[QUOTE=Suburban Plankton]
Actually, you’ve explained most of them as we’ve gone along, and generally quite well. Perhaps that’s the problem. You seem to know an awful lot about the game, how it should be played, why everyone should do this or should not do that. If we would all just listen to you and follow your lead, the werewolves wouldn’t have a chance.
It just seems a bit over the top. You come off as too condifent, too helpful, and almost always ready with a well thought out answer to any question. You just seem too good to be true.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I have played this quite a lot. I know the mechanics, I know the theory, I know the generally accepted standards and etiquette.
Does that translate to: “The werewolves don’t stand a chance!”? No, not at all. It doesn’t mean that I’m going to vote scum with every single vote. Heck, not every vote I cast is even because I necessarily think that person is scum; I may just want to see their reaction.
I don’t expect anyone to blindly follow my lead. In fact, I’d rather hope they didn’t. I want people to explain the reasoning behind their actions, to debate what they do, and generally talk, talk, talk. I shouldn’t be able to manipulate anyone, simply because the discussion should be thoroughly transparent.
[QUOTE=JSexton]
I want people to explain the reasoning behind their actions, to debate what they do, and generally talk, talk, talk. I shouldn’t be able to manipulate anyone, simply because the discussion should be thoroughly transparent.
[/QUOTE]
And yet, when I talked about making the discussion truly transparent, you said that would just make the werewolves’ jobs easier. Which is it?
[QUOTE=JSexton] Well, I have played this quite a lot. I know the mechanics, I know the theory, I know the generally accepted standards and etiquette.
Does that translate to: “The werewolves don’t stand a chance!”? No, not at all. It doesn’t mean that I’m going to vote scum with every single vote. Heck, not every vote I cast is even because I necessarily think that person is scum; I may just want to see their reaction.
I don’t expect anyone to blindly follow my lead. In fact, I’d rather hope they didn’t. I want people to explain the reasoning behind their actions, to debate what they do, and generally talk, talk, talk. I shouldn’t be able to manipulate anyone, simply because the discussion should be thoroughly transparent.
[/QUOTE]
Well said. I really can’t argue with anything you say here. Right now I’m just going with my gut instinct, because I still can’t find enough solid evidence to point the finger at anyone else. And right now, my gut doesn’t trust you. We’ll just have to see what transpires…
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
And yet, when I talked about making the discussion truly transparent, you said that would just make the werewolves’ jobs easier. Which is it?
[/QUOTE]
The reasoning and logic should be totally transparent. In other words, I’m not telling people: “Do it my way, because I said so.” Roles, not so much, and I gave reasons why. Let me ask you this: do you think the Guardian Angel should identify themselves today?
[QUOTE=Suburban Plankton]
Well said. I really can’t argue with anything you say here. Right now I’m just going with my gut instinct, because I still can’t find enough solid evidence to point the finger at anyone else. And right now, my gut doesn’t trust you. We’ll just have to see what transpires…
[/QUOTE]
I can’t really argue with your gut. Question, though, if I’m really “too good to be true” (your words), is lynching me a good idea? Won’t the scum do that for you?
I have more data. [sub]You’re supposed to say yay![/sub]
I call this the “activity index” the term may not be ideal, but it’s the best I can think of at the moment. It represents the sum of total votes made by, and for,any given person, unvotes excluded.
Wanderers 15 JSexton 11 Miller 11 jsgoddess 10 Ogre 9 Mennochio 8 Richard Parker 8 Winston Smith 6 Kat 6
If these counts are annoying in any way, let me know (if you’re playing the game that is).
Regardless of what you may think of JSexton’s true role, his comments about the Masons remaining hidden as long as possible are mathematically sound. Let’s say that right now there are 3 werewolves and 3 Masons, and that the Masons are known to all. That leaves 13 other townies still alive, including the Angel and Seer. If we then select someone at random to lynch besides the Masons, that’s a only a 3/16 chance of getting a werewolf.
Fast forward to later in the game. Imagine that Wanderers didn’t actually out himself, and the Masons managed to stay alive by skillfully directing suspicion from all sides elsewhere, but otherwise the townies were unlucky and lost the Angel and Seer and a bunch of regular folk besides, while lynching only one more werewolf. Only at this time do the Masons reveal themselves. So now let’s say there are 2 werewolves, 3 Masons, and 3 townies. Now, voting at random in the same manner as before will have a 2/5 chance of getting a werewolf, which is 113% better odds - more than twice as good. And at that late in the game, hopefully people won’t just be voting at random anymore.
[QUOTE=dnooman]
I have more data. [sub]You’re supposed to say yay![/sub]
I call this the “activity index” the term may not be ideal, but it’s the best I can think of at the moment. It represents the sum of total votes made by, and for,any given person, unvotes excluded.
Wanderers 15 JSexton 11 Miller 11 jsgoddess 10 Ogre 9 Mennochio 8 Richard Parker 8 Winston Smith 6 Kat 6
If these counts are annoying in any way, let me know (if you’re playing the game that is).
