Aanwolf
-
Posts
58 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
News
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Aanwolf
-
OK, two main things I want to comment on. One is about the kill not going through, which I will get to in a later post. The other is about the Dow/Neo debate and what it can tell us. I'll address that one now. Obviously Dow was not CC. However, I am still suspicious of peng's behavior, for reasons I have already given. I still want to know the answer to what about any of the Dow/Neo argument pointed more to one over the other. Zas is welcome to chime in on this as well, since he thinks peng's behavior makes sense. I don't really care who gives me a good answer to the question, I just want one, and I think it is important enough that I am making a vote early to ensure I get an answer. Peng/Zas, is there anything you can point to that justifies confidence one way and not the other? If so, I will retract my vote since I have no other reason to suspect peng. In essence, I feel I must conclude one of the following: 1) You are a passenger and it was an honest mistake, perhaps due to prior biases about Dow and/or Neo. Given previous following of Dow, I would guess that a bias for Dow is more likely than a bias against Neo. 2) You are a passenger and there was something else you saw besides what was stated publicly in the thread (or something I somehow missed). I'm willing to entertain the idea that due to some plan, you had a legitimate reason (from a passenger perspective) to not say something, but I would want a good explanation or convincing argument to that effect. 3) You are CC and had reasons from a CC perspective to target Neo over Dow. Since Dow was a passenger, it couldn't have been to protect Dow. So, either: a... Neo is a passenger. In that case, you didn't really care who got targeted among Neo and Dow, but it would be of great benefit to push the debate to be between Dow and Neo early in the round so that nothing would coalesce around a fellow CC, or... b... Neo is CC. In that case, the motivation must have been to draw suspicion away from yourself. Please help me to choose among these options, as they have significant ramifications. In the meantime, I will be writing out my thoughts on the lack of a CC kill. (For now I consider that less pressing, especially since Alvron has already started a good analysis of that topic.) EDIT: silly letter formatting turned into emotes on me again.
-
Zas, what I want to know is: which of Peng's arguments apply to Neo and not to Dow? I don't see any. So why so sure about them pointing to Neo? It's obviously biased application of evidence.
-
OK, analysis: Plenty of posts from both Neo and Dow. Both poked to promote discussion. Neo poked 7 times, Dow 3. Not sure what that says. Both changed poke votes after the target participated. Both made mistakes, Neo about leftinspace's player name, Dow about the rules of the game Both made accusations without explanations (I don't count "gut feeling" as an explanation). Note that includes not justifying it as a poke to promote participation. Neither made a lot of logical arguments. Dow discussed Shallan's assassin bid change in detail, Neo addressed his discrepancy in playstyle in detail. So, I'm not sure this says much about the Neo/Dow thing directly. I don't think either of them have a solid argument based on their own behavior history. However, I'm even more suspicious of Penguin following Dow now, so I'll stick with my vote for the reasons I've given.
-
Note: I didn't start following penguin's posts in this analysis until seeing him follow Dow, I'll look back at the posts before that. Also, other than Phatt's post in big letters, I didn't list any accusations against them that weren't responded to as I wasn't looking for them. (The Phatt one jumped out at me due to extreme formatting). EDIT: It was quick to get Penguin's other posts, as there was only one before that and it was just roleplaying
-
Ok, I've reviewed all of the previous posts by Neo, Dow, and Penguin... typing up my summary here, will post analysis afterwards: Neo pokes Symmer to promote discussion Neo shifts vote to Bort when Symmer responds, again to promote discussion Dow pokes Shallan, asks for discussion, mistake that kills are within a car Penguin immediately follows Dow, implicitly making the same mistake Dow mistake that CC don't know each other Dow asks for a GM to weigh in Dow thanks the GM Penguin changes vote to avoid bandwagons (after I remove vote from metal as well) Neo responds to callout by Clanky for not posting much, argues for not revealing train car occupants, pokes Orlok Neo responds to leftinspace, reinforcing previous argument Penguin responds to Seonid, explaining last vote change in context of his anti-"lynch meta" bandwagon stance Dow pokes Gamma asking for info Dow thanks Gamma for info and then votes for self instead Penguin again defends himself from repeated accusation from leftinspace Neo posts (he admits non-interesting) results of looking into posts made by those who have been targeted, then pokes Leftinspace claiming he hadn't posted (which he had) and aking for more discussion Penguin explains lack of vote due to time constraints from real-life Dow votes for Clanky due to gut feeling (no solid suspicions on any one) Neo admits mistake about leftinspace not posting, saying it was due to confusion