TIG LXIX: Meeting at the House of Usher - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Nogrod · 11-03-2009, 01:20 PM

Sorry it took time, but I had two long calls to speak...

Okay. I have thought that so far Spm, Greenie and Roa have given me some food for thought as to why they do what they do.

Spm

In his first post he playfully argues why all the three first posters are wolves and then adds that Nerwen's "audacious accusation" towards Sally (saying she is too self-conscious in remarking about the first posters) is very suspicious.

In his next post he addresses the Bear; "how good you are, no pressure..." (and a smilie). Followed by a kind of humorous self-revealment for Nerwen's remark ("Lightning never strike in the same place twice, except in horror stories, of course... er ..." (and a smilie).

In his third post he introduces the "Friendly-wolf" -interpretation and talks about "ungraciousness" if we killed him.

In his fourth he turns now to Inzil who had questioned him of getting after Nerwen too readily and says Inzil looks suspicious for making that interpretation (like reduplicating his own suspicion on Nerwen).

In his fifth he says the friendly wolf would not turn against us if he was left the last one.

In his sixth he agrees with Nerwen on not willing to kill the friendly wolf before he has gotten a chance of "leaving trails or helped in other ways".

In his seventh he backed down from the "friendly wolf" interpretation (as it started turning more and more obvious it was not the case - I mean how did you read that from there to begin with???).

In his eighth he is sad because the friendly-wolf -stuff would have confused the wolves. Starts suspecting Roa for jumping on his Friendly-wolf -hypotheses and says it would be bad for a wolf to try that (which might be true, but it would be very good for a cobbler... and even better for one to say just this).

In his ninth he defended himself (very reasonably indeed) and went on the suspicion raised by Brinn against Roa, adding to it his own suspicions (Roa suspecting him & Nerwen from early posts).

So what should I say, other than he looks like a cobbler to me?

All this creating of confusion, all that could be seen as "contact-making" (more of that with Greenie), all the suspicion thrown around like at random (well that could be argued for as a tactics of an innocent as well) and to top it; his defence of himself of saying it would be bad for a wolf to do what he did... heh, so not a wolf, but... a cobbler?

Blah... this is taking ages...

I need to have a cigarette and be a bit less thorough with Greenie & Roa...

Nogrod · 11-03-2009, 01:58 PM

Greenie

She seems to be the "Bear-addicted" one. And interestingly she goes talking about whether we should "concentrate on the Bear or not" (obviously saying we should neither concentrate nor forget her/him).

But what is this "concentrating on the Bear" -stuff anyway? How does one concentrate one's search for baddies to a Bear that has no mates and to whom every lynch but her/his own is just okay? The Bear's role is the most unfathomable there is: no loyalties, no cares, no bonds... So no possibility of catching the Bear by what s/he says in regards to other players, no voting "footprint", nothing. So how to concentrate on finding her/him?

I must say I must suspect also those others who used this way of speaking being just fine talking about "concentrating the search on the Bear or not"... I mean really.

If you say that, you're not trying to find anyone in earnest! Only a person faking to "try and find someone" can say s/he tries to focus on the Bear / not to focus on the Bear. Anyone who really is trying to find a baddie knows the Bear is not to be found by just concentrating!

But I probably wouldn't have set my eyes on all this initially were there not Greenie's post...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Another guilty post. The only question here is whether Greenie is the Bear, doing some preliminary gloating, or one of the other baddies trying to fix our attention on the Bear instead of the wolves.

Drat. Got caught already.

... and my suspicions on Spm being the cobbler. It was just an hour before Spm had made his own version of this "heh, you got me" -stuff and now Greenie was responding? It does look like a cobbler / wolf / bear -probing to me.

Now if I would have to make a quess now on who's the Bear, I would say Greenie is. The way she talks about the Bear all the time ("no Bear would talk of her own role that much") would be just fine for a Bear. Also the idea that getting the Bear is a question of focusing is not one an innocent villager could have as an innocent would see there is no way to "search for" the Bear. And the tone she does it... well, I'm not sure I can formulate an argument on that. I just get suspicious of it.

