__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Barganing, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

quote:

---

Originally posted by Battle_of_Twits:
No I didn't see MM last game, but I believe that Bernek's inadvertent slip told us he was a cit. Put yourself in his position: you were in a car accident, and you just got home after being in the hospital all day. It's almost 3 in the morning, and you jump online to sign off the game - are you going to think to throw the cits off your scent by saying "Good luck cits" if you're a wolf? Highly unlikely. Maybe if he was a heavy suspect deep into the game, but still in the first round? Dakrum's play may change my opinion but right now I say he's all but cleared.

---

For now, I'm going to stick with "more likely to be a cit". I think it's a bit early to either clear or condemn anyone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Battle_of_Twits:
Something I would like to point out that sort of clears Dakrum is in Bernek's last post. He finishes with "Good Luck Cits" which could be perceived as a generic sign off but I don't think he would have said that if he was a wolf.

---

This logic is not sound. So, now you've been called out about an arbitrary point system, you're trying to clear dakrum, and you're ok with a policy lynch of Morbid-. Can you guess what that says about you to me?

High:
Medium: B_o_T (it is round 1, after all)
Low/Medium Suspicion: PlasteredDragon, Gawain, MasterWolf, fwybwed, Bruised
Low suspicion: MagicMystic, caitiri

No read: everyone else

About a Morbid- policy lynch

Why I like it
1) I've long been a proponent of offing silent players early
2) If you're not going to post, why play?

Why I don't like it
1) It's virtually impossible to gain information from the vote later in the game
2) What incentive does it give Morbid- to post now if he sees that we're ready to lynch his ass?

Therefore, I will vote for Morbid- if he does not post. If he does, I still might, but will evaluate the content of said post first.

I will likely randomly determine a vote for someone on my list if I do not vote for Morbid-.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
I am a d-bag that has condemned B_o_T for every move he's made so far all the while not contributing anything but a arbitrary suspicion list and a hypocritical vote for Morbid-

---

FIXT

__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Barganing, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

quote:

---

Originally posted by Battle_of_Twits:
FIXT

---

First of all, my suspicion list is anything but arbitrary. Second, since that is the case, my possible vote for Morbid- is not hypocritical. Thirdly, if you mposted without reading my second of back-to-back posts, whatever. Otherwise, chill out-- it's a game.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
1) It's virtually impossible to gain information from the vote later in the game

---

For example this division over Bernek's status, players will come down on both sides and this division can be used to make piles for later study given the way wolves tend to array themselves.

For my part it wasn't the "good luck cits" that had me thinking Bernek was more likely town, but how very much in character he was this time around compared to last time around. I don't think it "clears" him, as I noted to BoT, but I think it makes him more likely to be town. He did make IIoA post that bugged me tho (#090) it seemed almost empty and pointless.

@BoT: I too find Josh's apparent heightened sensitivity to your contributions to be somewhat perplexing. I find how it mirrors PGB's to be interesting. However, let's not start hurling about epithets. It is a game after all.

I'm mixed on lynching silents. If you look back at the last game I played (a long while ago) you'll find that I said this (postgame as a wolf):

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caitiri in WW7:
I agree that people have to stop being quite so lenient with silent players. Get it in people's heads that it's in character for you and you're set for most of the game. By the end, I hardly even had to post.

---

I still believe that allowing people the luxury of being silent as part of their playstyle is dangerous and shouldn't happen. At the same time, the unmitigated slaughter of all silent peoples will usually just end up with a bunch of dead villagers (and yes, I understand that proposing to kill a single silent member is not the same as proposing to continuing killing all silent members as the only strategy to follow). The reason I say this is because it is typically considered dangerous to remain completely silent as a wolf, and thus the silents are most often villagers. People will argue that the worst that happens is we get rid of a non-contributing villager. This is true, and is better than getting rid of a productive villager, but at the same time it is still worse than killing a wolf. Now, however, we are back to a game of WIFOM, since if we don't kill silent members (because wolves won't be silent for fear of being killed), the wolves can simply stay silent to stay alive. So where do we find the balance between killing enough silents to get everyone to talk (who, as long as we kill silents, will most likely be villagers), and not simply thinning the villager population? How many silents must be lynched and when in the game should it occur?

