[Werewolf: Archives] Fallout, the Vault of Wolves, Conclusion

[Catholic]

@Sootshade:

I have gone through the calculations and everything points to that Burgess is a turd.

Also Xar is a wolf.

So he shouldn't use the basics? Cause from what I can tell, everyone is in a form. Burgess just put it obvious. And he is doing something. He's bringing attention to you. He's pointing out that you're overdoing it.

Really? In the two above posts you see a wolf? I see an incredibly bored innocent who was just told he was in the game and so contributed because he didn't want to not be there. Wolves, from what I've seen, don't wait until the last minute to post. They know that's suspicious. They usually carry along in the game without contributing anything.

And oh yes, my "first to post means probably got PM" reasoning is hella meta and hella sketchy. But it's the only thing we have Day 1, so damnit, I'm using it.

I'm still seriously shocked you voted on Xardob at one point, brought up two people you'd like to lynch, and then went "ok nevermind lol!!" as soon as Xardob posted his and switched to his. I mean, imagine if Xardob is a wolf for a minute. He literally gave you two targets to vote for on a plate and you went for it. You couldn't have made his job any easier. At this point, I'm tempted to believe either Frisian or Brutus is one of Xardob's packmates and he told you to vote otherwise. Why you followed through with that idea is still incomprehensible.

I'm tempted to vote you, but you really seem more like an innocent who's trying really hard but fails miserably at wolf hunting than an actual wolf.



I keep my vote on Frisian. Good post by Vadermath, although I don't believe Quail is evil. He seems like he's just bad at Werewolf tbh, and that's (although this is really no defense) the way he's always played.

Even if he's useless, he has a sharp mind. Taking away his voting powers really doesn't help the town and hands the wolves a free night.

I think that's something we must think about. In normal Werewolf, when you lynch a lurker, you generally get the benefit of removing someone who doesn't contribute from the game. On Day 1, lynching a wolf lurker is a very rare bonus. You don't get that in this game. All you do is take away the lurker's ability to vote, and hand more power to the wolves. It's not good for the town, and I don't understand why everyones' rationale for voting right now is "he's lurking." That in and of itself isn't wolfy, in fact I'd say innocents are more likely to lurk. We must look specifically at the ways people interact and how they post and when they post.

 

[QuailLover]

I've never been good at online Werewolf.  Much better at when I can look at peoples' faces and body language.

 

[Catholic]

It's not really that. You just don't really make any posts that aren't a defense or an observation. You have yet to accuse anyone of anything, and that's really where it's easiest for people to see the wolf. Saying that one of Shatari, myself and Vader is probably a wolf is the closest you've come, so I'm hardly surprised Vader used that as the centerpiece for his argument.

 

[QuailLover]

Well it's one of those things where it has become that one I do get sure about someone, it's right about 80% of the time. That's why the wolves always kill me when I finally make an accusation.

 

[Lord Brutus]

My vote's still on Xardob, right?  Call it metagaming but I still feel it's the correct choice.

 

[Troll]

@Eternal

Alright, aside that I still overall disagree with you, I'll clarify on a few things, such as why I changed my vote from Xardob to Rams:

Xardob made a couple of posts expressing thoughts mostly on line with mine. I was then curious as to just what were his picks for lurkers in this game where about half the village would qualify and gave two people who I remembered posting the least as examples. He, however, replied with the names of my every top suspect of the time. At that point, I figured there honestly was nothing for me to achieve anymore by trying to pressure Xardob further and it was a good as any chance to put pressure on any of my top suspects.

My vote on Rams clearly didn't particularly bring us closer to a lynch. However, it achieved quite a lot as far as I'm concerned. It gave him more incentive to contribute (A bit of work on that front is still required, though) and gave us a little bit more of an idea what he actually thinks. It also served to somewhat dismiss my suspicion of him, as his reaction was, while lacking text, quite valid for an innocent. Still not sure on who's a better choice for my vote now, though. Possibly Burgess, since he's still to contribute anything despite being called out by everyone, while clearly being active on the forum as usual.

