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

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Ummm... Again, please? Sorry, not sure what you mean. As in spreading the votes in time? I understand how spreading the vote among multiple candidates can help the wolves pick the one they prefer to be offed, but I don't get what you're getting to here.

OK, let's suppose that, say, an hour before DL there's 3 votes for an innocent, 2 for a wolf and 2 for another innocent. If the last to be tied gets quarantined, the wolves need to be on their toes till the last minute to make sure it's not one of them. If it's the first to be tied, they can spread their votes as they like and the first innocent will still be eliminated.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts!

I would have said Romulans, but otherwise you took the words out of my mouth.

[Boromir88]

If I'm understanding this fake-voting plan Legate's brought to the table...

Fast forward to say 2 hours before the deadline. I announce I'm back and caught up to date on the events. Get myself into the mindset of "alright DL 2 hours away, but if it was NOW, of all the information and votes that have taken place I would vote ++Legate (insert reason, reason here)." And in doing that there is more information provided than providing a list of "possibilities."

Then unless something drastic happens in the next 2 hours (and if we're being honest it will. There is the inevitable deadline flurry voting that throws plans off). The point of the exercising of my prior "fake vote" is not so much to say "AHH you back-pedaled you can't back-pedal from your fake vote!" If Legate wasn't a likely option, I would expect a bunch of back-pedaling to take place. The purpose would be to get a look at reasoning for what happened in those 2 hours to either stay with my fake vote or back-pedal from it. Which, in itself is informative

I'm not a list maker, I've tried to do shopping lists, but wind up stopping after listing 2 items and trying to think of what else I need. So I wind up just going without a list and get a bunch of junk I didn't actually need. Get this, one time I went telling myself I needed milk, eggs, carrots and lettuce and came back with like toilet paper, a dagger and this new fried sugary dough thing. I did get the carrots but I completely botched that trip.

I'm not good with lists, but others need lists, so can we mandate it? Are we allowed to pass mandates?

Crikey, this is the 60th time I've been in similar nightmares. They all get worse than the one before it. I'm surprised no one's coughed yet? I was waiting for the first person to cough. Not that coughing is a sure sign, if I cough it's my seasonal allergies. I will take an oath if I do cough, I will make sure I'm all clear and cough into my elbow. I was hoping someone would cough right out into the open, but that was too optimistic.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

If I'm understanding this fake-voting plan Legate's brought to the table...

Fast forward to say 2 hours before the deadline. I announce I'm back and caught up to date on the events. Get myself into the mindset of "alright DL 2 hours away, but if it was NOW, of all the information and votes that have taken place I would vote ++Legate (insert reason, reason here)." And in doing that there is more information provided than providing a list of "possibilities."

Then unless something drastic happens in the next 2 hours (and if we're being honest it will. There is the inevitable deadline flurry voting that throws plans off). The point of the exercising of my prior "fake vote" is not so much to say "AHH you back-pedaled you can't back-pedal from your fake vote!" If Legate wasn't a likely option, I would expect a bunch of back-pedaling to take place. The purpose would be to get a look at reasoning for what happened in those 2 hours to either stay with my fake vote or back-pedal from it. Which, in itself is informative

Ok, so this makes sense, it's basically what Legate has already explained. But -

Originally Posted by Boro

I'm not a list maker, I've tried to do shopping lists, but wind up stopping after listing 2 items and trying to think of what else I need. So I wind up just going without a list and get a bunch of junk I didn't actually need. Get this, one time I went telling myself I needed milk, eggs, carrots and lettuce and came back with like toilet paper, a dagger and this new fried sugary dough thing. I did get the carrots but I completely botched that trip.

I'm not good with lists, but others need lists, so can we mandate it? Are we allowed to pass mandates?

Umm, what was that all about? I get that you want to replace/amend the idea of lists with a single choice, the top pick. But seriously, what?

Should we test you for viral encephalopathy?

Originally Posted by Boro

Crikey, this is the 60th time I've been in similar nightmares. They all get worse than the one before it. I'm surprised no one's coughed yet? I was waiting for the first person to cough. Not that coughing is a sure sign, if I cough it's my seasonal allergies. I will take an oath if I do cough, I will make sure I'm all clear and cough into my elbow. I was hoping someone would cough right out into the open, but that was too optimistic.

