Ten Year Anniversary Game: Living Thread

[the phantom]

Just to flesh out the Living-Dead communication thing... (and I see you're posting again on this very matter, Legate)

When someone is lynched they are then dead for the following night, meaning the Dead can check the lynch victim immediately and give us results (via the bonus vote) the following day.

Let's say we lynch Lottie and ask for the Dead to check her. The next day the leading vote receivers partway through are clearly McCaber and Legate, with Rikae, Morm, and Boro casting votes for Legate, and Nerwen, Green, and Eomer casting votes for McCaber. We can then tell the Dead thread, "If Lottie was evil give your bonus vote to Rikae or Nerwen, if she was innocent give it to Morm or Green, if you didn't check her give your bonus vote to someone else.

That way the Dead can impact the voting in any way they wish (push the lynch toward either of the two leaders) and simultaneously give us the information they gained about Lottie's role. If they give the bonus to Rikae then Lottie was evil and they wanted to lynch Legate over McCaber. If they give the bonus to Nerwen then Lottie is evil and McCaber is who they want to lynch. If they didn't check Lottie at all but want to help lynch McCaber then they give their bonus to Eomer. If they didn't check Lottie and don't want to lynch either candidate they give their bonus to someone else hinting that maybe that person's suspicions matched their own. Etc.

First and foremost I think we need to tentatively place some trust in the dead (because they will almost certainly be 50% or more innocent). Second we need to give them opportunities to pass info to us without restricting them too much (give them options), because if we reduce the Dead to being our servants and ordering them around I think that would kind of ruin the fun for them.

[the phantom]

All this Dead bonus vote stuff aside, I mainly just don't want the Seer or Ranger to die early. The double-dream and double-protect is amazing! Just as the double-kill reduces the population quickly, the double-dreams reduces the lynchable population quickly. We need to keep our eyes on the break-points of various days (e.g. with X number of players left, if the Seer has Y number of dreams under his belt it would be efficient to reveal now).

I'm not sure what to think about the Lovers. Even if they knew who they were, would the WWs even attempt to off them with the Seer and Ranger still alive? Though the back-from-dead could be quite nice later in the game (so an early kill would negate this possibility), I think the Baddies fear the back-from-dead less than a living Seer/Ranger.

Now the Hunter... When I've been a WW I tend to avoid the Hunter like a landmine, because one shoot-from-the-hip Hunter kill can totally bring a solid Baddie squad crashing down. But in this game it's probably worth it to off the Hunter as soon as possible because odds are he'll kill an innocent. If you leave the Hunter alive a couple days the odds are probably worse for the WWs (plus he'll have more to go on), so as far as intentions go, I figure they'll attempt to kill him early or not at all (unless they're quite certain he has an incorrect pick in mind).

Anyway, it's gotten so late that it's changed into early. I need a bit of rest....

[Firefoot]

A couple thoughts before I go quiet again for most of the day. (For the record, even if you don't hear from me for a while, I will be back to vote before the deadline - can definitely be here within a half hour of it.)

I like the idea of deliberately tying the vote today, if possible. A couple thoughts:

1) It seems likely enough that for some reason we don't pull it off (wolves screw it up, accidental cross-posting, someone doesn't vote) - so we should make a deliberate choice of our possible victims.

2) In order to prevent total chaos at the end, what if we orchestrated the vote (these players vote for this person, those players vote for that). Any deviance from this strategy could also be indicative of a non-cooperative WW (or a lover, I guess).

3) What if we aimed for a three (or even four) way tie? That way even if someone doesn't vote as planned and we don't get a three-way tie, we might still get a two-way tie which is all that is actually necessary.

4) As far as victim choice - sort of a shot in the dark anyway - do we go random? Ask for volunteers (at least we don't get a gifted - but then I guess it narrows the wolves' choice for who is gifted, so maybe that's a poor strategy)? Might as well pick Nilp since he's already got a vote?

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

I'm always cool with getting a few more votes.