between player name and forum name, then pokes Alvron asking for participation Penguin agrees with meta's accusations on phat due to coin math and votes for phat Phat calls for jumping on penguin in big capital letters Neo removes vote from Alvron after his post, changes to Jain with no explanation Neo posts to respond to Shallan's charge of inactivity, asks for info about who assassinated meta, votes for Orlok with no explanation Penguin votes for leftinspace as retribution for leftinspace assassinating metal Dow criticizes shallan for lowering assassin bid, but points out that it indicates she is probably not CC, then votes for Neo due to discrepancy with previous playstyle but saying there is no concrete evidence Neo claims a bandwagon targetting him, responds to claims about playstyle change, offers to be role-blocked, votes for Shallan Neo thinks he'll be lynched, complains that CC are winning, consoles self that info will come out
-
In case it wasn't clear enough: anyone who wants their votes to matter needs to make a decision on this one, or you risk letting the CC control it via Gamma. So, please make a decision and vote on it. I'll take the less than ideally informed vote of all passengers combined over the risk-free swing vote of Gamma any day. It's more likely to yield the correct answer, and this way we force a vote between the two and can establish a pattern in the next cycle that will hopefully help us track down the CC.
-
It appears that the Dow/Neo race is tied, and in the time remaining, it is unlikely that jasonpenguin will get the lynch vote. Unfortunately, if the Dow/Neo vote is the vote that matters, penguin's behavior is the tipping point for me. I see that Bort was tentatively siding with Neo, but that may not coalesce in to an actual vote by the end of the cycle. As I believe Metal pointed out earlier, at this stage, votes that are isolated don't do much good, so I guess I'm going to have to vote for Dowanx. I don't want to leave it tied, particularly considering that Gamma is a known CC and still has a vote even if he will die at the end of the round. At this point, sitting on the fence only puts the votes in the hands of the CC.
-
Thank you for posting Meta, I totally agree with you. I hope I wasn't misunderstood by anyone here. Alvron, good catch on Gamma's mistake. I don't have enough time to do it now, but someone please remember (in case I am killed by the CC tonight) to look at patterns of Gamma's votes and others who are still alive. That could reveal something important. It is part of what I have been working on, but it is taking longer than I thought, and I've been pulled away from here enough that I haven't finished it yet. But narrowing it down to a known CC should make the analysis go much faster. Dow, I respect your argument, though the mention of there not being a "true" bandwagon doesn't on the face of it match up with the tied vote for Neo last round. I guess a tie isn't a bandwagon, but I'd be scared too. On the other hand, I'm not convinced by Neo's arguments against you either. As far as I'm concerned, it just sounds like two people who don't want to be eliminated having reactions escalate in response to being a focus of suspicion. I don't like how sure either of you seem to be given the evidence, which is good, but not that good. However, I am suspicious of jasonpenguin's vote, and like last time (though that didn't work out so well then, I hope it does now), your response to Dow's accusation this cycle was quick and with no justification. The "I'll buy it" line makes an argument seem plausible without having to provide any real justification. Furthermore, at that point, there was no argument, just a strong suspicion with a promise to post more later (which Dow did). It sounds like an attempt to either target someone you know is innocent or to pull votes away from someone you know is CC. You call out Neo for being overconfident yet you were the one who upped the ante by asking people to put their own head on the chopping block if they are wrong. Dow and Neo both responded quickly to that, but Dow was first (even though he wasn't the one you asked) and that swayed your vote immediately. In the face of that kind of pressure, anyone would risk their own neck to save themselves for a turn (since either way, their side buys one more turn and otherwise the other side takes you out now). So again, why does that tell against Neo but not against Dow? Later, your missing the fact that Alvron already gave a source for his info indicates sloppiness at a stage in the game where the CC are increasingly likely to mess up (as in Gamma's mistake). You have been all over the place this cycle. Given the fact that I don't think there is so much weight either way in the Dow vs Neo fight, your several posts pushing for one particular direction in that debate, without any legitimate argument on your part as far as I can tell, are very suspicious to me. I won't go so far as to say you have to be in league with Dow, but it just seems reckless, so either you know something we don't, or you are getting disturbingly irrational, and neither is good for the passengers. In the case of Neo and Dow, they are under a lot of pressure because of their mutual accusations, so I can understand some bravado/overconfidance. What about that argument threatens you so much to provoke a similar emotional reaction?