*cough*
*cough cough*
*ahem*
*clears throat*

Congrats on the anniversary!


(Completely unrelated, but for some reason I forgot how to spell "throat" and ended up with something like "throuaght". Do I need to be tested for viral encephalopathy too? )

[Macalaure]

Ah, Day 1. Where all we can do is make up reasons out of thin air.

*sniffs*

Ugh, nah. The air over Dor-lomin isn't what it used to be. And here people say that the air would be cleaner if everybody stayed in their village.

Anyway.

Fakes votes, eh?

If we mean fake votes instead of real ones, to avoid a Day1 lynch, I don't see the usefulness in that. Since those votes lack any consequence, it's the easiest thing for wolves to throw their votes at whoever, or wolf-on-wolf without the risk that comes with it.

If we mean a deadline before the deadline. Really? What about the people with tighter schedules. We can't expect everybody to be available for two deadlines.

Worse, the day after people will be too quick to jump on those who changed their mind from one deadline to the next. Wolves, on the other hand, lacking conscience, will have a very easy time showing consistency.

I find it very odd how very enthusiastic Legate is about this. My immediate thought was the one that Gala had, too: very cobblerish. A wolf wouldn't stick their head out that far, and one would expect an innocent person to be a bit more measured in their response, weighing pros and cons. Not saying a wolf can't fake a careful approach, of course.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Ah, Day 1. Where all we can do is make up reasons out of thin air.

Naturally. Usually a stab in the dark, but occasionally those can be true.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

If we mean a deadline before the deadline. Really? What about the people with tighter schedules. We can't expect everybody to be available for two deadlines.

Indeed. And would not giving the fake vote for that reason be grounds for suspicion? If so, a handy tool for wolves. If not, an easy way for wolves to avoid it.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I find it very odd how very enthusiastic Legate is about this. My immediate thought was the one that Gala had, too: very cobblerish. A wolf wouldn't stick their head out that far, and one would expect an innocent person to be a bit more measured in their response, weighing pros and cons. Not saying a wolf can't fake a careful approach, of course.

Hmm. Perhaps.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

I just lost a post replying to G55's #45 twice due to internet failure, and I'm not going to type it all again. We can discuss the question tomorrow, if it's still an issue. For now, it's bedtime for me. See ya!

Well, I'm not even sure if it's an issue, cause I'm not sure what you were referring to.

Originally Posted by THE Ka

Also would that make it far too easy for WW to hide when the evidence can be spread across the entire day's worth of posts, instead of the instrumented panic that usually occurs before deadline?

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

Originally Posted by THE Ka

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

Well yes. And it's interesting, because we assume that the QT will be innocently dominated, but if we're better than we think at catching infectors it might be quite even. And then we would always have to second-guess whether the QT vote is the innocents' opinion or the wolves' preference.

Originally Posted by Ka

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

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


Edit: xed with Zil and Boro

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Sense, this.

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

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I might need such a test. Whether we're aware, or in the unconscious, we all remain in-character. Agreed? And what do you glean from my in-character? Am I aware I'm doing it or is it in the unconscious? Leave that thought there for a moment.

Currently, I am feeling joy and thrilled recognizing this makes 60. And thank you, because like I said, just joy to still have the enthusiasm and thrill that through 60 times this thing hasn't killed me yet. Then again, knowing that repeating similar situations 60 times takes quite a bit of toll on a person. Leave that thought for a moment.

I feel excitement for everyone being gathered together again. Then there's the fear that well, this is exactly the opposite of the right thing to do. Joy that there's a few newcomers, a lot who have returned from more recent-long break, and a handful who I thought had disappeared completely only to see they're back too.

I see what's happening. Classic Sudden Unexpected Werewolf Overdose Syndrome. Sure, tell us about the rules mandates and the unconscious analysis and whatever other WW skills and twists you got on your mind. *endeth the pretend therapy session*

In other words, you are weird as hell but you get a pass.

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Mac

If we mean a deadline before the deadline. Really? What about the people with tighter schedules. We can't expect everybody to be available for two deadlines.

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

Originally Posted by G55

And if there are two dead wolves, that just complicates the matter further - and if I can remember correctly, I believe they are allowed to PM with dead mates, so they can coordinate this behind the stage. Are they voting together to save a mate?

