Ten Year Anniversary Game: Living Thread

[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.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by the phantom

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.

Day1 is always sketchy in terms of usefulness, but later on? We will do the usual and analyze, as well as we can in this setting, and poke around to see how people are acting. Just because it's not fancy doesn't make it not useful.

Originally Posted by the phantom

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

Ah, ok.
I think.
Maybe.
I guess we'll see when we get there.

Originally Posted by Green

so a fake-looking case alone is not as strong a sign of wolfishness as it usually is.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'm just a bit confused about the last sentence, the conclusion

Actually, that's a good catch. Wouldn't the conclusion be: "so a good-looking case is not as strong a sign of innocence as it usually is"?

Originally Posted by the phantom

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.

Maybe it's my memory now, but I think they were. Didn't they just chose not to check Nogrod, because he was so obviously a cobbler.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

and I think the stats might even prove me right in this

A long time ago I actually compiled stats for it. It's somewhere in the grimoire thread. Day1 had the worst odds to catch a wolf. Not saying we shouldn't try, of course.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

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.

No the killing pack will not be stated. From an RP standpoint the Party does not know that there are two wolf packs. The split of the baddies is completely obscure to the Party.

Originally Posted by A Little 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.

The individual empowered by the Dead gets two votes. And has also been alluded to in subsequent conversation, this will be noted in the narration and the individual so empowered will be mentioned explicitly by name.

As has also been noted, but I will state again for clarity's sake, the Ranger has only one protection per NIGHT to use in their first life. Should this individual die and resurrect, then that individual has two protections. Right now as of this moment, the Ranger only has one.

For Morm (and anybody else who doesn't know), the way to highlight is to put the word "highlight" in the brackets, like so -> [highlight] and then do the usual closing of the tags to end it.

[mormegil]

For old times sake I must state emphatically that Firefoot did it and should be lynched. (Please reference the first game ever to understand the humor...though please don't read anything into this...I know some of you are already thinking way too much about that comment)

Next we should lynch the phantom...old tummy is making this thread obscenely long.

Finally, how does one get the votes red, that is a standard after my time.

I will post a bit more when I have caught all the way up on the thread. However I'm not sure I fully understand the logic on the intentionally tying the vote and having the dead break the tie. I don't think the dead will know the guilty or innocent, will they? It seems like a clever ploy to disguise your voting patterns by having everyone vote in a fairly prescribed way.

[the phantom]

Okay- if we're going to try and lynch someone today is there any intelligent guideline we can set forth? For instance, perhaps we should only be willing to lynch someone who will be around to shout "Ah! No!" just in case we hit worst case scenario (i.e. Gifted).

Granted a WW might fake reveal to save his hide, but then the other WW team will be gunning for him so he's toast eventually anyway.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Seriously?! Okay, if that's true, then that game was even funnier than I remember.

Wait, I remember. The dead could only distinguish wolf or not-wolf, so they couldn't gain any info on "cobbler"-Nogrod. Same rule as now, as far as I can see, but it had more consequence due to having cobblers.

Originally Posted by Kuru

No the killing pack will not be stated.

Well, that sucks now.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I may as well state now that I didn't come back to Werewolf to merely be a pawn in anyone's masterplan

This.

[Boromir88]

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).

I'm coming at it from thinking doing whatever it takes to ensure the Seer at least gets passed today. That way, the Seer has 4 dreams and even if one of the packs makes a lucky pick at night, the Seer is in the Dead thread with 4 known roles. Those 2-dreams a night while living is probably our biggest advantage we need to keep as long as possible. I think now more than any other game, we have to ensure the Seer survives DAY 1

Granted our chances of randomly lynching 1 wolf is far better than randomly lynching the Seer, but it wouldn't be the first time we accidentally lynch the Seer DAY 1, despite the smaller odds.

Either way (tying a vote for no-lynch or getting a lynch today) it's too early to tell whether one is option is better than the other. Let's see how the DAY shakes out with votes and suspicions and go from there.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Mac

Maybe it's my memory now, but I think they were. Didn't they just chose not to check Nogrod, because he was so obviously a cobbler.

Seriously?! Okay, if that's true, then that game was even funnier than I remember.

Originally Posted by morm

old tummy is making this thread obscenely long

Psh. I remember days with considerably more posting than this. Put on your big boy pants and play.

Originally Posted by morm

However I'm not sure I fully understand the logic on the intentionally tying the vote and having the dead break the tie. I don't think the dead will know the guilty or innocent, will they?