Anyway, long day, scattered thoughts, many of which has already been commented upon, so I'll say my 'substantive' piece before taking a nap and hoping to wake up at a proper time.

Re the three-party dynamic's effect on gifted reveals:

With competing wolf parties, they will be unsure as to how to deal with a real gifted reveal. For example, both parties might end up wasting their kill on a single target (or less likely, end up not killing the gifted because they expected the other Pack to do so.)

Also, there is little fear of a counterreveal or a false reveal: the revealing Wolf risks giving their Pack a numbers disadvantage against the enemy Pack. And they won't have a way of timing a fake reveal when they gain a numbers advantage over their rivals, because even they won't know if a Wolf not of their Pack has already been killed. (Of course, this information gap could change with the Dead thread activities...)

Re lynch/NIGHT kill analysis:

For obvious reasons, voting analyses (my weapon of choice--or rather, the weapon I use because I have no choice) are quite useless, at least in the opening fog-of-war stage of the game.

So what about NIGHT kill analyses? According my game-theorising*, the Baddies would prioritise killing the Seer, a Wolf from the other Pack, the Ranger, the Lovers, and the Hunter, in that order. Now what do the first two targets have in common? They both possess an above-average knowledge of the alignment of the people in the Village. So posting analysis of the dead could yield information as to why they had been targetted. (Of course, now that I've said it, the Wolves would now probably go after the quiet ones. Hehe. But on a less flippant note, I do realise that making such an analysis public could influence future Wolvish behaviour.)

My scattered thoughts are petering out. I'll be back when my brain cells stop screaming at me.

_____
*As someone who has watched No Game No Life twice (even being an editor for the first two volumes of the novel's English translation), and as someone who has read the Wikipedia article on Nash equilibrium, I believe I am qualified to game-theorise.

[Macalaure]

I had a crazy long post detailing why all those strategies above won't work, but then I realized it was really just an overblown series of quoting and arguing, so I scrapped it. Here's the key points, though.

We have a 25% chance to lynch a wolf toDay (6 in 24)
If we don't, each pack has a 15% chance to kill another wolf at night (3 in 20): P(A)+P(B)-P(A)*P(B)=27.75%.
Even by pure chance, we're actually quite likely to receive some help from the wolves at killing wolves. Not implying, of course, that this means we can be lazy, and definitely not implying that we should tie our votes and not lynch. (In a village of 24, with 6 baddies, and later with an unpredictable extra vote? Impossible to orchestrate. Seriously, people.)

All this trying to arrange an information flow with the dead... elaborate stuff like that never works. Unless a choice is obvious, you always have some people who vote right at the deadline or didn't get a chance to read everything and vote uninformed. Things get messed up, even without revealed or unrevealed baddies in both threads trying to mess with it intentionally.

The dead should give their extra vote to either A: someone they have reason to believe is innocent; or B: someone who has voted for someone they have reason to believe is guilty. This will give us a solid bit of information to go on, actually.

Fake reveals can be a problem. With no immediate knowledge of the role upon death, it's easier to pull off. Anyone remember how nobody believed Nogrod was the seer all game last time? And that was without a contestant (though with cobblers). Then again, would a wolf dare it, knowing that the real beneficiary is the other wolf pack?

Don't have too much faith in the roles that can return from the dead. It can only happen twice at most, and if the timing is off (as it was last time), it can end up much more unhelpful than hoped.

One question for the mod: Will the narrations state which unfortunate soul got killed by which wolf pack? Or was this stated somewhere and I overlooked it? If it is not clear to the village, then the wolves would have extra knowledge and be more adept at killing the other pack than we are. An uncomfortable thought.

Originally Posted by the phantom

I simply post "Tomorrow I will cast a throwaway vote. If So-And-So was the real Seer, give me a bonus vote tomorrow", the Dead check So-And-So's true identity and then either give or don't give me the bonus vote according to what they found.

This I don't get, or maybe I'm missing something. The dead can only find out roles among themselves, and do not see gifteds. They won't know who the real seer is, at least not for certain.


Sorry for being all negative, but all those Day1 strategies... Sweet summer children! No plan survives contact with werewolves.