And let it be known I tend to be suspicious of Greenie everytime we play together... So a pinch of salt here.

And drat. I promised myself to be shorter with the rest...

Nogrod · 11-03-2009, 02:35 PM

Roa

It's funny how this "language stuff" go... or then there's dishonesty...

To me as a "broken English" speaker (eg. as a non-native speaker) it looked quite clear there were four wolves and a bear: "five infected by evil trying to kill their fellows at Night, and of which only four worked together", and the cobbler was "one of the others" (eg. not one infected by evil).

Now people can read their mother-tongue wrong if the wording is unclear or if they read fast and without attention. But this still irks me: how many went with this "misreading" - and see how many evil-wishing people we have around us (basically one of three!). I don't think that is a coincidence... whatever their purpose might have been (basically any general misconception is a possible advantage for the baddies).

So Roa got it wrong first... She asked where Spm got the idea of a "friendly wolf", quoting Spm's post where he said that "three out of four wolves, on the basis that one of them is on our side".

After Mira cleared the situation comes her next post, which Inzil actually uses to defend Roa, and which says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roa

Alright, I can accept that SPM was confused by the posting. (I could have sworn we were only having 3 wolves...)

But why to add those brackets and swearing that we only had three wolves? Isn't that a bit overdoing it?

I mean she didn't say she swore she thought we had only three wolves... she said she swore we had only three wolves... okay, that might be one of these language issues once again (or just nit-picking - but the general question remains, why to make that addition as if not to look good?

Also her later defence of saying that Morsul also thought there were three wolves and many others had been confused by the rules looks a bit too defencive for an innocent Roa. A kind of unnecessary thing for her to do.

Heh, interesting to have this much to go for on Day1! Yay people! It's a bit extraordinary indeed, but good. Makes this more interesting from the beginning - and gives a lot of food for thought for the Days to come.

Pitchwife · 11-03-2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nog

I mean she didn't say she swore she thought we had only three wolves... she said she swore we had only three wolves... okay, that might be one of these language issues once again

I'd say it probably is. We say that in German too: I could have sworn it = I was so sure of it.

Nogrod · 11-03-2009, 03:09 PM

I need to attend the Scarburg Mead Hall for a while but will be back before going to sleep and to vote. But just as a thought as I see I have used all my time reading the three I was first suspicious of when I read the thread the first time about 6 hours ago...

I agree with those who say this nasty situation (basically 1/3 wishes us no good) has a seed of positiviness in it, which is that even if we vote blindly on Day1 we have a nice chance of hitting it right - unlike in normal games where blind-shooting is always a great risk. Well it's a risk in every game, but so is going with hunches or just wrongly built "cases".

The number of real baddies, 5 out of 17, is clearly one more (even two) than the normal and adding the cobbler into the mix makes the intention-ratio quite evil - but also one where a trial to catch a submarine on Day1 could be argued for with even greater weight than normally (I'm not wishing to go into that discussion that has been done dozens of times).

The more Days go by the more stressing it will be to catch a baddie and the more everyone of us thinks it should be wiser to vote for someone with even a poor case than just randomly try out a non-poster. This Day.

My dad called... just a minute...

Boromir88 · 11-03-2009, 03:39 PM

I got finished with everything a little sooner than anticipated *yay*, but mostly that was because I was dead tired and decided not to continue practice any further. I'll be around the rest of the day, but likely will not be able to make it to the late DL on this night.

I've scanned through, there's lots of wolves and werebear dynamics discussion. The fact is (and what Pitch refers to an earlier post about the "disagreement" that got people lynched in the previous game with the werebear) if the werebear wants to win a solid strategy is to target wolves at night. Period. What the werebear actually does is a different matter, but the wolves pose just as much as a threat to the werebear during the Night as the werebear getting lynched.

