Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Classic]

Verde's got a problem in that he's got an avatar that creeps me the shit out. So naturally I think he's a bad, but I can tell that's just my lizard brain trying to ruin me.

Other than that, I don't really have anything to add. I want the day to go on longer, with more chatting but I'm not really feeling anything tangible here. Gonna sleep on it.

[Bleck]

I've never known voting on the first day to be a very good idea; the 'random' lynchings usually end up being an elaborate plot by ghostly zombie ghosts or etc.

[the asshole you hate]

What, Garrison, you read all that time, came back to read again after I posted, saw me infer that I'd like to hear from you, and still had nothing to say?

I place the Black Spot of Suspicion upon Garrison. He's waiting to hear from his team before posting, perhaps.

[Garrison]

What would you like to hear from me? I've already made it clear that I don't want to no-vote today. I just don't have anyone to kill quite yet. :D

[the asshole you hate]

Ok. Black Spot of Suspicion rescinded.

[Smiler]

I sort of wish we had the poll thing so we could see where the votes lie at the moment. I don't think we should go with a no lynch though. I guess I could vote for Verde given the circumstances.

[jsnlxndrlv]

Current standings:
No Lynch  - 4: jsnlxndrlv, Zach, Verde, Envy
Friend - 1: NexAdruin
Classic - 1: Nickasummers
Verde - 5: Kayma, LaserBeing, G, Joxam, Smiler
Kayma - 1: McDohl

Both Nex and Kayma made one-word vote posts, but while Nex's passed without any remarks that I noticed, Kayma's immediately got a bunch of bandwagoners. It's too easy to read things into a one-word vote: if Kayma's trying to set up his own innocence by voting for his teammate Verde, he can claim this was either a lucky guess, privileged information because of his "oracular powers", etc. If Kayma or Nex was ACTUALLY an oracle, I'd hope that person would have the good sense not to tip his hand so early by posting with (what is likely to be interpreted as) such an air of confidence.

[Friend]

I was and am still an ardent supporter of the no lynch; besides wolves/draculas/oracle scry, no one has any clue what the hell is happening.

Lynching someone on day 1 is essentially rolling the dice - something I find anthitetical to the whole point of werewolf - a game in which the uninformed majority collaborate to root out the informed majority.

Tangent aside, I'm not sure where the 50/50 odds of hitting a wolf/vamp odds come from, either. Can you elaborate, Guild?

[NexAdruin]

My vote for Friend was random and has no basis in anything. I did not vote for Verde because I'd rather not look like the type of person that jumps on bandwagons at every chance, and I'm just not as suspicious of him as everyone else is.

I agree with Smiler that we need the poll.

Friend: Nickasummers made a post explaining why we have about a 50/50 chance of voting for a bad, even with a completely random vote.

[Nickasummers]

Guild: The reason I am hesitant to vote for him is that even though I don't feel good about him, I cannot pinpoint why AND I don't like how quickly that bandwagon formed. Together those things make me weary of actually voting for him. If there were something more solid, or if the bandwagon were less suspicious to me, I would probably switch my vote, but given the situation I think I will stick to my random guess.

[jsnlxndrlv]

Friend: Nickasummers made a post explaining why we have about a 50/50 chance of voting for a bad, even with a completely random vote.

The "even odds" Nick's presenting assumes that believing very hard that any given individual is innocent is enough to rule that person out. With 18 players and assuming 6 manpires and bearwolves, and a random weretiger somewhere in the group, we have (1/3)(6/17)+(2/3)(7/17) chance of a completely random guess hitting a villainous individual, which my math indicates is 20/51 or 39.21% chance of voting correctly.

Nick is asking us to rule two people out first, each of which has a 31/51 chance of being innocent, or 60.78% chance. Successfully identifying two people who both happen to be innocent happens in (31/51)[(1/3)(10/16)+(2/3)(9/16)] cases, or 35.46% of the time. So, 35.46% of the time, Nick's 50/50 odds come into play—but actually they're closer to (1/3)(6/15)+(2/3)(7/15) = 20/45, or 44.44%... but saying that you have a 35.46% chance to have a 44.44% chance actually presents an inaccurately  bleak picture.

