Werewolf 3 Game Thread

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Your agruement is like saying smoking costs the health system money (cancer treatments) but it does'nt. Smoker's get dementa a lot less because they die early. Dementa costs huge amounts of money (professional 24/7 nurse) which more then makes up for the lack of cancer treatments.

MJW

[scooter]

Wow, I just read a comparison between an argument in this game with a sentence that included smoking, cancer, die early, and dementia. I have officially seen it all.

[MJW (ya that one)]

MJW

If you don't like it if you think it is untrue here is a link: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...0093371506 Showing that it is true.

You need to say why you don't like it if this is not the case. You were going to change your vote to me anyway though...

[Gold Ergo Sum]

Checking in for my twice daily post.

I read this like 5 times and I still cannot understand it. Either way, I'm pretty confident that Serdoa is dead on with his description. The seer scans the fool as the fool, and the fool scans the seer as the fool. The only way to tell who is real is to compare their results against a known entity (aka someone dead).

That is my understanding of how the seer/fool scries work. Is that the understanding of everyone else?

It looks like we might be headed towards a tie vote for the mayor to decide. That could be interesting.

I still don't have any real gut feelings about any of this. I am headed to bed soon since I have to be in LA for a 9am deposition tomorrow. The voting ends at 9am, so I hope I have time to catch up on the thread by then.

It seems to me that if the voting is close and someone gets lynched by a vote or two and that person turns out to be a villager, I guess the list of people who voted for the lynched villager is our first potential hard evidence to work from. I also suppose the 1-2 players who narrowly miss being lynched could also be suspects in that scenario.

[Sareln]

That is my understanding of how the seer/fool scries work. Is that the understanding of everyone else?

That is how I understand my rules as written, yes.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

If you don't like it if you think it is untrue here is a link: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...0093371506 Showing that it is true.

You need to say why you don't like it if this is not the case. You were going to change your vote to me anyway though...

Actually, I wasn't going to. Ganging up on people, especially in the early days, makes it too easy on the wolves. But really... that post just deserves a lynching

To apply this logic to the game.... being eaten by werewolves is less expensive than anything else because there's no dementia and no second-hand smoke issues? lol, kind of a joke. Sounds kid of like you're defending the werewolves because after all, you're claiming that werewolves eating villagers is good for the village.

Or as Roland said to me in the last game...

[Irgy]

Losing a good werewolf hurts much more to the wolves then losing a good villager to the village.

Here's where you go wrong. Yes this statement is true on its own, but it's not the right statement to make. You need to compare good to average, and you the further need to weight those differences by the chances of each occurring. Mathematically, you want:
5 * (good werewolf - average werewolf) - 17 * (good villager - bad villager)

The value of that comparison tells you whether the "lynch good players" strategy is beneficial or detrimental. Your point that in a group of bad players the villagers will do better than in a group of good players is valid. An alternative argument, partly supported by the 17:5 ratio in that comparison, is that we have a fairly poor chance of catching a wolf today, whereas later we'll have a better chance. So if this is the worst day we'll have in terms of the odds of catching a wolf, it's also the worst day to lynch a good player.

Actually the players I think are the best targets are those who make good wolves but bad villagers. The trouble is I don't think we really know who those are. In some ways though, lynching quiet people is related to this strategy - as being quiet is generally a good wolf but bad village strategy.


And here's one of those gems I was talking about:

If you don't like it if you think it is untrue here is a link: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...0093371506 Showing that it is true.

The analogy that he's defending here is awful, so it's relevance to the game is somewhat limited. Actually I confess I just assume it's an awful analogy because I can't make any sense of it, but I'm still pretty confident. However, that is a fascinating and amusing link, and I'm glad you posted it. Even as someone who is basically fairly anti-smoking, I always love to see people's natural assumptions that they make to support their point of view getting ripped to shreds by genuine research. The whole health care costs reduction always seemed like an argument of convenience, a cynical attempt to appeal to people's greedier side after failing to connect with their better nature.

It's a little off topic again though, so my apologies for that.

[Irgy]

Call me a suck-up if you like but...

That is how I understand my rules as written, yes.

Thanks Sareln, funniest comment in the thread so far

[MJW (ya that one)]

I woke up and checked this thread. I hope to see you in the morning... alive. Lyching a quiet villager is not possible sadly but that would be the best idea for the first day. A much simpler way to say my idea it that if you have no way of knowing who is a werewolf you might as well change the playerbase in a way to help you. A game full of bad players needs to have a higher werewolf ratio to be balanced. I think M Nice Guy fails at irony because I would cost less than average in health costs.

The link comes from the fact that although smoking hurts money-wise at first it heals money-wise later making up for it. Just like it hurts when a good villager gets killed it heals a lot when a good werewolf gets lyched.

[Lewwyn]

So I was going back through trying to see if I had something to say, but I really don't have anything else to say about my defense. I don't feel as though I've acted suspicious as my reasoning behind my vote for MJW never really changed. If you look through I never say that I'm convinced he is a WW. I do say he is a possible one because how could you tell? Usually a wolf likes to spread around misdirection and suspicions and basically thats what he's done, but of course that how MJW always acts. There is no baseline for MJW. SO like i've said all along he may be a villager he may be a wolf.

Because of this I don't understand Ichabod's reasoning that the reasoning I used to vote for MJW is suspicious and therefore makes me a likely wolf. He says my reasoning shifts but I cannot find where I shift my reasoning. I never say he is a wolf definatively. I only say it is possible or likely that we wouldn't be able to tell even if he was a wolf. The strongest I've gone against MJW was nearer the beginning when he had posted less. He's posted more though since, and I find that while suspicions of him may have lessened, I still feel about 50-50 on his innocence to evil ratio.

As for the agreeing with Cull about post 108, So I reread it and found it to be wolfish. Ichabod, you perceived it differently but how does that make my perception more wolfish? I really don't understand your reasoning.

In fact, from reading the thread, I don't think there's a lot of true suspicions on me at all. Just people voting for a guy who has stirred the put a bit and put himself up as an easy target by talking too much. If anyone had any suspicions of me based in reasoning or by something I said, please bring them forth so I may address them. I cannot guarantee you will believe my reasoning and explanation, but I will feel better for having had them brought up and been able to answer them.

Sadly, I haven't had as much time to go monster hunting, but I have found myself disagreeing with and mostly unable to understand Ichabod's reasoning of why I am a wolf. In fact it's seemed to me that he has been pretty subtle with his attempts to hang me. Really not enough to go on today, but I'll go with my gut. If I were a wolf I'd talk up the suspicions and then help ease the bandwagon along. This is how I've felt Ichabod ha acted. No guarantees, just gut.