Yes, they will. Only the Dead will know evil/good for certain. They will always know more.

Basically we try and lynch the folks we feel are guilty, and toward the end of the day we make sure our top two or three candidates are tied so that the dead can swing the vote. Of course that would require us to be on the ball and try and finish up an hour before deadline.

And if the Dead go against what my gut tells me I'll probably decide the plan sucks, but logically it's not a bad idea.

Anyway, I'm not committed to that idea, but I think it's worth considering. The only thing I'm truly committed to is giving the Dead the option of passing info to the Living. It would be silly not to take advantage of our only consistent connection to real information.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Yes, they will. Only the Dead will know evil/good for certain. They will always know more.

I re-read the rules and once there is 3 in dead they will be able to vote to reveal if one of them is good or evil. They will know more than us so the plan has more merit than I originally thought, however my reservation still remains that a prescribed voting pattern takes away one of the clearest evidences we have.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Mith

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.

I fully expect you to vote as you see fit. When we vote we simply cast the vote that is the most beneficial to our side. Thus if you can use your Dead vote to reveal an important clue to the Living why not do so?

Basically I don't think the whole passing information plan infringes on your voting rights. When we vote we are always considering outcomes. Sometimes we don't vote for our best candidate but rather our second best because we know our first choice won't get lynched that day, etc.

Or looking at it a different way- if someone tells me, "Phantom, try and vote for a Werewolf!" there is no need for me to object- "I don't have to vote for a Werewolf. I'm free to vote for anyone I want!" Obviously, yes, I can do anything I please with my vote, but in the end I will of course vote in such a way that benefits my cause. I expect people to vote logically and attempt to win. Nothing more.

(You'll note that I built options into my plan to allow the Dead maximum vote flexibility while simultaneously passing information. I did this specifically because I knew certain folks would complain if they were asked to participate in anything resembling a plan.)

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Nog

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*.

Nog you're killing me!

Originally Posted by Nog

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):

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

Originally Posted by Mac

Actually, that's a good catch. Wouldn't the conclusion be: "so a good-looking case is not as strong a sign of innocence as it usually is"?

Either way. What I was getting at was trying to figure out how to spot wolves with these dynamics. One of my most common reasons for suspecting anyone is that a case they make seems fabricated, ie. they know the person they're accusing is not actually guilty. I was referring to not being able to base speculations about a player's wolfishness on this since the wolves, too, are essentially hunting wolves they don't know the identities of. Did that help?

Originally Posted by Lottie

It doesn't make sense to tie before the Dead thread starts up, since we have a better chance at killing wolves and avoiding Gifteds if we lynch than if we leave it to the Night kills (see my above post).

Word.

Originally Posted by Lottie

I am also dubious about giving the Dead thread the power to choose who dies in the lynch - I agree that it would be good to set up a system wherein the Dead can let us know who they checked and what the result was, but I would prefer for that system to not give the Dead the ultimate choice. After all, if all we the voters can do is comply with the voting scheme already set out, we do not get nearly as much information on the voters. Even if we don't know the result of the vote, looking at people's votes with an eye to what they appear to be trying to do, who they want lynched, and who they don't gives us a lot of information that we wouldn't get if we gave that power to the Dead.

This is also a very good point. I would suggest trying to leave the deciding vote for the Dead only if we have good reason to believe they have crucial information we don't.

Originally Posted by Nog

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).

Sidenote - don't worry, Nog, no double-lynches in this game! A tie will result in no lynch.

Also, thanks Kuru for the clarification! I was confused.


EDIT: x-ed with morm, phantom, Agan and Lommy. Also, can I just say how happy it makes me to type that? I mean, cross-posting with morm and phantom, for the first time in God knows how many years! <3

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by phantom

Basically I don't think the whole passing information plan infringes on your voting rights. When we vote we are always considering outcomes. Sometimes we don't vote for our best candidate but rather our second best because we know our first choice won't get lynched that day, etc.

For heaven's sake man, stop sounding like a politician!

Originally Posted by Lommy

edit: xed with Agan - ...WHAT???? I smell Freud... but whatever I'll look at it when I'm back

I assume you're referring to this:

Originally Posted by Agan

"We" obviously as in "us villagers", not as in "me and my wolf pack", duh!

I don't smell Freud as much as a trolling Agan. Admittedly, I took morm's "Agan, what are you suggesting here" as not a reference to her use of "we" but to her hypothesis of the Dead Thread only being populated by Europeans, and in that regard her reply doesn't really make sense. That doesn't equal Freud-odor, though.


