Drinking with a Angel and Demon - Round Four

[Lassr]

I really thought when Remus said "Newcastle is good" he was trying to set Newcastle up to be poisoned by the demon. If I believed Grund to be evil but Newcastle my #2 and I had only one poison I sure would have heaped praise upon Newcastle in hopes that Isgrimnur would do his little last minute lassr move and kill him. But alas Newcastle jumped in and poured for theohall which was a pretty clear signal.

[Grundbegriff]

An important tweak:
An immortal round to keep this about moves and not about deadline squeezing.

Yes. The immortals should play within the round (having no real effect) and then play a subsequent, separate round. Also, there should be parity between the capabilities of the Angel and those of the Demon; each should be able to save xor poison.

Let all the players read (through the Mod's write-up) who the waiter gives the rumor to. (So you can press for knowledge, forces bad to say something)

I like this idea a lot. Bluffing about whether the lore was received is less interesting than bluffing about what it said.

Idea if there were more players: 1 Bad Seed could have a single dose of a "Turn Evil" potion that he could put in a pour.

I agree that this conversion mechanism would only work if we had several more players-- high teens, let's say.

1 player could be a Doctor, and have his own antidote that he may apply in his pours - (protection could actually lasts 2 rounds)?
Perhaps 1 player has a potion that does indeed vanquish an immortal from the party (total fizzle if applied to a mortal). (could be 2 versions of this potion).

It might be interesting to have only one anti-metaphysical potion, and to have it be useful only if a certain condition is met. That way, the sides could fight over it.

The Angel's # of antidotes depends on how drunk he is. 3 pours, 3 antidotes - etc. No pours, 1 maybe? As the game goes on, it would be interesting to see if there was any plays to be made by that.

I love this idea. The Angel (but not the Demon) could be impaired if drunk, empowered if sober. This would force the Evil team to decide whether it's more important to cripple him or to pour against Humans.

It might also be fun to lengthen the game by giving all humans a very small (and possibly random within a range) number of hit points. For example, Alex has 3 points, Benny has 2, Carlos has 3, and Devon has only 1. But nobody has info about the hit points and 1 dose kills 1 hit point, so nobody can be sure which dose of poison will be fatal. Thoughts on this?

Conversly, 3 or 4 drinks (some number...) can intoxicate the Demon enough to keep him from playing in the immortal round.

I think the Angel's should be incremental (each drink poured takes away one of his saves) but the Demon's should be binary: One or two pours and he's sober; three pours and he's drunk. And I think the drunkenness threshold should be low enough to be a realistic goal.

Again-- nice, creative work there, Unagi!

[theohall]

I really thought when Remus said "Newcastle is good" he was trying to set Newcastle up to be poisoned by the demon. If I believed Grund to be evil but Newcastle my #2 and I had only one poison I sure would have heaped praise upon Newcastle in hopes that Isgrimnur would do his little last minute lassr move and kill him. But alas Newcastle jumped in and poured for theohall which was a pretty clear signal.

It obviously wasn't clear enough to Isgrimnur who provided me the Demon's anti-poison.

Had Newcastle actually been good, Isgriminur would've cost his side the win.

[Scoop20906]

I truly thought that I had been positioned into poisoning stessier in my effort to save him in round 2. I am glad to see that it was not the case.

So, in an effort to rub this in Grund's nose... I'm dying to know the timestamp on that antidote?

i.e. If it had just been my pour in stessier's cup - would he have died from your antidote?

Yes, Stessier would have died from the Demon's anti-poison.

[Grundbegriff]

I truly thought that I had been positioned into poisoning stessier in my effort to save him in round 2. I am glad to see that it was not the case.

So, in an effort to rub this in Grund's nose... I'm dying to know the timestamp on that antidote?

i.e. If it had just been my pour in stessier's cup - would he have died from your antidote?

Yes, Stessier would have died from the Demon's anti-poison.

There's no way anyone could've known that, though, so the point is weak. It would've been wrong for Lassr and me to ignore the stessier threat.

[Grundbegriff]

BTW, Scoop-- would you like to play in the second incarnation of your game? I'd be glad to mod if you'd like to play.

[stessier]

YAY, WE WON!!! And in a game so heavily slanted toward the Good Guys that I didn't think we'd make it out of the first day. Well done, Remus...or should I say elttil hctib?

This is incorrect, Semaj. I noted stessier's oddity in the post quoted above, laid a trap for him by (a) wildly voting against you, and (b) conspicuously mentioning the Eagleton name. stessier took the bait and followed by vote. On page 6, I noted that it was interesting to see who had jumped at the chance to sow confusion and who hadn't.