[/QUOTE]
So the number 11 by Jsexton’s name is the number of votes cast by him plus the number of votes for him? I can’t imagine how this is helpful to anyone.By all means make some more indexes if you want, but this one seems pointless.
Why would the GA want to claim at all? The only valid reason I can think of is the same as OAOW did,in danger of being lynched.Are there other reasons he should claim?
[QUOTE=MadTheSwine]
So the number 11 by Jsexton’s name is the number of votes cast by him plus the number of votes for him? I can’t imagine how this is helpful to anyone.By all means make some more indexes if you want, but this one seems pointless.
[/QUOTE]
My posts are the only ones based on finite quantities, with the exception of RT’s vote counts.
You clearly have your head up JSexton’s ass, the whole “BossSexton” thing almost seems staged.
JSexton seems relatively legit to me, but, how funny would it be though if one of his wolfie buddies outed him inadvertently?
I’m happy to play in the next round, but my job/classes keep me quite busy. I won’t be the most active participant in the game. If you want to make me a sub instead of a regular player, that’s fine too. I’ll leave my status up to the mod.
i’m not entirely convinced of the suspicion on Ogre. But i have noticed that moonstarssun is keeping a low profile, but will chat during the Night and on non strategy subjects. Ok, she seems too nice to be a wolf… But i’m wondering if thats the idea. So i vote moonstarssun
[QUOTE=JSexton]
The reasoning and logic should be totally transparent. In other words, I’m not telling people: “Do it my way, because I said so.” Roles, not so much, and I gave reasons why. Let me ask you this: do you think the Guardian Angel should identify themselves today?
[/QUOTE]
But if I say, “I won’t vote to lynch X because I think he’s the Angel,” I’m talking about roles, and if I give my reasoning, that’s what you said up above helps the werewolves. How can my reasoning be divorced from the information that I’ve gleaned? But you said shut up about the information. So my reasoning would then boil down to, “I have a feeling, based on absolutely nothing that I can share. Nothing to see here. Move along.”
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
But if I say, “I won’t vote to lynch X because I think he’s the Angel,” I’m talking about roles, and if I give my reasoning, that’s what you said up above helps the werewolves. How can my reasoning be divorced from the information that I’ve gleaned? But you said shut up about the information. So my reasoning would then boil down to, “I have a feeling, based on absolutely nothing that I can share. Nothing to see here. Move along.”
[/QUOTE]
i guess that’s your decision. You can choose to not vote someone without giving detailed reasons, I think it’s more who you are voting for that needs explaining.
I’ve been reviewing the thread, trying to see if I can glean any more information out of it. I’ve been paying particular attention to those players who have received multiple votes from others, as well as a couple that I’ve had my eye on.
Unfortunately, it seems that every trail I follow leads me to either a dead end or a contradiction. It seems that I can’t yet come up with a logical reason to lynch anyone, including JSexton. I still don’t entirely trust him, but I think another night’s worth of information will start clearing things up.
But I did come across this post, made very early on Morning 2
[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
Well, seeing that the Werewolves can also read (shocking, I know) the mafia sites, the first thing I absorbed from skimming them was the recommendation that a good townsperson is an “un-noticed” townsperson. So it would make sense if their strategy was to pick off one or two of such folks, increasing the chance that the “noticed” townspeople will cause enough confusion and paranoia to get one of themselves lynched without much effort on the part of the werewolves.
And while I’m up here being “noticeable”…what do y’all think about the fine line between lurking and being “noticeable”? When someone asks strategy-related questions that I feel I can contribute intelligently to, I’m inclined to answer. But answering can be a double-edged sword.
[/QUOTE]
It struck me that **ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies **has posted quite a lot to this thread, but really hasn’t said much of anything. He cast a vote for Enginerd pretty early on, then a vote for Ogre on Day 2, both times voting early and “under the radar”. Other than that, there have been a lot of posts about bacon and such, but nothing that would be likely to cause people to take much notice of him.
I think he’s trying to stay right on that fine line: posting enough that we don’t call him out for lurking but carefully avoiding calling suspicion to himself. Now, he could just be a townie trying to stay out of the limelight, but I think he might be a werewolf trying to do the same thing.
It looks likely that we are going to make it all the way to the Monday morning deadline without anyone getting 8 votes. I’m hoping that someone will tip their hand before then. Until they do, I’m unvoting JSexton.
[QUOTE=dnooman]
I have more data. [sub]You’re supposed to say yay![/sub]
I call this the “activity index” the term may not be ideal, but it’s the best I can think of at the moment. It represents the sum of total votes made by, and for,any given person, unvotes excluded.
Wanderers 15 JSexton 11 Miller 11 jsgoddess 10 Ogre 9 Mennochio 8 Richard Parker 8 Winston Smith 6 Kat 6
If these counts are annoying in any way, let me know (if you’re playing the game that is).
[/QUOTE]
I can’t the point in combining those two data. They are fairly unrelated, after all. Knowing the two totals separately would be useful, yes. Combined, I have no use for it.
Well, I have played this quite a lot. I know the mechanics, I know the theory, I know the generally accepted standards and etiquette.