-
Personally, I would only find it a low move it if weren't true. And presumably, the unfortunate circumstances are as likely to happen to a CC as to a passenger. Please note that this is not an attempt to cast suspicion on Alvron, I just have a compulsion to point out faulty logic (and hope others do the same to me if I make a mistake). So, to be clear, I assume Alvron is telling the truth (and my sympathies - my wife is bipolar, so I have a sense of how hard it can be) but I'm not going to take that as evidence of innocence.
-
I did consider the risk of making it cheaper to lose in my post to the main thread, so if that was my motivation, I pointed it out for everyone to see. (To be fair, I had not thought of it until after my post in the car thread, so it doesn't appear in that post, but wanted it out there once it was mentioned, so it is there in the main thread.) So, consider the possibilities: 1... I am CC as you suggest. In this case, my motivation would be to make it cheaper to make everyone lose. But only by a single coin, as the wiggle room that round was a single coin. 2... I am not CC. My argument for removing the wiggle room is to make a failed bet more suspicious. By removing the chance that we could accidentally ruin the bet through "innocent" greediness, it guarantees that a failure generates relevant information. No one but CC has a reason to ruin the bet. Now, why would a CC ruin the bet after my argument makes such an action even more suspicious? Because I guarantee you that only a CC would do that. I can think of two reasons: A... It costs the passengers more coins than it costs the CC. Since the CC know who the others are, this implies that there were fewer CC in the car than passengers. More than that, since it costs the CC extra to force a failed bet (2 coins extra when there is 1 coin wiggle room) then the CC would have to weigh the extra cost when deciding whether or not to do that, so that should be taken into account when we estimate how many CC were in the car. B... And here is where I cast suspicion on myself, unfortunately. But we have to be logical if we are going to discover the CC, and logic can be picked apart and analyzed much more objectively than reason, so I believe in principle that this should benefit the innocents more than anyone else, so here goes: A possible CC strategy would be to recognize the argument I just made (A) and to then choose to force a failed bet in order to draw attention away from that car having a lot of CC in it. So, you have to consider how likely it is that someone would have thought that through. I admit that it is something that I could have thought through, and I think I have demonstrated that by the types of arguments I have been making. That means it is possible others could have as well, even if they haven't demonstrated that type of personality/strategy publicly in this game. But to evaluate the possibilty I had contrived something so involved, you have to consider what I would have gained by making my argument for no wiggle room as part of executing that more complicated strategy. Again, argument 1 applies, that I could be trying to save myself one coin. That is not much. However, it could have been worth more than one coin if I was worried that another CC might try to ruin the bet as well (remember that we are now on a line of reasoning that assumes there are multiple CC in the car), though in that case I would have been better to stay silent (again, making all the assumptions this line of reasoning requires) since I could have let another CC ruin the bet without drawing attention to myself. However, this suggests a possible further benefit, in that I could have been trying to coordinate CC actions. CC have limited ability to communicate to each other (though with how important it is, PMs are relatively cheap for them) so they might be tempted to organize publicly in such a way. That does carry its own risks, though, as it leaves the organization attempts open for everyone to analyze later. A final reason for using such a complicated plan, one that is particularly sneaky and so in that sense fits such a plan well, would have been to try to be able to later leverage argument 2 in order to give more weight to argument A. Again, that is risky, due to the extra attention it generates, but I could have been willing to risk it. So, there is my reasoning. If someone wants to suggest further possibilities, feel free to do so. I have laid it all bare, even what casts suspicion on myself, so that it is open for review. I believe that is the best for promoting clear thinking, which we must commit to in order to have a better chance of finding the CC. Unfortunately, this also makes me a target for the CC. But together with other arguments I intend to make this cycle, I don't think there is any avoiding that. So, I plan to get all of my reasoning out there on this topic and on several others, so that if the CC kill me at least I've shared what I've thought through before it happens, and hopefully suggested a good way forward for after I die. So, please, discuss... EDIT: Formatting only. I originally used parenthesis after the argument numbers/letters, as in 1). However, the system turned argument B into a sunglasses emote, so I changed the format to ellipses...
