[WW] Bloodlust GAME OVER - WEREWOLVES WIN

[philbeeney]

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").

There may be a reason why certain villagers cannot participate during the day, which does beg the question why they joined in the first place if they couldn't put in the commitment.

Another problem is that the lynching is a decision by committee which (as we are finding out) can take forever due to the democratic process. Perhaps we could appoint a board of three villagers for example to make the decisions for us. (I know, I know, we'd need a committee decision to appoint a board which would take forever).

Having glanced through the LIVE version of the simple game, I think that's probably the way to go with regards time allowed for decision making.

 

[Don't panic]

Having glanced through the LIVE version of the simple game, I think that's probably the way to go with regards time allowed for decision making.

i agree, but the day window should be longer, especially with 20 players

 

[Rodimus Prime]

One question. how many days in real time has this day gone one.

I for one am getting tired of it.

 

[Don't panic]

One question. how many days in real time has this day gone one.

I for one am getting tired of it.

i think 12

 

[184550]

I was the Sorcerer.

Sorry for the delay, I went to see 'The Town'. (It was pretty good if you're thinking of seeing it this weekend.)

 

[Melrose]

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").

He can. It's actually a good strategy for any player to lay low; Invariably, the less you post the less suspicion you provoke; The argument "he's silent, he's a wolf" is moderately convincing, but there has yet to be a single lynching based on that alone. Personally, I don't blame him for laying low, regardless of whether he's a villager or a wolf.

 

[Don't panic]

I was the Sorcerer.

Sorry for the delay, I went to see 'The Town'. (It was pretty good if you're thinking of seeing it this weekend.)

mmmhh
why are you telling us this?
why should we believe you?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

He can. It's actually a good strategy for any player to lay low; Invariably, the less you post the less suspicion you provoke; The argument "he's silent, he's a wolf" is moderately convincing, but there has yet to be a single lynching based on that alone. Personally, I don't blame him for laying low, regardless of whether he's a villager or a wolf.

Oh I am tempted to just start voting for the people laying low. Reason for it is they sit there and by refusing to vote drag on these majority things. First few games were pretty good because lynching at most took 24 hours. Not thise 72+ hour crap we have going on. It kills the game.

 

[184550]

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...

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?

mmmhh
why are you telling us this?
why should we believe you?

I'd rather if the insta-kill is wasted, then it not be wasted on me.

If you don't believe me, look back to right after KMM was lynched. I believe I was the first to ponder/ suggest that the Sorcerer bring him back.

 

[ucfgrad93]

One question. how many days in real time has this day gone one.

I for one am getting tired of it.

King Mook Mook was resurrected on 9/14 at 8:21 pm ET and we have been stuck since then.

 

[Melrose]

Oh I am tempted to just start voting for the people laying low. Reason for it is they sit there and by refusing to vote drag on these majority things. First few games were pretty good because lynching at most took 24 hours. Not thise 72+ hour crap we have going on. It kills the game.

I agree. The time limits force concise thinking and solid arguments, and also keep the game moving quickly, and don't weigh the whole village down with the slower players.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I agree. The time limits force concise thinking and solid arguments, and also keep the game moving quickly, and don't weigh the whole village down with the slower players.

I motion that our host to a mid game rule change and limit voting to 24 hour max after that who ever has the most votes is lynched. This sitting around and waiting crap means people will sit on who they voted for and people just changed their votes to move the game along.

 

[Don't panic]

I motion that our host to a mid game rule change and limit voting to 24 hour max after that who ever has the most votes is lynched. This sitting around and waiting crap means people will sit on who they voted for and people just changed their votes to move the game along.

given that we have people from england and Oz, i think 36 hours would be better, but anything to get some action in the game is fine by me (including abbie 'waking up' the dormientest player with a bolt of her crossbow )

 

[mscriv]

Does anyone have the correct current vote count? I think I might be the last left to vote, but it doesn't really matter since we are nowhere near the needed majority.

NathanMuir, can you tell us a little bit about your strategy behind bringing KMM back right away? Just curious as this is the second consecutive game where you have been the priest/sorcerer and in both you've used the power rather quickly.

Oh, and abijnk, you never answered my question about how you feel about the possibility of you being infected and how you would proceed if the wolf pack decided to make that move. Is Don't panic on the right track in thinking you are too dangerous to keep around or can we place any measure of trust in you?

And to those complaining about the game dragging, I understand. But, please keep in mind this is the first time we've seen three specials revealed so quickly and it all really came about during the current game day as KMM was resurrected and both abijnk and Nathan Muir were revealed. In all honesty, it does give us a lot to ponder.

