|
Quote:
It points a finger at a group of 8 people, him not being part of that group. |
Quote:
Barely. He posits that 2 of a group of 8 are wolves, while 2 of a group of 12 are wolves? I don't think that's enough to convince anyone to restrict themselves to the group of 8. |
Quote:
And I could say the same about you. Or most anybody right now. It's Day 1.. we don't have much to go on yet. |
Quote:
But we do have something to go on with Abe. He's posted that he trusts Barkeep49 a lot. To me, that's saying that his role (which we're not supposed to reveal) is similar to his, meaning they're both villagers. I think that's what Autumn is getting at when he says that Abe specifically is a poor choice. |
Except I didn't vote for Abe.
I really am not wanting to harp on this, but you seem to be missing my point. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Oh shit, I forgot about that. I need to start taking better notes. I'm great at keeping track of the vote count.. but it's those little "tid bits" that I lose track of. Well I've already said that I don't plan on keeping my vote on him. I just have to figure out who to move it to. |
Quote:
yeah, but he is specifically calling attention to the group of 8, which in turn deflects attention from the other 12, of which he is a part of. That way, when whoever is lynched it is easy for him to say " I think we need to start with that group to test my theory" |
Quote:
I'm not sure how much attention he's really calling to it -- I think you guys are reading more into his comment than me. Anyway, I agree that it's not a great theory -- I guess my reaction was to think about what to do now if we're likely villager/villager than chase wild theories or attack people who chase wild theories. Day 1 doesn't have to be as much of a crapshoot as we're making it out to be today. |
Listen, I like having Abe vouch for me, I really do. But I want to point out that if there were some sort of lovers role, I would think they would be barred from making the sort of statement Abe has made. I've given away so little about my role, I just wonder why he feels so comfortable vouching for me. I don't think he's a wolf and lord knows I'm not. It isn't even suspicious to me, it's just unexpected and puzzling because it is so unexpected D1.
|
So, let's explore the idea that we're villager/villager here. Or maybe even villager/villager/villager. I guess that would mean the people wanting us to consolidate are wolves? That probably includes me, although I think I argued more for consolidation before I knew who would be our targets, rather than after.
|
Quote:
I wasn't thinking of lovers at all -- just that your roles seem to be similar. Since they can't be revealed, but we know that only good guys have them, I think that's definitely something to go on. |
I've lost track of the vote count. Very little movement since it settled at 3-4 targets, and a fair number of votes still to come.
I don't see a particular reason to move until closer to deadline, as I assume we'll see some shifting. |
Vote count:
Quote:
|
So based on my consolidation theory, I'm looking at dubb. His vote seems intended to make it a runaway for EF, or at least force others to vote someone else to make it a 2-horse race. I think something he said struck me as weird too, but I forget what it was. Off to look.
|
Quote:
This makes no sense to me, consolidation does nothing but help the village down the road. |
As of post 513:
2 - Abe - Poli (252), Telle (457) 1 - Passacaglia - Lerriuqs (253) 1 - dubb - saldana (304) 4 - EagleFan - hoopsguy (328), PurdueBrad (343), Lathum (396), dubb (416) 3 - PurdueBrad - The Jackel (329), EagleFan (452), Autumn (455) 1 - PackerFanatic - claphasma (335) 3 - ntndeacon - PackerFanatic (374), Barkeep (420), Abe (425) |
Quote:
I guess I should have voted no lynch as you did? |
Quote:
If it's the wolves pushing for consolidation because they know we're villager/villager, it certainly doesn't help the village. |
Quote:
Isn't it normal for villagers to push for consolidation as well though? What good did nine candidates earlier do us? When it's spread out it's easy for the wolves to hide votes. |
Quote:
Check the vote count, mine isn't on No Lynch anymore. Looking back, I didn't see any post by you that raised eyebrows -- maybe I was thinking of someone else. Regarding the EF vote, though -- doesn't his play today seem a lot like your play in the Athens and Sparta game, when you were a villager? |
Quote:
Quote:
Am I missing something? |
Quote:
Yes, it is normal -- as I said, I pushed for it myself. But while that's true, if we're going to go off the assumption that we're villager/villager, then we might as well look at what that means, rather than getting all worked up about whether or not 2 of 8 people are wolves. |
Quote:
Not sure I finished my thought there -- and IMO what it means is that it's more likely that people pushing for consolidation are wolves. |
Quote:
No not at all. My play was to get a rise out of players(mainly due to it being a small game with a small window of time to make decisions). His has seemed VERY random, changing his vote without getting said rise out of people. Had he pushed the players he voted then yes I would see it. His excuse was not "I'm trying to push players to get information." His excuse has been: Quote:
I do not think this play is good for the village. Basically he is destroying the voting record for no other reason then b/c this is a mental ward game? |
I see ntn in the thread, good time for him to chime in since I was just about to switch my vote to him.
|
Quote:
This is the post I meant to quote above in reference of the rules. |
I'll check back in a little to see what's progressed, but we've got a few hours yet.
|
How is the voting record destroyed?