These points I did like, though, so I'll quote them for truth:

Originally Posted by A Little Green

First, I think this is a crucial point. The wolves can (and probably will) engage in completely genuine wolf-hunting during Day phases, which means that we have to think differently than we would in a normal game; we have wolves who don't know everyone's alignment and who have a good motive to hunt bad guys too. That means they're not by default lying when they say they suspect someone, so a fake-looking case alone is not as strong a sign of wolfishness as it usually is.

Originally Posted by Legate

Really, from my experience, whenever one is playing a Wolf, whatever the circumstances, there is a psychological difference.

This. Of course, when looking for this difference, the risk is always to accidentally kill a gifted, since they operate similarly, but the lovers and the ranger have less reason to be afraid in our setup here (especially after a few days), and the hunter generally does, too. So, while the risk is clearly still there, it is smaller than usual, especially considering the number of baddies.

[Nerwen]

Firefoot (#37) and Boro (#39), you two are referring to phantom's suggestion at #20?
I had the impression it was off the menu, but if not- look, the problem is that, failing the Seer getting a wolf in that time, it requires not only all the gifteds but all the dreamed innocents not to get eaten until Day 3; meanwhile the wolves are getting 2 kills a Night and we have no chance of lynching a wolf. Plus, there's always the possibility of false reveals.

Originally Posted by Firefoot

I like the idea of deliberately tying the vote today, if possible. A couple thoughts:

1) It seems likely enough that for some reason we don't pull it off (wolves screw it up, accidental cross-posting, someone doesn't vote) - so we should make a deliberate choice of our possible victims.

2) In order to prevent total chaos at the end, what if we orchestrated the vote (these players vote for this person, those players vote for that). Any deviance from this strategy could also be indicative of a non-cooperative WW (or a lover, I guess).

So you're not even necessarily expecting this to work, you're just seeing it as a way of possibly flushing a wolf ("or a lover")? Only what would either really have to gain by breaking the tie? The Lovers just want to stay alive, and the wolves have the Night-kill. Besides, my "accidentally-on-purpose" comment on phantom's other plan applies here also- how could you be sure it wasn't just an honest screw-up? (Also, we don't actually want to expose the Lovers...)

4) As far as victim choice - sort of a shot in the dark anyway - do we go random? Ask for volunteers (at least we don't get a gifted - but then I guess it narrows the wolves' choice for who is gifted, so maybe that's a poor strategy)?

Precisely. So why suggest it?

Might as well pick Nilp since he's already got a vote?

Ah, now we come to the other problem: this plan seems to me virtually to ensure that we occupy two or three days with organising pseudo-lynches of randomly-chosen players, instead of, you know, trying to find wolves.

Really doesn't seem the best option to me...

edit:x'd since Nilp at #40.

[Nogrod]

Werewolf is back! And in a headache-producing form...

I think I'm siding with Macalaure's points to begin with. Playing orchestrated draws with voting is more or less doomed to fail especially in the early stages (because people miss votes, they don't get the information etc.).

But I'd also say there seems to be a lot of confidence that the Dead Thread will both know what to do and what would be the best for the village - and to be able to execute that. What Mac already referred to: the last game the Dead Thread was as totally confused as the Living Thread.

I'd see the situation as follows: the Dead Thread plays somewhat a normal WW-game where they know the identities of some and not of some (so it will be a chaotic mess of points and counterpoints made), the Living Thread is playing a game where no-one knows anything about anything (so it will be a chaotic mess of points and counterpoints made with not even fleeting evidence to back anything).

That said, I'm somewhat optimistic with our chances as a village: there are so many factors involved, not the least the rivalry between the two competing Wolfgangs *sic*.

Like Lottie (I think) said: the death of the first wolf certainly is a priority (well trying to lynch the most probable wolf should be our first priority every Day - let's talk about possible intentional draws later in the game) and a game-changer.

