Werewolf CXII - Dueling Wizards III - The Living Thread

[Nogrod]

I feel the rust jamming my brains after such a long time - it's like the neurons try to get moving but the whole machinery just cracks and screeches.

Good to be back - even if I''m not considering to floodpost the thread this time around.

First things first though.

So are the rules that are laid in the first post of the "Re-Party"-thread (updated last on 7th. of July) up to date and authoritative ones - including all possible changes and addenda that have been developed during the planning period? It looked like this game thread's rules were a bit shorter version - but I didn't have the patience to go double-checking every aspect as to which things are included in which version.

Secondly I'm quite strongly opposing Eönwe's plan of trying to tie the hands of those in the Dead-thread beforehand to some easily misguided scheming where the dead-vote is used with insecure methods trying to communicate possibly things that are not of any consequence even if the living might think so. Having spend basically the whole last game in the Dead-thread I did swore quite often to the stubborn and arrogant hubris within the Living-thread where they thought they were doing something witty and productive when they actually had no idea what was really going on. And I was not the only one thinking like that.

Let's remember that the Dead are a lot wiser than we the living are - and the gap between their understanding and ours widens everyday.

Also, having complicated - or in the worst situation - conflicting "rules of interpretation" for the Dead-vote is only going to muddy the waters and give the baddies a justification for their voting based on some interpretations of what the Dead might have wanted to say.

Talking of the Dead-vote. I understood the rules that the Dead have one vote - like one living person would have - but then someone (Morsul?) talked on D1 of the Dead "doubling" the vote for someone and nobody - not even Kuru - corrected him. So how is it? One vote sounds reasonable, doubling the vote sounds pretty strong indeed...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Good to be back - even if I''m not considering to floodpost the thread this time around.

It's good to have you back, sir!

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Secondly I'm quite strongly opposing Eönwe's plan of trying to tie the hands of those in the Dead-thread beforehand to some easily misguided scheming where the dead-vote is used with insecure methods trying to communicate possibly things that are not of any consequence even if the living might think so.

It just seems a little complicated, and a bit too rigid for my taste. But if the majority want to do that, I won't be a rogue.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Talking of the Dead-vote. I understood the rules that the Dead have one vote - like one living person would have - but then someone (Morsul?) talked on D1 of the Dead "doubling" the vote for someone and nobody - not even Kuru - corrected him. So how is it? One vote sounds reasonable, doubling the vote sounds pretty strong indeed...

I thought the Dead just did two majority-votes: one to give one of the Living one extra vote, and to determine of of their number for role-reveal. Hopefully I'm not missing something.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I can't find this, but are you sure it wasn't a question of doubling the vote *of* someone rather than the vote *for* someone?

It could be - at least it would make sense.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I mean it's clear most of us still haven't got our heads around the rules properly yet.

Indeed.


Just a few thoughts.

I believe we can assume there was a wolf among us on D1. The EW might have fancy strategies including not making herself a wolf the pre-game Night but yet there was a Night-kill last Night. Now that could happen if the rules allowed signing a wolf and make her to kill the very same Night, but I somehow doubt that - Kuru?

Besides just my personal doubt (feeling) there is the actual stated rule that the EW can only make a solo Night-kill after she has created at least one wolf - which kind of suggests the interpretation that the EW needs a wolf to start killing people off.

And anyway, besides the ability to kill in the first place, the EW needs numbers. It might be, she's not going to rush with bringing forwards her full pack immediately (to do that as fast as possible), but she'd need at least one, rather immediately.

Therefore I'd assume we had one already on D1.

But with no pack to defend or to plot with there probably are no clear wolftracks we could infer something from. Unless that late sequence of events which led to the no-kill decision involved the improbable - but possible - scenario where one wolf needed to cover for the EW herself - or vice versa.

That's not much, but probably the best be we have thus far.

I'll be back a little later with hopefully some better ideas.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Now that could happen if the rules allowed signing a wolf and make her to kill the very same Night, but I somehow doubt that - Kuru?

This would not be possible. The Evil Wizard couldn't create and then kill that wolf in the same NIGHT. If the Evil Wizard tried something like this the victim would go to the Dead Thread as an Ordo.

That wouldn't preclude killing that wolf on a subsequent NIGHT, but it wouldn't work to do it on the same NIGHT.

Besides just my personal doubt (feeling) there is the actual stated rule that the EW can only make a solo Night-kill after she has created at least one wolf - which kind of suggests the interpretation that the EW needs a wolf to start killing people off.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Da Rules

The Evil Wizard may make kills solo once they have created a wolf (in a scenario where the Evil Wizard has lost all their wolves). This rule applies even if the Evil Wizard has wolf picks in reserve that have not been used yet but is for some reason on his/her own.

EDIT: So I guess, theoretically, and I didn't fully appreciate it until this moment, the Evil Wizard could turn this into the most diabolical solo were-bear role ever!

Not that I'm suggesting anything to anyone.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

This would not be possible. The Evil Wizard couldn't create and then kill that wolf in the same NIGHT. If the Evil Wizard tried something like this the victim would go to the Dead Thread as an Ordo.

That wouldn't preclude killing that wolf on a subsequent NIGHT, but it wouldn't work to do it on the same NIGHT.