Good gravy this has been bugging me since you wrote it. I didn't think you were evil. I didn't "take the bait." I actually thought you were the Angel and came up with a sounds strategy for the good guys to win - not my fault you didn't follow it.

When I started I thought getting down to a small number made the most sense, that's why I said we should all poison. It gave the Good Guys an excellent chance to win on the first day with little risk. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized how broken the system was (no offense Scoop). The Good Guys had plenty of saves and could very easily wait until they had a bunch of rumors to make their moves. (I hadn't counted on the Demon sniping, though.) The GG could have poured the minimum one drink a day and let the Angel purify it - no one needed to die. So when I realized that on the first day and saw Grund make his pour, I also realized that the people who most wanted to poison were the Evil ones and that anyone who poured past the number that could be guaranteed to be saved should look Evil. That's why I made the second pour - to keep any one else out of the sweet spot.

Once I saw and started to analyze the Day 1 pours, I saw Newcastle had also not poisoned and that made it pretty easy to pick out Isgrimnur as the Demon.

My biggest mistake (that actually turned out to be an Evil blessing) was not sniping at the end of Round 2. I actually had already poisoned my bottle and had a post written up killing Remus. I saw Grund's and Lassr's pours and mistakenly thought Grund was the Angel and would save me. I didn't want to blow my cover by killing Remus at that point. Of course, I should have definitely sniped there, even had I been saved as I could have killed Remus and then sniped again at the end of Round 3 when I would have died for sure. That's the one I was kicking myself over right up until the end. Alls well that ends well, I say.

As for fixes:

• I don't think the Angel should have any more saves than the Demon. Why should the Good Guys get the benefit when the Bad Guys can't kill anyone without being exposed?
• I really like the idea of hit points. Really, really. Maybe they should range from 1 to (1/3 the total number of players)?
• I liked the pace of the game. 2 Days might be worth trying once, but 1 Day forced participation but didn't drag anything out. It was like speed chess - you make the best play you see right now.
• I like the idea of a Supernatural round, but it should be kept short. 1-4 hours after the end of the round. Enough time for them to act without destroying the fast pace of the game.
• Something about announcing the alignment of the players on death caused me angst, but I can't find the note now. I remember asking specifically about it at the beginning and was shocked when we learned Chaos was a Good Guy.

I think there were more but that will do for now.

I really had fun and thanks for running it (and putting up with all my complaining) Scoop!

[Isgrimnur]

I truly thought that I had been positioned into poisoning stessier in my effort to save him in round 2. I am glad to see that it was not the case.

So, in an effort to rub this in Grund's nose... I'm dying to know the timestamp on that antidote?

i.e. If it had just been my pour in stessier's cup - would he have died from your antidote?

Fri May 22, 2009 8:00 pm (CST)

[Isgrimnur]

My angst came about after round 2 when I realized that a properly executed strategy as being bandied about would tie the Demon's hands completely, which left me with the only option I could think of. It worked out for me, as I had already been targeted, but if it had been two others poisoned only regardless of whether the Angel was going for a total save or not, it tied my hands to only targeting those who were already being poured for or exposing myself with a snipe. But that may have been due to the fact that my role was exposed so early and almost everyone believed it.

[Lassr]

But that may have been due to the fact that my role was exposed so early and almost everyone believed it.

after I died I then found a reason I should have kept the demons identity a secret a little longer...

[Grundbegriff]

Good gravy

Hi, Rachael!

I didn't think you were evil. I didn't "take the bait." I actually thought you were the Angel ...
I saw Grund's and Lassr's pours and mistakenly thought Grund was the Angel and would save me.

Hilarious. One of the best aspects of this game -- not Drinking w/A&D in particular, but Werewolf in general -- is the high risk of talking past one another or interpreting in contrary and unexpected ways. Very nice.

I definitely think that having the Angel and Demon be covert added a lot of interest to the game. Giving thought to the question of who was filling those roles provided a lot of fun.

[*]I don't think the Angel should have any more saves than the Demon. Why should the Good Guys get the benefit when the Bad Guys can't kill anyone without being exposed?

The Angel has multiple saves, but the Demon has a post-round kill. Of course, if the drunkenness quotient is introduced, this'll require further thought.

[*]I really like the idea of hit points. Really, really. Maybe they should range from 1 to (1/3 the total number of players)?

I think it's better to put a hard cap on it. Why should some random player have longevity equal to 1/3 of the population? I'd recommend HIT = (1-3) or HIT = (1 - 4), but never 5. In a game such as this, that's immortality.

[*]I liked the pace of the game. 2 Days might be worth trying once, but 1 Day forced participation but didn't drag anything out. It was like speed chess - you make the best play you see right now.