To correctly do the math on your third "lynching" prediction after two "innocence" predictions, you need to calculate the likelihood of picking a villain in four different cases: the odds that both innocent players are actually villains, the odds that both innocent players are actually innocent (this happens 35.46% of the time, remember), and the odds that one or the other of the innocent players is innocent and the other is a villain. Considering that the best-case scenario in which you successfully identify two innocent individuals before trying to pick the guilty party only has a 44.44% chance of netting a villain, and the odds can only go DOWN from there, it's safe to say this is a mathematically terrible idea.

Basically, there are reasons to lynch someone day 1, but the raw numerical probability of hitting an evil player isn't one of them.

[Nickasummers]

Your numbers assume that everything is random chance, but it isn't. If you talk to people and read the things people say, you can be more sure than the odds suggest that someone is innocent, which means your chances are closer to but still below the 50%. Making a vote at near-but-not-above 50% odds is statistically more likely to kill an innocent, but its close enough in odds that it is a gamble that isn't necessarily bad. Even if one inno dies, we could still win, losing one person isn't the end of the world, and killing an extra bad this early will force the bads to be more cautious. I think that a 40-50% chance of killing a bad is well worth the 50-60% chance of killing an inno. If we get lucky and hit a vampire, their game is over because they will be afraid to take any more risks, we could hit the devil make it hard for the wolves to operate, we could hit a random wolf which will force the other wolves to be more cautious, which increases the chances of them letting something slip.

A small piece of advice to those who feel like its entirely a random guess today: Posts here are a combination of data and banter. The banter can often tell you as much as the actual data can. You can't necessarily trust the things people say intentionally, but I often times you can trust the things they say by accident.

[Verde]

Er. Unvote. I guess the "stand perfectly still and waste everybody's time" option wasn't as inevitable as I thought (can we get a poll at the top, please?)

[Verde]

Your numbers assume that everything is random chance, but it isn't. If you talk to people and read the things people say, you can be more sure than the odds suggest that someone is innocent, which means your chances are closer to but still below the 50%. Making a vote at near-but-not-above 50% odds is statistically more likely to kill an innocent, but its close enough in odds that it is a gamble that isn't necessarily bad. Even if one inno dies, we could still win, losing one person isn't the end of the world, and killing an extra bad this early will force the bads to be more cautious. I think that a 40-50% chance of killing a bad is well worth the 50-60% chance of killing an inno. If we get lucky and hit a vampire, their game is over because they will be afraid to take any more risks, we could hit the devil make it hard for the wolves to operate, we could hit a random wolf which will force the other wolves to be more cautious, which increases the chances of them letting something slip.

A small piece of advice to those who feel like its entirely a random guess today: Posts here are a combination of data and banter. The banter can often tell you as much as the actual data can. You can't necessarily trust the things people say intentionally, but I often times you can trust the things they say by accident.

I completely agree with this, but what prompted you to make such a u-turn? From not lynching anybody and ignoring all day one data, to basically the exact opposite?

[jsnlxndrlv]

If you're going to make a mathematical argument in favor of a course of action, then your math has to be right. It's one thing to say that the odds are mathematically against hitting a villain but that we should try anyway because of the unquantifiable influence of instinct and data-gathering from the ensuing debate; I don't have a problem with that. You were even arguing that in the first place! But then you went and said, effectively, "math says we should throw the dice if you can make two estimates first," which isn't even close to what the math actually says.

I agree that you can't play the game purely on odds and expect to get anywhere, but don't give me bad math and then try to justify it by adding unmeasurable factors. I don't agree that relying on instinct and day 1 behavior is enough of an advantage to make up for the probabilistic deficit.

[Nickasummers]

My math was slightly off, but I specifically said almost 50%, and given the circumstances I explained: being confident in 2 others, the odds are, as you said 44%. Almost 50% my math was less detailed than yours but nevertheless accurate enough for the circumstances. Moreover, when I said "no lynch", I had not yet looked at the math, I just thought "1/3? bad odds, no lynch" I changed that because I realized the odds were better than that. And I still don't trust most of todays data, but there are things people have said that I think the said with no intention of giving any information. Things that are said by ACCIDENT can be trusted, but votes and intentional information cannot. Saying "I wont trust any data" was not exactly what I meant. What I meant was more like "I wont trust voting data"

[jsnlxndrlv]

For my own gratification:

We randomly pick two players to be innocent and one player to be guilty.

