Werewolf LXXII: Chess (Checkmate!)

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by mccollins

Here ya go:

Thanks buddy.

[The Jackal]

I have a feeling the pawns are going to decide who gets lynched today.

[Qwikshot]

This game has a lot of layers, I'm still trying to understand the rule set.

A) You can move independently to the role you are assigned with
B) The higher more valuable roles know who they are

Kind of like a general locked in his castle hoping his army can follow through till he escapes.

So you can potentially lose the game if the king is lost, but the king being the most valuable role is unknown to most, save for high valued roles, and probably will be that way for the bulk of the game.

Oh, and as an added bonus, there are wolves in the game, out to kill...

Charming...

I got until 3pm to vote.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Is it bad to mix scotch with Vicoden on an empty stomach?

Not as long as you add some vitamins.

I have expected you to say:



UNMUTUAL

But that's an old Prisoner joke.

[The Jackal]

unvote Qwik

Him checking in and commenting is enough to get me off that vote. Can someone remind me of the case against hoops? I didn't really see any.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

KWhit,

Your first vote was No Lynch. When the anti-No Lynch movement grew strong, you moved your vote to The Jackal, and explained that vote in a way that I translate as: "Because of the vote count, I feel like there is nobody else I could vote for that would be reasonable." I don't think that was an honest assessment of your options, or, if it was an honest assessment, I very strongly disagree with that way of thinking. The village benefits when people vote for WHO THEY ACTUALLY WANT TO SEE GET LYNCHED.

Actually, if I switched to anyone at this point, it would e you or mccollins as you guys seem to be doing anything you can do to discredit my moves, and not listening to my explanations for my logical actions. That just looks like wolves trying to jump on something to sway opinion against someone. I don't think you're both wolves, but it's very conceivable that one of you is.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Lathum

so he cant change his mind?

No, of course he can. I just mean his explanation of why he voted for The Jackal either stinks, or goes completely contrary to what I consider optimal villager play.

[Qwikshot]

As an added bonus, we could be voting off valuable pieces, seems kind of hasty to be finding someone to vote and eliminate because in this game, the bigger goal should be finding the enemy king and eliminating it...so you should know or at least be confident that who you eliminate isn't too valuable.

That's just me...the greater good, the noble deed and the ultimate shot of victory is the vanquishing of the evil king and his army...

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

I have a feeling the pawns are going to decide who gets lynched today.

WE ARE ALL PAWNS IN PASS' SICK GAME

[jeheinz72]

Unvote Qwikshot

I'm satisfied now that he's checked in.

Unsure where to look next. I'm thinking from the group of hoops, Jackal, KWhit are the best bets

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by Lathum

WE ARE ALL PAWNS IN PASS' SICK GAME

Can I have some drugs please?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

No, of course he can. I just mean his explanation of why he voted for The Jackal either stinks, or goes completely contrary to what I consider optimal villager play.

We can't all be as perfect as you, I guess.

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Unvote Qwikshot

I'm satisfied now that he's checked in.

Unsure where to look next. I'm thinking from the group of hoops, Jackal, KWhit are the best bets

All I did was vote no lynch, and since it's been made clear that's an abhorrent option at this point, I removed my vote immediately. I mean when I went to sleep last night everyone seemed fine with no lynch .. I wake up and I'm almost leading the vote count!

I still want to hear what the case against hoops is. I see the case against KWhit is being made by cronin right now.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by KWhit

We can't all be as perfect as you, I guess.

PWNED

[Lathum]

dola


!

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

I see the case against KWhit is being made by cronin right now.

Maybe you can explain it to me, as I still don't get it.

It's BAD to make sure you vote for someone that has a shot at getting lynched? I thought it was bad to throw your vote away (that's usually the consensus in ww games - especially this early in the game).

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

I have a feeling the pawns are going to decide who gets lynched today.

Good point. Since we don't know who the pawns are we have no idea of the real vote count right now.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Lathum

PWNED

I believe you mean PAWNED - CHESS STYLE!

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

I believe you mean PAWNED - CHESS STYLE!