The advantage of 2 days would be that it's possible to miss a day without missing a turn.
The advantage of the 1 day turnover is that the game moved forward at a brisk pace, which was good.
Maybe some population-based combination of these would be good: slow when there are many players, and faster when there are fewer. Adds drama and tension!

[*]I like the idea of a Supernatural round, but it should be kept short. 1-4 hours after the end of the round. Enough time for them to act without destroying the fast pace of the game.

Agreed. Not a full day, for sure.

[*]Something about announcing the alignment of the players on death caused me angst, but I can't find the note now. I remember asking specifically about it at the beginning and was shocked when we learned Chaos was a Good Guy.

Not knowing where we stand takes away fun (as in the LOST game), just as channeling all choices through a single leader (as in the LOST game) saps fun.

[stessier]

[*]I don't think the Angel should have any more saves than the Demon. Why should the Good Guys get the benefit when the Bad Guys can't kill anyone without being exposed?

The Angel has multiple saves, but the Demon has a post-round kill. Of course, if the drunkenness quotient is introduced, this'll require further thought.

All well and good, but the Good Guys can guarantee a kill every day. The Evil ones cannot (as the Demon can be undone by the Angel). And on top of that, the Good Guys can get Knowns which will be incredibly hard to kill.

To get a known, a Rumor comes out. The Good Guys kill the Rumor Speaker. If Good, the Rumor Target is Known and should never get a drink poured for them. To be extra safe, the Angel can always pour him an antidote.

Without a way to counter that, the Evil guys are toast. Well...in most cases.

[*]I really like the idea of hit points. Really, really. Maybe they should range from 1 to (1/3 the total number of players)?

I think it's better to put a hard cap on it. Why should some random player have longevity equal to 1/3 of the population? I'd recommend HIT = (1-3) or HIT = (1 - 4), but never 5. In a game such as this, that's immortality.

Comes out the same for 10-12 players. Mine just scales for larger groups - 21 players would be HIT=(1-7). Not too hard to get a 7 person dog pile in a game that big. Or a 3 hit on Round 1 and a 4 hit on Round 2.

Hit points would be lost permanently, right? So you could lose 1 each round until you are dead?

[*]Something about announcing the alignment of the players on death caused me angst, but I can't find the note now. I remember asking specifically about it at the beginning and was shocked when we learned Chaos was a Good Guy.

Not knowing where we stand takes away fun (as in the LOST game), just as channeling all choices through a single leader (as in the LOST game) saps fun.

Agree partly because in this game there are Rumors. They are random and can expose the dead as well as the living. Since the game can be setup where no one has to die in a Round, it seems unfair.

That's another thing that needs fixing. How do we keep people dying to keep the game moving? Even with a separate Supernatural Round, it is possible to just pour for one player each turn and have the Angel protect them. No one dies, but Rumors keep coming out until the Bad Guys are boxed in.

[Grundbegriff]

[*]I don't think the Angel should have any more saves than the Demon. Why should the Good Guys get the benefit when the Bad Guys can't kill anyone without being exposed?

The Angel has multiple saves, but the Demon has a post-round kill. Of course, if the drunkenness quotient is introduced, this'll require further thought.

All well and good, but the Good Guys can guarantee a kill every day. The Evil ones cannot (as the Demon can be undone by the Angel).

The Angel can undo the work of the Demon only if (a) he knows who the Demon is, or (b) he accidentally reverses the Demon.

The fact that the Demon's identity became clear fairly early in this game doesn't mean it always will.

Of course, another possibility would be that the Demon is given a Metaphysical Round Kill against which the Angel can do nothing. That way, there would always be at least one death, and the Angel's business would be to counteract the work of the Evils.

Comes out the same for 10-12 players. Mine just scales for larger groups - 21 players would be HIT=(1-7). Not to hard to get a 7 person dog pile in a game that big. Or a 3 hit on Round 1 and a 4 hit on Round 2.

I'm suggesting that this is not something we want to scale. Yes, it's possible to get a 7 person dogpile. But is that really in the spirit of this variant? And what happens when, just by chance, the four people at the high end of the hitpoint scale happen also to be the ones who reach the endgame?

Remember: we're talking about increasing from the de facto 1 hit point. Even having only 2 hit points doubles longevity. It's like a Dennis card, an immunity, a get out of death free token. The idea that we would want this to scale seems not to take into account what the hit points represent.

Agree partly because in this game there are Rumors. They are random and can expose the dead as well as the living. Since the game can be setup where no one has to die in a Round, it seems unfair.

