[WW] Bloodlust GAME OVER - WEREWOLVES WIN

[abijnk]

The first vote isn't worth much anyway so I think everyone would vote for them. Either way it would end the game really quickly. (too quickly)

No, I completely disagree. It could be a strategic play on the ww's part. For example, say I am a ww with two other players, I reveal my role and claim two other players are with me, I get lynched and am a ww, the other person gets lynched the next day and is a villager. In desperate times it could be an interesting move.

 

[jav6454]

Here is my take on this. I say we allow players to play as they wish. It is part of the game to allow a player to develop his/her character. Unfortunately, it may not be to the convenience of the opposing or same team.

This must be discussed for next game and is not something we should be debating at this point in time. For now, all we can do is live with what we have gone through. I find chrmjenkins[/b] actions within his scope of the the character. I also find King Mook Mook's actions to help us or not part of the game.

I like abijnk's comments because this makes the game more real life like. As per the lies, I was one who did not mind lying because after all, this is a game of deception.

Edit - Abijnk just said something valuable above me. After all, it's a strategy we tried to pull when she and me were wolves. Recall the voting was between willbro and me. She pulled a sacrifice on me (we agreed on this) to make herself look innocent. It did eventually buy us some time. Also, before I died, I pulled the Infection on Rodimus, who was least suspected.

 

[lbro]

No, I completely disagree. It could be a strategic play on the ww's part. For example, say I am a ww with two other players, I reveal my role and claim two other players are with me, I get lynched and am a ww, the other person gets lynched the next day and is a villager. In desperate times it could be an interesting move.

I haven't thought of that but yes that would be a neat. It would definitely add an interesting part to the game.

 

[ravenvii]

Edit - Abijnk just said something valuable above me. After all, it's a strategy we tried to pull when she and me were wolves. Recall the voting was between willbro and me. She pulled a sacrifice on me (we agreed on this) to make herself look innocent. It did eventually buy us some time. Also, before I died, I pulled the Infection on Rodimus, who was least suspected.

I am sure that you also remember what also happened after that. That's all I will say on the matter.

My final word is that players are allowed to do what they wish, ethical or not. Just don't cause drama outside the game.

Like jav6454 said, paraphrased, let's shut up and game on.

 

[mscriv]

mscriv, to answer your question, once a infection occurs, I inform the infected that he has been infected, and give him the names of all the living wolves. As for the vampires, it is the same - once a goth or vampire discovers the other, I inform the discovered that he has been converted (or that he has found the goth, and the goth is now a vampire), and give him the name of the discoverer. The second goth's identity is kept secret until the goth discovers either of the active vampires.

Thank you for clarifying. So, basically there is no way for member's of the baddie side, WW or Vamp, to hide themselves from their respective partners.

As for ethics, both abijnk and willbro are correct. In other words, I've always envisioned this as a open game. Players are allowed to play as they wish.

However, there are no way for the wolves to retaliate within the current rules (other than pushing for a lynching of course, which isn't very effective). So in a sense that would be against the spirit of the game and ruin it for others. So either we leave it be, and trust each other not to ruin the game, or we could discuss additional rules to prevent that from happening (and retaliate against those who betray their sides). Make a stronger deterrence in other words.

Just to make sure I understand, the "retaliation" you are referring to is that the wolves have no recourse if their infected partner chooses to rat them out. I would assume this would also apply to the vampire and goth relationship in the event that the goth wished to rat out the vampire. This brings up another question that has never been asked before and that is whether or not the WW's can kill each other or if the Master Vampire can kill his converted goths? If the game has no ethics/rules and these players can turn against each other then this would seem to be the only possible "retaliation" option available. This is the first game we've played where the WW's and Vamps can kill each other, but what about baddies of the same nature, can they kill one another based on majority vote or position of master vs. converted goth?

I have only added the confidential communication rule because of the potential of things getting *really* ugly (PMs are private messages, after all). No one has pushed that boundary yet, but I wanted to make sure that doesn't happen.

If you recall, this rule was broken last game and used effectively to fool the villagers. After iBookG4user revealed he was the seer and then was subsequently infected, he posted the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime
Well who did your scan last night and what was the replay.

Here's the PM that I just got from Ravenvii:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenvii

Quote:
Originally Posted by iBookG4user
I'd like to scan -aggie-

Just a villager.

So that means that my list is now:
Chrmjenkins
Roric
SilentPanda

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime
ibook who did you scan and what is the report.

Here's the PM:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ravenvii

Quote:
Originally Posted by iBookG4user
I'd like to scan chrmjenkins

He's the Undertaker.

That leaves SilentPanda on my list.