You actually don't have to answer that if you don't want to, since I have to go soon. :p |
ok I am catching up. So I have checked in now... (so now you can get off my name :) ) But until that happens...
Vote Packerfanatic |
Quote:
I don't buy that one bit. I always push for consolidation no matter what. |
Anyway, I gotta jet, and might not be back before deadline, so I'm putting in my vote.
VOTE NTNDEACON |
Quote:
I really think this is what happens to me anytime that I get lynched. |
Quote:
Moving the vote around at random makes it pretty damn easy to hide behind your vote. You may be called on it eventually, but it still makes it pretty damn easy to hide. Look at how far I got in your game by moving my vote as I did. People saw me as insane and we not able to ever get enough votes to vote me, even on the day where we voted 2 out. |
Quote:
Yeah, totally don't agree either. |
I also think that Jackal is just playing his role with the vote movements early and having fun with it. So
unvote EF vote ntndeacon My move here is partially self-defense at this point as I would likely have to end up here anyway. |
Quote:
I wasn't being quiet. Iwas being Absent like Telle said. Now that I got a good night sleep lets see who really needs to leave |
Quote:
I never even realized that. |
I may switch to PB unless he stops typing in lilliputian text
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, Pass, I don't have any solid theories on anyone at the moment (including the one I already posited, which is really just the barebones of a theory based on some logic and math which is very likely to be untrue). My point in suggesting we were likely villager-villager was completely based on the numbers and nothing else. I am not questioning anyone's reasons for voting for EF or ntndeacon. Bouncing one's vote around (EF) or being a quiet player (ntn) are reasons I can certainly support for a Day One lynch. I'm just noting that, whatever the reason, with two candidates at that time getting significant runs, there is some potential to apply the logic of my theory to the situation. Not something I would go on now, but something I'll keep an eye on, at the very least for my own curiosity (as we see this sort of situation in just about every WW game on Day One). No, short of a more obvious candidate coming up, I don't think we should do anything but vote on our gut and hope we don't have villagers in our sights. What choice do we have? Day One votes suck. |
I'm off for training. Hopefully be back before deadline.
|
the one strategy thing I can think of is that a wolve will likely vote for a wolf day one just to give themselves a little cover for later.
|
Going out with friends in a bit. May not be back later
|
Quote:
I would rather you lynch Chief than me, duh. But I don't think that I was trying to create that type of choice either. The first part of the post was wanting to run the numbers because it seems to be somewhat accepted that "villager/villager" is the most likely outcome when picking two people at random. I think the math shows that this is not nearly as conclusive as most may think. The second part was that I'm trying to figure out the logic in floating a theory like that, and whether it was innocent speculation or founded on some kind of information that he might have. Right now I'm a little more suspicious of Chief than the average villager. |
and I know I am quiet, but today that wasn't my problem. I did not see us moving til about 12 as I did not have school today
|
Oh come on. 5 pages at 50 posts per page to go through?
|
Quote:
Pass has said much of what I would say, so I won't regurgitate it too much. That said, you are definitely reading far too much into it. It is a very loose theory. I don't think anyone should base a vote on it now, and probably not for a while longer, with a lot more evidence to back it up. I even said in my original post that it wasn't something on which to base a vote. I have posited that there are four wolves and a sympathizer. I point out that (theoretically), there would be one wolf only in each of those two groups of four. That's two wolves. Stands to reason the other two wolves are in the remainder of the village, which is nine players (ntn and EF are out because my theory is bunk if either is not a villager). Not much advantage to being on either side of the equation. In fact, there is more benefit if you are in the eight, because if you're not a wolf, and we catch one from your group, stands to reason you are even more cleared as a possible villager, as it's unlikely two wolves would bunch together early on a villager-villager vote battle. Those in the group of nine don't have any such logic to support them not being wolves. So, no, if you think my theory in some vindicates me, you pretty much about read that as wrong as you could. So kudos to you--not many people could pull that off to so far effect. |
Quote:
Did you even read what he wrote? He doesn't say that "All the wolves are in that group". I do enjoy how Lathum is always so quick to dismiss anything that even remotely looks in his direction. I don't even know if he is playing in character this game as it's pretty much like any other game where someone looks at him and the paranoia begins (usually ending with him being a wolf). So far we have Lathum accusing me of making excuses for a vote, then clarifying that I was setting up to make an excuse for a vote and now that CR is conveniently trying to keep himself out of the discussion. He seems to have gone on the attack pretty early for some reason. Damn, I slid out of character again. I was hoping to stay in character all of day one to enjoy it (since day one votes are meaningless ON DAY ONE). Now who stole my meds!?!?!?!?!? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Apologies for not checking in earlier - got in a bit later than usual, and have only just been able to catch up in the last 20 minutes or so.
