WW 31 Game Thread PARANOIA

[Bobchillingworth]

@Bob:
There is an unknown computer putting votes in who would lynch someone anyway.

Well first of all we don't know how said "robot" is going to vote, unless you know something I don't. But more importantly there only needs to be a plurality of people voting "no lynch" for there to not be a lynch, so one vote doesn't matter anyway.

[Rowain]

Well first of all we don't know how said "robot" is going to vote, unless you know something I don't. But more importantly there only needs to be a plurality of people voting "no lynch" for there to not be a lynch, so one vote doesn't matter anyway.

Looking at the flurry of posts I guess Inana is Brick. Or someone engaged by Brick like NobelHelium or pindi. I doubt it is a live player.

No lynch is of course something different. from a RP-perspective I doubt friend computer will be pleased if we refuse to fulfil our job and meta-wise I doubt Brick hands us certified innocents on a platter without counter measurements.

[Bobchillingworth]

What I'm suggesting is terrible from a RP-perspective no doubt, but considering almost nobody here is roleplaying I figure we could set aside the flavor stuff for Brick's writeups :P


The No Lynch strategy isn't an invincible village win tool, even if my understanding of the mechanics is correct, it's just a stalling method most probably favorable for the town.

[Catwalk]

I don't think Bob's proposed strategy is pure nonsense. It has the advantage that we will start lynching at a time where we will have more information from night actions. I don't think that the night kill will be particularly convincing of innocence (nor will it help us a lot to have one maybe somewhat confirmed townie), but other night actions might give us useful clues.

Still, I consider talking to be far more useful to town than to scum, and talking without lynching is essentially useless. For that reason, I'm going to vote against my proposed plan and stick with Old Harry. You haven't even tried to explain your vote on Azarius which was placed with zero justification. It reads to me like scum trying to figure out how to stay active without incriminating himself, and failing at it due to inexperience.

[spacetyrantxenu]

I didn't say my lack of understanding was from your failure to communicate. I'm still trying to get the rules. Understanding meta can wait for next week if I make it that far.

Your scenario sounds interesting but since I don't have enough experience to know whether it's likely or not (i.e., if giving up an opportunity to lynch someone is a good idea or not -- it wouldn't seem like a great idea?), and since I am a tyrant after all (sorry Gazglum), I'll probably vote to put someone to the sword, er, noose once I decide who it should be. Maybe I'll rule out Ryan, Jowy, Q, and Ichabod since you've all been helpful with answering questions so far and don't seem suspicious to me....But maybe that was your plan...to appear helpful so no one would suspect you.....Hmm.

Maybe off topic, but after playing through a game of WW do you guys find that you treat people more suspiciously in real life? I'm going to think I'm surrounded by intrigue and liars before too long and this is just day one.

[Catwalk]

IMO it's a good idea to simply be neutral as far as general advice goes. That way people are free to chip in with useful tips, and you won't be deluded into thinking them innocent just because they know some game stuff. As I wrote above, I advise against Bob's plan. It's not as ridiculous as in a normal game, but I don't think it's in our best interests.

[spacetyrantxenu]

Oops, I crossposted a few, my response was to Bob's longer explanation of the no lynch plan above.

[spacetyrantxenu]

IMO it's a good idea to simply be neutral as far as general advice goes. That way people are free to chip in with useful tips, and you won't be deluded into thinking them innocent just because they know some game stuff.

Maybe you're just saying that because you haven't given me advice and think I might vote for you?

[Qgqqqqq]

Bob, this is role madness. Even if a No Lynch only requires a majority to be successful (I don't recall seeing it mentioned in the rules), things are not going to play out like that. No Lynch is a perfectly accepted strategy, but for it to be worth trying we need to be able to predict the outcome because otherwise it's too dangerous a gambit. And this is role madness. We don't have anywhere near all the answers, instead we have 20 abilities that could interact differently together, and some may require using, as well as whatever abilities the scum have and any further mechanics that BRick may have thrown into the mix. In other words, we would be giving up our best weapon (the lynch) under the hope that we will be able to manipulate whatever comes out of the night to our advantage, with no real idea as to what mechanics the game has to offer. I also in general think No Lynch setups are more likely to be anti- then pro-town as they are likely to shut down discussion and talk as the day can be decided easily. And besides, it would be very dull
So I won't be voting No Lynch today. (It may well be a valid option for the late game.)

Spacetyrant of the Xenuic variety, answering questions and other useless bits of chatter are just another facet to players expected behaviour, and very rarely give an alignment tell. Speaking of which, have you noticed anything you are suspicious of?

[MJW (ya that one)]

Serdoa you said that you would get banned if you posted on what you thought on post #1792 in ww19.

My vote stays on mattimeo for not even posting.

I've read the rules and they said that ties will not be possible due to roles. So this means that the wolfs can never be even with the village. So if a village-mayor is against a wolf on the final day we auto win.