The PM about aggie being a villager was a lie because aggie was a werewolf. Putting an actual PM quote from ravenvii led credence to the fact that iBookG4user was telling the truth and better concealed that he had been infected. This threw me for a loop and I didn't understand it until the game was over (because I was sure aggie was a werewolf). I agree that this type of action is unfair and I'm glad you've made a rule about it. Shame on you iBookG4user.

 

[lbro]

If you recall, this rule was broken last game and used effectively to fool the villagers. After iBookG4user revealed he was the seer and then was subsequently infected, he posted the following:

The PM about aggie being a villager was a lie because aggie was a werewolf. Putting an actual PM quote from ravenvii led credence to the fact that iBookG4user was telling the truth and better concealed that he had been infected. This threw me for a loop and I didn't understand it until the game was over (because I was sure aggie was a werewolf). I agree that this type of action is unfair and I'm glad you've made a rule about it. Shame on you iBookG4user.

I think that what iBookG4user did should be allowed, because anyone can make up a quote like that. On the other hand, posting some hard evidence (for example: a picture) shouldn't be allowed.

 

[mscriv]

Again, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then Willbro. Ravenvii is the storyteller/moderator of the game and therefore doesn't exist in the actual game itself as a character in any way. Therefore appealing to his authority by quoting PM's from him is "out of bounds" in my opinion. In "good faith" why would any of us have reason to believe that a player would lie about something coming from the storyteller? Like ravenvii said above:

I have only added the confidential communication rule because of the potential of things getting *really* ugly (PMs are private messages, after all).

Anyway, on with the gameplay. If there are no rules about ethics then I return to my original questions for King Mook Mook:

.... would the wolves risk wasting the infection knowing that we could lynch KMM right away? Is the infection worth losing just to take out the seer?

King Mook Mook, how do you propose that we maintain any trust in you at this point? Are you dedicated to being a "good guy" until the end? Would you tell us if you were infected thereby sacrificing yourself and outing the wolf pack for the betterment of the village? Even if you say yes, how can we know you are telling the truth or that you won't have a change of heart later if the wolves do add you to their numbers?

 

[abijnk]

I think that what iBookG4user did should be allowed, because anyone can make up a quote like that. On the other hand, posting some hard evidence (for example: a picture) shouldn't be allowed.

Both are easily faked, why does no one seem to get that?

 

[iBlue]

I'm glad this game is open to whatever ethics (or lack thereof) the players want to assign to it. It makes it more interesting and rules forcing a player's hand diminishes that. People can and should just play how they like.

 

[King Mook Mook]

So, the question is, would the wolves risk wasting the infection knowing that we could lynch KMM right away? Is the infection worth losing just to take out the seer?

King Mook Mook, how do you propose that we maintain any trust in you at this point? Are you dedicated to being a "good guy" until the end? Would you tell us if you were infected thereby sacrificing yourself and outing the wolf pack for the betterment of the village? Even if you say yes, how can we know you are telling the truth or that you won't have a change of heart later if the wolves do add you to their numbers?

How do I expect that? I don't. No one would, or could, reasonably expect that in this game. I promise you, and I don't make promises lightly, that I'm not a werewolf, vampire or what-have you, now. I may be in the future, sure, I can't control that, but I guarantee you that now I am a Seer, and only a Seer.

To be honest with you, I wouldn't tell you or the village if I was infected, just because that would be extremely unfair to the werewolves. Unethical in my opinion. If you are infected, fine, you are now on the Werewolves side, not the villagers and have no responsibility to tell them that you are. It's not a matter of being good or bad: it's just the side you are on.

That said, I wouldn't lie about who I was. Period. And I respect chrmjenkins for not lying, in my opinion makes the game much more interesting. Even if it was for the betterment of my side, I wouldn't lie about it, and regardless of how everyone else feels about that (if you would like to lie and be dishonest in the game, that's your choice, and I respect that and how you play the game) that's how I play.

Now, I don't ask you to believe me, because I wouldn't. Just remember, you've only got one Seer, otherwise you will be lynching, essentially (let's be honest about this), blind. Lynch me as you like, but you will be getting rid of the only real way to tell if one person or another is a villager, werewolf, vampire or anything.

That's my position on the matter, and you may detest it, disagree with it, or vilify it and that's your prerogative, but that's what I'm doing in this game (and the ones before). I don't ask you to believe me, I wouldn't, just believe in me, and believe that I'm not lying to you.

 

[Don't panic]

How do I expect that? I don't. No one would, or could, reasonably expect that in this game. I promise you, and I don't make promises lightly, that I'm not a werewolf, vampire or what-have you, now. I may be in the future, sure, I can't control that, but I guarantee you that now I am a Seer, and only a Seer.

To be honest with you, I wouldn't tell you or the village if I was infected, just because that would be extremely unfair to the werewolves. Unethical in my opinion. If you are infected, fine, you are now on the Werewolves side, not the villagers and have no responsibility to tell them that you are. It's not a matter of being good or bad: it's just the side you are on.