That balance has to be struck, and it will be different every game depending on past games, the players, and other variables. For this game, however, I think it is more likely Morbid is simply a non-contributing cit than a wolf. It's an incredibly bold move to just sit back and shut up as a wolf the first round, when lynching silents most often occurs (due to lack of information), and not one I'm willing to attribute to Morbid at this point. As such, I believe there's a better chance of hitting a wolf by lynching someone at random than there is by lynching Morbid (see PD's previous more general argument). Unless someone convinces me otherwise by tomorrow night, I will not at this time be voting Morbid simply due to his silence.

-Caitiri

PS -- @PD: Didn't we decide at some point (ie, after the first game you played as a wolf) that declaring votes is much more beneficial to the wolves than it ever is to the villagers?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caitiri:

That balance has to be struck, and it will be different every game depending on past games, the players, and other variables. For this game, however, I think it is more likely Morbid is simply a non-contributing cit than a wolf. It's an incredibly bold move to just sit back and shut up as a wolf the first round, when lynching silents most often occurs (due to lack of information), and not one I'm willing to attribute to Morbid at this point. As such, I believe there's a better chance of hitting a wolf by lynching someone at random than there is by lynching Morbid (see PD's previous more general argument). Unless someone convinces me otherwise by tomorrow night, I will not at this time be voting Morbid simply due to his silence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caitiri:
PS -- @PD: Didn't we decide at some point (ie, after the first game you played as a wolf) that declaring votes is much more beneficial to the wolves than it ever is to the villagers?

---

This is all true.

But the cits need information just as badly as the wolves do--if nobody declares the wolves are free to change their votes around to suit themselves and nobody ever knows about it. Wagoning is harder to detect, and so forth.

I think nondeclaration is alien to WW/mafia--given that in most variants of the game voting ends when there is a majority--impossible to tell without declaration.

Finally, watching players respond to declarations is part of what helps us find wolves.

All in all, while I agree that hiding votes hurts the wolves, I think it hurts the cits more--because the wolves have a coalition, and we don't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caitiri:
Hey guys, got back from my reunion late tonight and just finished reading through everything (didn't have a chance this weekend). I'm somewhat sleep deprived, so I'm going to try to keep this short (both because I need to get to bed and because my mind is not fully functioning right now). As such, the only thing I'm going to address right now is my view regarding lynching silents. I apologize if it is somewhat convoluted...eloquence is not a high priority right now.

I'm mixed on lynching silents. If you look back at the last game I played (a long while ago) you'll find that I said this (postgame as a wolf):

I still believe that allowing people the luxury of being silent as part of their playstyle is dangerous and shouldn't happen. At the same time, the unmitigated slaughter of all silent peoples will usually just end up with a bunch of dead villagers (and yes, I understand that proposing to kill a single silent member is not the same as proposing to continuing killing all silent members as the only strategy to follow). The reason I say this is because it is typically considered dangerous to remain completely silent as a wolf, and thus the silents are most often villagers. People will argue that the worst that happens is we get rid of a non-contributing villager. This is true, and is better than getting rid of a productive villager, but at the same time it is still worse than killing a wolf. Now, however, we are back to a game of WIFOM, since if we don't kill silent members (because wolves won't be silent for fear of being killed), the wolves can simply stay silent to stay alive. So where do we find the balance between killing enough silents to get everyone to talk (who, as long as we kill silents, will most likely be villagers), and not simply thinning the villager population? How many silents must be lynched and when in the game should it occur?

That balance has to be struck, and it will be different every game depending on past games, the players, and other variables. For this game, however, I think it is more likely Morbid is simply a non-contributing cit than a wolf. It's an incredibly bold move to just sit back and shut up as a wolf the first round, when lynching silents most often occurs (due to lack of information), and not one I'm willing to attribute to Morbid at this point. As such, I believe there's a better chance of hitting a wolf by lynching someone at random than there is by lynching Morbid (see PD's previous more general argument). Unless someone convinces me otherwise by tomorrow night, I will not at this time be voting Morbid simply due to his silence.

-Caitiri

---

There's a second point to lynching silents that you are overlooking. We need to send a message to all players that silence is unacceptable.

I read a few games of Mafia back when ml490 was cornered as the final mafia to like 6 cits, he made a comeback to win it simply by acting inactive.

I remember in games past where we have 4 or more inactive cits. The WW killed the only ones who talk and take the game easily. Not fun for anyone.

