[WW] Bloodlust GAME OVER - WEREWOLVES WIN

[stonyc]

The fact that you're making it personal seems strange. I'm merely drawing attention to what I notice as a difference in behaviour, not "attacking" you. I made a vote, I posted my logic behind it (more than I can say for a fair amount of the votes so far) and you say explaining myself is "drivel"? Stop attacking my ability as a player just because I have a reason for voting a certain way.. Geesh.

Extra odd. I'm not saying for sure you're a wolf... I'm just trying to explain why I voted a certain way, and I'm hardly trying to convince other people to line up behind me.

And what I'm trying to tell you is that your perception of a difference in behaviour is wrong. That you keep choosing to ignore that is what strikes me as odd.

EDIT:
I apologize for calling your response "drivel". I posted hastily because I did not perceive you as taking me seriously when you used the same argument (posting behaviour) again. I tend to be quite thoughtful in my posts and usually go through several edits before actually submitting them... that did not happen with my post towards you. If you look at the other games, I do in fact post fairly often. Maybe not as much as other people in the game, which you might notice more. But I have posted and when I do they're often more than just a sentence or two. When you repeated your reasoning about posting behaviour, I took offense because it seemed to me that you were ignoring me and my past contributions to the games. Again, I apologize for attacking you personally and will in the future try better to frame my responses within the context of the game.

 

[abijnk]

i waited to post this until i knew abjnk was online, so she can react quickly.

honestly i don't think this was a good idea on King Mook Mook's part (no offense, KMM).
I think this actually increases the chance of the WW targeting abjnk as she is now an even better candidate for infection. One who can insta-kill the WWhunter or the vampire and protect the other two wolves (alternatively) from the vampire/goth, should they get activated.

Abjnk, I am sorry. As it should be obvious from the last couple of pages, I didn't think you were a WW, and I think that you probably still are not one, but the vampire hunter is in my view the perfect weapon in the hands of the wolves, even if for a short time (much, much more than the seer).

i think the best course of action would be for you to use the insta-kill immediately, on whoever you find most suspicious (and declare the victim beforehand). it doesn't have to be the vamp/goth: it can also be a wolf. Yes, the attack would fail, but we would know who the wolf is and can immediately lynch him (i would certainly switch my vote). Getting rid of the insta-kill would also decrease your chance of becoming infected, if you are not already. (as does having a few lynch-votes against you, ironically).

i understand that the chances of insta-killing an innocent villager are high, but so are they when we more or less randomly lynch the next one.

it's your call abbie, it's a bad position but you should act swiftly


updated votes

Jav6454: 6 (NathanMuir, appleguy123, philbeeney, ucfgrad93, Mexbearpig, Rodimus Prime)
Stonyc: 3 (melrose, abjnk, King Mook Mook)
Abijnk: 3 (willbro, stonyc, Don't panic)
Rodimus Prime: 1 (jav6454)
iBlue: 1 (renewed)
Renewed: 1 (iBlue)

1) My status is hidden, so you can't have waited until I'm online, as it wouldn't show that I am online.

2) Give me a good reason that I shouldn't insta-kill you?

 

[iBlue]

^ JMO but I wouldn't waste that shot just yet unless these votes start going more your way. I kind of can't believe anyone would want to risk lynching a hunter. Wait, the Vampire hunter cannot be infected, right? I know the Werewolf hunter can't but I couldn't tell if that applied to the Buffy too.

 

[Don't panic]

1) My status is hidden, so you can't have waited until I'm online, as it wouldn't show that I am online.