It's like in a football (soccer) game where two sides can play 0-0 for a long time in an important match and both be very careful just trying to avoid mistakes - but when one side finally scores a goal the game changes dramatically because just avoiding mistakes won't do to the team that is trailing in numbers: the game opens up and that gives chaces to both sides to really make results.


Nice to have this game back in the menu!

[Nogrod]

Oh one question on what Greenie said and most people seemed to strongly agree on (maybe I'm just in rust for not playing WW for a long time):

Originally Posted by Greenie

First, I think this is a crucial point. The wolves can (and probably will) engage in completely genuine wolf-hunting during Day phases, which means that we have to think differently than we would in a normal game; we have wolves who don't know everyone's alignment and who have a good motive to hunt bad guys too. That means they're not by default lying when they say they suspect someone, so a fake-looking case alone is not as strong a sign of wolfishness as it usually is.

I'm just a bit confused about the last sentence, the conclusion, or the POV of it, that is.

I mean my conclusion from the thoughts above would be that there probably wouldn't be that many fake-looking cases as the wolves don't have to pretend suspecting someone but are actually really suspecting someone for being a baddie - and the more important consequence of that would then be that the best wolf-lynchers shouldn't be regarded as "more probably goodies" just by their "good nose" on lynching baddies (actually it seems other wolves have a slight advance over normal villagers on sniffing the other wolves out).

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Nog

there seems to be a lot of confidence that the Dead Thread will both know what to do and what would be the best for the village

They'll know what the Living know plus more, so logically they should be able to help, particularly if the Living provide them with a structure in which to do so.

Originally Posted by Nog

the last game the Dead Thread was as totally confused as the Living Thread

Yeah they were. Mwu ha ha ha!

But that was totally different, because the Dead couldn't confirm roles. If they had been able to do so they would've tested Seer-Nog as soon as you went to the Dead thread and suddenly things would've been different.

There is concrete knowledge available to us in this game. We need to try and grab it.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by the phantom

They'll know what the Living know plus more, so logically they should be able to help, particularly if the Living provide them with a structure in which to do so.

The Dead will know more - and they should help in the best way they can - but I'm a bit more realist on the issue of how successful they will be just sorting out things among themselves - or how happy they would be to follow strict guidelines given by people in the Living Thread they do not know the alignment of...

Originally Posted by tp

There is concrete knowledge available to us in this game. We need to try and grab it.

Certainly - and that will be the Dead Thread who has it (and hopefully at some stages also the Living Thread). Fully agreed.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

O esteemed Mod, a clarification about the Dead Thread extra vote? So do the dead vote for a living player or double that player's vote? I interpreted it as the former (the Dead Thread vote being simply a ++person-of-their-choice) but the way I understood phantom's theory above, he seems to have interpreted it as the latter (the person chosen by the Dead gets to vote twice). The wording of the rules could mean either.

I suppose they could, but your version would mean that the Dead can participate in the lynch *directly*, which would seem to me to rather miss the point of the whole "death" thing. But I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But I'd also say there seems to be a lot of confidence that the Dead Thread will both know what to do and what would be the best for the village - and to be able to execute that. What Mac already referred to: the last game the Dead Thread was as totally confused as the Living Thread.

Did the Dead have any way of checking roles that game?
Edit:x'd since Nog at #47.

[Mithalwen]

I may as well state now that I didn't come back to Werewolf to merely be a pawn in anyone's masterplan and I certainly don't want to play if it is a case of "Do what Phantom tells you or it is all your fault". So to be clear, I will vote as I see fit, not as I am told, dead or alive. It is a game, it is meant to be fun. I am not here to be a minion, bullied or bored to sobs.

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Ah, now we come to the other problem: this plan seems to me virtually to ensure that we occupy two or three days with organising pseudo-lynches of randomly-chosen players, instead of, you know, trying to find wolves.

Especially since we as a village have (as I believe Mac said) a 25% chance of catching a wolf, whereas the Night kills have a 15% chance. I'd also like to add that we as a village have a further 21% (5/24) chance of accidentally killing a Gifted, where the Night kills have a 25% (5/20 - assuming we do not ourselves lynch a Gifted toDay) chance of purposefully killing a Gifted. It's much much riskier to trust the wolf killing to the wolves, since they are far more likely to kill a Gifted than a wolf, whereas we are slightly more likely to kill a wolf than a Gifted.

