WW LII -- Clue (SOCIALITES WIN)

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I assume the murderer knows the weapon and location. so realistically he only has to list two things it wasn't and he's all set.

Like I said before, we can't take what everyone says at face value here.. What will be helpful perhaps is looking down the road a few days and catching someone in a day 1 lie.

And Alan states the real point, its not gonna get us a murderer day 1 or 2 unless he's a complete idiot. (no offense to whomever you are if you DO get caught) but there really is no reason to not let this info out.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Interesting that you got two of teh same category of information while everyone else got one from 2 of the 3.

nothing important I don't think, but interesting to see.

I don't know enough to question it yet, but I thought that was curious, too. I would feel better about Barkeep's information if others also came out with information items relating to the same area.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Interesting that you got two of teh same category of information while everyone else got one from 2 of the 3.

nothing important I don't think, but interesting to see.

Randomly speaking that's to be expected, in a group this large. I was surprised as well when everyone started coming out with different info, but then thought about the math (which I would perform upon request) and realized it's nothing out of the ordinary.

[saldana]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Do you really think we're going to catch the murderer in this manner? Sorry, but I'm not wild on shooting down our most viable plan for catching him on the offchance your wild shot in the dark will work.

what are you talking about....

i am one of the only ones saying we ARENT going catch the murderer by everyone giving all their clues right now.

what viable plan are you talking about

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I have to believe the wolves and murderer are linked and would be looking out for each other.

Ah, but the wolves only know the murderer, correct? Not the murder information. They don't know how the murder happened or where. Only who.

So they are limited in how they can look after each other in this proposed plan.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RendeR

And Alan states the real point, its not gonna get us a murderer day 1 or 2 unless he's a complete idiot. (no offense to whomever you are if you DO get caught) but there really is no reason to not let this info out.

well the problem I have is it seems TO obvious that we should be revealing info

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Pass what happens if the socialite is lynched before a correct accusation has been made? Can you still win the game individually from making a correct accusation?

Yes, the socialite can still win the game, even if they are lynched after the accusation.

[st.cronin]

Ok I just did some arithmetic.

18 non murderers
9 murder weapons
16 rooms

That's a total of 43 clues. 2 clues per non-murderer = 7 clues not distributed. That's if there's no duplication, which I'm guessing there probably is. Ridiculous to think we can catch the murderer this way.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by saldana

what are you talking about....

i am one of the only ones saying we ARENT going catch the murderer by everyone giving all their clues right now.

what viable plan are you talking about

The viable plan is us revealing this information.

Your "shot in the dark" is everyone keeping their information hidden while we all pray for the murderer to screw up.

Plan A mucho mucho better than Plan B.

[saldana]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I don't think so, because one premise of the board game is that no-one CAN have the same clues, its possible that Passacaglia decided to allow it, but for now I'm going to assume there are no duplicates. (and thus far there have been none)

i cant believe that pass would have created a mechanic that would be so easily defeated as 17 people saying "here are my 100% unique clues" and one person having to say "here are my clues that are the same as someone elses" resulting in their being easily named....takes a bit of the fun out of it.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Lathum

well the problem I have is it seems TO obvious that we should be revealing info

Except we almost always have collective action problems. I'm actually amazed at how much information has already been revealed. It seems like some of us are always encouraging information revealing, others don't, and there ends up being little info shared initially. If I were the GM I think I'd count on that dynamic and am pleasantly surprised that we've gone against it.

[saldana]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I don't know enough to question it yet, but I thought that was curious, too. I would feel better about Barkeep's information if others also came out with information items relating to the same area.

i wont be giving my clues quite yet, but i will say that they are 2 bits of info in the same category.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Yes, the socialite can still win the game, even if they are lynched after the accusation.

Great except that's not the question I meant to ask. Can there still be an individual socialite victory if the murderer has been lynched before the accusation? Guessing from your last answer the answer is yes, but just want to make sure.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Lathum

well the problem I have is it seems TO obvious that we should be revealing info

Sometimes a duck is a duck. If we spend our time being supremely cautious, we'll spin in circles of suspicion while the wolves and murderer pick us off one by one.