2) Give me a good reason that I shouldn't insta-kill you?

ehm... you posted?
that kinda gave you away

you are on the west coast, right? so when i read KMM this morning (NYT time) i was going to post the message, but then i thought that if the WW got it before you that would have increased the chances of your infection in the case they had not immediately seen the opportunity. so i waited until i knew you could react to my post.

if a were a werewolf, i guarantee you'd be a werewolf too now, and we wouldn't be having this conversation (except maybe through PMs)

you can insta-kill me if you suspect me, but given that i spent a good part of my last posts defending you, i am not sure what logic could apply here.

i can only advise you to act quickly, and in a way that solidifies your position as a still regular villager.

edit: iBlue, yes i believe the vampire hunter can be infected by the werewolves

 

[stonyc]

1) My status is hidden, so you can't have waited until I'm online, as it wouldn't show that I am online.

I think he waited for you to post.

After further reflection, I am changing my vote to philbeeney. For this round at least I am convinced, but still troubled by your lack of a reason for voting for Jav6454. I believe that Melrose is mistaken in his observation that my posting behavior has significantly changed, but he is entitled to his opinion. I am voting for philbeeney because he was the initial voter in the three vote block and instead of responding to my original observation of a perceived voting block, he jumped on Melrose's perceived observation that my posting behavior has changed.

EDIT: Added philbeeney's post...

I was thinking along the same lines. The only contribution stonyc has made so far to the game is a couple of posts with lynching totals. As soon as KMM gets raised from the dead, all of a sudden he's in chatterbox mode.

What's the matter stonyc? Are you concerned that the Seer will scan you and find out what you really are?

As for anything said by jav6454, it should be taken with a two fingered motion of sodium chloride.

I haven't seen much active participation in this game from nathanmuir, renewed, willbro and ufcgrad93. What are you guys trying to hide? It just seems strange to me that they are keeping themselves in the shadows and just voting without socialising with the rest of the villagers.

King Mook Mook, I think you should scan the aforementioned list of villagers (along with stonyc) and check to see what they are.

I would like to point out that this was his only post after I posted my observations. At no point did he respond to my observation and the rest of his post can be characterized as deflection.

 

[stonyc]

^ JMO but I wouldn't waste that shot just yet unless these votes start going more your way. I kind of can't believe anyone would want to risk lynching a hunter. Wait, the Vampire hunter cannot be infected, right? I know the Werewolf hunter can't but I couldn't tell if that applied to the Buffy too.

The Werewolf Hunter: The Werewolf Hunter can pick a player to protect every night against werewolf attacks. However, the hunter cannot protect the same player two nights in a row, and cannot protect him/herself. The protection does extend into the daytime, meaning the Hunter can protect a villager from a Kamikaze Werewolf attack. The protection is also effective against an infection. S/he also has an additional ability to instantly kill any player of his choosing. This ability can only be used once during the game, and is only effective against werewolves or villagers. An attack on a vampire will fail, and the Hunter cannot use the ability again, so choose wisely! Immune to one werewolf attack or infection. Can be killed if attacked again (or attacked after an failed infection attempt).

The Vampire Hunter: Same as the Werewolf Hunter, except his protection and insta-kill is effective against only vampires and villagers, not werewolves, and he is immune to one vampire attack.

I read that to mean that if Don't Panic were a WW, abjink's insta-kill would fail. He would only die if he were a Vampire, Goth, or Villager (special or regular).

Regarding WW infection, the rules don't explicitly state that WW infection would fail against the Vampire Hunter, but the bolded portion seems to infer that the Vampire Hunter's protection does not apply to WW infection.

 

[iBlue]

^ &

...
you can insta-kill me if you suspect me, but given that i spent a good part of my last posts defending you, i am not sure what logic could apply here.

i can only advise you to act quickly, and in a way that solidifies your position as a still regular villager.

edit: iBlue, yes i believe the vampire hunter can be infected by the werewolves

Hmmm, looking again at the rules that looks like you're right and Buffies can be infected. That sucks. That would be an extra kill for the wolves if she was turned.
Maybe abijnk taking the shot now to solidify things wouldn't be such a bad idea, and might mean slightly less appeal to infect her (since the wolves would lose the insta-kill from her.)

Though your changing your vote to her makes me wonder if you're hiding something, like that maybe you could be the goth or vamp. ?

