@ Randakar
If he's acting unusual in his attempts to stay alive, that's a wolf tell and twice as much reason to send him to hell.
@ Esemesas
I don't know why you enjoy this so much.
wolf falc wouldn't move to save his packmate? off of a throwaway? but villager falc, oh, no question that he'd do that. yeah.
are you kidding me? this is your serious argument? that he'd act LESS rational with MORE information?
You've played what, 2 Lites and 1 Big with Falc? If that? I know Falc well enough to say that, yes, if he's a villager, with no information on either of two candidates, one has more votes than the other, he'll vote the trailing candidate to bring it closer. That's Falc: he plays in an orderly way, which is a good thing for the village. In and of itself this undercuts your case against him: if wolfishness is simply doing something a wolf would do, then everyone is wolfish every time they vote for a villager. It makes more sense to consider it wolfish when someone does something a villager wouldn't or shouldn't do. What Falc did was entirely reasonable with the information available to him if he was a villager.
And yes, it is my argument that Falc might not move to save his packmate. This is not irrational. If you're correct, and Falc is a wolf, his move onto King has exposed him. A modicum of experience (and Falc has more than that) is enough to know that if Rendap died, suspicion would fall on the King voters. So he was sticking his neck out. What's more, by the time he made his move Rendap was pretty far ahead. It would not be irrational to cut your losses on Rendap and let him die. In fact I have frequently told packmates to throw me to the village when I am a wolf, to avoid poisoning their chances. Wolves are easily caught when they try, but fail, to save one another. When they hurl one another under the bus they're hard to catch.
this is what wolves do: randomly pick people on nights one and two unless they have other info. and the other thing they do? they hunt people who have won games recently. guess what Boris has done? but why should this count towards any analysis? the wolves BY THE RULES cannot continue feuds from other games. they don't know who the seer is and who isn't. whoever is hunted on the early nights is just a shot in the dark for them, just like the first lynch or two is a shot at the dark for a village.
We covered this a bit earlier.
EDIT: Fundamentally, it does not matter WHO the wolves hunted in determining their identities, UNLESS the victims had fingered at least one other player as a wolf. And fingered does not mean tha the accusation was correct - more likely it was incorrect and the murder is committed to draw the noose on a villager rather than a wolf.
Wrong. Snoopdogg was hunted Night 0 by one of my packmates once - and I was lynched the next day because at the time there was a well-known antipathy between us. They picked the wrong guy for the right reasons but got a wolf anyway. There's at least one other example that comes to mind of a Day 1 wolf lynching due to a Night 0 hunt giving a lead. Later on it can make it even more obvious.
Essentially, your argument is that wolfish behavior is not a sign of wolfishness, and that other players should be voted as wolves rather than the wolfish ones. Now, this line of argument won you the last Lite Game... but you were a wolf then, and likely a wolf now.
By wolfish behavior do you mean "having behaved in a manner that makes it easy to construct specious cases against one". If that's what you mean, then yes, my argument is that we should not target those for whom specious cases had been assembled, but instead look at the faults in the specious arguments and search for harder to find answers that fit all the evidence. You've got it precisely.
However you are wrong that this won me the last Lite game. Closer to the opposite, in fact: I argued that the obvious baddies were the wolves, and the village bought it. Bagricula and Reis were obvious wolves, Bagricula for making the tie, and Reis for not breaking it. There was an argument that they needed to be punished even if villagers, and this is true, but they were still obvious wolves. Then the village failed to lynch Bagricula two days running, and he became a village chew-toy. The game was a case study in how to suffer a Stalingrad. The tie was unnecessary and created red herrings for the wolves to exploit, which we did. It also made Day 4 harder because 1 villager breaking ranks would lose the game, and it made Day 3 worse because you didn't have the luxury of killing two candidates to double the odds. As for the red herrings, then the village fell into the trap of running up the same candidate repeatedly, and not killing him. Focusing attention on the same people on consecutive days without extremely good reason is village poison. That might have been the foremost lesson: Bagricula should either have died on Day 2, or been left alone on Day 3. The sudden swing didn't help either: if Randy had been left in the game, which I considered, it would have made the pair of them look as guilty as sin. More red herrings. There was almost nothing in that game that went right for the village, including Boris or Esemesas, I forget which, having the nose for finding the seer on Day 2.