-
A question was asked in the buffet car about what should be done there. I was typing up my thoughts when I remembered that we want to keep the discussion here to get everyone involved (plus there is a specific reason to discuss the strategy for that car in the main group, for reasons I'll explain below). So, here is my argument: The last time I was in that car (two turns ago) we ended up announcing who we were baking for and allowing for retributive baking. That reduces the extent to which coin can be moved around. The way to maximize that is to do a mini-lynch, but the idea of a mini-lynch got unpopular after Metal suggested it and then got shot down. However, given how important it is to generate serious discussion if we are going to get the CC to make mistakes, I think we should consider a mini-lynch again, so I am going to think my way through it here. There are only 13 people left, and we haven't eliminated any CC yet. I've extended my calculations from last time, and here's what I have: If the car placement is random (comments on this below), then with 3 CC there is a 29.4% chance this car is clean (no CC). If there are 4 CC, that decreases to 17.6%. If there are 5 CC, it is only 9.8%. If there are 6 CC, it is 4.9%. Now, since people can buy a car placement, car occupants are not totally random. How does this change things? If an innocent were to spend coin to choose their car, what would they choose? Perhaps the passenger car to make money, although it would cost 2 coins to get there and there is a risk it won't pay out. Going to the caboose doesn't make much sense either. The vault car does, though that is expensive and couldn't be maintained. The buffet car can't make you cash if you spend two to get here, and it probably won't net you anything, and risks losing more if there is a mini-lynch. On the other hand, if someone is CC, where would they go? If it is their turn to make a kill, then they want to avoid the caboose, so they may buy a spot elsewhere to avoid that car. The cheapest way to do that is to go to the passenger car or the buffet car. In the buffet car, they might risk a mini-lynch, but since that hasn't been happening (at least not on the turn I was there, and no public discussion of results of it otherwise) that lessens the concern for a mini-lynch. On the other hand, some of the public discussion has suggested more aggressive moves on our part, so it may still be a worry. A CC could go to the vault car, but that is expensive and really only helps if they are worried about being assassinated, or they have the kill and are betting the target they really want is going to the vault car (which seems pretty risky, since if no one else goes there, they lose their kill). I guess that could be hedged by having no kill cast suspicion on the person who is role-blocked, but it will also generate discussion about who is in the vault car (which we really should be trying to determine.... I'll get on that soon... so much to do...) and will likely come back to bite them. That leaves the passenger car. Now, that seems a good choice for someone who wants to avoid the caboose, since it offers a good chance to recover the spent cash, or alternatively the opportunity to ruin the gamble there (another thing we need to figure out - who did that last turn... that is info we need to analyze...) So, on the whole, I think almost everyone will leave it random due to the cost if nothing else, with the exception of a CC who has the turn to make the kill, in which case the passenger car makes the most sense, but the buffet car is a decent choice as well. So, I think random placement is a decent bet. We *could* consider the chances the CC coordinate all of their placement, but that would be hard without more PMs and would get really expensive really quickly and it's not clear to me how much benefit that would yield. That means that the numbers I've given should be pretty good, and there is a very good chance there is at least one CC in the car (with similar chances for the other main cars). If there is at least one CC in the car, and we believe a mini-lynch discussion has a decent chance of exposing CC over other passengers, then that is a good reason to try a mini-lynch, or at the very least, to have a discussion with the intent to mini-lynch (applying a phrase I vaguely remember from the main thread, though I don't recall who said it). However, we also need to consider the possibility that there are multiple CC in the car. It would improve the chances of a random mini-lynch hitting the CC, but we are trying to make that non-random anyway, and the main point is discussion to reveal CC. On the other hand, with only four occupants, if more than one is CC, then that gives the CC the chance to combine their votes to mini-lynch an innocent person. So, we have to take that risk into account. However, combining votes that way is risky as it can reveal connections between them. When they can get a kill out of it, that might be worth it, but for just a mini-lynch it seems to be less of a payout. Still, that is a risk we should consider before deciding to actually mini-lynch someone. But it doesn't give us any reason not to have a discussion with the intent to mini-lynch especially if we reserve the option to back out of it at the end. And that strategy makes a coordination by the CC much more risky, while still giving us all the benefit of aggressive forced discussion. If we do have aggressive forced discussion, then it should happen out here in the main car. Not only does that make it public, but it makes it harder to manipulate, and it allows us to combine our reasoning to make a better decision. So, I propose we have a discussion here (using all the things we want to discuss, like the results of last round, patterns, etc) with the intent to mini-lynch someone in the buffet car. Because of how important that is (and because at this point it is very unlikely any particular car is free of CC), I am going to reveal the occupants of my car: Gamma, Clanky, Burnt Spaghetti, Aanwolf So, any suggestions on who to mini-lynch? Or, any good arguments on why not to at least give it strong consideration?