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Maybe you can explain it to me, as I still don't get it.

It's BAD to make sure you vote for someone that has a shot at getting lynched? I thought it was bad to throw your vote away (that's usually the consensus in ww games - especially this early in the game).

I'm not saying I agreed with the case, just that cronin was making the pitch.

I guess he was perplexed by the timing of the vote and your wording? Donno. Could've been a wolf trying to tack on a vote on me without raising suspicion, or you could just be an innocent that phrased/timed your vote in a way that pinged certain people's wolfdar.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by KWhit

1) Vote for one of the top vote getters to put pressure on them and see what happens.
2) Vote for one of the people who aren't contributing (usually my preferred day 1 vote).

It was starting to get late in the morning and there was no real push for voting for a quiet one so I felt that going in that direction was going to result in a wasted vote. So I didn't go with option 2 (which I really would have preferred slightly).

But later on, that possibility got legs as Path voted for Qwik and st.cronin mentioned he was thinking about it. All of a sudden, option 2 got a chance at actually meaning something. So I decided it was worthwhile to move my vote to Qwik because he'd be in the running for lynch.

So my statement that seems to be giving you such heartburn could be restated as, "Now that voting for Qwik does not seem to be a throw-away vote, I think that I will move my vote to him as I think it makes more sense to vote for someone who is not contributing on day one."

That makes more sense.

Do you still not understand my original understanding of the plain meaning of your words?

You know, the one where Path agreed that it was a solid point to question?

[hoopsguy]

We've got two hours to try and make a good vote today. However, at this point I'm pretty sure that no matter who bites it that we'll have voting record information that will be of use.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by mccollins

That makes more sense.

Do you still not understand my original understanding of the plain meaning of your words?

You know, the one where Path agreed that it was a solid point to question?

What does Path know?!



I'm just frustrated at basically being called a stupid player (by cronin) because I don't want to throw away my vote.

[oliegirl]

Finally caught up - damn phones kept ringing at work this morning...

Definitely against a no lynch vote, as I always am. I don't think Hoops being against a no lynch is suspicious at all, I think he's just speaking his mind, and I don't think a tie vote is a good idea in this game b/c we lose both vote getters, which could really cripple the village, especially early on....

VOTE THE JACKAL

[hoopsguy]

KWhit, anyone who has played a couple of games with you knows that you are not a stupid player.

Now, that is a different matter than "are you playing fast and loose with your vote?" which was the same thing that was suggested about Jackal earlier. Which is why I find it pretty ironic that he is now working towards a case for you.

For now, my vote stays where it is at - on Jackal.

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

Finally caught up - damn phones kept ringing at work this morning...

Definitely against a no lynch vote, as I always am. I don't think Hoops being against a no lynch is suspicious at all, I think he's just speaking his mind, and I don't think a tie vote is a good idea in this game b/c we lose both vote getters, which could really cripple the village, especially early on....

VOTE THE JACKAL

Do you realize you just tied the vote?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

I'm not saying I agreed with the case, just that cronin was making the pitch.

I guess he was perplexed by the timing of the vote and your wording? Donno. Could've been a wolf trying to tack on a vote on me without raising suspicion, or you could just be an innocent that phrased/timed your vote in a way that pinged certain people's wolfdar.

Simplest way to explain it is that I read KWhit's posts as meaning "I'll vote for Jackal but I don't really want to vote for Jackal, but I have to because of the vote count." That might be reasonable 30 minutes to deadline, but at the time it just made no sense whatsoever, and seemed to be maybe a version of "I'll vote for Jackal but I don't actually want him lynched."

[PurdueBrad]

Okay, for anyone STILL at no lynch. Look at it this way:

There are 20 players, 10 on each side. I'll assume 2 wolves per side, that means 12/20 are bad. BUT take this a step further, you (if good), can assume that you are good, making it 12/19. Assuming you are trusting your partner until you have reason not to, you get it to 12 out of 18 being against you, meaning you have a 66.7% chance of hitting somebody bad. I really think it is worth the two-thirds shot to get somebody.

