So you don't like it when someone places a first vote, and you don't like when someone places a third vote -- do all votes have to be second votes with you? :p

I just know that when I'm the first to add on to votes like that I get all jumped on for appearing wolf-ish. So I just wanted to point out someone else in the same situation :)

Well then let me say that the fact that you haven't voted yet appears wolf-ish.

Actually, upon further reflection, I'm much more like Chief Bromden. Only not Indian and not 6'11".

huh?

You don't have to be confused anymore, we switched games.

did you get hold of Poli's crack?

Do you mean qrack?

Point of interest:

This might be metagaming, but Danny as much as said in the leadup that he was trying to get all of the roles in, and more or less succeeded. It sounded like the one role not there (the "interesting" one or whatever) was a non-essential side role.

This sounds to me like every role in the rules is in the game.

And that means we, for sure, have at least four standing wolves, with an additional sympathizer in this game.

Quick question for Danny: Do players with publically known roles (i.e. roles revealed in the first post of the thread) also have non-essential side roles (the ones that can't be revealed)? Or for the public roles, is that their only role?

Catching up.

as long as you don't take that second vote off them


that line of thinking was in vogue for a while but people don't really apply it anymore but if you want to use that as an excuse to vote me go right ahead.

I honestly had no idea how many votes EF had when I voted him, but his actions I felt warrented a vote.

Vote count:

So he votes PB, then Hoops for a while to see if anything happens. Nothing happens so he goes PB again and then jumps off PB to go Lathum. I'm normally a vote changer at heart, but good god what the hell is he doing.

Everything that I've seen so far today EF looks the worst, almost like he is fishing for votes on some of the top players today.

It's always something, isn't it :) I generally don't vote early on Day 1 because there is so little to go on and I don't like just randomly voting.

So how the hell do you vote day 1 then?

its a good thing the theme of this game is mental illness, because i think this is the most F*#ked up thread i have ever seen.

vote ntn

Been quiet this game, is quiet generally and the longer a game goes on the harder it generally is to vote out the quiet ones.

I throw out something based on gut feeling before I leave from work for the day. Admittedly not that much better :)

Or else I wait until it's a two or three horse race and put my vote where it keeps things slightly even.

Could be but what role? Must unvote three times every day? Must move vote with no rhyme or reason? I would get it if there was a reason for all the wackiness, but "just playing the role" is only going to lead to shitty vote analysis as the game goes on.

At some point it has to stop and it seems EF has wasted most of day 1 just moving his vote around for no reason whatsoever.

Yea, but as was pointed out to me last game that is just what ntn does.

He hasn't been quiet.. he's been absent. He hasn't checked in yet. I think it's a bit disingenuous to make him one of the lead vote getters when he hasn't even had a chance to play yet.

Vote ntndeacon

This makes it a tie. Let's see what shakes where.

That's right. It's what he does. If he's a wolf it's a real problem trying to vote him out later in the game. Hence my D1 vote. Plus as Telle points out he's not been quiet, he's been absent.

According to pass's vote count that actually puts him ahead a vote.

But that's the thing. He's usually this quiet. So you can wait for him to have a chance to play, but when he does, you'll probably be disappointed. I think 49 hit the nail on the head, that it gets harder to vote for the quiet folk later in the game -- because by then, we've all got our own pet theories based on what the less quiet folk have said.

doesnt mean you shouldnt vote for him.

I think you're missing dubb's vote.

I've got four on each. Did you miss Dubb voting for EagleFan?

True, however if read through last game my vote for him was shit on for that same reason. Just thought I should get that out there as it was pointed out to me.

Yes.

You think there's a person in this game who doesn't need therapy? ;)

You post that as if encouraging a no lynch vote.. Is that even possible this game? If so, what is the mechanic for that? Just out of curiosity.

:D

me :)

I think it was just a joke. The story relates to making someone leave therapy even though the werewolf mechanic is to vote out needies.

Like Dubb said, it was just a joke. Moderators need to have fun too. What happens in a tie is not known to the group. So, you can vote no lynch and what not, but you won't know what happens for sure.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

My lack of getting the joke might suggest that I suffer from "Paranoid personality disorders"

UNVOTE NTNDEACON
VOTE NO LYNCH


If all the villagers have some sort of role, I think the risk of getting rid of one is just too great.