I wasn't actually talking about the EW killing her wolf the very same Night the wolf was created. Sorry if I phrased it badly.

My concern was, whether the "evil side" could have killed Morsul last Night if there was no wolf turned already on the pre-game Night (whether there was not a wolf among us on D1)?

Aka. if the EW didn't turn anyone into a wolf before D1 started, could she have turned someone into a wolf last Night and then have Morsul killed the very same Night she turned her first wolf into being?

Looking at it from the other POV. If there would be no wolf now, then no-one would have died last Night because there a) is no wolf to do the killing, and b) the EW has not turned anyone a wolf aka. (by rules) can't kill anyone solo either?

So it concerns the speculation about whehter there was a wolf among us yesterDay, not whether the EW killed her puppy just to send her into the Dead-thread (which would be quite insane - or phantomish)...

[Loslote]

As far as the Dead Thread communication goes, I think it is better to have a consistent plan than it is to try to wing it. Sure, something may go wrong, but that can be addressed by putting in a failsafe - say, empower the first or last people alphabetically if something has gone terribly wrong, and we can work out a new plan to draw out what, exactly, has gone wrong the next Day. If we don't have a plan at all, getting any information from the Dead Thread becomes much more difficult, and the possibility of confusion increases drastically. I am honestly side-eying Nog for, as far as I can tell, dismissing the idea of *having a plan at all*. Sure, it can get messy, but if we don't have a solid plan, communication would be almost impossible. I'm less wary of Mith, who doesn't like the plan but is suggesting alternatives rather than effectively saying "communicating with the Dead Thread is hard, we shouldn't even try". All but one of us is in the living thread *right now*, now is the time to hash this out, when everyone can make sure they're comfortable with the plan in the case that they are the ones who end up in the Dead Thread.

As far as Morsul goes, I wonder if the EW killed him in part as a way to shield the rest of the last minute voters from scrutiny. Morsul was one of the earlier and more bold voters, and by focusing attention on his vote, maybe the EW was hoping to draw our attention away from a vote like Zil's for Nerwen, or the votes for me, or even the votes for Boro meant to tie it up. At any rate, I think we, as a village, haven't spent much time looking at those, and I do want to take a closer look.

[Mithalwen]

The important thing as I recall was to limit the questions so that the dead had a multiple choice of votes to allow for their special knowledge. We don't want to mess up lynching a wolf to know x in the dead thread was an ordo.
And a get out clause if the living don't know what they are asking for. Working out all possible permutations seems a bit unnecessary at this point. I would have to look back but I think it did work most of the time apart from the day 3 or four people posted their preferred options very late.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Loslote

If we don't have a plan at all, getting any information from the Dead Thread becomes much more difficult, and the possibility of confusion increases drastically.

Maybe I'm just thick, but is the Dead activity really going to give the Living much useful info, other than the knowledge that the Dead gave someone an extra vote (for, to the Living, unknown motives)?

Originally Posted by Loslote

As far as Morsul goes, I wonder if the EW killed him in part as a way to shield the rest of the last minute voters from scrutiny. Morsul was one of the earlier and more bold voters, and by focusing attention on his vote, maybe the EW was hoping to draw our attention away from a vote like Zil's for Nerwen, or the votes for me, or even the votes for Boro meant to tie it up.

I think that's a stretch, but worthy of thought, I guess.

x/d with Mith

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I feel the rust jamming my brains after such a long time - it's like the neurons try to get moving but the whole machinery just cracks and screeches.

Good to be back - even if I''m not considering to floodpost the thread this time around.

First things first though.

So are the rules that are laid in the first post of the "Re-Party"-thread (updated last on 7th. of July) up to date and authoritative ones - including all possible changes and addenda that have been developed during the planning period? It looked like this game thread's rules were a bit shorter version - but I didn't have the patience to go double-checking every aspect as to which things are included in which version.

Secondly I'm quite strongly opposing Eönwe's plan of trying to tie the hands of those in the Dead-thread beforehand to some easily misguided scheming where the dead-vote is used with insecure methods trying to communicate possibly things that are not of any consequence even if the living might think so. Having spend basically the whole last game in the Dead-thread I did swore quite often to the stubborn and arrogant hubris within the Living-thread where they thought they were doing something witty and productive when they actually had no idea what was really going on. And I was not the only one thinking like that.

Let's remember that the Dead are a lot wiser than we the living are - and the gap between their understanding and ours widens everyday.

Also, having complicated - or in the worst situation - conflicting "rules of interpretation" for the Dead-vote is only going to muddy the waters and give the baddies a justification for their voting based on some interpretations of what the Dead might have wanted to say.

Talking of the Dead-vote. I understood the rules that the Dead have one vote - like one living person would have - but then someone (Morsul?) talked on D1 of the Dead "doubling" the vote for someone and nobody - not even Kuru - corrected him. So how is it? One vote sounds reasonable, doubling the vote sounds pretty strong indeed...

I can't find this, but are you sure it wasn't a question of doubling the vote *of* someone rather than the vote *for* someone?

That said, I am not nearly as confident in this plan to communicate with the Dead as some people seem to be. I think it did more or less work last game with a Dead thread, but this time there are so many other variables... I mean it's clear most of us still haven't got our heads around the rules properly yet.