[saldana]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Ah, but the wolves only know the murderer, correct? Not the murder information. They don't know how the murder happened or where. Only who.

So they are limited in how they can look after each other in this proposed plan.

except for the fact that they can coordinate what they are going to say via PM or IM and then come back one at a time and run the plan.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Ok I just did some arithmetic.

18 non murderers
9 murder weapons
16 rooms

That's a total of 43 clues. 2 clues per non-murderer = 7 clues not distributed. That's if there's no duplication, which I'm guessing there probably is. Ridiculous to think we can catch the murderer this way.

You realize we'll get more clues as the days go on, right? And that determing that 80% of what the murder is NOT, leaves us a much mroe manageable 20% of what it is.

[Alan T]

I never figured we would catch the murderer this way.. However what I am looking for perhaps is ways to narrow down where to look at night, and perhaps come closer to being able to figure out the murderer down the road.

The more we know now means the less we have to figure out.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by saldana

except for the fact that they can coordinate what they are going to say via PM or IM and then come back one at a time and run the plan.

I think the rules said th wolves can't communicate

[saldana]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Sometimes a duck is a duck. If we spend our time being supremely cautious, we'll spin in circles of suspicion while the wolves and murderer pick us off one by one.

you do realize we are playing Werewolf, where a duck is never. ever. just a duck.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by saldana

i cant believe that pass would have created a mechanic that would be so easily defeated as 17 people saying "here are my 100% unique clues" and one person having to say "here are my clues that are the same as someone elses" resulting in their being easily named....takes a bit of the fun out of it.

Fun shmun.If it gets results, I say give it a shot. This is a game with tons of information in it. The way to win the game is through this information. Why are we hiding it?

Even if you think it does no good, how does it help the other side? They can't use this information. It's not going to give them better targets. They already know who the good guys and bad buys are.

There is no downside I can see to revealing this information.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You realize we'll get more clues as the days go on, right? And that determing that 80% of what the murder is NOT, leaves us a much mroe manageable 20% of what it is.

That's if you can trust the information that's out there, which I remind you we cannot.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by saldana

i cant believe that pass would have created a mechanic that would be so easily defeated as 17 people saying "here are my 100% unique clues" and one person having to say "here are my clues that are the same as someone elses" resulting in their being easily named....takes a bit of the fun out of it.

Perhaps the murderer knows, like last game, which clues haven't been given out. I thought that was an elegant game solution in CR's game.

[Lathum]

nevermind, I misread that the wolves and murderer can't communicate

[saldana]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Wolf Kills
Wolves know the identity of the murderer, and the murderer knows the identity of the wolves. However, they will not have PM privileges.

wolves cant talk to the murderer

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think the rules said th wolves can't communicate

but....

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by saldana

except for the fact that they can coordinate what they are going to say via PM or IM and then come back one at a time and run the plan.

So what? It doesn't matter if it's coordinated. Their clues are going to be intentionally wrong, whether they plan it being wrong or not. We know the murderer and the wolves will put out disinformation. The goal of the plan as we gain new bits of information will be to evaluate the sources and determine what is ironclad true and what is a lie.

[saldana]

Originally Posted by from the rules in post 2

You are a wolf. You have a chance to kill one socialite per night. You may communicate with the other wolves.

...they can talk to each other

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by saldana

you do realize we are playing Werewolf, where a duck is never. ever. just a duck.

lol...yeah, I know.

The Ripper game is like this, though, I think, from a planning point of view. Lots of bits of information and who's and where's. My guess is that it itself is the game, not a mask for misdirection.

For instance, in my other game, the nightly baseball games were really sort of a misdirection. Yes, they mattered, but the game underneath (the WW game was all that really mattered).

In my Ripper game, the information sent out was key to how the game was run and played. I see this one as much more like that game than my other game.

And, yes, sorry to both Lathum and saldana for bringing up the Ripper game.

[Neon_Chaos]

I think we should not be as obsessed to look for the murderer that we're forgetting that we should be looking for the wolves. That's priority #1.

[saldana]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So what? It doesn't matter if it's coordinated. Their clues are going to be intentionally wrong, whether they plan it being wrong or not. We know the murderer and the wolves will put out disinformation. The goal of the plan as we gain new bits of information will be to evaluate the sources and determine what is ironclad true and what is a lie.

check the rules...the wolves all received their own clues, which are just as real as the ones we got as socialites.

