WW LII -- Clue (SOCIALITES WIN)

[Crim]

Oh, and

VOTE NO LYNCH

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

No, my objection has been that THERE IS NO REASON FOR US TO TRUST THAT ANYBODY, VILLAGER OR WOLF, IS PUTTING FORWARD GOOD INFORMATION. Now you are trying to engage me in the reasons why, which as I have said are myriad.

Well, if someone is caught in a lie, st.cronin, that is up to them to defend themselves. You know what happens in this game if you lie without good reason. If someone says what they know and lies, they will need to say why they lied, and prove they aren't wolves putting out disinformation. If someone doesn't say their information at all, there is a reasonable suspicion they are being wolfish and shouldn't complain if people look at them askance for keeping their clues hidden.

No reason? Come on, st.cronin, you know that's not true. There is still plenty of reason to trust that information if the player offering it turns out to be a villager. Sure, there is wiggle room, but by and large, people aren't going to flat out lie about that if they're a villager for the exact reason I state above: no one wants to be lynched when they are a villager for lying unnecessarily.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Crim

Having said that, I do think there is value in everyone sharing thier non-room clues. As CR points out, this info will likely become more valuable in the future, as we're able to start constructing a COT.

I'm curious, though, does anyone have an opinion of whether someone who is attacked but protected by Col. Mustard gets any info? Will they even be notified that they were attacked? If not, it's going to be hard to corroborate any bodyguard reveal.

Also, will we know if Mr. Green (or Prof Plum) scans us? I've prolly only read through about five WW games, and generally the scannee gets some sort of info, yes?

That goes from game to game, in both cases. My game before this one didn't have any information to those being guarded or scanned. But I know plenty do.

Usually the GM doesn't put that information out there to start, so we may have to wait for a deadline before we can know this.

[SnDvls]

nameless socialite checking in

finally caught up

I have 2 clues a room and a person, but for now I'll hold that info so see if someone tries to claim it as theirs.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by SnDvls

nameless socialite checking in

finally caught up

I have 2 clues a room and a person, but for now I'll hold that info so see if someone tries to claim it as theirs.

Thanks for not being the murderer, SnDvls. Now, how do you feel about full moons? Silver bullets? Hmm?

[Crim]

Welp, I'm off to bed. Doesn't look like a lynching's likely tomorrow, which is fine by me. I'll prolly not be back on until around 8 or 9pm Eastern Wednesday.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Crim

Also, will we know if Mr. Green (or Prof Plum) scans us? I've prolly only read through about five WW games, and generally the scannee gets some sort of info, yes?

I think there have been more games where you don't know you were scanned than ones where you do.

[Barkeep49]

Let's clear up the Mustard confusion. This from the rules:

You are Col. Mustard, a military officer recently returned from the Far East. Your military training allows you to protect one person each night from any kind of attack. No identities will be revealed from this action, but you will be notified if your services end up being required. You may not protect the same person on two consecutive nights.

So you don't learn who attacked you but you do learn that you prevented a kill. Seems straight forward enough for me.

[ntndeacon]

Originally Posted by saldana

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

Does that mean it is a were duck? eek!

I thikn I will go hide from the wolves and the Ducks

[ntndeacon]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Incorrect. You can still get weapon or person info. If you get room info that is already out there, it is less useful, but it does corroborate the previous person's claim. It's a trust building mechanism in that sense.

The only questionable part about this statement, is didnt Pass say that the info you get is not neccesarily random. if it is not random we might all get the same info in each room. I know that makes such info more to be trusted, but it is something to think on that we might get the same info on different nights.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ntndeacon

The only questionable part about this statement, is didnt Pass say that the info you get is not neccesarily random. if it is not random we might all get the same info in each room. I know that makes such info more to be trusted, but it is something to think on that we might get the same info on different nights.

Well, I actually asked him that question and I don't think he responded. I'll dig it up and ask it again.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Each night, you name a person, room, and weapon. By the next morning, if available, you will learn evidence that one of those three things was not involved in the crime.

Okay, the above is in response to my question here:

Do the same people learn the same things from the a stay in the same room on different nights? So if I stay in the Lounge one night and find a clue, and st. cronin stays in the Lounge the next night, will he also find the same clue?

And can item and murderer identity information only be gained from the room where the murder occurred, or can it be found in any other room?

Okay, well, Pass's response was to point out that the framework of my question wasn't correct (it was more than just naming a room to hang in). So he sorta dodged the point I was trying to get about whether we get the same results if different people ask the same question.