EDIT: x-ed with phantom again!

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

Sidenote - don't worry, Nog, no double-lynches in this game! A tie will result in no lynch.

Sorry about my sloppy expression... That was indeed what I meant to say: double lynch = no lynch - and that is what we shouldn't do. Lynching baddies is how we win games, not by waiting for someone else to do it for us.

Also: what helps us lynching the baddies is having some clues as to who did what and when, but with an agreed upon consensus (even with only some people claiming to take part) for any style of voting we lose a lot (or all) the info voting could give us.

- "Why did you not vote for the guy who turned out a wolf and we all saw as one so clearly?"
- "Well I thought we were still hanging on to this deal we'd leave it to dead to decide!"

So let's not give anyone a "free passage" -card with "I can't explain my vote otherwise, I was only trying this scheme someone talked about".

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So let's not give anyone a "free passage" -card with "I can't explain my vote otherwise, I was only trying this scheme someone talked about".

But I can use that excuse, right? I mean... I was kinda hoping to skate by on that for at least 2 days.

[mormegil]

++Macaclure

Sorry for the earlish vote, not sure what the rest of the night holds and wanted to make sure I get it in. He is the one that seems a bit off to me. I don't recall any previous encounters with him so my perspective is as unbiased as it can be but something in a number of the posts felt off, not the statistics though .

Hey, look I did the whole red highlight thing right!

[Thinlómien]

But first a step back:

Originally Posted by Agan

"We" obviously as in "us villagers", not as in "me and my wolf pack", duh! [winking smiley]

This still exchange related to this post by Agan sounds rather fishy to me. So, as I read it, Agan is playing with scenarios and makes a joking example of the village only killing (= lynching) Europeans. Morm makes fun of her by implying she actually suggested doing that (since she's European herself, it's kind of double crazy idea). Agan misunderstands that morm is (half-jokingly) calling her out on saying "killing" instead of "lynching", which would imply she's one of the wolves (the term "killing" usually referring to Night kills) and she continues the joke from that angle. Basically I find it curious that Agan would interpret morm's comments in a way that would lead her to make a joking clarification about not making a Freudian slip about being a wolf. Like, I don't know why an innocent player would look at morm's comment from that angle. (Morm please clarify if I'm the one misreading your comment to Agan.)

Okay then...

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Btw. how about we send the phantom into the Dead Thread as our first move? If he is innocent he is a great asset organizing things for us there - and there people could check his alignment (unlike here) so everyone would know whether to trust his ideas or not. It would be a win-win -situation.

I actually laughed aloud. (Also Greenie's reaction. Have I ever mentioned I love my family?)

Originally Posted by Rikae

Day 1 too often seems like the day to lynch anyone who behaves erratically, which is, to my recollection, a really bad strategy.

Or alternatively vote someone whom you always suspect, which is equally bad. For example I had to slap myself today getting bad vibes from Lottie - I always suspect her on Day1, regardless of her role. So I would actually encourage people to go for someone they usually don't suspect if they're wavering between two options as it's less likely they're just falling prey to knee-jerk reactions. (Later addition: okay, I see Rikae said practically the same. Should I start worrying about the number of people I'm aggressively agreeing with?)

Originally Posted by Form

In PRACTICE, however, the actual participation of the players starts with Day 1--in a real world, if werewolves started killing people in a closed community, we'd have a history of interaction with our neighbours on which to base our lynchings; in the game world, we have nothing but a Day 1 that precedes any actual choices made by the Wolves. The death of the moderator is presented as a fait accompli and we have to try and analyze the actions of people who never actually made any decision to kill that person.

Yes, but you forget the Night kills are hardly the only trail the wolves leave, and they are even less reliable in this game than in your average game since the roles are not revealed upon death. (Of course, the same goes for the usefulness of the lynches, but the lynches are our only weapon against the wolves, and while they might be killing each other, all the six wolves won't die without our help.)

Originally Posted by Greenie

So yes, we're statistically more likely to lynch an innocent than a wolf, but that is sadly not a feature of Day 1 but rather of the entire game.

^^ this.

Originally Posted by Mith

I don't think there has been much discussion of the wildcard role. Obviously it is hard to discuss an undescribed role but it is a known unknown, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, something we know we don't know. It holds strange powers some of which might well stuff up cleverclogs voting systems.

As you said, there's little use in discussing it now - however, it's good to keep in mind that if something doesn't add up in this game, it might be thanks to the special role.

Originally Posted by Eomer

certainly Lommy, Shasta, Nilp and Boro are never wasted lynches, if you ask me.