As for the Hoops argument, mine is simple. He is an incredibly skilled and dangerous player and there is only a 33% chance he's on my team. It's worth that risk to me to vote him off. I hate to say that he's so good I want him gone but in this game in particular, he concerns me as he's likely not on my team (since we're NEVER on the same team anyway).

The voting will be interesting given the power of the pawns and the tie-breaker. Come night two and beyond, we can lose people during the game, during votes, and to the wolves, which means TONS of deaths quickly. Chaotic and I'm worried about watching Hoops spin that chaos if he's against me.

But anyway, whoever asked about a case against Hoops, there really isn't one. I just have a healthy fear/respect of his abilities in a game like this.

[hoopsguy]

Vote count?

As it looks right now, I won't be around for the last hour leading up to the deadline. So if I'm under a lot of pressure then I think it makes sense for me to make a reveal a little too early rather than too late.

[st.cronin]

I am definitely not calling KWhit a stupid player.

[The Jackal]

I'm sorry I didn't want to risk outing my king or queen on the first day with no information whatsoever. I don't understand why out of all the people who were on no lynch, I'm the one that was targeted. Is it because clap had a meaningless vote on me in the first place?

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

Do you realize you just tied the vote?

We have no idea if it is tied due to the pawns. It could be a landslide for all we know.

[The Jackal]

hoopsguy (5) - mccollins (177), PurdueBrad (193), RendeR (197), Sonic Youth (286), Neon Chaos (289)
The Jackal (5) - claphamsa (179), Narcizo (233), Lathum (277), hoopsguy (290), oliegirl (374)
Qwikshot (3) - path12 (300), KWhit (307), Barkeep49 (314)
KWhit (2) - ntndeacon (226), st.cronin (273)
Barkeep49 (1) - Chief Rum (237)
Render (1) - Anxiety (238)

Not voted: Qwikshot, The Jackal, jeheinz72

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

We have no idea if it is tied due to the pawns. It could be a landslide for all we know.

This is true, but it's just funny that she said she didn't want a tie vote and she ended up tying it. I realize there are 12 extra votes floating around that we're unaware of, but still.

[hoopsguy]

Purdue, there is a better than 33% chance that I'm on your team. It is 50% that I'm on your team (Black/White).

33% only works if you are assuming that your team has no wolves and you have knowledge that there are four wolves. And even then it isn't 33%, but that isn't really the point.

I don't dislike the argument you present, per se, but I think your numbers are wrong and I'm a little bit suspicious of your logic in coming up with them.

[path12]

Originally Posted by KWhit

What does Path know?!

Very little, believe me.

FWIW, I think you've explained your rationale pretty well. Seems like folks are stretching to make cases for people day 1 a little more than usual, I suppose that is due to the pawns having extra vote power.

Now that Qwik has showed up, I'm going back to my original position. I haven't seen a worthwhile case on anybody. I'm sure this will now be looked at with either suspicion or derision, or with a mixture of scotch and Vicodin.

UNVOTE QWIKSHOT
VOTE NO LYNCH

[The Jackal]

I guess I have to do this out of self preservation (possibly irrelevant with pawns), though I see no solid case against him. And I guess his vote -is- on me.

vote hoopsguy

[path12]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

As for the Hoops argument, mine is simple. He is an incredibly skilled and dangerous player and there is only a 33% chance he's on my team. It's worth that risk to me to vote him off. I hate to say that he's so good I want him gone but in this game in particular, he concerns me as he's likely not on my team (since we're NEVER on the same team anyway).

hoops drives conversation and analysis. Yes, he's a dangerous wolf, but he's a helluva villager as well. I'll look askance at anyone who votes him off day 1.

