prove themselves by stretching the truth quite a lot (grabbing at straws). Sort of the same way that forced confessions are often useless. There is the unfortunate possibility we could end up with a different kind of bandwagon, not by votes for a player, but a lot of bunk confessionals that sound similar except for a few minor details changed to make it more personable.

It happens always (and happened to me in particular quite a few times). But WWs would still be more threatened by it than innocents, I think.

Originally Posted by THE Ka

Let's say the latest in the QT thread is a wolf and by some way this happens where there is a tie. The wolf is obviously going to know who their compatriots are, could they throw the vote from the GT?
It would take a bit of finagling and if there is a mix of roles in QT obviously the villagers would know and outvote anything the wolf is trying to suggest. If successful even once it could be the evening of odds they want...

We also have the 'non-logical' hunter role in game this time:


This is an interesting mechanic, because it does make even a 'bad vote' more complicated. If they take a villager, then there is at least more votes in their favour in the QT. If it's a wolf, sure it removes them from the GT, but if there's another wolf already in the QT it could lead them to trying alternate attempts to steal a vote.
It would be interesting if wolves in QT didn't vote together, however. Granted the number in QT would be significantly smaller than in the GT to try and use the 'spread suspicion by voting for one another' tactic, but it would make you pause and wonder why.

Yes, I think that's an interesting possibility, but 1) it's a what-if and 2) it's about one-in-a-thousand chance for such a thing to happen in the first place (several conditions would have to be met). Let's remember this and bring it up in case we find ourselves in such a situation, but now, it's pure speculation not very relevant for the moment.

Speaking of that, I also don't know why some people *glances in the direction of Pitch and G55* were spending so much time discussing last-minute voting and stuff. Last-minute voting will happen no matter what, it has been like that since the dawn of time, discussing it has about as much merit as discussing whether the village should try to lynch Wolves in order to win.

I mean the theory about when are wolf-on-wolf votes more likely etc is a good point, but it will be relevant only in retrospect, and only after we have confirmed at least one Wolf's identity.

Originally Posted by Brinniel

I agree. This seems rather complicated considering we all are in different time zones with different schedules. It could result in a logistical nightmare.

Well (and ad "second deadline" in general): if people agreed to it, it would work. I mean some people vote early anyway. Where there's a will... But if not, then not. It served as an interesting thought experiment, and a discussion material, it seems, at least.

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

Only a cobbler would accuse another of shoemaking so very early.

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

So did Lady Macbeth.

Given that Shasta has been a known psychic throughout the entire WW history, I say this means Lommy is a Cobbler and Pitch is a Wolf. Unless, of course, Shasta himself is something sinister.

Originally Posted by Rikae

Oh ... hello! I'm sorry, I've just been busy making these masks. They have pockets!

Hey! Been waiting for one of those!

Originally Posted by Rikae

When it comes to single top suspects vs lists, both have their pros and cons and leave material to analyze later on. Me, I like lists. Here's one, just to get the ball rolling:

Pitchwife
G55
Macalaure

But you didn't indicate what is that a list of. Of what? Top suspects?

Last thought: I second Lommy and Greenie about not focussing on Cobbler. I think that's about the extent of that we should give them. We are likely to accidentally lynch them anyway, mistaking them for a Wolf, but every post spent on discussing the Cobbler is only more distraction from our main goal. Which is exactly what the Cobbler wants. Talk about vicious circle.

EDIT: x-ed with Huinesoron, Kath and Zil

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Hi all,

Nice to see day 1 banter spiralling out of control, it convinces me that things haven't changed too much over the years.

I will attempt to following the action closely during the day, but it will probably be 3 or 4 hours before I can put together a lengthy post.

For now let me just say that I am pro anything that leaves more data for us to analyse, so in principle I am not against making preliminary votes a thing. As long as we don't take a dogmatic approach that would leave the system open for wolfish exploitation (but that goes for pretty much everything).

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Kath

Ah, Eonwe has the same gist of the whole thing as I do. It's a bit of a relief to have someone else see it the same way by this point! And Hui, although he seems to be suggesting a Pitch-Legate wolf duo as well.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I'm trying to decide whether I think Legate or G55 makes me more uneasy.

I don't know that I particularly suggested Pitch-Legate; I just can't see what wolf!Legate would be up to. He's deliberately drawn attention to himself, and if Pitch was working with him, it would be to take that focus off G55.

But on the other hand, this:

Originally Posted by Legate

Speaking of that, I also don't know why some people *glances in the direction of Pitch and G55* were spending so much time discussing last-minute voting and stuff.

Coming from the person who was so involved in swinging the conversation due voting practices, this feels slightly disingenuous. (On the other hand, my memory of how hard Legate pushed the whole topic might be skewed by the number of people saying he pushed it.)

Originally Posted by Rune

For now let me just say that I am pro anything that leaves more data for us to analyse, so in principle I am not against making preliminary votes a thing. As long as we don't take a dogmatic approach that would leave the system open for wolfish exploitation (but that goes for pretty much everything).

I will always support anything with 'data' in the description. ^_^ The longer the paper trail (tail?) the wolves leave, the easier they'll be to catch. But two caveats:

a) We're well past halfway through Day 1, and a bunch of people are asleep. A general 'state your voting intention well before deadline' seems plausible, but I'm not sure there's time to get a solid commitment from the village on Day One. (Of course, choosing not to not!vote is evidence in itself...)

b) Someone (can't find it now) said that we'd need to remember that the voting environment changes before deadline, and I totally agree. If we're shaping up for a near tie between someone I think is maybe guilty and someone I think looks generally fine, then I'm not going to stick by my third-party vote and let the more likely innocent be quarantined!

