|
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.
|