 

[Don't panic]

updated votes [EDIT: UPDATED AS OF POST 817]

Jav6454: 5 (appleguy123, philbeeney, ucfgrad93, Mexbearpig, Rodimus Prime)
Stonyc: 3 (melrose, abjnk, King Mook Mook)
Abijnk: 2 (willbro, Don't panic)
Rodimus Prime: 1 (jav6454)
iBlue: 1 (renewed)
Renewed: 1 (iBlue)
Philbeeney: 1 (Stonyc)
Willbro: 1 (NathanMuir)

mscriv: i think it is a bit of an unfair question to ask "how would you behave if you were infected?"
it's a lose-lose: if she says "i would be trustworthy to me new teammates" she sets herself up for lynching, so she necessarily has to say "i will still be a trustworthy villager", whether that is true or not, and at the same time implying that she is not trustworthy because she is ready to betray her teammates, and therefore set herself up for lynching. As i said a lose-lose situation. My opinion of course.

 

[184550]

(Snip)

NathanMuir, can you tell us a little bit about your strategy behind bringing KMM back right away? Just curious as this is the second consecutive game where you have been the priest/sorcerer and in both you've used the power rather quickly.

(Snip)

Actually, if you remember back to the first game in which I was Priest/ Sorcerer I used my power at the request of several villagers.

In this game I felt strongly that KMMs scan from the night he was killed would be beneficial. I also did not buy the argument put forth that since he had revealed himself, that he would be immediately infected. I think that this was a knee jerk reaction by several villagers that was too much of a benefit to the wolves. If you go back and look, roughly half the village voted to lynch KMM extremely quickly and this action took myself, as well as other villagers, completely by surprise.

 

[184550]

I wanted to look back on KMM lynching and the reactions when I suggested he be revived:

Votes so far:

King Mook Mook: 9 (jav6454, ucfgrad93, appleguy123, stonyc, Melrose, Mexbearpig, abijnk, philbeeney, willbro)

Majority is 9

Left to vote:


Rodimus Prime
NathanMuir
King Mook Mook
iBlue
Don't panic
renewed
mscriv


I vote for King Mook Mook, we can’t let his powers fall in the werewolves hands. Let’s hope he’s infected already.


Majority reached (9)

What good would that do? If the wolves haven't infected anyone yet, all they need to do is infect KMM and hey presto, he's gone to the dark side. Then we'd have to lynch him again, which would be a waste.

Not a very smart choice IMO, KMM will get infected so we'll have to lynch him.

These were the two posts which stood out the most to me. While there were several other posts that were critical of my decision to revive KMM, they were merely critical and not suggestive of killing KMM again asap.

I am fairly confident that Willbro is a wolf.

After rereading Jav6454s posts, I am not as suspious of him as I am of willbro.

I'm changing my vote to willbro.

I'd also like to suggest that philbeeney be scanned tonight, whenever that may be again.

 

[abijnk]

Oh, and abijnk, you never answered my question about how you feel about the possibility of you being infected and how you would proceed if the wolf pack decided to make that move. Is Don't panic on the right track in thinking you are too dangerous to keep around or can we place any measure of trust in you?

I completely missed you asking that. I would refer you to this post from the previous simple game:

People have said I am smart, calculating and manipulative, but what they have not pointed out is that I am also loyal and will do what I think is in the best interest in the long run for the side I am on.

While I think it's perfectly allowable for people to be traitorous to the side they are on, it simply isn't my style. And while the lengths I have gone in the past to do what I think is best for my side have caused controversy (just ask renewed or anyone from the last simple game ), I've always stood by those decisions.

It may not be what you want to hear, but if I get infected (and I still haven't been, btw), I will cover for the pack.

That said, right now I am on the side of the villagers. With one goth and the vampire still out there the possibility remains of them becoming active. As the vampire hunter it is my duty to do what I can to prevent that and/or protect the village if it does happen.

My strategy has been incredibly straight forward, as you have probably seen. Once KMM was resurrected and identified me as the person he scanned and said I was a villager the clock started ticking just a little bit faster. I have a large target on my back for being a threat to the village, and so my only choice was to figure out how to best reveal my role and use the insta-kill while I still have time, and at the same time try to avoid infection.

The best way I saw of revealing myself was to ask KMM to out me. In doing so I am now 100% sure that he is in fact the seer, and that gives me two people I know not to insta-kill (myself and KMM). In the mean time I've tried to demonstrate that I would not be a good candidate for infection. With that target on my back I will not last as long as another choice could.