[Firefoot]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Firefoot (#37) and Boro (#39), you two are referring to phantom's suggestion at #20?

Yes.

I had the impression it was off the menu

I didn't realize that? No one seemed to be talking about it much...

So you're not even necessarily expecting this to work, you're just seeing it as a way of possibly flushing a wolf ("or a lover")?

Not at all, what the heck? I thought it was an interesting idea and wanted to suggest some considerations, that's all. And I was more interested in it for toDay than future Days. I know it's been a long time since I've done this but I have a lot of memories of really poor day 1 lynches.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Just to flesh out the Living-Dead communication thing... (and I see you're posting again on this very matter, Legate)

When someone is lynched they are then dead for the following night, meaning the Dead can check the lynch victim immediately and give us results (via the bonus vote) the following day.

Let's say we lynch Lottie and ask for the Dead to check her. The next day the leading vote receivers partway through are clearly McCaber and Legate, with Rikae, Morm, and Boro casting votes for Legate, and Nerwen, Green, and Eomer casting votes for McCaber. We can then tell the Dead thread, "If Lottie was evil give your bonus vote to Rikae or Nerwen, if she was innocent give it to Morm or Green, if you didn't check her give your bonus vote to someone else.

That way the Dead can impact the voting in any way they wish (push the lynch toward either of the two leaders) and simultaneously give us the information they gained about Lottie's role. If they give the bonus to Rikae then Lottie was evil and they wanted to lynch Legate over McCaber. If they give the bonus to Nerwen then Lottie is evil and McCaber is who they want to lynch. If they didn't check Lottie at all but want to help lynch McCaber then they give their bonus to Eomer. If they didn't check Lottie and don't want to lynch either candidate they give their bonus to someone else hinting that maybe that person's suspicions matched their own. Etc.

This is certainly worth considering, though it's problematic that it requires two separate lots of votes to be coordinated- it seems to me to be that a baddie on either thread might mess up the vote in an accidentally-on-purpose way. But the alternative of course is having *nothing* to go on...

I'm not sure what to think about the Lovers. Even if they knew who they were, would the WWs even attempt to off them with the Seer and Ranger still alive? Though the back-from-dead could be quite nice later in the game (so an early kill would negate this possibility), I think the Baddies fear the back-from-dead less than a living Seer/Ranger.
Now the Hunter... When I've been a WW I tend to avoid the Hunter like a landmine, because one shoot-from-the-hip Hunter kill can totally bring a solid Baddie squad crashing down. But in this game it's probably worth it to off the Hunter as soon as possible because odds are he'll kill an innocent. If you leave the Hunter alive a couple days the odds are probably worse for the WWs (plus he'll have more to go on), so as far as intentions go, I figure they'll attempt to kill him early or not at all (unless they're quite certain he has an incorrect pick in mind).

You talk as though the wolves would be able to pick and choose, tp. I mean, at this point in the game "vaguely gifted-ish" would be all they'd have to go on. (Unless the secret role changes things somehow.)
Edit:x'd with Firefoot.

[Boromir88]

First and foremost...woot! What an anniversary and to see you all back!

Reading through the thread and just going to be commenting as I go...

We purposefully tie the vote Day 1 and 2 so we don't lynch anyone.

Well, strategy-maker, I think tying our votes could be useful to attempt to coordinate and leave it in the hands of the Dead who should know more. But to do so today would mean we wouldn't get an active Dead thread until NIGHT 3. It takes 3 Dead to start it, and to have no lynch today would set the Dead thread back 1/2 day.

Granted it would guarantee we didn't lynch the Seer and gives the Seer 2 more dreams (where even if the wolves kill the Seer NIGHT 2, that puts the Seer in the dead thread with 4 dreams instead of 2...hmm, need to think about that). Since there is a delay in finding out information, the best case is to do what it takes to ensure the Seer gets as many double dreams as possible.