That said, I wouldn't lie about who I was. Period. And I respect chrmjenkins for not lying, in my opinion makes the game much more interesting. Even if it was for the betterment of my side, I wouldn't lie about it, and regardless of how everyone else feels about that (if you would like to lie and be dishonest in the game, that's your choice, and I respect that and how you play the game) that's how I play.

Now, I don't ask you to believe me, because I wouldn't. Just remember, you've only got one Seer, otherwise you will be lynching, essentially (let's be honest about this), blind. Lynch me as you like, but you will be getting rid of the only real way to tell if one person or another is a villager, werewolf, vampire or anything.

That's my position on the matter, and you may detest it, disagree with it, or vilify it and that's your prerogative, but that's what I'm doing in this game (and the ones before). I don't ask you to believe me, I wouldn't, just believe in me, and believe that I'm not lying to you.

My Sire,
i would humbly point out to His Majesty that His recent most illuminate edict contains what appears to be an internal contradiction, which no doubt was caused by a scribe misinterpretation of His most clarifying thoughts. Either His Majesty would let His servants participate into His change in nature, if this was to happen, or He would conceal from them its occurrence.
Always in the best interest of the kingdom, of course.

Don't Panic

 

[Don't panic]

very interesting discussion above.

I think that anyone should be allowed to play as they wish, however, game decisions come with strings attached.
this is after all a team game, and as in other any team game, one's play affect the teammates as well.
Willingly playing against your own team usually doesn't go well with your teammates nor often with the opposing team as well, as it can ruin the game for everyone.
It also doesn't project well on how one's participation in the next game will be seen, as i think a 'traitor' in one game would be an automatic candidate for the first lynching in the next.

As abjnk said, this is a psychological game (it was born as a psychology class exercise after all), but it also is a game of logic, trust and balance. you eliminate one of those elements with random or against-the-character play, and the game suffers.

i really think that 'playing the character' makes the game more fun, even if it's not your favorite or it's a boring one. there are many nuances in how to play a character, but the endgame should be clear.
I am sure that many of you played RPGs before. the best RPG players are the ones that bring their character to life, and are true to its nature: if you are playing a not-too-sharp warrior, you shouldn't be the one that solves all the riddles, or comes up with the clever plan, even if in real life you are mensa material.

finally as far as the out of game evidence. I agree with abjnk that it's easy to fake 'documents' including screenshot (however it is clearly much 'easier' to just make up quotes), but I side with mscriv that -within the game- the storyteller doesn't "exist", and shouldn't be quoted directly in any form. he is just allowing us to play by managing the specials, but the game must progress as a result of players' interactions

 

[abijnk]

How do I expect that? I don't. No one would, or could, reasonably expect that in this game. I promise you, and I don't make promises lightly, that I'm not a werewolf, vampire or what-have you, now. I may be in the future, sure, I can't control that, but I guarantee you that now I am a Seer, and only a Seer.

To be honest with you, I wouldn't tell you or the village if I was infected, just because that would be extremely unfair to the werewolves. Unethical in my opinion. If you are infected, fine, you are now on the Werewolves side, not the villagers and have no responsibility to tell them that you are. It's not a matter of being good or bad: it's just the side you are on.

That said, I wouldn't lie about who I was. Period. And I respect chrmjenkins for not lying, in my opinion makes the game much more interesting. Even if it was for the betterment of my side, I wouldn't lie about it, and regardless of how everyone else feels about that (if you would like to lie and be dishonest in the game, that's your choice, and I respect that and how you play the game) that's how I play.

Now, I don't ask you to believe me, because I wouldn't. Just remember, you've only got one Seer, otherwise you will be lynching, essentially (let's be honest about this), blind. Lynch me as you like, but you will be getting rid of the only real way to tell if one person or another is a villager, werewolf, vampire or anything.

That's my position on the matter, and you may detest it, disagree with it, or vilify it and that's your prerogative, but that's what I'm doing in this game (and the ones before). I don't ask you to believe me, I wouldn't, just believe in me, and believe that I'm not lying to you.

So, everyone, this part is easy. After every round we will ask King Mook Mook straight up "Are you the infected werewolf?" and he will tell us yes or no. Easy peasy.

 

[Don't panic]

So, everyone, this part is easy. After every round we will ask King Mook Mook straight up "Are you the infected werewolf?" and he will tell us yes or no. Easy peasy.

and when he tells us 'no' do we believe him or not?

i think for one round at least he should be trusted, assuming the ww hunter protects him tonight, and he is not already infected, but then there is no way of knowing.
overall it was clearly not the best move to come out so early. i think the best time to come out is mid-game:hopefully he is still alive and has gathered some valuable intel for the end game.

if we keep playing, i think in 4-5 games the strategies will become very complex, and very intersting. we will have to put a time limit at the day phase as well i think, with a stalemate-breaker in place.