When it comes to lurkers, I think your logic is just flawed simply because just letting them sit there is just ****ing stupid. Whether or not you want to lynch one of them, you CAN'T ignore them as you are doing. If they are wolves, you giving them a free pass to the next day. If they are innocents, you still can't judge them so and have to keep them as potential suspects AND you know they aren't contributing anything. So, at the very least you have to put pressure on them to get something out of them. And while I usually don't like actually lynching lurkers straight up, since it can let more suspicious people just slip to the next day, in this case I don't see a better pick (even though you really seem to be trying for that position) and these game mechanics actually seem to suit it better than usua. When people that have been voted out and they are still allowed to contribute, just getting back into the game later on seems like a incentive to do so, to me. Though a lurker might just decide to get bored because they feel they are already out of the game. However, I do see the flip side of it: It might work better the other way around, as a more active player is possibly more likely to keep playing despite losing their vote/powers, thus losing us little unless they happen to be a special and gaining us a lot if they are villains.



@Brutus:

Wat. Your 'feels' on him aren't quite enough to convince anyone of anything, especially during the final day of the voting, you know. And no, I won't call it metagaming, but it rather just seems like you are not contributing... anything.

 

[vadermath]

Yes. I don't like making accusations on little evidence, which is why I'm horrible on day 1 and 2.

Active players usually mean that they indeed are either special or wolf (and in rare cases innocents that just enjoy the game). Some one would be idiotically stupid for not looking at the active players and only focusing on the inactive/lurkers. Why would you be trying to call the attention away from the most active players? Is it because you happen to be one of them?

Statistics combined with intuition is a valid tool in werewolf since it is something that I'm ending up having to use everyday in the field I'm going into, why not use it now.

I announced that I was going to be looking into the interactions of specifically all three after I got home yesterday. Unfortunately, I ended up being gone all day, and am just now going through everything with emphasis on the three.

Who said anything about focusing only on the lurkers? If you take a look at my thoughts so far, you'll see that I've been equally interested in the actions of all the players, regardless of their level of activity. I am also not trying to call the attention away from the more active players, my post in fact only brought more attention to them. You can disagree, but I believe that the statistics you mentioned are a bit too random for my taste.

So you voted on the person that decided to look into your activities specifically. Instead of a person who you are usually wary of?
Am I THAT much of a danger to you?

Did you miss a part of my post? I explained why I was wary of Xardob: because he's experienced and dangerous, and one cannot easily see which side he's on. Ultimately, I decided that metagaming alone wasn't enough for a vote on Xardob. When I narrowed my vote choice down, I opted to vote you because you seemed more suspicious to me. I did not vote on you because you decided to look into my activities: if you read my previous posts, you'll find I urged the less active players to write their thoughts about everything that's been said and discussed so far, which naturally includes my posts. So I don't really find you a "danger to me".

 

[Lord Brutus]

I've read through many previous games where Xardob hunted wolves with great skill and this is not one of those games.  My vote stays where it is.

 

[Troll]

Uuh... Okay. Did you notice how his wolf hunting included a lot of posts with more than one line?

Can you give us actual examples, explain a little? Because just saying that doesn't make it true. You need to tell us what exactly is different. If you can't tell anything to convince us that you are right there's very little chance Xardob is going to be lynched, unless it's done by someone else contribution on that front, which would still mean you contributed nothing but a single vote to the cause.

 

[Vieira151]

Goddamnit. I've spent the last age writing up me an LoS (and getting distracted). I've only just realised that a lot of my opinions were formed forgetting the game mechanics, and as such the post is a little over the place. If you guys want, I can give you the current (almost every played done) LoS, or if you want tomorrow I'll try to fix it and finish it?

 

[Vieira151]

Also, Grimm, could be get a vote count please?

 

[Grimmend]

OK, I think that's about right...

Xardob: 2
Eternal: 2
Rams: 1
FrisianDude: 1
QuailLover: 1

Time remaining: 22.5 hours.

 

[Vieira151]

I'm too tired. I'll do it tomorrow. If I don't, punish me. I need to learn. 