Ugh, I love fake reveals when you can immediately know the true from the false...it's going to be a pain with delayed information. I suppose it's too optimistic to think, a fake-reveal from one pack, would be as much of a pain to the rival pack as it is to everyone else.

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by phantom

When someone is lynched they are then dead for the following night, meaning the Dead can check the lynch victim immediately and give us results (via the bonus vote) the following day.

Let's say we lynch Lottie and ask for the Dead to check her. The next day the leading vote receivers partway through are clearly McCaber and Legate, with Rikae, Morm, and Boro casting votes for Legate, and Nerwen, Green, and Eomer casting votes for McCaber. We can then tell the Dead thread, "If Lottie was evil give your bonus vote to Rikae or Nerwen, if she was innocent give it to Morm or Green, if you didn't check her give your bonus vote to someone else.

That way the Dead can impact the voting in any way they wish (push the lynch toward either of the two leaders) and simultaneously give us the information they gained about Lottie's role. If they give the bonus to Rikae then Lottie was evil and they wanted to lynch Legate over McCaber. If they give the bonus to Nerwen then Lottie is evil and McCaber is who they want to lynch. If they didn't check Lottie at all but want to help lynch McCaber then they give their bonus to Eomer. If they didn't check Lottie and don't want to lynch either candidate they give their bonus to someone else hinting that maybe that person's suspicions matched their own. Etc.

O esteemed Mod, a clarification about the Dead Thread extra vote?

Originally Posted by Rules

After there are THREE residents of the Dead Thread, every DAY the dead get to vote on giving one of the living an extra vote. The dead are subject to the same deadline (heh heh) as the living. The living will not know who among them will get an extra vote until it is revealed in the closing narration of the DAY.

So do the dead vote for a living player or double that player's vote? I interpreted it as the former (the Dead Thread vote being simply a ++person-of-their-choice) but the way I understood phantom's theory above, he seems to have interpreted it as the latter (the person chosen by the Dead gets to vote twice). The wording of the rules could mean either.

And while we are on the subject of rules -

Originally Posted by phantom

All this Dead bonus vote stuff aside, I mainly just don't want the Seer or Ranger to die early. The double-dream and double-protect is amazing!

The Ranger only gets their double protect after they're returned from the dead, right? So it won't last long since the Ranger's identity becomes pretty obvious once they're resurrected. And I assume they can't resurrect twice?

...wow, I'm being positive today.


EDIT: x-ed with Nilp and Mac

[A Little Green]

Re: the voting schemes. Tying the vote on purpose might have merit later on if we have reason to believe the Dead can make a more informed decision than we can. As for today, however - I don't know. Accidentally hitting a Gifted is a risk, but a relatively small one (though after I've said this I'm sure that's exactly what I'll end up doing ). On the whole, I agree with Mac; while the wolf packs will undoubtedly attempt to eliminate each other, we can't really afford to leave all wolf hunting to the Night kills and not use our vote. At the same time, I have no idea where to start on forming an even half-informed opinion of anyone.

Sorry, coughing my head off atm and thus not as coherent as I'd like.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Green

The Ranger only gets their double protect after they're returned from the dead, right? So it won't last long since the Ranger's identity becomes pretty obvious once they're resurrected. And I assume they can't resurrect twice?

Ahhh, right you are. Never mind then- the Ranger isn't such a powerhouse then, at least not now. I suppose that means more than ever the Seer is the only viable target at this time.

Originally Posted by Green

So do the dead vote for a living player or double that player's vote? I interpreted it as the former (the Dead Thread vote being simply a ++person-of-their-choice) but the way I understood phantom's theory above, he seems to have interpreted it as the latter (the person chosen by the Dead gets to vote twice). The wording of the rules could mean either.

I see what you mean. Well, we could still pass info even if it's interpreted the other way, right? It would just require some tweaking. (I was interpreting it the one way because that's how it worked in the other village where we did this, wasn't it?)