[The Jackal]

hoopsguy (6) - mccollins (177), PurdueBrad (193), RendeR (197), Sonic Youth (286), Neon Chaos (289), The Jackal (387)
The Jackal (5) - claphamsa (179), Narcizo (233), Lathum (277), hoopsguy (290), oliegirl (374)
KWhit (2) - ntndeacon (226), st.cronin (273)
Qwikshot (2) - KWhit (307), Barkeep49 (314)
Barkeep49 (1) - Chief Rum (237)
Render (1) - Anxiety (238)
No Lynch (1) - path12 (386)

Not voted: Qwikshot, jeheinz72

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

KWhit, anyone who has played a couple of games with you knows that you are not a stupid player.

Now, that is a different matter than "are you playing fast and loose with your vote?" which was the same thing that was suggested about Jackal earlier. Which is why I find it pretty ironic that he is now working towards a case for you.

For now, my vote stays where it is at - on Jackal.

Fast and loose with my vote - I just don't see how or why people can make that claim (I'm not saying you are, just using that phrase as a jumping off point for this thought).

It's day one and I have basically NO feel for who to vote for. At this point, the wolves are most likely just sitting back quietly letting the villagers bash on each other. There's no real argument to vote for anyone at this point, so my vote is a total shot in the dark (as is everyone else's).

My vote will probably change again, as I don't think I will be voting for Qwik now that he's checked in, so there may be more fast-ness and loose-ness coming.

[The Jackal]

FWIW, I'd be open to voting no lynch again. Even though it's apparently what may cost me my life.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by KWhit

What does Path know?!



I'm just frustrated at basically being called a stupid player (by cronin) because I don't want to throw away my vote.

I definitely wouldn't say your stupid (see: Cruise game) but I think your route to getting where you are is a curious one.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by path12

hoops drives conversation and analysis. Yes, he's a dangerous wolf, but he's a helluva villager as well. I'll look askance at anyone who votes him off day 1.

yet you toss your vote on no lynch when you could potentialy save hoops.

burn the candle at both ends much?

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Purdue, there is a better than 33% chance that I'm on your team. It is 50% that I'm on your team (Black/White).

33% only works if you are assuming that your team has no wolves and you have knowledge that there are four wolves. And even then it isn't 33%, but that isn't really the point.

I don't dislike the argument you present, per se, but I think your numbers are wrong and I'm a little bit suspicious of your logic in coming up with them.

I figure in a game of 20, 4 wolves is a safe assumption, meaning each team would have two. And actually no, 33% works if I assume my team does have wolves. 12 (8 black pieces, 2 black wolves, 2 white wolves) out of 20 players. I know my allegiance and am willing to assume my "partner's" for now, making it really 12 out 18 unknown being against me, hence 33%.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Lathum

yet you toss your vote on no lynch when you could potentialy save hoops.

burn the candle at both ends much?

I am infinite, I contain multitudes.

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

Do you realize you just tied the vote?

Yeah - I do now, I thought I was caught up, but when I hit submit, there were 2 more damn pages of posts to read. I'm trying to get caught up now, have 15 minutes before I have to be back on the phones...will move my vote if I need to of course...

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Simplest way to explain it is that I read KWhit's posts as meaning "I'll vote for Jackal but I don't really want to vote for Jackal, but I have to because of the vote count." That might be reasonable 30 minutes to deadline, but at the time it just made no sense whatsoever, and seemed to be maybe a version of "I'll vote for Jackal but I don't actually want him lynched."

That is a gross mischaracterization of what I said.

I said that I had no feel for where to put my vote. Because it's day 1. Big difference.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by path12

I am infinite, I contain multitudes.

ONION

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

but I think your numbers are wrong

Actually I'm curious where you think my numbers are wrong. With my statistics background, this is the exact way I've been taught to look at this situation and I had one of our math teachers just look at this as well. So...where am I wrong or are you trying to steer suspicion?

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

I figure in a game of 20, 4 wolves is a safe assumption, meaning each team would have two. And actually no, 33% works if I assume my team does have wolves. 12 (8 black pieces, 2 black wolves, 2 white wolves) out of 20 players. I know my allegiance and am willing to assume my "partner's" for now, making it really 12 out 18 unknown being against me, hence 33%.

BTW, this is working under the given assumption that we're generically the white team according to the rules until we hear otherwise.