 

[QuailLover]

Who said anything about focusing only on the lurkers? If you take a look at my thoughts so far, you'll see that I've been equally interested in the actions of all the players, regardless of their level of activity. I am also not trying to call the attention away from the more active players, my post in fact only brought more attention to them. You can disagree, but I believe that the statistics you mentioned are a bit too random for my taste.



Did you miss a part of my post? I explained why I was wary of Xardob: because he's experienced and dangerous, and one cannot easily see which side he's on. Ultimately, I decided that metagaming alone wasn't enough for a vote on Xardob. When I narrowed my vote choice down, I opted to vote you because you seemed more suspicious to me. I did not vote on you because you decided to look into my activities: if you read my previous posts, you'll find I urged the less active players to write their thoughts about everything that's been said and discussed so far, which naturally includes my posts. So I don't really find you a "danger to me".

Statistics combined with intuition are used all the time with real life investigations, why not with this?  You may not like that I am using it, and find it "random." That's fine with me.

No I didn't miss any parts of your post, I was just trying to clarify. I do agree though that metagaming is not a valid reason to vote for a person. 

So you don't find me a threat to you, or a danger to you or the village, but suspicious? The main reason being...I'm using statistics and you don't like that?

 

[Shatari]

@Xardob and Soot: Can you explain in detail the advantage of voting out a lurker? I'm still not seeing how the "game mechanics practically begs for this".

Also, Soot, I find this quote to be extremely suspect:

Xardob and Shatari passing the ball in the completely irrelevant quote war is bad.

Why is the idea of two individuals having a conversation a bad thing? Especially on Day 1 when conversations are hard to find at the best of times. Xardob is asking me to explain my reasoning, which in turn is having me explain and expand my views. It seems very anti-town for you to try and discourage this.

 

[Troll]

I'm not certain about Xardob's reasoning on that, but my bit on it is that I feel the fact that we aren't voting to completely remove people from the game partly removes the biggest disadvantage to lynching a lurker early on, as they are allowed to still participate to the discussion, and getting voted out might even encourage them to contribute more in order to get back into the game or overall just say their bit. If they aren't going to participate, I'd also rather have them sit it out without the potential of harming the village during the night. Also, I feel that the biggest problem with lurkers is that the longer the game goes on the harder it's to focus on them as the amount of posts to be analyzed from the more active players grows.

So I suppose I just feel it's the safest approach, really.

As to your little quote war, I wasn't paying much attention, but it felt like you two were arguing semantics and it was really distracting you from contributing other suspicions while were focusing on it. To me it also brought absolutely no insight on the two of you, and as such I'm having hard time seeing it useful in any way.

 

[Xardob]

@Xardob and Soot: Can you explain in detail the advantage of voting out a lurker? I'm still not seeing how the "game mechanics practically begs for this".

Soot made good points, but my reason is much simpler. If all we're going to achieve with the lynch is to remove someone's ability to vote, we might as well start with someone who isn't likely to do it in the first place. We need active voters to win the game.

I'm too tired. I'll do it tomorrow. If I don't, punish me. I need to learn. 

What about preemptive punishment?

Unvote, Vote Vieira

 

[Chechen!]

Eh, I'm trying to pick sides here, but I don't feel like anyone is making a strong case. I'm still suspiscious of Soot. While I do understand, and am actually grateful that he voted on me to get me more involved, I don't feel like he has contributed much on the hunt, not as much as he could with his activity. Feels like he's making us go in circles in unneeded discussions. Then again, that might be because I'm focussing too much on him, as his vote on me still stands, while he did admit that I don't look like a wolf.

Another person on my mind is Vader. I know Vader, but haven't played these games with him before. Is he always this aggressive? If he is, he isn't using that aggression on the right people. But that might be a subjective, and overall more complicated case.

 

[Shatari]

Aggressiveness is a terrible indicator of innocence or guilt, unless they are trying to build a case while bulldozing past obvious holes in their theory. Again, that's the danger of lies through omission: wolves will deliberately paint people in a bad light to build a case against an innocent, and they are the only ones who benefit when other players do it. Xardob's open encouragement for bad hunting is the reason I'm leaving my vote where it is.

 

[FrisianDude]

Hey guise, I didn't have an internet connection at all yesterday.