Someone suggested that the bear would team up with the wolves (I'll go back and find out who in a bit

), but that only ends in a loss for the bear. It serves no benefit for his win to keep the wolves alive. This is what I think was the disagreement in the last game with the werebear, because there really is no way to control what the bear (or wolves) decide to do. However, I see no harm in discussing Sauce's questions, afterall we talk wolf strategy all the time, why not werebear?

There's also a dual-purpose. It's been proven in previous villages where wolves get 2 kills that's not as much of a benefit as some make it out to be. In the Night Guard game the wolves went for the easy set up-lynch innocent Legate the next day instead of cashing in on their 2-kills. I realize the dynamics of that game were different than this, but in this case one of the kills at night will not be by the wolves. So, one of the wolves risks dying at night, as the werebear also is at risk for dying. Thus the dual-purpose, if the werebear targets wolves at night and therefor is a threat to the wolves, than the wolves will have to definitely consider going after the bear. My stating of this I don't think ruins the dynamics, because it is a very logical thing to assume, if the werebear wants to win he's got to bring down the number of wolves quickly, and if the werebear proves to be a threat the wolves will have to go after him. So, let's set them against eachother, or in the very least make them think we are setting them against eachother.

I'm going to catch up on a thorough read through and post thoughts on everyone. Before I forget

*hands Fea a cinnamon roll* How long did it take to write that poem? Bravo.

Edit: crossed since Pitch's 78

Feanor of the Peredhil · 11-03-2009, 07:06 PM

Intending to vote either Hakon, for calling Mira a liar via suggesting that her 'random' selection wasn't random, and for pulling meta reasoning in when it was forbidden, and for being abrasive; or for Morsul, for forcing me into a probability lesson when I'd much rather crayola my way through a fun project.

(SYTYCD is on; shan't be back for a couple hours.)

11-03-2009, 01:20 PM	#1
Nogrod Flame of the Ainulindalë Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Wearing rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves in a field behaving as the wind behaves Posts: 9,308	Sorry it took time, but I had two long calls to speak... Okay. I have thought that so far Spm, Greenie and Roa have given me some food for thought as to why they do what they do. Spm In his first post he playfully argues why all the three first posters are wolves and then adds that Nerwen's "audacious accusation" towards Sally (saying she is too self-conscious in remarking about the first posters) is very suspicious. In his next post he addresses the Bear; "how good you are, no pressure..." (and a smilie). Followed by a kind of humorous self-revealment for Nerwen's remark ("Lightning never strike in the same place twice, except in horror stories, of course... er ..." (and a smilie). In his third post he introduces the "Friendly-wolf" -interpretation and talks about "ungraciousness" if we killed him. In his fourth he turns now to Inzil who had questioned him of getting after Nerwen too readily and says Inzil looks suspicious for making that interpretation (like reduplicating his own suspicion on Nerwen). In his fifth he says the friendly wolf would not turn against us if he was left the last one. In his sixth he agrees with Nerwen on not willing to kill the friendly wolf before he has gotten a chance of "leaving trails or helped in other ways". In his seventh he backed down from the "friendly wolf" interpretation (as it started turning more and more obvious it was not the case - I mean how did you read that from there to begin with???). In his eighth he is sad because the friendly-wolf -stuff would have confused the wolves. Starts suspecting Roa for jumping on his Friendly-wolf -hypotheses and says it would be bad for a wolf to try that (which might be true, but it would be very good for a cobbler... and even better for one to say just this). In his ninth he defended himself (very reasonably indeed) and went on the suspicion raised by Brinn against Roa, adding to it his own suspicions (Roa suspecting him & Nerwen from early posts). So what should I say, other than he looks like a cobbler to me? All this creating of confusion, all that could be seen as "contact-making" (more of that with Greenie), all the suspicion thrown around like at random (well that could be argued for as a tactics of an innocent as well) and to top it; his defence of himself of saying it would be bad for a wolf to do what he did... heh, so not a wolf, but... a cobbler? Blah... this is taking ages... I need to have a cigarette and be a bit less thorough with Greenie & Roa... __________________ Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet...

