Tol-in-Gaurhoth XXVI - Úcenite Valto - Planning and Discussion Thread

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I liked the edit rule. It added a bit of spice to the game. If and when I mod, I think I'll use it. .... just to get on Diamond's nerves.

I used it mostly for the practical value: I wanted continuous discussion. I am a mad busy human being and could barely keep punctual and up to date as it was (and as you saw, I disappeared from life for an entire day cycle by accident). I knew if I let there be edits, I'd have to go through to look for lists and stuff. It was simply easier to know that the most recent was the most recent when it came to anything.

I also knew it would make everybody put more thought into what they were posting, if they knew they couldn't even spell-check edit it later on. When there are no take-backs, you compose more prettily the first time.

And I knew it would annoy everybody.

But mostly it was because I was strapped for time, short on sleep, about to go on break, and wanted to simplify.

[Mithalwen]

Oh I thought you did that to wind up the phantom....cos he said that 48 hour nights happened approximately never....

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Oh I thought you did that to wind up the phantom....cos he said that 48 hour nights happened approximately never....

The timing of it was ironic.

[Mithalwen]

It did add ot the puzzlement though since I tried to divine any significance in my fellow players comments on this thread ..... on the wolf may know more of what is up theory ...

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Mith

It did add ot the puzzlement though since I tried to divine any significance in my fellow players comments on this thread ..... on the wolf may know more of what is up theory

But then the WW would be concious of this and thus would certainly not do or say anything that would lead one to believe that they knew "what is up". Quite the opposite- anything a WW would say would point, if anywhere, towards ignorance.

Originally Posted by SPM

I would certainly have considered whether a phantom Wolf would be so bold as to ask his fellow villagers effectively to commit suicide, and would almost certainly have concluded that it was a distinct possibility.

Yes, you're entirely right. If I was a WW I would have LOVED to get the villagers to kill themselves like that. That's why I didn't put forth the edit plan on the final day. I figured your mind would lead you to phantom=WW. But of course I wasn't a WW and yet still wanted to do a plan that a WW would try to do. That only goes to highlight what lmp said during the game-

I guess I'm just not used to innocents, IF he's innocent, being more devious than (or as least as devious as) the werewolves.

[the phantom]

Oh! I completely forgot! There's something else that I considered doing the final day. As a matter of fact, I wrote up an opening day post and saved it to pull out when the day started. But because of timing I ended up not using it.

I almost posted this-

**********

Mwu ha ha ha! I have survived to the final day with a WW still alive! My victory is at hand!

When speaking before the game, the Dark Lady and I discussed the possibility of giving me a role. We agreed that it would be too risky to make me a WW. Neither of us expected me to last long.

So, we decided that I could be a secret Cobbler, just for fun. Little did we know that I would be around at the end to play a major part in winning the game for the WWs.

Yes, that's right- I'm the COBBLER!! And through honeyed words, force of will, and brilliant positioning, I have managed to survive the slaughter.

I don't know which of you is the WW, but you've done a brilliant job seeing as I can't tell. Vote for me and the journey is over!

++tp
--tp
++tp

Mwu ha ha ha!! Werewolves win!!

Fea- thanks for inviting me to participate in this village. I'm very glad now that I did.

**********

Originally I drew up that plan to catch a MithWolf or SPWolf. I was going to cross my fingers and hope that the WW would jump on my self vote to "win the game", and then I'd step in and declare my vote invalid and vote for the WW. I thought it was a great plan. Unfortunately because the day started at a different time I wasn't sure if I'd be able to get to a computer to pull off the plan, so I cancelled it.

But since we now know that there was no WW, I'm curious... SPM and Mith- think back for me. What would you have done if I had posted that and seemingly cast a final vote on myself?

Logically with a self-vote I would negate the chance of anyone else getting lynched over me as it would require another self-vote. The best thing that could happen would be a three-way tie in which I would be included in a two-way coin flip.

Quite obviously a WW would never do that. You would be convinced, I think, that I was not a WW at that point, am I right?

My move would also be stupid as an innocent as it would guarantee WW victory, so you would believe that I wasn't an innocent either, correct?

So, I can only assume that you would believe my Cobbler claim, and believe that the game then belonged to the other person. Would you then have, in an effort to at least vote the right way yourself, voted for the other person, resulting in a three-way tie, and just assumed that the other person was messing with you and would change their vote to ++tp at the last moment?

If so, that would've left me wide open to pop in and use my invalid vote plan and kill one of you.

That would've been fun.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by the phantom

But then the WW would be concious of this and thus would certainly not do or say anything that would lead one to believe that they knew "what is up". Quite the opposite- anything a WW would say would point, if anywhere, towards ignorance.

-

Ah but that whas what I was looking for

[Mithalwen]

And in reply to your question ..... I have enough trouble dealing with actual decisions without pondering hypotheticals

So I would have voted Bethberry again....

[The Saucepan Man]

Glad to see that the game gave those little grey cells of yours so much exercise, phantom.

Had you implemented your plan, you would have succeeded in one of two things:

1. If your "invalid vote plan" had been deemed invalid, you and either Mith or I (probably Mith, as I think that I was the next to post after you voted) would have been up for the coin toss of doom. The outcome, therefore, would probably have been little different.

2. If your "invalid vote plan" had been deemed acceptable, then you would merely have given yourself the unenviable task of deciding which of the two of us to lynch. You would have been welcome to it, as it was not a task which I found particularly gratifying.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Had you implemented your plan, you would have succeeded in one of two things:

Not entirely right.