-
Ok, leftinspace, I trust you now. Who do you think we should kill?
-
Wow. If that isn't juicy stuff for analysis, I don't know what is. I'm more sure now than I was before. Did we just force a mistake?
-
Argghhh.. as I was typing up my reasons, I saw some holes in my arguments. That's what I get for trying to do a quick analysis at the end of the cycle. Originally, I was going off the idea that he might be in league with Shallan, and they had concocted this situation to allow for a cheap kill of an outspoken person (and leftinspace was called out strongly by metal here, something that seemed to have been forgotten). But, that organization would have to have taken place in a single PM between them, so if it did happen it would have been fairly crude. Note however, that we have no proof that either of them bid what they did on the assassin. Now, either leftinspace really did bid innocently on Metal, or he is CC. After reviewing things, I'm not as convinced of the former as previously, but I still find the vote unusual at least. Why 6 coins? That assumes Shallan would bid lower than advertized. Either this was a shot in the dark (which is certainly possible) or he could have known via other means that shallan would bid low. In the latter case, that would mean both were CC and then we don't even know if he bid 6... it could have been 1, or even better, it might not have been organized ahead of time, shallan wanted to change her target, and knew she could get another CC to "confess" in a semi-plausible way. Like I said, there are some holes in this and a few assumptions, but I realize my argument only holds water if both shallan and leftinspace are cc, so it seems most reasonable given previous arguments to call out shallan instead. Leftinspace won't get lynched because it's too late in the cycle, but shallan is on target for that, though within range of it tipping. If I turn out to be wrong, then that eliminates my reasons for suspecting leftinspace, but we'll find that out soon enough.
-
I'm worried that time is running out, so I will post fast and explain as quick as I can in the next post. I'm calling out leftinspace.
-
Umm... does the conversation in my car count as a PM and mean I can't copy-paste it? If I can, I will, but if not, here is the main argument. I am in the passenger car. Apparently the strategy in that car has been for the publicly declared count to leave a little bit of wiggle room. At first I thought this was to avoid mistakes, but the better motivation is to make deliberate sabotage more expensive. My original arguments didn't take this into consideration, but our particular car occupant count and coin limit means our wiggle room is only 1 coin (assuming even distribution of bets - there are 5 of us and the limit is 11), so I think that is less of a deterrent than there has been in the past. My suggestion was to make the public count go right up to the limit. Why? If everyone "knows" that there is wiggle room, that tempts everyone to bump their bet by 1 coin to get a bit more. Maybe a CC is more likely to do that, but the point is that if there is no wiggle room, then there is *no* motivation for innocents to bet more. If there is any motivation for innocents to bet more, then you run the risk of more than one person doing it and everyone losing out without it being caused by CC. If any deviation at all would draw suspicion, then the only reason to do it would be to hurt everyone at the risk of giving solid confirmation that the car contains CC. What I am trying to avoid even more than losing coin is losing coin for a reason that leads us to draw inaccurate conclusions. In our case, the wiggle room is only one, so the argument becomes stronger in the sense that it only takes two innocent people taking otherwise justifiable actions to cause the vote to fail, while leaving the wiggle room in place only raises the cost to CC by 1. However, I'll be the first to admit that this kind of strategy might hinge a lot on making our best guess as to how many CC are likely to be in the car, which is what my previous post was about. I think the only other relevant thing I said in the post is suggesting that Zas get the extra coin since he got stiffed last round by the lynchee betting all his coin to get revenge. An interesting side note is that, since we wand to generate more significant discussion (as defined in my previous post), forcing a vote on who gets the extra coins forces that kind of participation most likely to reveal CC.