So I guess I'll rephrase it.

PASSACAGLIA: If two people turn in the same room, person and weapon, do they get the same response? Is there a set of rules governing how this information is determined, or is there a random element to it? Thanks.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Off to work and I won't be back before the deadline.

VOTE NO LYNCH

[Passacaglia]

PASSACAGLIA: If two people turn in the same room, person and weapon, do they get the same response?

It's possible.

Is there a set of rules governing how this information is determined, or is there a random element to it?

Both.

Thanks.

You're welcome!

[Swaggs]

I won't be back to work until after the deadline, but I should be able to play quite a bit more the next few days.

Vote No Lynch

[ntndeacon]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

It's possible.




Both.



You're welcome!

You know. I wonder if the randomness of it comes from going from person to person in some random ordeuntil you hit one of the cards they have.

For example
if in my guess I put down Sndvls frying pan and hall and the next random person after me was Crim then I would see that SnDvls was not in the murder.

Hopefully this example makes sense. Unfortunately I doubt I will be around to discuss the possibility til after the deadline. (Unless I get REALLLL Lucky at work.)

So since Ineed to vote, I might as well follow the crowd today.

Vote No Lynch

[DaddyTorgo]

Do we think that this whole "room" thing works like it worked in the JtR game? Where we will be able to see who else was in the room with us? I havn't read since last night so I dunno if that's been discussed...but if so...it would seem to make sense to make a "schedule" as it were

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Do we think that this whole "room" thing works like it worked in the JtR game? Where we will be able to see who else was in the room with us? I havn't read since last night so I dunno if that's been discussed...but if so...it would seem to make sense to make a "schedule" as it were

That would be a terrible idea, it would allow the wolves to pick us off at their whim!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

That would be a terrible idea, it would allow the wolves to pick us off at their whim!

but if we knew who else was supposed to be in the room...ie...if our night actions tell us who else is there...it will make it easy to track them down.

[DaddyTorgo]

dola

like i said...only makes sense IF as the night actions look like "You were in the study. You saw person x, y, z in there and discovered that the murder didn't happen via m."

[Telle]

The following people have made no mention of their clues: Swaggs, LoneStarGirl, ntndeacon, Schmidty

The following people have stated that they do not wish to reveal some or all of their clues: Lathum, st.cronin, Jonathan Ezarik, path12, SnDvls, saldana, Crim

[oliegirl]

Has anyone taken the time to make a chart of some sort to compare the clues that everyone has revealed? I'm at work and pretty busy right now, but I might be able to get it done later depending on how the day goes. It seems like that might be a good place to start to see if there is any contradicting information and start to try to figure out who might be a wolf or the murderer.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Do we think that this whole "room" thing works like it worked in the JtR game? Where we will be able to see who else was in the room with us? I havn't read since last night so I dunno if that's been discussed...but if so...it would seem to make sense to make a "schedule" as it were

I really don't like the idea of a schedule. It seems from the rules that our best chance at protection this game is trying to be where the wolves don't think we are. They still have to find us according to this in the rules:

Wolves know the identity of the murderer, and the murderer knows the identity of the wolves. However, they will not have PM privileges.
Each wolf submits a kill by naming the socialite he or she wants to kill, and a room to look for that person in. The kill is successful if the target is found in that room, or a room adjoining that room. Here is a map

So I think placing a "schedule" out does nothing but tells the wolves where to hunt. However the flip side of that is for us to reach one of our victory goals, we need to try to narrow down some clues, and that happens alot quicker with sharing than without sharing.

I understand people's concerns about revealing rooms from our initial clues, but I guess the way that I see it.. if we don't get those clues we end up wasting time in those rooms anyways and don't work towards completing our goal and eventually we'll share enough of those events to narrow it down more just a few days later.

I personally wouldn't mind narrowing down the room choice a bit more because then it gives more power to our side.. Sure the wolves will have a narrowed down area to possibly look in, but we don't necessarily have to go there that turn. If we are worried for our own safety we can try to pull a fast one and go somewhere they won't be looking.

I think right now we have what? 1 murderer and how many wolves? 2? That leaves 16 villagers so each of us have a 1/16 chance of being the night kill target now. While we have more people and less chance of being hit, we should try to figure out our clues NOW instead of later.

If we wait 2-3 days before trying to get down into it more, we'll have what? 3 - 5 less villagers and likely the wolves will have a better idea of who to target as well by then from reveals, interaction or who knows what. So that makes it a higher chance of then being killed and gives us less flexibility to try to hunt for clues.