11-03-2009, 03:09 PM	#5
Nogrod Flame of the Ainulindalë Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Wearing rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves in a field behaving as the wind behaves Posts: 9,308	I need to attend the Scarburg Mead Hall for a while but will be back before going to sleep and to vote. But just as a thought as I see I have used all my time reading the three I was first suspicious of when I read the thread the first time about 6 hours ago... I agree with those who say this nasty situation (basically 1/3 wishes us no good) has a seed of positiviness in it, which is that even if we vote blindly on Day1 we have a nice chance of hitting it right - unlike in normal games where blind-shooting is always a great risk. Well it's a risk in every game, but so is going with hunches or just wrongly built "cases". The number of real baddies, 5 out of 17, is clearly one more (even two) than the normal and adding the cobbler into the mix makes the intention-ratio quite evil - but also one where a trial to catch a submarine on Day1 could be argued for with even greater weight than normally (I'm not wishing to go into that discussion that has been done dozens of times). The more Days go by the more stressing it will be to catch a baddie and the more everyone of us thinks it should be wiser to vote for someone with even a poor case than just randomly try out a non-poster. This Day. My dad called... just a minute... __________________ Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet...

11-03-2009, 03:39 PM	#6
Boromir88 Laconic Loreman Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: USA Posts: 7,521	I got finished with everything a little sooner than anticipated yay, but mostly that was because I was dead tired and decided not to continue practice any further. I'll be around the rest of the day, but likely will not be able to make it to the late DL on this night. I've scanned through, there's lots of wolves and werebear dynamics discussion. The fact is (and what Pitch refers to an earlier post about the "disagreement" that got people lynched in the previous game with the werebear) if the werebear wants to win a solid strategy is to target wolves at night. Period. What the werebear actually does is a different matter, but the wolves pose just as much as a threat to the werebear during the Night as the werebear getting lynched. Someone suggested that the bear would team up with the wolves (I'll go back and find out who in a bit ), but that only ends in a loss for the bear. It serves no benefit for his win to keep the wolves alive. This is what I think was the disagreement in the last game with the werebear, because there really is no way to control what the bear (or wolves) decide to do. However, I see no harm in discussing Sauce's questions, afterall we talk wolf strategy all the time, why not werebear? There's also a dual-purpose. It's been proven in previous villages where wolves get 2 kills that's not as much of a benefit as some make it out to be. In the Night Guard game the wolves went for the easy set up-lynch innocent Legate the next day instead of cashing in on their 2-kills. I realize the dynamics of that game were different than this, but in this case one of the kills at night will not be by the wolves. So, one of the wolves risks dying at night, as the werebear also is at risk for dying. Thus the dual-purpose, if the werebear targets wolves at night and therefor is a threat to the wolves, than the wolves will have to definitely consider going after the bear. My stating of this I don't think ruins the dynamics, because it is a very logical thing to assume, if the werebear wants to win he's got to bring down the number of wolves quickly, and if the werebear proves to be a threat the wolves will have to go after him. So, let's set them against eachother, or in the very least make them think we are setting them against eachother. I'm going to catch up on a thorough read through and post thoughts on everyone. Before I forget hands Fea* a cinnamon roll* How long did it take to write that poem? Bravo. Edit: crossed since Pitch's* 78* __________________ Fenris Penguin Last edited by Boromir88; 11-03-2009 at 03:43 PM.

11-03-2009, 07:06 PM	#7
Feanor of the Peredhil La Belle Dame sans Merci Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: perpetual uncertainty Posts: 5,517	Update Intending to vote either Hakon, for calling Mira a liar via suggesting that her 'random' selection wasn't random, and for pulling meta reasoning in when it was forbidden, and for being abrasive; or for Morsul, for forcing me into a probability lesson when I'd much rather crayola my way through a fun project. (SYTYCD is on; shan't be back for a couple hours.) __________________ peace