I think that's been assumed in this discussion, but I'm not sure anyone's come out and said it, and I'm not great with subtext.

(Work update: this is my fourth post, but I've already caught myself checking incoming work emails to see if they might come from wolves. This game gets in your head...)

hS (crossed w/ Kitanna and Zil)

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Kath

There's been some talk about Cobbler-identifying along the way as well. But the rules state that the Cobbler counts for the Innocent tally, so picking them out over finding wolves doesn't really help matters. I recall games where knowing someone was the Cobbler was a relief because at least you could then just ignore the crazy, though!

Right. For wolves, they want to know who it is so as not to kill xem. Everyone else just wants to be able to discount what they say and do.

Originally Posted by Kath

Legate then seems quite keen on the idea! But I can't work out whether he means that people should say their votes and then actually vote, because of where he says about flip-flopping here, which suggests he means they could change their minds between stating who they would vote for and then actually voting. Rather than saying who you would vote for but then not voting. If the former, that strikes me as just the same as what people normally do, where they make a list or put forward an idea of who they might vote for a while before the deadline - which I think most people tend to do. If the latter ... it still makes no sense.

It was all about basically saying who you would vote for ahead of actually doing it. Just formalizing it in a way.

Originally Posted by Kath

So was G55 just putting the idea out there to see who would bite? She specifically states here (post 38 - I cannot work out this quoting thing) that she isn't in favour of her own idea. Now, Day 1 discussion can be tough. I mean look, it's her idea that's meant I can really write anything, so on the one hand this is brilliant. It's got people talking, it means there's something to say! But she does seem to be backing away from it quite sharply.

And left it looking like Legate's ball.

Originally Posted by Kath

Interesting. Does this suggest a wolf ending up in the QT early on could be an advantage to the wolves? Because if they were there the first QT day they could control the vote? I suppose after that they're pretty much useless, though. Why do I feel like if Nilp was here he'd jump at the chance to self-vote and try it out?

Not useless, because they can still try to mislead the Innocents in the QT by going after their fellows. They still have the advantage of knowing who's on which side.

Originally Posted by Kath

I'd say the biggest problem with this whole discussion was the use of the phrase: fake vote. Why on earth didn't they get called: planned votes?

As opposed to unplanned votes?

Originally Posted by Kath

So, the Cobbler counts for the innocents, but if the Cobbler ends up in the QT and their role is known, and the role of any wolves in the QT is also known, does that then advantage the wolves in terms of numbers and help them control the vote - because they all know who each other is even if they can't communicate and so would all just vote the same if that would beat/tie the vote. I was just trying to work out whether trying to keep them in the Game Thread would be a better option, because at least here they don't know who the wolves are. But then their role wouldn't be confirmed either. Ugh

Well, we can't "keep them in the Game Thread" without knowing who they are. At least not on purpose.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Speaking of that, I also don't know why some people *glances in the direction of Pitch and G55* were spending so much time discussing last-minute voting and stuff. Last-minute voting will happen no matter what, it has been like that since the dawn of time, discussing it has about as much merit as discussing whether the village should try to lynch Wolves in order to win.

But wasn't that the purported point of the "fake" vote: to keep last-ditch voting down?

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Last thought: I second Lommy and Greenie about not focussing on Cobbler. I think that's about the extent of that we should give them. We are likely to accidentally lynch them anyway, mistaking them for a Wolf, but every post spent on discussing the Cobbler is only more distraction from our main goal. Which is exactly what the Cobbler wants. Talk about vicious circle.

A Cobbler would only want to be lynched if it was down to xem or a wolf. Otherwise, the chance of hitting xem is the same as anyone else.

x/d with Kit

[Kitanna]

Originally Posted by G55

So I got woken up in the middle of the night by a spam call, and so here I am. Again.

What spam monster calls in the middle of the night?!

Originally Posted by Rikae

Defend, hm? Just jokingly summarizing the initial conversation. I was curious to see what sort of reaction it would get, though.

*side eyes both* Orchestrated wolf action? I suppose not likely, but the more I read of G55 the more I raise my eyebrows.
She distanced herself from her own idea, was quick to challenge Legate when he found the merit in it, and has been fairly vocal throughout. And yet, when I try to think of anything detailed she said, I draw a blank. She's been helpful and has urged on discussion and I'm finding her a little too helpful.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

It really struck me how strongly Pitch seemed to be pinning the no-vote concept on Legate, even though G55 had originally proposed it and (I think) had been the main proponent up to that point. I wondered whether this might be WolfPitch (PitchFector?) trying to put the heat on Legate specifically, but why not let it stay on G55? I think someone suggested that G55's backdown could be a wolf trying to pull away from a bad idea, which could mean WolfPitch was protecting GaladriWolf, but spotting two wolves at once seems a bit much for Day 1.

On the one hand G55 set something up and waited for an innocent to take the bait and then distanced herself the moment it fell under scrutiny. Her move is a bold one for a Day 1 ploy to try to bandwagon an innocent. Bold and fairly early in the Day.
On the other hand wolfPitch sees an idea that is probably doomed to fail. He picks the second person to pick it up and doesn't really cast suspicion on the actual creator. Pitch then sets up Legate for trouble.
In the whole fake vote debate, I am leaning toward trusting Legate over G55 who first suggested it and Pitch who was so vocal in disputing it.
Still trying to read through between actual, boring work.