For instance right now we have people who have stated that the following rooms were not the murder scene:

Lounge
Kitchen
Study
Bathroom
Living Room
Billiard Room

So now instead of me having to just blindly guess, I can at least make an educated decision if I want to try to avoid a wolf or try to find clues tonight. I guess I just don't see where sharing necessarily means we help the wolves pick us off. We still have individual choices of where to go, or if we want to double check someone's information or whatnot.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

Has anyone taken the time to make a chart of some sort to compare the clues that everyone has revealed? I'm at work and pretty busy right now, but I might be able to get it done later depending on how the day goes. It seems like that might be a good place to start to see if there is any contradicting information and start to try to figure out who might be a wolf or the murderer.

Rooms:
Kitchen - Telle
Study - Telle
Billiard Room - Telle
Living Room - Chief Rum
Bathroom - RendeR
Lounge - DaddyTorgo

Weapons:
revolver - Alan T
knife - DaddyTorgo
candlestick - oliegirl
frying pan - Crim

Suspects:
Daddytorgo - Alan T
Telle - Chief Rum
Schmidty - RendeR
Lathum - Barkeep49
saldana - Barkeep49
Jonathan Ezarik - oliegirl
LoneStarGirl - Neon_Chaos
oliegirl - Neon_Chaos
SnDvls - Crim

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

Has anyone taken the time to make a chart of some sort to compare the clues that everyone has revealed? I'm at work and pretty busy right now, but I might be able to get it done later depending on how the day goes. It seems like that might be a good place to start to see if there is any contradicting information and start to try to figure out who might be a wolf or the murderer.

Yeah, I've been keeping track of it. So far no contradictions. Since the wolves get clues too, I highly doubt that someone will be foolish enough to slip up on something that was handed them to start though.

[Lathum]

I have 2 more rooms that the murder didn't happen in.

[Lathum]

with my 2 rooms that would cut the rooms in half.

The reason I am reluctant to reveal is I don't want to give the wolves to much info to narrow things down.

[DaddyTorgo]

or they can pick you off and we'll never learn though lathum.

don't you see. as has been said earlier, with all that's going on this game COULD (if we get no blocks/are unlucky) be a 5 day game.

we need to get the information out there to maximize our chances. and just because someone clears a room doesn't mean that nobody can go there. people are of course free to go to rooms that are already "cleared" to try to learn other tidbits of the murder. but having all the information out there means that people will know which 8 rooms need to be checked at some point. if we get a sense the wolves are blanketing those rooms, well we can stay away and focus on the who/what and leave the rooms for later.

just because a room is clear doesn't mean that nobody will be in it that night. and with the whole "adjoining" thing anyways, it's a pretty moot point. not like holding it to yourself makes you that much safer.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

or they can pick you off and we'll never learn though lathum.

don't you see. as has been said earlier, with all that's going on this game COULD (if we get no blocks/are unlucky) be a 5 day game.

we need to get the information out there to maximize our chances. and just because someone clears a room doesn't mean that nobody can go there. people are of course free to go to rooms that are already "cleared" to try to learn other tidbits of the murder. but having all the information out there means that people will know which 8 rooms need to be checked at some point. if we get a sense the wolves are blanketing those rooms, well we can stay away and focus on the who/what and leave the rooms for later.

just because a room is clear doesn't mean that nobody will be in it that night. and with the whole "adjoining" thing anyways, it's a pretty moot point. not like holding it to yourself makes you that much safer.

Do you understand how this works? The wolves don't pick a room, and if there's somebody there, they get to kill them. They have to give a name and a room. That's why Lathum doesn't want to give up his rooms - he's not worried about the wolves killing somebody, he's worried about the wolves killing HIM.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Do you understand how this works? The wolves don't pick a room, and if there's somebody there, they get to kill them. They have to give a name and a room. That's why Lathum doesn't want to give up his rooms - he's not worried about the wolves killing somebody, he's worried about the wolves killing HIM.

i understand it. and my point is that he can give up his rooms and then any of a number of different people can be involved in checking the rooms out, and if he wants to check them out he's going to have a lot harder time checking out all 14 remaining rooms on his own.

not to mention that with the "adjoining rooms" thing going on (the wolves being able to find you not just in one room but in adjoining rooms) his odds of survival really aren't increased all that much by holding onto the 2 names.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i understand it. and my point is that he can give up his rooms and then any of a number of different people can be involved in checking the rooms out, and if he wants to check them out he's going to have a lot harder time checking out all 14 remaining rooms on his own.