At the same time, I hope I have also saved myself from being eaten by the wolves. It is ironic that the village and the wolves have an aligned interest when it comes to me. I cannot prevent the wolves from doing anything, but I can help them kill the vampires through my insta-kill. I think I've done the best I can to make the case against both infection and eating me.

So where does that leave me now? Well, I'm hoping that by some gentle goading more people will start posting. Everyone needs to be aware that as soon as I have a viable candidate I will use my insta-kill, and speaking out for yourself is the only way to potentially save your hide. After that is gone, it is up to the village what to do with me, and I will not protest either way.

The good news is that NathanMuir has outed himself. Do I believe him? Yes. His behavior this time and last time is exactly the same. Also, keep in mind that there has not been a death since KMM was resurrected. So it would be a huge risk if he made that claim falsely.

Now at least we know three people who shouldn't be insta-killed: NathanMuir, King Mook Mook, and myself.

 

[mscriv]

mscriv: i think it is a bit of an unfair question to ask "how would you behave if you were infected?"
it's a lose-lose: if she says "i would be trustworthy to me new teammates" she sets herself up for lynching, so she necessarily has to say "i will still be a trustworthy villager", whether that is true or not, and at the same time implying that she is not trustworthy because she is ready to betray her teammates, and therefore set herself up for lynching. As i said a lose-lose situation. My opinion of course.

I hear what you're saying sir, but at this point everything I had taken for granted about this game has been turned upside down and it all started with Ms. abijnk's husband. When chrmjenkins brought up the possibility of people playing contrary to their given roles based on a predisposition for who should win the game, the good guys vs. the bad guys, it opened up a "can of worms" for all of us.

Now, I freely admit, that this is completely subjective depending upon one's interpretation of the rules and their personal view of ethical gameplay. If one believes that they should be true to their original assigned character, then in the world of MRville there is no greater hero or character of honor than the hunter who seeks to protect the village even if it means sacrificing himself/herself to do so. If abijnk takes this view of her role, then choosing to reject infection for the benefit of the village would be true to her originally assigned role. How far she takes that is up to her whether it be completely betraying the wolves or simply outing herself as infected.

Facing the same circumstances, KMM has chosen to view the seer as a hero and therefore one who would reject infection. I personally think his being vocal about this decision is a brilliant move of strategy because it forces the wolves to reconsider what last game was a slam dunk strategy to infect the seer. I also appreciate the effort at teamwork with the other villagers. Last game, everyone was upset that the sorcerer/priest (Nathanmuir) resurrected the WW hunter so fast. I think KMM's strategy shows not just a desire to stay alive, but a respect for the fact that the resurrection power was used on him. To prevent that resurrection from not being a waste, KMM needs to stay alive as long as possible and help out the villagers as long as he can.

I think abijnk, now that she is outed, needs to think about the appropriate use of her powers as well, which you have pointed out yourself Mr. Panic. The villagers, particularly our specials, have got to work together if the village is going to prevail. It would be crazy if the WW hunter protected abijnk tonight just for her to be infected tomorrow and turn against the village. So, while I understand your point about her being between a "rock and a hard place," I see nothing wrong with asking the question because it helps all of us make up our mind about what we should do and who we should trust.

I'm getting the feeling that some are beginning to think this game should just be played by casting votes and leaving a lot of things to randomness. I think the drag factor does play into this as some just want the game to move along. However, with the way strategy and gameplay has come into the spotlight this game, I think one of the most important questions we should be asking of our fellow players is "are you for us or against us?"

The mystery and fun in the game comes from being able to eliminate suspects as we move along. This is the entire foundation on which the simple game is built. The power of infection makes it impossible to truly eliminate any suspect and makes the complex game much more difficult. As I've mentioned before, the only way I know to work against this is to find some way to establish trust amongst the villagers. Maybe I'm naive, but at this point I can find no better way to do that than to ask people what side they're on, particularly if they are a special whose power we really need.

 

[abijnk]

^^^ Interesting. Now I am all the more anxious to see your reply to my post.

 

[Don't panic]

two great posts.