Originally Posted by Mac

All this trying to arrange an information flow with the dead... elaborate stuff like that never works.

Well yeah, it definitely won't work if we assume it won't and don't try it.

Originally Posted by Mac

you always have some people who vote right at the deadline or didn't get a chance to read everything and vote uninformed

That's their problem. If people play poorly and screw up well-intentioned plans then we should lynch them (because they might be WWs messing up on purpose). If it turns out to be innocents that are messing things up for us, then at least they'll know it was their fault we lost.

I mean really- we're not going to attempt something useful because we're afraid our own side will suck too much to pull it off? No, no, I'm not okay with that.

Originally Posted by Mac

This I don't get, or maybe I'm missing something. The dead can only find out roles among themselves, and do not see gifteds. They won't know who the real seer is, at least not for certain.

If the person doesn't appear as Predator then we trust the reveal, right?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Well, there is an obvious split in the camp. Not between heroes and villains (that split is hidden) but between those who love complicated rules and those who are already lost.

I'm sure everything will become easier after a few days; until then, I'm not sure we can challenge the chaos. But am especially keen to observe those who doubt the village's ability to communicate effectively with the Dead.

For anyone interested in omens, mind you, the song I heard today which reminded me to check out this thread - 'The Dead Hate The Living'

[Boromir88]

All this trying to arrange an information flow with the dead... elaborate stuff like that never works. Unless a choice is obvious, you always have some people who vote right at the deadline or didn't get a chance to read everything and vote uninformed. Things get messed up, even without revealed or unrevealed baddies in both threads trying to mess with it intentionally. - Mac

Bottom line: We need some way to get reliable information from the Dead. Now, my understanding is we will know who receives the extra vote from the Dead, and if I'm understanding the phantom correctly, he wants to use the extra vote as a means to relay the predator/prey info revealed to the Dead. Roles who can be resurrected will help, but it would also help to get information some other way. Otherwise, every lynch will just be random and with no idea what's going on and every lynch just becomes a stab in the dark.

It's not a life changing discovery to know the Dead wolves will be working to mess up the Dead thread to cause confusion for the living...but at the same time, with the rival packs they will do what they feel they must to protect their own pack. If that means getting rid of wolves from the rival pack, Dead wolves may be willing to work with the innocents to get rid of their rivals.

I agree with whoever said we can't be lazy and rely on the packs killing each other. Since we CAN'T rely on that, we have to rely on some method to find out about whether are lynches have hit wolves or not. And call me impatient, but I'm not going to wait for the death of a resurrected role to get information from the Dead thread.

Of course it would take the cooperation of the Dead and any method should have a clear and simple understanding. If I know how this works...during the NIGHT phase the Dead vote on who amongst them gets revealed as Predator/Prey. And during the DAY who amongst the living gets the bonus vote? It might be quite complicated, but this is involving some of the brightest and most intelligent minds in the world. I'm sure we can figure it out. (seriously I'm never going to under-estimate the resolve of the 'Downers in getting this place back up and everyone together again)

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Of course it would take the cooperation of the Dead and any method should have a clear and simple understanding.
...
It might be quite complicated, but this is involving some of the brightest and most intelligent minds in the world. I'm sure we can figure it out.

I might see just that as a problem... even if I fully agree it would be nice we had a method of communication with the goodies of the Dead side with a lot of knowledge. The Dead will probably understand a lot things the Living will not, but the baddies on the Dead thread will wish to twist any "message" they give the living - and in the Living Thread some may understand things but others will not - and the baddies will do their best trying to make people not understanding things...

Well, we'll see - for it truly seems a complicated game (I haven't had time yet to really walk myself through the rules and the possibilities they might offer all the sides). But therefore I'd suggest we at least start by trying to lynch a wolf and notb try to enforce a double-lynch on D1 (it most probably will not work anyway).

Contrary to some people's opinion, I think D1 is a good day to hunt for wolves - and I think the stats might even prove me right in this (although I'm not sure of it). So let's see what we can do toDay - I'm coming back later to try and do something for it.