If I had allowed his invalid vote plan to work, I'd have gone through and retallied votes from day one onward and the game would still be in play.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fea

If I had allowed his invalid vote plan to work, I'd have gone through and retallied votes from day one onward and the game would still be in play.

And there was me thinking that phantom and I were the anoraks here ...

[The Saucepan Man]

At the risk of further accusations of borderline autism from Mith, I have worked out that the strict retrospective application of voting rules (player identified in capital letters with name fully stated) would have resulted in the phantom being lynched on Day 1.

Ah, poetic justice.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

You know, there's still time.

Anybody want to keep playing?

[Mithalwen]

Oh dear it would be like the 2000 US elections all over again.... an unbearable wait while the lawyers decide the use of unemboldened lowercase the equivalent of Hanging Chad..... or wahtever.....

However I find Phantom's search for loopholes whether "legal" or not, unsporting.... so I would not want him to win .....

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by SPM

At the risk of further accusations of borderline autism from Mith, I have worked out that the strict retrospective application of voting rules (player identified in capital letters with name fully stated) would have resulted in the phantom being lynched on Day 1.

You must be counting different than I am. According to my count only Roa's vote for Di, your vote for lmp, and my vote for Di were proper. That would've seen Di lynched.

But besides, you can't go back after the fact. If that happened you would have to go back to Day 2 and play all over again, for Di's votes would no longer count the rest of the days, however the votes of those who had been "wrongfully lynched" (eg Boro on Day 1) would suddenly be allowed again, but since he was gone from Day 2 on he would have to go back and cast votes after the fact, and so on down the line. It would be a chain reaction that the only way to solve would be to rewind to day 2 and play over again- but of course if we did that knowing what we now know everyone would just vote for Fea and the game would end, thus it wouldn't solve anything.

I had this logic in mind before suggesting my strict interpretation.

Originally Posted by Mith

However I find Phantom's search for loopholes whether "legal" or not, unsporting.... so I would not want him to win

What? Nothing is out of bounds when it comes to stopping WWs. Anything goes. Tis the Wolves who need to be sporting and somewhat honorable, for they are the ones attacking innocents without just cause.

[Mithalwen]

And I bet you'd shoot a fox too.......

[the phantom]

Huh?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

You must be counting different than I am. According to my count only Roa's vote for Di, your vote for lmp, and my vote for Di were proper. That would've seen Di lynched.

Wrong!

Your argument posits that, in order to have been valid, votes should have been cast precisely in the manner identified in Fea's example, ie player's name in full in capital letters.

The only votes cast on Day 1 in capital letters and identifying the player's name in full were two for you and one for littlemanpoet.

[the phantom]

You can't put a player's name in all capital letters. If you capitalize letters that aren't capitalized, or don't capitalize letters are supposed to be, you have not written someone's proper name.

You are "The Saucepan Man". Neither "the saucepan man", "tHe saucePan maN", nor "THE SAUCEPAN MAN" is your name. "Philip" is my name. Neither "philip", "pHiLiP", nor "PHILIP" is my name. And "Bethberry" is not the proper name of "Bêthberry" because the "e" is wrong.

The only votes that count have the accurate and full name of the player as given on Fea's list of players.

Yes, yes, there is wiggle room for interpretation, but surely you understand my position.

votes should have been cast precisely in the manner identified in Fea's example

Ah, but if you get "precise" to the point that things begin to be wrong (i.e. not using player's proper names), then you have exceeded the bounds of precision intended by the rules.

I mean, if the point was absolute adherence, all of our votes would be for ++PLAYER NAME, for that is exactly how Fea posted it. But of course that would make for a pointless and ridiculous game, lynching "Player Name" every day. A common sense line must be drawn somewhere, and that line for me would be drawn before crossing into the realm of getting names wrong through incorrect capitalization.

[the phantom]

Btw, I'm mainly arguing because you're a "loyer".

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

You can't put a player's name in all capital letters. If you capitalize letters that aren't capitalized, or don't capitalize letters are supposed to be, you have not written someone's proper name.

Wrong!

The usual rule when capitalising a proper name applies, viz that all letters are to be typed in capitals, with accents included as appropriate.

Originally Posted by the phantom

A common sense line must be drawn somewhere, and that line for me would be drawn before crossing into the realm of getting names wrong through incorrect capitalization.

I agree that a common sense line should be drawn. You have already crossed that line with your argument that names should be fully stated. Having done so, you must either abandon your argument or accept its full consequences.

In other words, you cannot have your villager and eat him.

Originally Posted by the phantom

Btw, I'm mainly arguing because you're a "loyer".

Well, if you are engaging with me in my professional capacity, you have no hope of even extracting a concession, let alone succeeding.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Well, if you are engaging with me in my professional capacity, you have no hope of even extracting a concession, let alone succeeding.

Probably also none of us have any hope of paying the fees for your billable hours.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Probably also none of us have any hope of paying the fees for your billable hours.

You'd better believe it ...

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

So does this mean the game is still on?

Because you'd better believe I won't let the publicized identity of the wolves deter me...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fea

So does this mean the game is still on?

Most assuredly so, if I get to be paid my hourly rate for it ...

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Poor college kid with a brand spanking new, probably high, bill to add to my pile of "bills I'd rather buy a Mac than pay."

Yeah, no.

[Mithalwen]

Having just had my assignment end suddenly, I'll be a legal aid case ...but I will have much more time ...

[Mithalwen]

Maybe the non-wolf selected night kills will satarta group action for wrongful mauling.....

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Baby, in my world the regular rules don't apply.