-
OK, here is the basic gist of what I am thinking. We have had three full rounds of voting, accusations, lynches, and kills, plus 1 assassination. I'm thinking there is a good chance some careful analysis of what has transpired will reveal some patterns. Also, we can do some probability calcs to evaluate various strategies. One of the calcs I started on was to see what the chances were that any particular room would have no CC in it. But this depends quite significantly on how many coinshots there are. I've seen the numbers 4 and 5 suggested as possible numbers of CC. So, my first question is whether this is based on past games or design guidelines or just a guess. I saw one of the sticky threads is about game design, so perhaps it is a suggestion in there. I didn't read it, I'm betting some people here have. If not, we can check it out. The thing is, if it is based on past games, and if there are no strict guidelines in game design, then how many CC would be appropriate for a given game will depend on the games mechanics. (I'm assuming Renegade considered this as there was obviously a fair bit of thought that went into the rules for this particular game.) In particular, if there are mechanics that make this game easier or harder for the villagers (such as no detective-type roles) then that would make a shift from the commonly used ratio or calculation. So, my first question is if any of the experienced people can say something about how this game compares and whether that is significant enough to shift the estimates. So far, I've considered pushing the 4-5 range out by 1 in each direction to make it 3-6, which I am more confident will contain the correct answer or at least show trends towards it. Here is a simple table I made, with the original intention of analyzing the chances of a particular room being free of CC... There are two things you can do with this. First, you can use the table to figure out what the chances are that your room has CC in it by reading across on the main table and choosing the row based on the numbers in the two left columns you think are right for whichever round you are analyzing. That may not be all that useful, since rooms are not totally random and can be influenced by spending coins. However, the fact that we have had 3 bad lynches in a row can say something useful about the number of CC, and possibly about their behavior. I calculated the probability that random lynches in the first 3 rounds would not catch any CC. Now obviously the choice of who to lynch is not random. However, if that decision is based on suspicious activity, then we can improve the model by considering the chances that someone will do something suspicious. Does that get influenced by whether or not someone is CC? Yes, because the CC have different goals and are hiding information and have access to info that others don't. That means that there is more potential for slip-ups. Any motivations to not appear suspicious should apply equally to both groups. Assuming the selection of CC members is random (which I think is a safe assumption) then they are no more or less likely to make mistakes when working with the same material. The numbers I used assume CC will make mistakes as often as innocents, so that who gets lynched ends up being random. To the extent that we can force mistakes, our chances of identifying CC improve. If you think we have done a good job of that and CC are more likely to make mistakes, then you can adjust the probability by looking a little lower on the chart (i.e. it effectively means that the CC count more when estimating the chance of a mistake, so it is mathematically equivalent to there being more CC, say by adding 0.5 to the number of CC for a better probability calc). Now, what to do with that. If this leads you to revise your opinion of how many CC there are, then it does change your estimate of how likely certain other scenarios are, like there being no CC in a room, the chances of correlations in votes being significant, etc. The other thing it led me to consider is that if those numbers at the bottom seem unlikely to you, then either we are just unlucky, or at least some of the CC are using a strategy to avoid detection that improves their odds. The most obvious one to me is posting less, or posting on less relevant topics. Another is voting in a way that seems to be motivated more by drawing less attention than by helping the cause of the innocents. Other thoughts on this are welcome, as it may give us something to look for. The tricky part is that to be a pattern that helps us find the CC, it shouldn't be just based on avoiding suspicion, as everyone wants to avoid suspicion. Rather, it should be something that avoids suspicion at the cost of helping the innocents in a way that should be obvious to the player. If we don't have anything in that category, then we fall back on looking for general suspicious behavior. But either way, it should motivate us to encourage more significant participation, which is participation that is likely to reveal inconsistencies, suspicious voting patterns, or access to information that is guarded by the CC. Unfortunately, I need to take a bit of a break from math analysis (though I will post my comments from the car I'm in) so I can read through the recent comments and make an informed accusation based on current behavior...
-
Calculations performed for QF8 -
One more thing while I wait for a response about the google doc... In the interest of disclosure (given the good suggestion of keeping discussion to the main thread), I will say that I just posted a lengthy argument in the car I am in on the strategy in that car. I am not posting it here right now, as it would also reveal which car I am in, but if folks want me to, I could try to make the argument more general so it would not reveal my location, though it would likely lose some of it's usefulness in the process. Alternatively, if the consensus is that one person revealing his location is a reasonable price to pay for making the argument public, then I am happy to do so. I suppose a third alternative would be for me to make and post a good car-specific argument for all four cars (yes I could be in the vault car as far as anyone else not in my car knows, though I am revealing (or maybe sneakily suggesting via this post) that I am in a car with other occupants). However, that sounds like a lot of work, and it will take a bit of time, and I can't guarantee that I can think of relatively equally intelligent arguments for all of the cars before the end of the round. So I will leave it to the group to debate (but not for too long in case my response is time-sensitive).