Will post my vote for today shortly... |
Quote:
PB can you please go back to the regular font |
Quote:
I have countered the "cleared" part above, which is a ridiculous assumption on both Lathum's part and your own, but I entirely agree about the potential flaws to running with this theory without more evidence, which is why I strongly advocate no one apply it right now (and maybe not ever). Your "communication" example is an excellent point to consider. This theory is based on the underlying assumption that the wolves are fully involved and available and working together with their votes, which is an entirely unsafe assumption to make. It's just another reason why at this point the theory is meaningless, but it will be interesting to see if it plays out anywhere near correct. BTW, this theory is based on wolf decisions, and the wolves have no idea who the sympathizer is. So from their perspective, assuming four wolves, there are 17 villagers. Meaning the likelihood of a villager vs villager battle is 17/21*16/20 == 64.7%. That's a little more likely than your numbers, FWIW. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you don't think your theory looks like you are deflecting attention from yourself to another group of people then your out of your fucking mind. |
something tells me Poli is gonna run off abotu 15 posts.... quoting post from hours ago :)
|
Quote:
|
hey as long as he throws the spotlight on all those needies on me I am all for it.
|
Chief, I don't worry as much about you = cleared (obviously not the case) as floating the idea as a way of changing the direction of the voting.
If we are not villager/villager (43% chance, if Sympathizer does not equal villager, using 4+1 line) then the wolves would probably be in favor of changing the current dynamic to get one of their own out of a potential showdown. So, the question I'm asking myself is whether or not you are trying to do exactly that. |
Quote:
find the last game I was a wolf and acted this way. With the exception of being converted last game I don't even remember the last time I was a wolf. Someone looks at me I look back, period. I always play that way so I guess I am always a wolf. |
Quote:
Except we can't reveal the information the unlisted roles provide, so I'm not sure we're going to be accumulating much of anything. It's always tempting not to lynch a bunch of villagers, as we usually do, but even if we get some good scans or something, without a voting record that's not going to give us much. |
Dola, using your logic that the wolves don't know Sympathizer then they would only feel the need to move/influence the vote to protect their own about 1/3 of the time.
|
Quote:
From post 463: Quote:
Is 'no lynch' a viable option? All it takes for the 'no lynch' to be overridden is one lynch vote - suspect that we (as a group) are going to struggle to get that level of consensus... |
I'm going to give up on "dola" today - too many of you guys posting :)
|
Quote:
I didn't say viable, but it is an option.:p |
Martin, see my "Bah" post above.
|
Danny sucks. There, I said it.
|
Quote:
Just one that appears to have the proverbial snowball's chance... :lol: |
Plus it's my game, so I can go with my own bias of not liking no lynch votes :)
|
Quote:
I did see it - unfortunately, that would be after I'd made my post, and it's a bit late to do anything about it at that point ;) |
Quote:
Hmmm, maybe this game could use some random GM events. I wonder if it would be viable for lightning to strike a player inside the therapy room |
Quote:
:lol: Queue Lathuming in 3.....2.....1...... |
You could always Bull Moose Special me. That seems to work like a champ. I thought I was darn near invincible last game when ntn passed me the rifle.
I felt like I was on Hee Haw. BLLLEEEWWWH. I was gone. |
VOTE PURDUEBRAD
I don't have much reason to vote for him.. but I don't like the other options either. I've stated my case against voting for ntndeacon due to "tendency to be quiet". I also think it's too easy for wolves to hide a vote on EagleFan and claim it's because of his vote jumping (note that Passacaglia vote jumped a lot today too.. 5 different votes). So let's keep this a three-horse race and see how things shake out. And on that note, I'm outta here. Not sure I'll be on again before deadline. |
Quote:
In other words, 'it's ma ba', and ah'm aff hame if ah dinnah get tae dae things mah way'... (Translation available on request :p ) |
Quote:
forgot... UNVOTE ABE VOTE PURDEUBRAD |
Quote:
I guess I'll fit right into this game then. |
Quote:
runs around in little circles afraid of lightning strikes... |
Yeah, I missed that Lathumesque response.
|
I'm moving my vote again, based on something that just happened. The person that earlier said I was the unfortunate victim of a run suddenly flips and votes me? Come on.
unvote ntndeacon vote Telle |
From here on out, I'll only move if a wolf reveals or absolute self-defense.