By contrast, I feel confident about this game ending in a village victory, although the eggs are not hatched yet, so to speak. We've been fairly orderly in the voting for two days running, fourth candidate on Day 1 aside, and we didn't rerun anyone from Day 1 or Day 2. We've got a wolf now. Thus far the seer is alive. So far it's nothing like the last game, and you should think about those differences.
and sometimes, they stand out. when villagers look at them critically and point them out. and sometimes, "third parties" like to come in and distract from the wolves. and sometimes, that last wolf, he just does whatever. you are arguing that the village should ignore the two best candidates because they cannot identify all three. this is stupid and counterproductive. just like what wolves would want.
You're drawing the obvious conclusion that doesn't account for all the evidence. The best you can do to explain the Boris hunt and the absence of the third wolf is wave your hands and flap your gums a bit. Hardly convincing me.
I don't even know where to begin with that one.
What, exactly, did the GM tell you? That you were scanned? Why would he do that? Where's the evidence of this? Are we just meant to believe you. I can do that too - hey guys, the GM says I'm cleared by the seer. I have a PM about it, scout's honor! You're joking, surely?
no strategy works on day 1. sorry. doesn't happen. the village has no information. you might have a different opinion on this - i dunno. but i voted who the_hdk had voted on - seen - in the post immedieately above mine. i didn't start a new candidate.
Seen was not in the running. the_hdk ignored the three guys running and voted seen. You followed. This put seen in the running. If you didn't follow the_hdk's move, the seen vote is meaningless and we scrutinize him for throwaway voting. You vote, and suddenly the idea of voting for 2-3 people goes out the window. 2nd votes are the most crucial in determining whether a candidate starts or stalls.
There was a time a while back in which the village won 2/3 of games. In my time here it's my experience that when a village follows the orderly strategy of voting for 2-3 candidates per day, and not running up the same people day after day, it wins. When it doesn't, it loses. Perhaps you've never heard of it, although I'm sure it's discussed all the time. I learned it from Joeb, FWIW. You run up 4 candidates or more and it's virtually useless for analysis. Running up 1 person is self-evidently useless for information, although in the event of an outing it's the proper thing to do. And running up the same candidates limits ground covered. You run up 2-3 players for three days and you assemble enough information to identify wolves after that. Doing this has worked so often that a fair portion of the current playerbase acknowledges it as the right way for a village to play if they want to win. The last win was largely because the village didn't follow this strategy. Look at it on its own merits: Day 4, could easily have been a clusterfuck with just 1 vote different. Day 2, with two candidates kept ahead of the rest, happy ending, and the information garnered is helping us decide candidates today.
i didn't throw a revenge vote on you. i threw a "hey, this is a guy who's doing a LOT of writing. wolves tend to try to make lots of analysis and look helpful. and... this is what VAINGLORY does when he's a wolf."
This is your 2nd game with me. It is the 3rd game we have both participated in. In the previous two games, I was a wolf. Unless you're a wolf, you don't know my role, and so you've got nothing to draw on. This is quite possibly one of the most poorly thought out arguments ever made.
Ask anyone here whether I post a lot of analysis when I'm a villager. The answer will surprise you.
and also, guess what - I'm not a fan of ties. i could have jumped onto king, or whoever, from you ---- and life would be that much easier for wolves and clueless villagers to ruin everything. i made my vote thinking, as i think now, that you are a likely wolf, and i stuck with it.
Congratulations: you totally wasted your vote yesterday, which if you are a villager is all the power you have. Interesting statement you make about your reasoning. This is how the count stood when you voted:
King - Reis, Rendap, Boris
Yak - Johho, Vain
Boris - Seen, Randy
Falc - hdk
Rendap - Snoop
Reis -Falc
So you actually thought I was a wolf, but all you did to convince the village of that was "Vote Vainglory, he's definitely a wolf" - and you expected that to work? And when it didn't, and real candidates emerged, you preferred not to have any say in that? And despite saying you hate ties, you let one stand until Ese broke it late in the piece?