Pass: I don't read Danny's message as suggesting there is a no lynch option at all. Merely we can try and see if there is one, but there's no promise about what will happen if we go that route.

Fixed.

How do we vote out needies if we are too afraid to lynch villagers? How do we get information that leads to the lynching of needies if we are afraid to lynch villagers? I do not think this is a good idea Pass.

I'm wary of anyone who has a run on them this early, so I'd like to introduce a third person to the mix.

I'm kind of stuck on the ntndeacon issue. I'm all for getting rid of quiet players, if only for a long-term deterrent. However, it's an easy vote for wolves to hide behind, or argue against. I'm thinking something more random is more likely to rile the Needies up.

As less-than-enthusiastic as I am about our current vote-getters, I don't like the idea of no lynch. Plus from the way Danny phrased things I'm guessing that somebody's getting lynched regardless and we just don't know who.

I just popped him an email to ask. I read it the same way you did, but I also read what Abe said last game the same way, so I thought it was just me.

BTW, I think it's time for our absolute ban on editing to come to an end. Back in the old days we use to be able to do an immeadiate for punctuation, spelling, missed word, etc. This was, to my knowledge, never abused. I liked it.

It's okay, I wasn't telling you to vote for it.

:rant:

unvote Lathum

vote PB

:devil:

This is correct. You guys do not know what will happen, but you do have the option to vote no lynch if you want.

hmmmm

I'm going to pick Purdue out of a hat. I'd rather not vote off someone who hasn't been able to play yet. In addition, he's at least someone involved in the two villager showdown.

vote PURDUEBRAD

dola

I didn't see eaglefan's vote when I did that. Oh well, that makes it three way all the quicker.

I'm with you on this. I don't like the idea of just voting for the guy that you don't like the play style of.. that discourages people from playing at all. So I'm going to vote for the person that last voted for ntndeacon, especially since he already has one vote on him.

VOTE ABE

I think so too, especially since half my posts usually have a typo.

And I didn't see either of yours. I'm sure we'll get consolidated eventually though.

I don't get it. Either voting for No Lynch is an option or it isn't. If we're allowed to vote for No Lynch, there should be no lynch. It's fine if voting No Lynch causes "something to happen" but if it's a viable vote, it should mean no one is lynched, otherwise it's not a "No Lynch" vote, it's a "make something random happen" vote.

Vote count:

Day 1 is always such a crapshoot as it is - everyone just looking way too into what everyone else is saying. I will stick with ntn for now and see what shakes out.

I'd like to clarify that I *do* believe in voting against play style, if the style is hurtful for the villagers, as I think a quiet player is.

My issue is I think that kind of vote is too easy, on day one, for the wolves to take advantage of. So, I'm going to shy away from it for now.

Thanks, that helps clear it up. Sounds unlikely to happen.


UNVOTE NO LYNCH

It's day one in a game where we are in a mental ward. Just having fun with the theme. The number one rule of these games is to have fun (or it should be) and that's what I'm trying to do.

If that looks bad, so be it.



The way I see it day one logic goes like this:

Make a vote on someone with no votes - you are a wolf trying to hide your vote
Make a second or third vote on someone - you are a wolf trying to put a villager in the lead
Keep your vote on one person - you are a wolf hopeing to not be noticed
Move your vote around - you are a wolf trying to create confusion
Try to create a tie - you are a wolf trying to create confusion
Cast a deciding vote - you are a wolf lynching a villager
Cast a self defense vote - you are a wolf using self defense as an excuse
Don't move your vote into the middle of a tight race - you are a wolf trying to hide your vote
Move you vote into the middle of a tight race - you are a wolf trying to save a wolf
Don't vote - you are a wolf afraid of revealing yourself with your vote
Vote first - You are a wolf trying to get in early
Vote last - you are a wolf waiting to see what villager to lynch
Vote in the middle of the daye - you are a wolf trying to hide
Have a normal day one vote - you are a wolf using an excuse
Use some random theory to vote - you are a wolf using an excuse
Leave no comment with your vote - you are a wolf trying to hit and run
Leave a comment with your vote - you are a wolf using an excuse
Post a lot - you are a wolf
Post very little - you are wolf going UTR


I think that about covers most of the main day one voting theories.