ARG!!! WW game paranoia!

 

[Don't panic]

iBlue: in my opinion, assuming that abjnk is indeed the vampire hunter and hasn't been turned yet, the risk of accidentally killing the WWhunter is worth the immediate use of the insta-kill for the following reasons:

- odds: hunter 1/14 (excluding herself and KMM); bad guys 4/14. this is with a fully random guess. However she can do an educated guess because now there is quite a bit of info on which to base one's decision, so the odds should be beven better than that

- her own protection: by using the insta-kill she immediately becomes a less attractive target for the WW and less of a potential danger for the rest of a villagers, thus reducing the possibility of both an infection and a lynching

- she would prove definitively that she indeed is the vamp hunter: The possibility that KMM was already infected and they are playing us is low but not zero.

- ensure that the insta-kill is used: if she doesn't use it, we don't lynch her and the ww decide that it is too risky to infet her, they would likely kill her, so her shot is lost

edit (after iBlue's post): i changed my vote for two reasons:
1) i believe that as things are abjnk is a great threat to the village (i realize it's not her fault, but that doesn't change the situation)
2) paradoxically, being on the brink of being lynched protects her from infection, as the WW must think twice before wasting the infection on someone that might be gone in a few hours

 

[abijnk]

I wish villagers could PM each other...

EDIT:

In the interest of not wasting the insta-kill, does anyone think it would be a good idea for the priest/sorcerer/whatever we are calling it to out themselves? I'm not sure how I feel about it...

 

[iBlue]

I wish villagers could PM each other...

No kidding! The Sorcerer and the Undertaker would be mighty handy to be able to speak privately.

 

[abijnk]

Ok, I've made up my mind, will the real slim shady please stand up?

Oh, wait, that's not quite right is it...

Will the sorcerer please tell us who you are now that your power is gone so that we don't accidentally lynch you and you don't get insta-killed?

 

[Don't panic]

I wish villagers could PM each other...

EDIT:

In the interest of not wasting the insta-kill, does anyone think it would be a good idea for the priest/sorcerer/whatever we are calling it to out themselves? I'm not sure how I feel about it...

i don't think so, it would just add another candidate for infection.
the sorcerer right now is just a normal villager, no more and no less (also, you would not have any way to know whether s/he is telling the truth).

if you do decide to use the insta-kill, you will most likely kill an innocent.
there is nothing you can do about that other than trying to reduce the 'circle of the baddies', so your odds are better.
personally i thnk that the best outcome would be if you get one of the wolves (ideally the alpha), as that would also 'prove' which side you are on. unfortunately, you will always be under some degree of suspicion of being a wolf, like KMM.

Consider also that if you are killed, the odds of wasting the insta-kill become 100%, and if you are eventually turned before using it, the odds of then killing a villager also become 100%.

 

[stonyc]

Though your changing your vote to her makes me wonder if you're hiding something, like that maybe you could be the goth or vamp. ?

I think you meant from her... but your concern is valid. I have just as much chance to be the Vampire or Goth as anyone else, but I am not.

Changing my vote should be seen as suspicious, and in a sense I'm glad that you view my vote change as suspicious. I welcome it, because that means you're paying attention and are engaged in this game (which can't be said for some people).

I will point out a couple things however:
- I switched my vote to another person in the voting block that was observed. I maintain my belief that at least one of those three votes was placed by a WW.
- if I were the Vampire, why would draw I any more attention to myself?
- No one has stepped forward to dispute that abjink is not the Vampire Hunter. No one has placed a vote against her yet and cited something along the lines of not believing her (Don't Panic placed his vote against abjink not because he didn't believe her, but because he doesn't want the instant kill used as a WW weapon). Therefore she is either 1) lying and is actually one of the original WWs and KMM has been infected and is lying, or 2) she is telling the partial truth, she still is the Vampire Hunter BUT was infected... therefore KMM is still telling the truth but his truth is no longer true, or 3) both KMM and abjink are telling the truth and neither has been infected.