 

[stonyc]

Wow, that was fast. I got busy yesterday doing homework, didn't really expect the votes to go that fast! Especially with how slow the last round went, sorry about that.

In principle, I agree with willbro... I don't see the big deal about faking posts and see a big enough line between that and faking a photograph... but that said, as the game leader Ravenvii has to make judgment calls sometimes and he should have every right and power to do so. Maybe it could be brought up again for discussion before the next game, but I appreciate that Ravenvii is defining how we play, makes it clear for everyone.

 

[abijnk]

and when he tells us 'no' do we believe him or not?

i think for one round at least he should be trusted, assuming the ww hunter protects him tonight, and he is not already infected, but then there is no way of knowing.
overall it was clearly not the best move to come out so early. i think the best time to come out is mid-game:hopefully he is still alive and has gathered some valuable intel for the end game.

if we keep playing, i think in 4-5 games the strategies will become very complex, and very intersting. we will have to put a time limit at the day phase as well i think, with a stalemate-breaker in place.

I was trying to illustrate to KMM how absolutely silly his statements are. He can't not lie AND not betray his side when asked a straight forward question, so we will know straight away. He's got this naive notion that he will be able to just ignore the question or dodge it without people noticing. Well, sorry dude, but joke is on you...

 

[Don't panic]

I was trying to illustrate to KMM how absolutely silly his statements are. He can't not lie AND not betray his side when asked a straight forward question, so we will know straight away. He's got this naive notion that he will be able to just ignore the question or dodge it without people noticing. Well, sorry dude, but joke is on you...

i know, we are saying the same thing.

 

[jav6454]

I was trying to illustrate to KMM how absolutely silly his statements are. He can't not lie AND not betray his side when asked a straight forward question, so we will know straight away. He's got this naive notion that he will be able to just ignore the question or dodge it without people noticing. Well, sorry dude, but joke is on you...

My same exact thought. After this night, I am voting KMM out. I also say this to the Sorcerer, don't bring him back. Wolves aren't stupid, they know infecting KMM right now will be a waste of infection. They'll most likely infect a random villager first.

As per the comment of we lynching blind, we always do that because Seers don't reveal themselves until the end if they are still alive. So not like we'll miss much.

 

[abijnk]

i know, we are saying the same thing.

i know, we are saying the same thing.

 

[Don't panic]

i know, we are saying the same thing.

 

[jav6454]

i know, we are saying the same thing.

How about we agree we are all agreeing to agreeing the same agreement? That settles it, agreed?

 

[King Mook Mook]

Okay, probably the best idea to clarify what I meant: I mean that if I'm converted to the werewolf (which I'm not, at least currently), I'm not going to do a chrmjenkins and promise to give you all the werewolves' names. I find that to be silly, and not part of the game, you're on the side you're on, don't play for the other one.

Equally, I'm not going to lie to you about which character I am, maybe that's naive, perhaps it isn't. That's what I plan to do, and that's what I will do. It really doesn't concern me if you don't think I will, because I will. Vote me off tomorrow, as you like, but that's not going to help anyone, much less the village, who will be without the only way of really knowing if someone is a werewolf.

 

[ravenvii]

The villagers woke up to one of the most horrifying sights they've ever seen. This is unprecedented.

The villagers immediately assembled to decide on who will take the punishment for such atrocity.

What they found was a stick driven into the ground in the town square holding up a panda's head. The poor panda.

The villagers, in their horror and outrage, did not even realize what the panda's head meant until halfway into the afternoon.

SilentPanda has been eaten by werewolves. It is now DAY. 16 remain, and 9 is the majority vote.

 

[-aggie-]

I know I already have my dead post, but I feel I need to get some clarification here, since you seem to be discussing rules changes during the game. Are you guys actually talking about someone getting infected and then working for the villagers? Or people not playing their role? That would ruin this game, IMO. The thing is, no matter whether you guys want to discuss ethics or whatever, in actuality, the person infected no longer has a villager self….they’re a WW. A WW wouldn’t do something against the WW’s. If you are actually discussing otherwise, we’ll need to certainly visit this for the new rules.

 

[Melrose]

I'm glad this game is open to whatever ethics (or lack thereof) the players want to assign to it. It makes it more interesting and rules forcing a player's hand diminishes that. People can and should just play how they like.

It's a game of deception and manipulating, so I agree. While I've never outright lied in one of these games, it does add to the deception angle and make things much, much more intriguing. Plus, if a lie is told there's always the possibility it comes out and backfires (which I think has happened... I just can't place it)