So let's play the meta here and go by people who did come in quickly, as they received PMs.

Right away we have Frisian. First incurring possible joke suspicion for not leaving a joke, then going defensive, and then repeated what literally everyone was saying.

there's not much to think about. I think Xardob's vote was partially to get discussion going, and I'm thinking that Xardob does this pretty much every game. Not a problem per sé, but perhaps he's trying to mould his image in this game as being the biggest baddie-hunter. Having an image like that would be a fairly good way to delay suspicion for a while.

After which came banter about Adaham.

Absolutely nothing useful, nothing productive, nothing good, but he sure did show up fast damnit.

Vote: Frisiandude

This is bull****. 1) Joke suspicion? Are you even serious? If anything it'd be bad if I didn't report in for the game, but now it's bad because I wasn't funny enough in doing it? What a shoddy reason to vote.
2) My going defensive? I was merely pointing out that a joke is a)not necessary and b) I did joke slightly, and c) I thought reporting in was more important than being a comedian. Possibly a worse reason to vote.
3)Repeating what had been said? I was the first to even say such a thing that someone was drawing to the fore in order to seem less suspicious. I was literally the first to have said this, everyone else repeated. This is a deliberate misinterpretation, an even WORSE reason to vote.
4)Showing up quickly is grounds for suspicion? That is absolutely retarded, even IF you think it means I got my role early. Because a) I might just as well simply have seen that the game-thread was up (which I did) and b) even if I got my role early, are you sure enough that it was a villainous role?

To summarize; you've given four progressively worse reasons to vote. Either this means you're comically incomptetent or that you're oddly focused on voting for me rather than voting based on evidence.

And before you weep that I'm being defensive again; yes. I am also poking a hole in leaky reasoning, it just happens to be reasoning with the goal of my exile.

Also, let's fathom for a moment what exactly we're gaining by voting for Rams. Consider that innocents didn't get PMs. Consider that innocents tend to post less because they get bored, especially if they don't get a PM. I mean, I'm pretty much nailing Rams as a standard innocent here.

Red= You don't know this.
Blue=only half true at best, and even then mostly towards the later game.
Green= conjencture based on nothing.

Good show. 

Not posting anything can be a deliberate decision by a wolf to avoid conflict

that's bloody unlikely in any case, there's like twelve players. Someone never saying anything is very likely to get called out on it. If the goal is to avoid conflict, look at those who post mainly in support of other people's arguments.



**** me, I just lost and regained connection again. ****ign patchy.

To clarify my previous posts:

What I meant by good guy was an Alpha Good Guy. You know what I'm talking about. Magorian always assumes that position. The village protects him, and he does substantial amount of wolf hunting. This Alpha Good Guy is present in every game. What I am trying to say is that there are three of them indeed hounding for that position. It is a very good position to be in for a wolf, as you can steer the ship of innocents to vote your way, making it a great way to kill specials. That is why I'm very suspicious of anyone who tries to assume that role.

This is basically what I was saying; QL more or less explained what I first said about Xardob; Magorian, Adaham -or Xardob- usually take this position (whether by design or otherwise).



Some thoughts irt behaviour:

-I know I did it myself, but keep in mind not to extrapolate too much based on previous behaviour. At most it gives an inkling at how they play, not as surely at what they play.

-Please don't put too much meaning in the late pm's; not only isn't that what the game is about, it's also dangerously flawed reasoning to think that any non-standard innocent is a villain. This might hurt the vault later.

-I should think it's little wonder that most players have said little of use (and have been called out on it); we're only 8 pages in. This is not much in any case, don't expect late-game types and sizes of posts in the very start of the game.

Unfortunately of course, these are mostly used because we have fairly limited tools otherwise as of yet. It's like starting a sudoku where all the squares have had their 1 filled in but nothing else. Because we don't have much to go on besides these flaws, in my opinion, I won't make a vote based on it, but I would like to point out that it's mainly been Eternal to make us of it.

But at most this points to sloppy work, not to active baddie-hood.

I'll see if I can get this post through before writing more.  Lol 2 ninjas.