Since I don't believe KMM is infected, that leaves option 2) or 3). In both cases, abjink is telling the truth, that she is the Vampire Hunter... whether she is working for the WW or not is the question.

Since the Vampire is not known, and there is a very small chance for her to instant kill the Vampire (killing the Goth won't help us in the sense that we won't know that the Goth has been killed)... I think she should use her instant kill, if at all, on a suspected WW, partly for the reason above and partly because the Vampire/Goth has the added barrier of having to find each other first before being activated.

(EDIT: When I say the Vampire is not known, I think I meant to say more that since there are 2-3 WW to the one Vampire, the chances of hitting the Vampire is two to three times less likely than hitting a WW.)

If she uses her instant kill on a suspected WW and that person happens to be a WW, the attack will fail and presumably we will be notified of that. That person can then be lynched. On the flip side, a villager dies and her instant kill has been wasted.

I think she should consider using her instant kill on the following people:
philbeeney (for reasons noted previously)
ucfgrad93 (ditto)
stonyc (she voted for me, might as well right?)

I didn't list Melrose for a reason. I can't dismiss the fact that our conflict could have largely arisen because of misunderstanding and miscommunication. I'm willing to concede that personal feelings could have clouded my judgment and he was merely pointing out an observation he thought was valid.

 

[mscriv]

To me, what this game is making plainly obvious, as the last one did as well, is that the WW power of infection is the single most dangerous, controversial, and frustrating aspect of the game. As I have previously discussed, it seems the only weapon we have against it is to do as King Mook Mook has done and declare that if turned the player would either out the wolves (an ethical dilemma for some) or at least out themselves as infected and volunteer for lynching (a seemingly more ethical choice than the other). In doing this we at least give the werewolves pause in regards to their choice of whom to infect.

I understand Don't panic's points about abijnk being a target for infection and certainly the insta-kill makes her quite dangerous, but we haven't yet heard from her regarding how she would play if indeed she was infected. And yes, we all know, she could lie to us, but at some point we have to believe someone and at some point we have to believe that each player has some measure of ethical nature to their gameplay. The goal is trying to figure out what someone would do since we have apparently cast off the role designations as boundaries to gameplay decisions.

 

[Don't panic]

i felt this would be a good commentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0BrdMi-oyc&feature=related

 

[stonyc]

I understand Don't panic's points about abijnk being a target for infection and certainly the insta-kill makes her quite dangerous, but we haven't yet heard from her regarding how she would play if indeed she was infected. And yes, we all know, she could lie to us, but at some point we have to believe someone and at some point we have to believe that each player has some measure of ethical nature to their gameplay. The goal is trying to figure out what someone would do since we have apparently cast off the role designations as boundaries to gameplay decisions.

Would like to point out that ethical gameplay could also include the idea that if you get infected, you play 100% as a WW because not doing so would be unfair to the WW players. They are just as invested in this game as everyone else.

EDIT:
I also think that your first paragraph is a perfectly valid way to play, too. If someone decides in their best interests that they do not want to be a baddie, then they are perfectly allowed to do so. That's why this game is so much fun.

 

[iBlue]

I think you meant from her... but your concern is valid. I have just as much chance to be the Vampire or Goth as anyone else, but I am not.

Changing my vote should be seen as suspicious, and in a sense I'm glad that you view my vote change as suspicious. I welcome it, because that means you're paying attention and are engaged in this game (which can't be said for some people).....

Well I was referring more to Don't panic for voting abijnk after her Buffy reveal because it may mean he's either a vamp (active or not) or maybe a goth hoping to get a big threat lynched. It was one of those things (like many in this game) that make me go "hmmmmm".