I just want to point out that to me the characterization of this game as good guys vs bad guys is to some extent incorrect.
that is a purely artificial narration construction, that makes the game fun, gives color and context, but has no relevance to the actual 'alignment' of the players and shouldn't affect their strategy.

the exact same game can be played with the majority of players being the bad guys and a few heroes being the good guys (think undercover cops infiltrating a terrorist cell). Or you can have a back story to this exact background, in which the village happily trudged along with wolves, vamps and humans coexisting peacefully for centuries, until the human started to exterminate the younglings of the 'monsters', who eventually were forced to defend themselves. who are the bad guys now?

point being: we have 3 teams: A, B and C, and the game is designed to (or tries to) provide balance to the factions. everyone's end game should be to help their team win.
Now while the "original assigned character" of say, the vamp hunter, would be to help the village and thus to 'resist' WW infection makes sense, a character such as the goth by design 'aspires' to become a vampire, and therefore the rejection seems to be inconsistent with the design of the character. On the other hand, treason by say the alpha wolf is conceptually ridiculous.

if we introduce the ability to 'switch teams' i would be fine with it (though i think i would have to see it happening to understand if i like it or not), except i think it should be done in a context where the designed abilities include such possibilities, and not mid-game.
Also, the 'loyalty' in one game will affect how a player is viewed in future games. While i agree that KMM move was tactically good, if he were to be infected and then proceed to actually betray the pack leading to their demise, do you think he would come out of the game, as a player (not as a character) more or less trustworthy?

Finally i would submit that these kind of important 'game design' decisions should also be taken with the input of all players in this and previous games regardless of the 'jav rule' (of course they should still abide to jav's rule spirit, and maybe for clarity post in ghost-gray) and/or moved to the post-game discussion

 

[abijnk]

I dont think anyone is still discussing whether or not is should be allowed. That is completely beyond the point here. What is up for discussion right now is whether or not I, or anyone else currently under strict scrutiny, would betray their side.

As to the point of your post, I maintain my stance that the more restrictions you try to actually enforce on people the less fun the game will be. It shouldn't be written into the rules that a player has to play a certain role a certain way, whether it be remaining loyal or not. It should be unto the player to weigh the current an future consequences of their actions and make the decision from there.

 

[mscriv]

I dont think anyone is still discussing whether or not is should be allowed. That is completely beyond the point here. What is up for discussion right now is whether or not I, or anyone else currently under strict scrutiny, would betray their side.

As to the point of your post, I maintain my stance that the more restrictions you try to actually enforce on people the less fun the game will be. It shouldn't be written into the rules that a player has to play a certain role a certain way, whether it be remaining loyal or not. It should be unto the player to weigh the current an future consequences of their actions and make the decision from there.

I agree completely abijnk, but I do think, let's say hope, that people would preserve the integrity of the game by not destroying it just to play a certain way. As someone posted, it would be ridiculous for a starting werewolf to turn against his own kind or a goth to betray the vampire after becoming activated. I think your initial player assignment should determine your general role in the game and alignment. Where it gets tricky is with specials as these roles can be left up to interpretation. As I've pointed out you could view the hunter role as the most noble and therefore easily maintain the scope of the character by outing yourself once infected. However, you could just as easily argue, as someone else posted before, that once infected you no longer have any expectation of loyalty to your former side because you now are "one with the pack" and there is no scrap of humanity or nobility left within you.

It's for this reason, that I only see this dilemma being paired with the WW infection and not really with the vampire/goth roles. To be completely honest, I think there are some game players who have always been villagers and find the prospect of becoming a werewolf by infection a welcome idea.

@abijnk: I read your response, but I think you sort of dodged the question. You said you are incredibly loyal and therefore would be so to the wolfpack. So, does that mean your incredible loyalty only goes so far, i.e. to the point of infection, or are you loyal to your original assigned role? As I've mentioned before, there's a middle ground of outing yourself for the benefit of the village thereby wasting the wolves' infection, but not revealing their identities and essentially abruptly ending the game.

From what you did state, I can only interpret that you feel one should be loyal to their original given role with exception to the WW infection which essentially changes your loyalty from that point forward in the game. As I agree with you about not mandating how people should play I appreciate your honesty and see no problem with the view that doing such would be faithful to the design of the game and within an ethical scope of gameplay.

So, now I have to decide if I think the wolves will target you for infection, kill you, or keep you around hoping that you might out or kill the vampires for them. Hmmm... decisions, decisions, decisions...

 

[abijnk]

How is "I am loyal to the side I am on" a dodge?

 

[jav6454]

Sorry I haven't been on today. An ******* on the freeway broke my windshield and I've been battling half the afternoon (yes cops where called). Furthermore, he tried to make haste and run.

I'll read all great and lengthy comments soon and give a response, soon. (2 hrs)