There are 2 things to consider. It's common for a new player to feel lost in his first game and as such not contribute. If he's ignored, we can create a sense for him that his goal is longevity rather than lynching wolves. (ref, endgame of the broken mafia) This is bad for the cits. Also, if players don't post, we can't get reads.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caitiri:
PS -- @PD: Didn't we decide at some point (ie, after the first game you played as a wolf) that declaring votes is much more beneficial to the wolves than it ever is to the villagers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Battle_of_Twits:

Something I would like to point out that sort of clears Dakrum is in Bernek's last post. He finishes with "Good Luck Cits" which could be perceived as a generic sign off but I don't think he would have said that if he was a wolf. In his state, if I was in his shoes, I doubt I would have thought to put "Good Luck Cits" at the end of my post to throw everyone off. Of course, I'm not Bernek, but that's my theory.

---

Actually, I kind of got that same impression. I felt as though whatever Bernek had to say before he left would be genuine; it's a bit difficult to strategize for a game when you have just had a two ton hunk of metal slam into the two ton hunk of metal you were cruising in at high velocity. Point being (and no offence Bernek if you're reading), Bernek is not the most sophisticated player in the history of Mafia/Werewolf. It strikes me as highly unlikely that his sign off was strategic instead of genuine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMidnightBomber:
Normally I look for this sort of post. To already have a list of 3 suspects round one is uncommon, and being a wolf makes that much simpler.

---

So MasterWolf making an immediate list of FOUR people he suspects doesn't bother you? Granted, he usually doesn't post during the weekends, but this raises a few red flags. Is there a particular reason you didn't address this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
95% of the time, cits are wrong in who they vote for--but based on random chance the chance of hitting a wolf on round one is about 1 in 5 (20%).

---

What were you trying to accomplish with this? If you are a cit, your chance of getting mafia with this kill is exactly 20%, but for a cit to be wrong 95% of the time is outrageous. This makes it sound like a random vote is a very pro-town approach.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshSherman:
High:
Medium: B_o_T (it is round 1, after all)
Low/Medium Suspicion: PlasteredDragon, Gawain, MasterWolf, fwybwed, Bruised
Low suspicion: MagicMystic, caitiri

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
I find how it mirrors PGB's to be interesting.

---

I don't know what to tell you about that, except that it's coincidental. I've addresed B_o_T as best I can atm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dakrum:
Where does Morbid- fit into this?

---

Right where I put him, in the "No Read" section. No posts= no read. That's why what we're talking about is a policy lynch, the policy being that if you're not going to post, you are hurting the citizenry and you are going to be lynched for it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dakrum:
What were you trying to accomplish with this? If you are a cit, your chance of getting mafia with this kill is exactly 20%, but for a cit to be wrong 95% of the time is outrageous. This makes it sound like a random vote is a very pro-town approach.

---

A 20% success ratio on R1 is expected through picking randomly. But this game doesn't involve random choosing generally, it involves looking for suspicious behavior, it involves persuasion, it involves groupthink. If those things increase one's chances of finding wolves then the occurrence of cits voting for wolves in R1 would be higher than 20%. I haven't done the math, but it feels like it is much lower than 20% to me. Which suggests to me that our vaunted powers of wolfhunting don't serve us very well in the first round unless the wolves make an egregious error.

In the later rounds I think they DO benefit us, because there is actual data to work with. But in R1 there is so little to go on, the wolf-detection apparatus within each of us returns nonsense output for the nonsense input we give it--seeing wolves where they aren't... a sort of pareidolia for WW.

Thus, if that apparatus can't do better than random chance in R1, I lend it less weight in R1... unless something REALLY notable pops up. This leaves random chance as my best option for R1.

I have no internet access at the house right now, so 95% of my posting will be during work. 8-5 est.

I am going to be busy today so I'm sending in my vote now.

__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Barganing, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

~MM

__________________
I am MeddlingMage...YOUR Motl Survivor 11 Champion and 2007 Captain N award winner, and I approve this siggy!

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
[QUOTE]Thus, if that apparatus can't do better than random chance in R1, I lend it less weight in R1... unless something REALLY notable pops up. This leaves random chance as my best option for R1.

---

That clears some things up but creates more questions. So Morbid- is a random choice to you then, or are you more than 20% certain that he is mafia?