-Both innocent players are villains 13.89% of the time; the guilty player is a villain 31.11% of the time.
-One innocent is a villain and the other innocent isn't 50.65% of the time; the guilty player is a villain 37.78% of the time.
-Both innocent players are actually innocent 35.46% of the time; the guilty player is a villain 44.44% of the time.

Scaling the odds by their relative frequencies and adding them all together, we learn that picking each person completely at random results in success 39.22% of the time.

And to actually put this method to the test, if I were going to vote using Nick's method (actually using intuition when he says to), I would be voting for LaserBeing right now. Time will tell whether it would have been better to actually do this or better to continue voting that we not lynch yet.

[Nickasummers]

I will agree that if you have nothing to go on, your odds are correct. But the point I'm trying to make is that if you feel good about an individual's innocence for whatever reason, your odds go up. The more sure you are of their innocence, the better your odds, and the more people you feel good about, the better your odds. I am sure enough about my people that I would estimate my odds at the 44%, which is close enough that I am willing to gamble. If you pick two innocents totally at random, It doesn't work so well. But I think that hunches are worth something, and day one is a chance to get ahead, assuming you have enough confidence in your intuition.

[Friday]

    Bleck
    Classic
    Envy
    Friday
    Friend
    G
    Garrison
    Joxam
    jsnlxndrlv
    Kayma
    LaserBeing
    McDohl
    NexAdruin
    Nickasummers
    Smiler
    Transportation
    Verde
    Zach

One of the above is Dracula. Now, I know it isn't me (though you don't). That leaves 17 players.

I've seen this game played 8 times. I've never played in it before, and I've often wondered what strategy I would persue if given the chance. Of course, it would depend on what role I started with. Luckily for the majority here, I was given the role of innocent.

That means that I am going to enact PLAN FUCK DRACULA.

Dracula is the single biggest threat to the innocents. Killing turned gives us nothing. We need to find and kill Dracula twice, and until we do, all other threats are secondary. Including the weretiger, the wolves, and anyone who got turned.

For this reason, I do not support a day 1 no lynch. Killing someone, however randomly, eliminates them from the possible pool of Dracu-bes. Yes we might also lynch the Baner or the Seer or the PI or the whatever. This is a risk we must take in order to destroy the vampires. As long as Dracula or Dracula 2.0 exists, time is on the side of the vampires.

I suggest, nay, demand a concentrated effort from all parties, including wolves, to cease all squabbling and concentrate on destroying the biggest threat to everyone in the game.

    Last Will and Testament, which permits the user to publcly bequeath their items and doubloons to another player.
    The Scry Detector, which notifies the owner of who scries them and when (but not their role).
    Cloak of Invisibility, which causes the owner to appear to be a powerless innocent to all scry-users except the Private Investigator.

See that? That is not a good turn 1 roll for the innocents. The Cloak of Invis is for sale, and I 100% guarantee you it's going to be bid on by both Dracula and the Weretiger, 10 gold each.  The Detector is a fairly weak item for all sides, and the Last Will is only useful after some more items have appeared. So for now, Drac or Tiger getting their hands on the cloak is what we're worried about.

It is for this reason I suggest every single player, including the wolves, bid on the cloak with all their money.

I will dump all my gold. Remember, it's very unlikely you will actually lose your money if everyone bids on the cloak. We just want it out of the hands of the two roles it is very powerful in. If I win the cloak, I'll let everyone know I took it. I've got nothing to hide. I expect the same from whoever wins the cloak.

If nobody says they won the cloak, I will be forced to assume it ended up in the hands of either Dracula, or the Weretiger.

For the good of everyone here, let's prevent that particular worry from occuring, so we can depend on our scries, k?

Love and kisses,

- Friday

[Friday]

Oh, in general, if you're inno: fucking bid on items. Historically, the bad guys are far more active in the game, including winning most bids simply because the innos never spend their money, and/or spend it all on buying wolfsbane. Let the vamps worry about buying wolfsbane. Unless you've got a power role useful to the innocents, it's far more useful to spend your money on items, especially anything that is

1. really good in the hands of the bads (see cloak of invis)
2. really good against the bads

The powered innocent roles will most likely be spending a good chunk of their money on bane to make sure they stay alive. (At least, that's what I would do if I had a role that was powered) That means that the vanilla innocents need to use items to the fullest. Even if it just means taking it away from the bads. The Cloak is basically useless for a vanilla inno, unless he happens to get turned, but by keeping it out of evil hands, you've helped your team win immensely.