Nice, that should be stored in a thread somewhere on WW rules lol

But wait, there's...oh I see what you did there...

I have a pet theory that when the vote counts were tied between EF and ntndeacon at 4-4, that there was one wolf, and just one wolf, in each grouping. This is based on the assumption that both EF and ntn are villagers (likely, based straight on numbers) and standard wolf logic (bury your vote, bury it early enough to not be a late deciding vote, do not vote together with another wolf).

By that standard, one of each of the following four would be a wolf:

EagleFan -- 4 hoopsguy (328) PurdueBrad (343) Lathum (396) dubb93 (416)

ntndeacon -- 4 Passacaglia (370) PackerFanatic (374) Barkeep49 (420) Abe Sargent (425)

Completely an unfounded pet theory on which no votes should be based, but I will be interested in the long run if I am right. If I am, there is one wolf in each group and the rest are villagers (although any of the "villagers" could be the Sympathizer).

So CR, if you're thinking we're likely villager/villager now -- what should we do about it?

+1

I like how your "pet theory" vindicates you.

The interesting thing about day 1 votes are that you have one of three scenarios:

1) Villager vs Villager (most common)
2) Villager vs Wolf (happens sometimes, not necessarily uncommon, but not regular)
3) Wolf vs Wolf (happens rarely but has occured before).

The issue is that you don't learn which the case is until day 3,4 or 5 usually. In the case of #3, it can actually throw people for a loop when the first one is figured out to be a wolf as it then leaves the other one off the hook for a while (even though I am sure that is not an optimal wolf play to gain trust on day 1).

With case #1, you end up having one of them voted out, and all of the questions rise regarding the other candidate, and often times the next day is led to a witch hunt regarding that person, or sometimes people decide to go a different direction in which the day 1 vote ends up being utterly meaningless for a while.

What I find more interesting is what happens to lead people to the matchup situation on day 1. When you have 9 different people with votes, the chances are much greater that there has to be at least a wolf included in there somewhere. It is in the wolf's interest to try to shape the conversation to a run off between two non-wolves.. Who are the ones instrumental in that conversation? I am guessing that once upon a time that is what led to the thinking "The second vote must be a wolf" as at some point it might have likely been the case often.

Over time the wolves here have become more crafty then that and instead of placing the second vote on someone, they try to manipulate the vote via discussion instead. So that part of the day has passed already and I guess it is interesting to go back and see who might have been a part of that.

Plus with all of the ntn momentum, now that he is here in this thread, do those voters move to Martin, or do they go elsewhere? That is the problem with voting for someone who hasn't shown up after only 2-3 hours of some people's work day (considering many people like myself did not see the game start until this morning).

Just random thoughts (or maybe not so random)

I think when voting for a quiet person,the votes stay on until they've scared the player into contributing. That's a net positive.

I <3 AlanT

We missed you!

Such eloquent logic - such crafty 3rd-level thinking.

*cheers from the populace*

I'm not sure what to make about Abe's comment about Barkeep, but it makes me a bit curious about the two still voting Abe, in particular Telle who put his vote on late.

Telle's a her. RendeR's going to whup your ass for insinuating he sleeps with a man.

it has been my experience that people with theories that immediately take them out of the spotlight are usually wolves.

I agree that villager/villager is most common, but I think it's strange that that's well noted, but when someone tries to fight against that by switching around, they're called out as suspicious.

Well I had already stated my thoughts on why I didn't want to vote for ntndeacon. And just like you, I thought perhaps it would be best to start a third candidate. I just didn't see you and EagleFan put votes on PurdueBrad before I voted.

Right now I'm just waiting to see how things move forward choosing one of the likely candidates.

It's been my experience that people whose username's end in vowels are usually wolves

errrr...wait...nevermind :D

Fixed.

My apologies. My unfortunate neurological condition prevents me from being able to distinguish between genders in our therapy group.

Villager/Villager is most common due to percentages involved. I would guess switching is suspicious would be what reason do you have to switch? As a good person on day 1, you most often know very little about the majority of others, so what in your mind would weigh more about one player than the other. So you switch from one villager/villager matchup to another? Why is that one any better than the first? It does make it look like you are trying to save someone even if in your mind you have some other reason for it.