Like the type size better Lathum? |
Quote:
Thank you Nurse Ratched, that'll do. |
Quote:
AND hit and run to boot! |
Quote:
Understood completely, and that's one reason why I strongly advocate not using this theory at this moment, but keep it as something in mind to look back at in the future. Maybe in game, maybe after the game. In fact, if anyone used my theory to try to build a case at this point in time, it would seal me voting for that person, because no one knows better than me how ripe for flaw this theory is at this point in time. BTW, the Sympathizer is/isn't a villager isn't a choice or a semantic to be judged with respect to the theory. The theory is based entirely on wolf decisions, what they know, and they do not know who the Sympathizer is. My guess is the Sympathizer will have his/her vote on a candidate who is clearly not being lynched, therefore ensuring they do not accidentally vote a wolf out. |
Last time I heard those words I think Jackal was defending himself against one of my votes last game.
AND I WAS RIGHT. |
My previous post was intended to follow PB's Hit and Run comment.
|
I'm off to work out...I may be back before I head off to church.
|
For what it is worth, I'm very interested in seeing how this plays out and I think I would prefer the original run-off of NTN vs EF rather than PB as the lynch.
My perceptions, as of right now: Telle does not want NTN to be voted off. Autumn did not like the NTN/EF run-off, pushed for new candidate. Chief Rum posted a theory suggesting we were likely villager/villager. Now maybe these are all 100% innocent reactions, but right now I'm starting to convince myself that we've got a wolf on the wire in those first two people. |
Quote:
True, but this theory is dependent on a villager-villager Day One battle, and the wolves' only consideration right now is vote spread. |
well, vote spread AND not making a vote that points a target at them saying, "WOLF!", of course.
|
Quote:
I, and I can't believe I'm saying this, think you and I are seeing the same thing here with the ntn-telle-autumn-EF dynamic. I'm not saying this for self-defense purposes but looking back particularly at Telle's posts, that's what I think I'm seeing as well. |
Quote:
Lathum knows, if he tries to Lathum me, I will have no compunction in choosing to Rum him out. ;) |
Quote:
I'm not yet ready to say that we've got a whole flock of wolves in there, but I would like to test our initial two with lynch/scan (whoever has it) and go from there. Obviously that would take a ton of villager coordination to pull off (leaving votes on those two, seer playing ball, people trusting that I'm not pulling some kind of goofy Day 1 angle, etc) but I think it represents a good starting point for our game based on my impressions so far. |
I'm a bit confused here - finding it hard to work out where to put my vote...
The two main candidates appear to be PB and ntn - don't really want to vote for ntn, as it seems to me that the main reason for him getting votes is that he wasn't around for most of the day (at which point I'm feeling a bit fortunate that I didn't get nailed for that one!), but a vote for PB seems a bit too much like bandwagon-jumping. I don't see much point in voting for someone else at this point, as almost everyone else is a long way back. Not absolutely sure about this one, but: VOTE PURDUEBRAD Will be on for the next 20 minutes or so - may change this if I feel there's sufficient reason. |
Danny, do you have a current vote count?
|
I'm working on it now
|
As of post 5597:
1 - Abe - Poli (252) 1 - Passacaglia - Lerriuqs (253) 1 - dubb - saldana (304) 3 - EagleFan - hoopsguy (328), Lathum (396), dubb (416) 5 - PurdueBrad - The Jackel (329), EagleFan (452), Autumn (455), Telle (575), Martin D (595) 2 - PackerFanatic - claphasma (335), NTNDeacon (530) 5 - ntndeacon - PackerFanatic (374), Barkeep (420), Abe (425), Pass (532), PurdueBrad (536) 1 - Telle - PurdueBrad (581) |
Quote:
My concern about the NTN/EF run off was the fact that there wasn't any movement. It seemed like no one was eager to shift off either of these, and four votes on each so early seemed a bit much. I tend to think neither are wolf or else we would have seen an earlier push to get off of them, but maybe you're right that the push has just come later. What is our vote count? Telle is the only one to have pinged my radar. I would consider shifting to him, but I'm wary of shifting off to one of the early vote getters for the reasons above. |
Quote:
YTou list 5 for ntn but count it as four |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.