[oliegirl]

Count me in the group that thinks sharing the clues we were given in a good thing. I don't see how it could possibly hurt...as in all WW games, you have to start somewhere and I think this is as good a place as any. So, that being said...I know it wasn't Jonathan Ezarik and the murder weapon wasn't the candlestick.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That's if you can trust the information that's out there, which I remind you we cannot.

We can't right now, of course. As I said earlier and as (I believe) it was Lathum said, we don't have a way to evaluate it right now. But we will. As the game progresses, we will get more information and we'll know more of who was lying and who wasn't.

We can't evaluate the information, regardless, if it isn't out there. And since keeping the information only helps the wolves/murderer and doesn't seem to hurt it being revealed, I see no reason to keep it secret.

I do think we should lynch someone, though. Even if they're good, we can then evaluate their information as being true.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by saldana

...they can talk to each other

Wolf != Murderer

[DaddyTorgo]

damm ripper game. Damm ripper getting lynched N1 and making it hell on evil. We were pretty close to taking that one.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

We can't right now, of course. As I said earlier and as (I believe) it was Lathum said, we don't have a way to evaluate it right now. But we will. As the game progresses, we will get more information and we'll know more of who was lying and who wasn't.

We can't evaluate the information, regardless, if it isn't out there. And since keeping the information only helps the wolves/murderer and doesn't seem to hurt it being revealed, I see no reason to keep it secret.

I do think we should lynch someone, though. Even if they're good, we can then evaluate their information as being true.

So let me see if I understand this, by way of example. Oliegirl says Jonathan E. is not the murderer. So tomorrow we lynch her (for example). She turns out to be a wolf. Do we lynch JE next?

The problem is that all players (including villagers) have some incentive to put forth both true and false information.

[Swaggs]

Checking in.

Nothing exciting to report.

Will be interesting to see if someone tries to lynch Mrs. Peacock after a few days.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I think we should not be as obsessed to look for the murderer that we're forgetting that we should be looking for the wolves. That's priority #1.

I'm not forgetting that myself. It's just that we don't have that information yet. As per normal WW games, we're not going to have role information or a body of evidence via pages and pages of posts from which to go off of and pin the wolves. We do, however, have information we can evaluate for catching the murderer. Thus, the focus.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by saldana

check the rules...the wolves all received their own clues, which are just as real as the ones we got as socialites.

Still irrelevant. That just means there's a possibility they aren't lying. If we assume they are lying and only make positive inferences from them, we can still use their information.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Will be interesting to see if someone tries to lynch Mrs. Peacock after a few days.

why would you say that?

[saldana]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Still irrelevant. That just means there's a possibility they aren't lying. If we assume they are lying and only make positive inferences from them, we can still use their information.

and exactly who are "they"? you want to start making inferences but have no idea on whom to draw them upon. this is completely illogical at this point in the game.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

So let me see if I understand this, by way of example. Oliegirl says Jonathan E. is not the murderer. So tomorrow we lynch her (for example). She turns out to be a wolf. Do we lynch JE next?

The problem is that all players (including villagers) have some incentive to put forth both true and false information.

You're taking an extreme and then making the most extreme connection. It's unlikely she is a wolf, but if she was, we wouldn't take anything from her information. We would treat it like we didn't receive it, or only put it to use if we have corroboration.

And if the villager incentive you're talking about is the individual win, I hardly think that's a big deal at this point. If there are people who are deliberately keeping this information abck just in the hopes their key information will get them the individual win, at the cost of the village, well, I find that to be extremely selfish and unlikely, too. I don't think anyone here would be that unselfish this early. Not to mention, at this point everyone revealing information also helps them toward that individual goal as well.

[Lathum]

FWIW my info is 2 things about the same subject

[Neon_Chaos]

Remember, just because someone isn't the murderer, it doesn't mean he or she isn't a wolf.

Any socialite/villager who wants to go for the quick win, feel free, as long as you know damn well that you're right. I might take a stab at it if I feel confident enough.