not to mention that with the "adjoining rooms" thing going on (the wolves being able to find you not just in one room but in adjoining rooms) his odds of survival really aren't increased all that much by holding onto the 2 names.

we are all on our own for now unless you want to announce what room you are going to. I suggest not doing that.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i understand it. and my point is that he can give up his rooms and then any of a number of different people can be involved in checking the rooms out, and if he wants to check them out he's going to have a lot harder time checking out all 14 remaining rooms on his own.

not to mention that with the "adjoining rooms" thing going on (the wolves being able to find you not just in one room but in adjoining rooms) his odds of survival really aren't increased all that much by holding onto the 2 names.

So what's the point of him giving up his rooms if other people might want to check out his rooms, anyway. There's only a 1/3 chance of his clue being the one that gets verified, anyway, if somebody does decide to check his room.

As I said before, I understand if people want to try to narrow down who the murderer is. If I had a name, I would put it out there. That seems legit.

[DaddyTorgo]

because the information could prove valuable later once who discover who and how. but if people end up being killed and taking it to their graves we will never know.

and the murderer gets to kill every night without having to rely on guessing where people are. he ought to be high priority along with the wolves.

[DaddyTorgo]

dola

should read "once we discover" not "once who discover"

[Telle]

The room and weapon info is only valuable for the individual victory and in trying to trap the "bad guys" in a lie.

However, the person info is valuable in trying to capture the murderer, which is very important since s/he gets to kill someone every single night. So if you have received a person clue, please come out with it. Of course the murderer and possibly the wolves will lie, but we will hopefully be able to weed that out as we learn who to trust and who not to.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Telle

The room and weapon info is only valuable for the individual victory and in trying to trap the "bad guys" in a lie.

However, the person info is valuable in trying to capture the murderer, which is very important since s/he gets to kill someone every single night. So if you have received a person clue, please come out with it. Of course the murderer and possibly the wolves will lie, but we will hopefully be able to weed that out as we learn who to trust and who not to.

no. we have to have all 3 pieces of the puzzle to capture the murderer i think.

i mean i guess we could lynch the murderer instead of accusing him.

has someone already asked pass what would happen then?

[Telle]

I believe what Pass has said is that if the murderer gets lynched before someone's made an accurate accusation then there's no individual victory. But as far as I'm concerned that's not a real big deal.. the bigger issue is getting a village victory.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Telle

I believe what Pass has said is that if the murderer gets lynched before someone's made an accurate accusation then there's no individual victory. But as far as I'm concerned that's not a real big deal.. the bigger issue is getting a village victory.

aaaah okay.

well then yeah...names names names are what is important most of all

[DaddyTorgo]

there's only 7 possible people who could be the murderer assuming all information is accurate that is up there.

does anyone else have any names they were given?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

no. we have to have all 3 pieces of the puzzle to capture the murderer i think.

i mean i guess we could lynch the murderer instead of accusing him.

has someone already asked pass what would happen then?

I believe someone did. if we lynch the murderer he loses, but we don't fufill our goal. If we don't achieve a personal victory goal by outing the murderer, we then have to do the normal elimination of all of the wolves.

I think calling it a personal victory goal is kind of misleading though. Pass said multiple people can share the personal victory by posting the same accusation. So theoretically we can all get the personal victory by solving the clues from the murderer too. I don't think we should discount that option.

[Lathum]

Not sure if this is relevant, but by releasing who ISN'T the murderer aren't we putting a target on their backs?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Not sure if this is relevant, but by releasing who ISN'T the murderer aren't we putting a target on their backs?

Maybe so, but if the list is 13-15 people long, how much of a target is that?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I believe someone did. if we lynch the murderer he loses, but we don't fufill our goal. If we don't achieve a personal victory goal by outing the murderer, we then have to do the normal elimination of all of the wolves.

I think calling it a personal victory goal is kind of misleading though. Pass said multiple people can share the personal victory by posting the same accusation. So theoretically we can all get the personal victory by solving the clues from the murderer too. I don't think we should discount that option.

so if we achieve that victory condition does the "killing the wolves" goal just not matter? ie...the game will be over?

because if that's true than certainly we can work towards that too

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Maybe so, but if the list is 13-15 people long, how much of a target is that?

true. and the list of who the murderer could be will get smaller as people check back in with their clues after the night.

provides nice cover for the Mr. Green guy too...gives him a way to sneak his views into the results of the general population's

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

so if we achieve that victory condition does the "killing the wolves" goal just not matter? ie...the game will be over?

because if that's true than certainly we can work towards that too

Well thats the thing that is confusing to me slightly. When an individual victory occurs, is the game over? PASSACAGLIA - Can you clarify this?