This question goes for everybody who is currently voting for Morbid. Right now, all I see is groupthink, just as PD said, and I don't see many innovative thoughts or attempts to actually use this round productively.

quote:

---

Originally posted by puregoblinboy47:
There's a second point to lynching silents that you are overlooking. We need to send a message to all players that silence is unacceptable.

I read a few games of Mafia back when ml490 was cornered as the final mafia to like 6 cits, he made a comeback to win it simply by acting inactive.

I remember in games past where we have 4 or more inactive cits. The WW killed the only ones who talk and take the game easily. Not fun for anyone.

There are 2 things to consider. It's common for a new player to feel lost in his first game and as such not contribute. If he's ignored, we can create a sense for him that his goal is longevity rather than lynching wolves. (ref, endgame of the broken mafia) This is bad for the cits. Also, if players don't post, we can't get reads.

---

If the sole purpose of the Morbid lynch is to send a message that silence is unacceptable then that's fine with me. My point is merely that I find it extremely unlikely at this point that he is actually a wolf, since silence early on has often been deadly. Yes, silence must be made to seem unacceptable, but at the same time it is often just wasted lynchings. Granted I have nothing worth going on at this point in time (@PD, this means I really don't have any suspicions so far), so if I need to be a sheep I can be. If there were some way to, as a group, randomly choose someone to lynch I would be for it, since at this point I feel like we'd have a far better chance at hitting a wolf in that manner. That's not going to happen though.

I'll check in once more this evening to cast my vote.

-Caitiri

quote:

---

Originally posted by dakrum:
This question goes for everybody who is currently voting for Morbid. Right now, all I see is groupthink, just as PD said, and I don't see many innovative thoughts or attempts to actually use this round productively.

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group.[/B]

---

Yay, I got a chance to post again today.

With minimal evidence, as this is only R1, group think is going to happen - it's human nature. Unless you're astoundingly good at analysis or just a psychic, there's not much evidence to go on. R1 is rarely used productively; either you have random votes or the lynching of a silent player, unless someone has made a big faux pas. IMO, R2 is when the game really starts - most everything in R1 is guesswork.

Also, something I wanted to bring up. Way back when, there was a big hoopla about when the wolves/mafia didn't kill the strongest player in the game R0, then he/she was guaranteed to be mafia and pretty much lynched immediately by the cits. I remember this happened to GLE quite a bit. I'm not advocating this strategy - I'm just curious as to whether this has been debunked as n00bish or what, because no one has brought it up so far.

__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Barganing, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caitiri:
If the sole purpose of the Morbid lynch is to send a message that silence is unacceptable then that's fine with me. My point is merely that I find it extremely unlikely at this point that he is actually a wolf, since silence early on has often been deadly. Yes, silence must be made to seem unacceptable, but at the same time it is often just wasted lynchings. Granted I have nothing worth going on at this point in time (@PD, this means I really don't have any suspicions so far), so if I need to be a sheep I can be. If there were some way to, as a group, randomly choose someone to lynch I would be for it, since at this point I feel like we'd have a far better chance at hitting a wolf in that manner. That's not going to happen though.

I'll check in once more this evening to cast my vote.

-Caitiri

---

Im sure it depends on the time of these lynchings...Im sure if it were down to 3 or 4 with a silent then this would be the case...but this ensure that we wont have any loose silents around to deal with like that....

I say String him up and see if he growls....

quote:

---

Originally posted by dakrum:
That clears some things up but creates more questions. So Morbid- is a random choice to you then, or are you more than 20% certain that he is mafia?

---

But I'm not averse to a policy lynch of a cit that is utterly noncontributory. The point of a policy lynch is not to bag a wolf, it's to deal with a cit that does more harm than good. A silent cit will continue to come up again and again as the game progresses... in later rounds we may not have the time to eliminate him and it may cost us if we don't.

My wolf-dar is not tingling for Morbid-. It is tingling for a few other players, but given it is round 1, I am not lending it a lot of weight. If as the day goes on my wolf-dar tingles strongly for someone, I may switch my vote yet again. As noted it's got to be a real obvious reason (see my Bernek vote R1 last game.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by dakrum:
This question goes for everybody who is currently voting for Morbid. Right now, all I see is groupthink, just as PD said, and I don't see many innovative thoughts or attempts to actually use this round productively.

---