Wrong, sir, first off it's you and morm who are never wasted lynches and besides if you go to the grimoire I have an amazing track record of being an ordo in 90% of the games I've played in and a very successful seer in several games in the last 10%, so statistically speaking it's a very bad idea to lynch me.

Originally Posted by Agan

I think it's more important to keep the Dead Thread under control as best we can

I disagree. We cannot control the Dead Thread. I've been thinking about this and what I would do if I died and had to vote on the dead thread. First off, I would be likely to start lazing because following two threads and general frustration at being dead, ugh. (I'm being honest here.) Being the good citizen I am, I'd still probably get as far as voting. Now, would I follow the instructions of the living? Possibly, unless we dead people had a better idea. How to convey that to the living? And - I'm emphasizing this again - whose instructions would I follow? Say, the phantom suggests a course of action for the dead thread. Six living people state they agree. Four state they disagree. The rest don't comment. Now, are the living to assume the dead then followed the instructions? How could they know? Or what if two living players had two different ideas for what the dead should do and there was no clear consensus? Whose idea would the dead follow then? And how would the living ever deduce whose idea the dead went with?

Seriously, unless we elect a living village spokesperson or something, there's no way of clearly communicating with the dead. The best we can do is probably use our knowledge of the personalities and the playing styles of the deceased and try to guess what those particular players would do, but that's a little risky. In short, we shouldn't make decisions based on how we can use the dead thread until we have found a way to do so, because it's possible we'll never find one.


edit: xed with Lalaith and onwards

[Thinlómien]

Okay, now seriously kinda thinking about it.

What if we actually elected (toMorrow, as it's getting late toDay) a village spokesperson to direct the dead thread? Or come up with a system where people could volunteer to be the spokesperson and we'd rotate the turn between them?

And everybody would pinky swear that when they're dead, they'd obey the village spokesperson?

That way, we could get about ...80...? percent reliable information from the dead thread, if there isn't an obvious pitfall I didn't see. (Apart from that I don't know how we'd ever get everyone to participate in the spokesperson election and pledging to serve the living in the afterlife.)


edit: xed with Mac and Nog

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I disagree. We cannot control the Dead Thread.

Exactly. And the Dead might not wish to be controlled either - they probably even have a better idea about what is going on than people in the living thread and will see the follies we here, or some of us, might think as wisdom.

So I'd be cautious of trying to make deals here on the living thread concerning what to do here based on ideas that the dead will follow rules we set to them - or rules suggested by some willing gamechangers.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

But first a step back:
This still exchange related to this post by Agan sounds rather fishy to me. So, as I read it, Agan is playing with scenarios and makes a joking example of the village only killing (= lynching) Europeans. Morm makes fun of her by implying she actually suggested doing that (since she's European herself, it's kind of double crazy idea). Agan misunderstands that morm is (half-jokingly) calling her out on saying "killing" instead of "lynching", which would imply she's one of the wolves (the term "killing" usually referring to Night kills) and she continues the joke from that angle. Basically I find it curious that Agan would interpret morm's comments in a way that would lead her to make a joking clarification about not making a Freudian slip about being a wolf. Like, I don't know why an innocent player would look at morm's comment from that angle. (Morm please clarify if I'm the one misreading your comment to Agan.)

Home and trying to catch up I'm to this point...Being on the East Coast makes the timing on these quite different than when I was out West...anyway

Yes, it was said in a joking way as I thought it sounded very funny. Her response I took as a bit of a joke too but her follow up reaction raises and eyebrow or two.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

This is me not ordering the Dead around (like I can tell Nog, phantom, or Rune what to do), but I'd bet a pretty penny they'd uncover phantom's role toNIGHT.

Now that I think about it, Nogrod feels less evil, but more stubborn? (With the way he opposed the plan, I chuckled at the thought of leaving him in charge of the Dead thread, at least for a NIGHT.) Anyway, surely, no one can be that blatantly evil, especially in a game like this, where losing one of the Pack would put the rest under immense pressure to catch an opposing Baddie. Probably.

Of course, this line of reasoning should also exonerate Agan's fumble, but a slip of the tongue is one thing, and a determined and blatant effort to oppose something that's obviously for the village is another. It's hard to imagine someone being so glaringly evil, but a slip of the mask is still possible.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Just checking in. I've decided on a posting project today (nothing too fancy, so don't get too excited) but it's gone one in the morning and it took me far too long to even articulate this post, so I'll get to it in the morning. Night, everyone.