-
Quick question: If I did some calculations and have them in a google doc, is it OK to share a link to that doc here? If not, I can type in the results by hand, but formatting will be a pain (as it's a table)...
-
Just mentioning now that I have some thoughts based on rereads of the post history but I didn't have time to get them typed out before work, so I'll have to wait for my lunch break to justify the amount of time it will take to do it. So, no substance here other than: stay tuned...
-
Wow this discussion has gotten serious since I last read through this. Phat, your last two comments don't agree with each other, even given the possibility of a normal slip-up in counting. I'm gonna have to remove my vote from Dow and change it to Phat if for no other reason than to prevent a last minute sway by the coinshots, since your slip-ups have me giving the edge to Metal...
-
OK, I just saw neo's accusation which came in while I was typing. Assuming that is sufficient motivation for Alvron to respond, I'm going to change my vote to Dowanx for the reasons stated in my last post. Again, I'm happy to change my vote pending a substantial response. Let's get some more conversation.
-
Bridge Boy, While I agree that we should act on suspicions (assuming they are true suspicions), I don't particularly find Meta's behavior suspicious. If part of the purpose of making accusations and casting votes is to force participation, I'm happy with the amount of pressure Meta is getting and his resulting participation. So, in order to increase some pressure to participate, I will cast my vote on Alvron. My reasoning is this: Meta and Leif have some pressure on them already and they are responding to it. Dowanx's vote for Clanky is a "gut feeling" which doesn't give much specific material to respond to in self-defense other than to point out there is no real substance behind the vote. (Dowanx, if you can find anything that supports your gut feeling, I'd love to hear it.) I am curious what Meta is going to say about Phat, but will wait for the details on that. Bort called out three for not posting, and the only one who hasn't responded yet is Alvron. (Though Dowanx didn't respond to the lack of activity charge, so I really do want to hear more from him on that.) Although it's not strong evidence, inactivity still requires a specific justification, so let's hear it Alvron... I'll be happy to change my vote if you respond adequately. EDIT: added color formatting for vote
-
Bort, yes, I did vote for myself, and I assume I was thrown off the train in the caboose. Renegade, I know you said it wouldn't be in the write-up, but in the case of a random tie-breaker, it would make sense to me for it to be said at the end of the caboose conversation. At least, I can't imagine the folks in the caboose not realizing who was thrown off the train. It probably won't matter anyway, as long as everyone votes, so we can tell who's vote was nullified. I don't know why I didn't think of this before, but here is a summary of the votes from the caboose from the first two rounds (I was there both times). Round 1: Clanky voted for Bort Bort voted for Gamma Burnt Spaghetti voted for Dr. McNinja leftinspace voted for Gamma Bort retracted the vote for Gamma* Aanwolf voted for Bridge Boy Gamma voted for Bort *Looking back, I'm not sure the retraction was intentional, as it was in the context of demonstrating how to color code a vote and was made after demonstrating with a vote for Grind. Round 2: Bridge Boy voted for Aanwolf Orlock voted for Burnt Sphaghetti Aanwolf voted for jasonpenguin Burnt Sphaghetti voted for Lady Eowyn Lady Eowyn voted for Bridge Boy Round 1 the votes were often phrased as pokes in the hopes of generating discussion, but no specific suspicions were raised. Round 2 the only poking was Orlock asking Burnt Spaghetti to respond to Clanky's suspicions. Burnt did respond to that, saying she couldn't find the said suspicions, but indicating a general willingness to respond. There were no other suspicions raised. Looking back on the discussions there, I'm surprised to note that there was so little suspicion discussed there. However, since there was plenty of it on the main thread, the general motivation may (though no one voiced this) have been to keep those discussions public and use the caboose vote as a way to act on any decisions made by the larger group. (Well, I guess I don't know how the amount of suspicion compares to normal here as this is my first time playing this game on 17thshard, but it is a healthy amount compared to what I've experienced in family games of mafia. I'm finding active participation in this game to be time-consuming enough without going back to read a bunch of past games)