As for all of the random switching throughout the day.. I actually have no idea what that means.. I think too many people didn't get their medication this morning :)

EVERYBODY TAKE NOTE OF THIS...NOBODY DROP THE SOAP AROUND AUTUMN OR YOU ARE IN FOR A NASTY SURPRISE!!

I'll run some math on the first part of Chief's pet theory: "Two people at random are likely to be villager/villager"

In a vacuum, if you assume 4 wolves + 1 sympathizer, then there are 16 "good" and 5 "bad" votes at this point.

16/21 * 15/20 = 240/420 = 57.1%
OK, this part does hold up although it is not much of a margin. If there are 6 "bad" votes then it doesn't hold up (exactly 50%).

The initial thing that tweaked me on this was the idea that we had to be villager/villager. I understand that the wolves like to shape the conversation, which shifts the probability from where it would be in a vacuum. But the wolf assignments are random. There isn't much they can do about "quiet player backlash" if NTN is a wolf, just to give one example. I've been a wolf a number of times on Day 1 where I've been stuck in cross-fires with another wolf and had to work like hell in mid/late day to generate movement away from me and my partners.

Also, the communication patterns of the wolves may make it difficult for them to shake out the votes just so (1 for each of two leaders) this early in the day.

I agree with Lathum that it is somewhat convenient to come up with a Day 1 theory that puts himself in the clear, clears two more players (the guys with votes) and creates discussion around 8 people.

If it in fact turns out that Chief was right then at the end of the game I will tip my cap to him (assuming he is not a wolf with inside info) but this feels a little too neat to me.

vowels and wolves are anagrams

Well I threw out my standard vote for Saldana early in the day(last night), and then as I normally do as the day goes on I move away from Saldana and onto someone I suspect for one reason or the other. It doesn't make Sal any more or less likely to be a wolf just as it doesn't do that for EF either, I just didn't like the way EF's vote was moving around like candy from PB to Hoops to PB to Lathum. Alot of vets in there that a wolf would be all too happy to eliminate.

Dola,

good = villager
bad = wolves

Which would actually invert it, in terms of the quality of the vote, from a villager perspective. But upon a re-read I thought this was a little confusing.

Bottom line = villager/villager is not as likely as people seem to assume, from a math standpoint.

Silly math.

I'm not sure if your bolded part is true.

STill, I think if we get a 3-way or 4-way vote, we get a better idea as there's a good chance there's a wolf in that mix. It may be only 57%, but 57% chance of the wolves being able to stay out of the vote is a bad thing.

How does CR's theory even put himself in the clear, anyway? He theorizes one wolf in one group of four, another group in another group of 4, and two more left out there? So we've got wolves in all the groups he's made.

I think Autumn was talking about the fact that you voted Abe, rather than the fact that you voted for a third person.

so what you're saying hoops is that we should lynch chief rum to find out about the other two who were on the block?

or is that your way of working like hell because you're a wolf and so are one/both of them so we should lynch YOU?

I guess I would think the developing vote count gives you reason to switch. On Day 1, we don't have anything to go on, so every little bit of information changes what you know drastically. This is different from Day 2, when you have a completed vote count, results, and a night-kill.

Yes, thank you. A vote on Abe out of all these suspicious characters at this moment seems a poor choice at best.

Ah, well in that case I already stated why I voted for Abe. He was the last one to add a vote to ntndeacon, and he already had a vote so I wasn't spreading out the field further.

I'll most likely be moving my vote at some point since we have three people with three+ votes and there doesn't appear to be any movement on Abe. Problem is it's Day 1 and there's not much reason to vote for one of those three over the other two. I don't like the idea of voting for ntndeacon for reasons previously stated. I think EagleFan was just playing around and don't see his vote hopping as suspect. And I think PurdueBrad just got an unfortunate run on him without much real reason.

You do recall that you actually stated that you picked PurdueBrad's name "out of a hat". I at least had some plausible reason for picking who I did for a third candidate.

Well, I think your reason wasn't much more than picking out of a hat, frankly, though yes you did offer a rationale. My worry is that there may be a deeper reason for you targeting Abe, not that you didn't give a reason at all. Clearly no one except the wolves have a real reason at this point.