Are you talking about two wolves in quarantine PMing with each other at Night? Is that allowed? I don't recall it in the rules.

[Boromir88]

Ah, Day 1. Where all we can do is make up reasons out of thin air.~Mac

This sort of ties in with my previous post. But before I used to think Day 1's a curse. A small annoyance of "what's there for me to analyze and think about?" Maybe some new dynamic or role, but when it comes down towards the end of the day...who the heck am I going to vote for that's not going to be a random shot in the dark?

Then I fell in love with Day 1. Well, maybe I wouldn't go that far, but I started appreciating the randomness, the guessing and yes all the senseless planning. In this one day I can be who I want to be, and not feel guilty that I'm going to cause a disastrous mistake or that I'm letting my side down. There's a care-free aura that I appreciate and embrace in Day 1. If I live past it and survive to Day 2, I start feeling more tense and responsible about being "wrong." The longer I stay around in a village the more that feeling increases.

I don't know when it happened, but I got to a point of "on this one day, Boro, you can do you. Why shouldn't you have fun with it?" Because at the end of this day, it's all going to come down to random guessing of who's getting lynched anyway. Embrace Day 1 and not feel guilty to be an oddball, because if I'm going to get lynched for random reasons anyway, maybe it will have a purpose to be the 1st piece of non-random evidence that will help.

With that, I shall depart and go to bed. I can't promise I won't be a goof when I return.

Edit: crossed with everything since post 57

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by G55 #56 replying to THE Ka #51

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

Er, no. Ka didn't say there's no evidence in early posts, just that evidence is more concentrated, thus easier to find, in the last minute flurry than in the rest of the Day. This strikes me as twisting words and 'subtly turning' suspicion on both Lommy and Ka. *ping*



(By the way Ka, what are 'bunk confessionals'?)

[Kitanna]

I'm technically supposed to start work soon, so we'll see how much I get through here.

Originally Posted by Pitch

OK, Legate, let me ask you: What exactly do we have to gain from the kind of fake vote you're suggesting?
If it is just that, a fake vote with no real lynch as per G55, we've effectively wasted a day, nobody has to fear the consequences of their vote because without a lynch, we won't know whether they voted for an innoent or a wolf, and the wolves can go wolf-on-wolf to their hearts' content witrh no danger to any of them.
If it's just that people announce beforehand whom they are planning to vote, and the vote takes place later, and we compare what people said before to how they actually voted, how is this different from what we usually do?
This strikes me as a pseudo-useful suggestion/discussion. *ping*

Your taking apart of Legate's suggestion as a pseudo-useful post, could be applied here though. In both instances it could be innocent villagers stirring up conversation to draw out baddies. Or it could be baddies trying to draw in innocents to pin as guilty later.

Originally Posted by Lhuna

I'm here to represent the We Hate Day Ones club (or whatever its name ever was). And as much as I agree that with 5 wolves it is statistically more likely to lynch one on Day 1... Well, let's see what the Day brings...
(Now this, this post has no helpful content whatsoever. )

Not helpful whatsoever? I dunno, the need to point out "this wasn't helpful" makes me raise my eyebrows. We already had some posts and discussions going when you chimed in and it just seems suspicious you felt the need to point out you had nothing to add at the time. "Look at me, I'm definitely innocent because I haven't said anything of real merit."

Originally Posted by Legate

Yes, people do that. But usually, people fall into multiple categories. Some people hardly say anything about whom they would actually vote until DL. Some people have like three people they have in the "I could vote" category. That is usually a good strategy for the WWs, who then pick from their three in the last minute, ideally based on which bandwagons exist and what is convenient. The main purpose of the whole thing would be, as I said, to force the WW's hand a bit more than it is. Kind of kick people (especially WWs) into action. Force them to fabricate their accusations of others - because then they will be more easily caught on lying. Because unlike all the other villagers, they would have to lie.

I read this as "maybe veer away from lists" and just say you're going to commit to one person, even if you don't vote that way. I see where you're coming from as the lists help wolves form bandwagons and this will force them to really push their accusations. Except this will force innocents to do the same, with the same bloody lynching result. It's early and maybe I'm reading all this wrong, but this idea seems as likely to backfire as to succeed.