 

[Don't panic]

Would like to point out that ethical gameplay could also include the idea that if you get infected, you play 100% as a WW because not doing so would be unfair to the WW players. They are just as invested in this game as everyone else.

i would assume this would be the default 'ethical' approach to the game.
other behavior may be acceptable, but certainly diverge from intended way the game was supposed to be played (and balanced, a very important point IMO)

EDIT:
I also think that your first paragraph is a perfectly valid way to play, too. If someone decides in their best interests that they do not want to be a baddie, then they are perfectly allowed to do so. That's why this game is so much fun.

i am not sure.
if on day one one of the WW just said i don't want to do this, I am a WW and the other WW is XYZ, the game would be basically over and would stink for everyone.
I think if you play, you should be willing to play with whatever cards are handed to you.

edit: just want to add that i dig the extended possibility of becoming a 'traitor' (so to speak) to your team, but this should have some limits and/or be counterbalanced in the definition of powers (for example, if the infected villager can 'reject' the infection, the infection becomes a boomerang and would probably be rarely used. this unbalances the game. so maybe the infection should be 'directional' and the wolves infect one person, this person knows s/he is infected but doesn't know the WW until they decide to trust her/him and tell them) Any such rule changes of course should be adopted in future games following a broader discussion

 

[stonyc]

Well I was referring more to Don't panic for voting abijnk after her Buffy reveal because it may mean he's either a vamp (active or not) or maybe a goth hoping to get a big threat lynched. It was one of those things (like many in this game) that make me go "hmmmmm".

Ahh, I saw your ^ & and thought that referred to my post where I changed my vote. But your concern still applies to me to some degree I think, and I did change my vote. To some it might look like I'm trying to deflect, but it was still a good opportunity to clarify some points.

EDIT: Deleted my next post to consolidate it with this one... didn't see Don't Panic's until after I had posted this original message.

i would assume this would be the default 'ethical' approach to the game.
other behavior may be acceptable, but certainly diverge from intended way the game was supposed to be played (and balanced, a very important point IMO)

i am not sure.
if on day one one of the WW just said i don't want to do this, I am a WW and the other WW is XYZ, the game would be basically over and would stink for everyone.
I think if you play, you should be willing to play with whatever cards are handed to you.

I didn't think of it that way, but yes, that would suck. I assumed that being a WW would be fun for most people, and didn't seriously envision a scenario like that where someone could just be a ginormous ass. But, point taken.

I do think the two examples (KMM and yours) are a bit different... your example of someone who is just being a prick, whereas KMM's (if you take him at face value) is more of someone who wants to play and is trying to preserve their place in the game for as long as possible by making a strategic/gameplay-motivated move. If someone just doesn't want to play, they should just tell Ravenvii and the game can be re-started without that person... instead of ruining it for everyone else.

 

[abijnk]

One thing that is certainly not helping is the fact that only 5 players are even participating right now...

 

[philbeeney]

One thing that is certainly not helping is the fact that only 5 players are even participating right now...

Six. **holds up hand**

Perhaps we're waiting to see which way the voting goes. The quicker we get a majority vote and a lynching, interest will pick up again.

 

[abijnk]

Perhaps we're waiting to see which way the voting goes. The quicker we get a majority vote and a lynching, interest will pick up again.

not posting = not playing. Period. The end. You can't sit back and not post and expect to be considered "playing." It can't work that way.

 

[philbeeney]

not posting = not playing. Period. The end. You can't sit back and not post and expect to be considered "playing." It can't work that way.

Yes you can. It's called a "wait and see" strategy. Some villagers are a good example of this strategy.

 

[abijnk]

Yes you can. It's called a "wait and see" strategy. Some villagers are a good example of this strategy.

But that is not active participation and it doesn't help anything. This game is based on information, and those who are considered the best at it are active participants, not "wait and see" (which translates to "don't post and thus don't contribute any information to a game based on information").

 

[Don't panic]

can't force people to post.
obviously people have different styles of play, but to some extent a low profile is the safest possible strategy, as by not saying anything you are less likely to make mistakes, and less likely to attract attention to yourself (especially if you are one of the baddies).