I know for a fact that LoneStarGirl or oliegirl is not the murderer.

[Neon_Chaos]

Do the wolves have any incentive to keep the murderer alive, though?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by saldana

and exactly who are "they"? you want to start making inferences but have no idea on whom to draw them upon. this is completely illogical at this point in the game.

"They" are the wolves.

And, I will say this again in bold since some of you refuse to actually read it. This information is not going to help us now, but will down the road.

Of course drawing inferences at this point in the game without anyway to vouch for anyone is illogical. It's not going to help until down the road. I have said this in one way or another now three or four times already.

That doesn't mean we should all hide that information until we can use it. More risk there that it never gets revealed. In fact, there is no risk to revealing that is evident from the rules. There is only risk in NOT revealing.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Not to mention, at this point everyone revealing information also helps them toward that individual goal as well.

It helps us if we can trust the information. I know, you're going to say maybe we can't trust the info today but we can re-evaluate it down the road. But if we can't trust the info today, there's no reason to reveal it today.

There's no reason why a villager about to be lynched wouldn't lay his cards on the table. There's plenty of reasons, both selfish and unselfish, for a villager to put out false information when he's not worried about being lynched - I do it in almost every game where I'm a villager, and I know other players do it too.

[oliegirl]

Since we aren't voting tonight and I had a hellacious day at work, I'm going to go crash and watch a movie with my son before going to sleep. Please note this doesn't make me a wolf or the murderer...just someone tired from a very very long day

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

So let me see if I understand this, by way of example. Oliegirl says Jonathan E. is not the murderer. So tomorrow we lynch her (for example). She turns out to be a wolf. Do we lynch JE next?

The problem is that all players (including villagers) have some incentive to put forth both true and false information.

Ahh but here you hit the main reasoning behind gettingthe inforamtion out there. There are only 7 clues that are not distributed (IF in fact all clues are unique) and saldana's rather blinder driven comments aside, it doesn't force a bad guy to get nailed immediately. Even if the murderer wants to cover himself he doesn't have to take any chances on giving duplicate info, all he has to do is give 2 pieces of the REAL crime scene. he simply says "NOT here and NOT with that."

Seriously folks, there is aboslutely no reason to NOT give out the clues. yes there may be disinformation in there, but that will be found out in time.

Passacaglia: Can you verify wether the clues are all unique or are there duplicates? If you can't say one way or the other thats fine, but I thought I should at least ask.

If they are unique then we have a viable path to follow, if they are not then the path is muddier but still plausible to finding the murderer.

[Poli]

I should have told Pass I'd play if I got to play the murderer.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It helps us if we can trust the information. I know, you're going to say maybe we can't trust the info today but we can re-evaluate it down the road. But if we can't trust the info today, there's no reason to reveal it today.

There's no reason why a villager about to be lynched wouldn't lay his cards on the table. There's plenty of reasons, both selfish and unselfish, for a villager to put out false information when he's not worried about being lynched - I do it in almost every game where I'm a villager, and I know other players do it too.

Yes, there is. If you don't reveal today, you could die without revealing it period. Then it doesn't help anyone but wolves and murderers.

And you must not have ever seen frustrated villagers so "screw you, I'm not telling you anything", or never seen lynch victims not be around at the lynch or never see lynch victims lynched via some late deadline vote that doesn'rt allow them to reveal in time. I wuld say you're taking an awful risk that information doesn't get out, and making a careless assumption that every villager will ve "laying his cards on the table."

Don't give me the "plenty of reasons" and "I have done it" answers. Give me the actual reasons. Why would a villager put out false information?

[saldana]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

"They" are the wolves.

And, I will say this again in bold since some of you refuse to actually read it. This information is not going to help us now, but will down the road.

Of course drawing inferences at this point in the game without anyway to vouch for anyone is illogical. It's not going to help until down the road. I have said this in one way or another now three or four times already.

That doesn't mean we should all hide that information until we can use it. More risk there that it never gets revealed. In fact, there is no risk to revealing that is evident from the rules. There is only risk in NOT revealing.

i will put this in bold for you.
i dont appreciate being yelled at in a werewolf game


rule #1 - dont be an asshat

see you all tomorrow