Originally Posted by B88

Then unless something drastic happens in the next 2 hours (and if we're being honest it will. There is the inevitable deadline flurry voting that throws plans off). The point of the exercising of my prior "fake vote" is not so much to say "AHH you back-pedaled you can't back-pedal from your fake vote!" If Legate wasn't a likely option, I would expect a bunch of back-pedaling to take place. The purpose would be to get a look at reasoning for what happened in those 2 hours to either stay with my fake vote or back-pedal from it. Which, in itself is informative

The more I read of Legate's plan the more of a headache I get. It's a high risk high reward situation in my mind.
Innocents are baddies alike make fake votes and then potentially have to backpedal depending on how the wind blows closer to the DL. No matter what it leaves us a trail for Day 2, so that's good. In not making a "I suspect blah, blah" list I think it also helps in the Night. Wolves can't hide behind people's suspect lists during the Day. How often has a wolf appeared on someone's innocent list, a person who is killed in the night, only to use that list as cover later?

But then there's this

Originally Posted by Zil

Seems that it could be a double-edged sword though; those of evil bent will have a good idea of which way the wind is blowing and plan accordingly.

Because while I see how fake voting can help, clever baddies will find a way to exploit it.
A backpedaling innocent is going to do everything they can to stay alive for the good of the village and they're probably going to look guilty in their attempts. It just takes a few well-placed, persuasive posts to get a baffled innocent lynched.

Originally Posted by Shasta

That's probably enough content to make it look like I'm participating.

I'm not done catching up, but I must login for work. But I'll be around intermittently in the vain hopes of not falling behind on the discussion.

[Rikae]

Went back to figure out why I thought Mac was wolf-suspecting Legate, and I'm really not sure. I was taking notes, I swear, but only noted that he suspected him for flimsy reasons. This is what he said:

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I find it very odd how very enthusiastic Legate is about this. My immediate thought was the one that Gala had, too: very cobblerish. A wolf wouldn't stick their head out that far, and one would expect an innocent person to be a bit more measured in their response, weighing pros and cons. Not saying a wolf can't fake a careful approach, of course.

So yeah, something lost in translation. I did, and do, find it to be a flimsy reason, at the very least because I like what Legate did there (it got things off and running). Sticking his neck out is fairly typical for Legate if I recall correctly.

Edit: Crossed with Green, Leg, Ka, Gal

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Umm, what was that all about? I get that you want to replace/amend the idea of lists with a single choice, the top pick. But seriously, what?

Should we test you for viral encephalopathy?

I might need such a test. Whether we're aware, or in the unconscious, we all remain in-character. Agreed? And what do you glean from my in-character? Am I aware I'm doing it or is it in the unconscious? Leave that thought there for a moment.

Currently, I am feeling joy and thrilled recognizing this makes 60. And thank you, because like I said, just joy to still have the enthusiasm and thrill that through 60 times this thing hasn't killed me yet. Then again, knowing that repeating similar situations 60 times takes quite a bit of toll on a person. Leave that thought for a moment.

I feel excitement for everyone being gathered together again. Then there's the fear that well, this is exactly the opposite of the right thing to do. Joy that there's a few newcomers, a lot who have returned from more recent-long break, and a handful who I thought had disappeared completely only to see they're back too.

So, I'm trying to take those 59 previous experiences and think what is everyone's style of play? I know everyone's always adapting and tinkering with their style, but it's hard to consciously break from what makes us comfortable. So, will people stick with what's familiar and stick to habit? And what about the ones who have been out for 5+ years? What do I remember about their style? Are they going to stick to what I remember, or do something completely different? Am I even remembering their "style" correctly?

All in all, it's a confliction of joy and excitement, with double and triple guessing and maybe a touch of paranoia. Add on someone who does a lot of mental lists, only to forget what I set out to accomplish. Now, having all that, what do you glean from my in-character?

True, true. Things never do seem to go according to plan around here. And then the ones who don't follow the plan become lynch fodder the next Day and more often than not turn out to be innocent.-Brinn

Needed to read that, it's worth keeping in mind. Thank you. Granted my mind might look a bit jumbled at the moment. But still it's now in my mind, somewhere.

[Pitchwife]

I just lost a post replying to G55's #45 twice due to internet failure, and I'm not going to type it all again. We can discuss the question tomorrow, if it's still an issue. For now, it's bedtime for me. See ya!