Accusation (individual victory)
An individual socialite wins the game by making an accusation. This accusation must be in bold, and must be of the form:
I accuse (Passacaglia) of murdering Mr. Boddy in the (Hall) with the (Revolver).
If this accusation is correct, that socialite wins the game. If this accusation is incorrect, the socialite is lynched for his or her rabble rousing. I will wait 12 hours before processing the accusation. If someone else wants to make the same accusation, they may do so, and share either the victory or death (I'm doing this in case an accusation comes right after deadline).

Socialite Victory
A victory for the socialites is obtained if all the wolves and the murderer are lynched before a successful accusation is made.

If this is indeed the case, those who horde their information might not necessarily be wolves, or the murderer.. but might be socialites trying to steal the victory for themselves. Does this mean that some of the villagers might lie in order to mislead the rest of us along the way too?

I know plenty of WW players who only feel if they win if they are alive at the end, so I wouldn't be suprised if some try to get the individual victory at the sake of the rest of us..

[oliegirl]

I haven't played too many WW games, I think this is my 4th or 5th...but something is puzzling me. I noticed that people started casting "No Lynch" votes last night, when the first deadline was still 24 hours away. What is the point of this? In my opinion, that flags them as a wolf...it would make sense that the wolves would want us as villagers/socialites to waste a night of voting and get that "bandwagon" started as soon as possible. I understand the reasoning behing a No Lynch vote, and I may end up voting that way, but to cast that vote so early doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Anyone have any insight into this? Opinions? Ideas???

[Passacaglia]

Well thats the thing that is confusing to me slightly. When an individual victory occurs, is the game over? PASSACAGLIA - Can you clarify this?

That is correct.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

I haven't played too many WW games, I think this is my 4th or 5th...but something is puzzling me. I noticed that people started casting "No Lynch" votes last night, when the first deadline was still 24 hours away. What is the point of this? In my opinion, that flags them as a wolf...it would make sense that the wolves would want us as villagers/socialites to waste a night of voting and get that "bandwagon" started as soon as possible. I understand the reasoning behing a No Lynch vote, and I may end up voting that way, but to cast that vote so early doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Anyone have any insight into this? Opinions? Ideas???

as placeholders? because they believe that this is the right way to go and unlike a vote to lynch a particular person their view is less likely to change?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

I haven't played too many WW games, I think this is my 4th or 5th...but something is puzzling me. I noticed that people started casting "No Lynch" votes last night, when the first deadline was still 24 hours away. What is the point of this? In my opinion, that flags them as a wolf...it would make sense that the wolves would want us as villagers/socialites to waste a night of voting and get that "bandwagon" started as soon as possible. I understand the reasoning behing a No Lynch vote, and I may end up voting that way, but to cast that vote so early doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Anyone have any insight into this? Opinions? Ideas???

Maybe I am biased being one of the early no lynch voters.... Basically long story short...


Long ago I used to be a heavy proponent of always wanting a lynch.. Lynch = info, etc.

I slowly have changed my opinion of this over the course of the past few months. The last two no lynch games I was a part of (One game I ran and one I was a bodyguard in), both games the villagers were tremendously helped by having a no lynch vote there. Perhaps it wasn't necessarily just the no lynch vote that helped, but the circumstances surrounding it also.. So it probably isn't a hard fast rule that says 100% of the time no lynch on day 1 is good.

However after the last two games, I think I've become convinced that if we don't have information on day 1 (since there is no night 0), we have basically a 3/19 chance of getting a wolf and a 16/19 chance of getting a villager. Likewise its a higher chance of having 2 or even 3 villagers before the first bad guy. So even a run off on day 1 between two people more often than not is just two villagers and we learn nothing from it.

If we push that day 1 kill back a day, now you suddenly have multiple people that night with new information, we'll all receive our clues, etc. We are that much more informed on who to vote for, and more importantly didn't do the wolf's work for them by killing one of our own, thus making it that much further away for them from their victory goals.

[DaddyTorgo]

that's hot. therefore all information becomes relevent. so i guess the question then becomes: hey socialites...do you see yourselves as villagers first and socialites second, or socialites first and villagers second?