Giving the Demon a guaranteed kill would fix this. Requiring that everyone pour would also help.

Should we also consider allowing the Evils to poison any poured drink? Or is it important that they poison only their own? The middle ground, which might be interesting, is to allow Evils to poison their own pours or the pours of any players against whom some Evil has already poured.

So, for example, if Grundbegriff and stessier are evil:
Grundbegriff can poison his own pour.
stessier can poison his own pour.
If Grundbegriff has already poured for theohall (with or without poison), then Grundbegriff has a persistent option to taint theohall's subsequent pours.
and so on....

That's another thing that needs fixing. How do we keep people dying to keep the game moving? Even with a separate Supernatural Round, it is possible to just pour for one player each turn and have the Angel protect them. No one dies, but Rumors keep coming out until the Bad Guys are boxed in.

Let's give the Demon, but only the Demon, a guaranteed kill. Then, let's give the Angel 3 saves per round that diminish not with time but with his drunkenness (regardless of poison), and make those saves efficacious only against Human poison.

[Isgrimnur]

I think that perhaps having the devil's action have to be tied to a public action is limiting. Again, with a proper strategy, any action I could have taken that was non-sniping could have been negated if it was contrary to the stated plan. I get a benefit if the plan isn't followed overtly, but the fewer actions made, the more my hands are tied. Maybe add a one-shot "bribe the waiter" to poison someone's food that hasn't been poured for.

[theohall]

Not gonna do quotes, because is will be too complicated.

1-4 hours for the immortal round is too short. 8-12 would be more reasonable. If I were an immortal in some round and my deadline hit while I'm working a flight line, I'd have zero chance to do anything if it were 1-4. I'm guessing Semaj's work schedule puts him in a similar put. If a regular round ended at 10pm and he's working 8pm-2am, when is his chance to be involved if he's immortal - which is essentially what happened this game. He was at work every time the deadline hit. 1-4 hours is too short. 8-12 should work - unless an immortal player has some random real world event which botches things up. But the 8-12 gives time to actually talk with the moderator and fix things. 1-4 is too short.

[theohall]

I think that perhaps having the devil's action have to be tied to a public action is limiting. Again, with a proper strategy, any action I could have taken that was non-sniping could have been negated if it was contrary to the stated plan. I get a benefit if the plan isn't followed overtly, but the fewer actions made, the more my hands are tied. Maybe add a one-shot "bribe the waiter" to poison someone's food that hasn't been poured for.

Act sooner. Make the first pour each round and play more innocent up front. I know, this didn't work this game due to personal issues, but having played one game of this, the next one should be much more complicated. The end result of this game was the sooner one acts, the less evil you appear. Reading through the game this sounds completely opposite to everyone's opinions early, but wound up being true as the game progressed.

Add in a couple of Unagi's twists, the way this played out - holy cow - a fast-paced WW game which forces folks to stay involved.

WELL-DONE SCOOP!

At first read, this sounded nuts. Playing it - very surprised.

[Remus West]

Perhaps make the hard dealine time-stamped by something like 4:00 a.m. so that it is likely everyone is alseep when it hits?

[theohall]

Perhaps make the hard dealine time-stamped by something like 4:00 a.m. so that it is likely everyone is alseep when it hits?

My apologies for mis-reading your play. When I was out working on a friggin Radar system at 9pm it hit - Why the F would Remus poison early??? It gives too much time for counter-play. But I didn't think that 5 hours earlier. My complete bad on screwing this up and not going after Newcastle, like I should've after I thought he was trying to confuse things for no reason much earlier than the later posts when I was working.

[Newcastle]

one thing i really wish we can avoid is to have a repeat of rounds 2 & 3.
These were in essence very choreographed rounds, especially round 3. At that point in time Grund pretty much had become the ringmaster, and if anyone had gone against the grain and done there own thing, there goose would have been cooked. Basically we need incentives to poor and to do so without being coerced to do so.

Maybe give a bonus if you pour or something. Lets say a random person has a random buff...lets say, immunity. or something, and if you pour for that person, you'll get immunity for that round. Or maybe, lets say there is a small chacne that you will be able to detect the alignment via the pour...so i pour for grund, and i get a pm later saying "the way he cherished the drink and smacked his lips makes you convinced he's a good guy".

So the pours can become an exploratory effort on the individual. I think any time you centralize the power, as in w/ grund this game, you loose a lot of hte motivation of the players.

Also, should figure a way to lose the stigma of the double poor, i think it's a valid evil tactic, but there should be a reason as to double poor.

If you really look back on this game, evil should have lost. Really we should have. All that was needed to be done was to run out the clock and simply hope for a rumor. I still think that the game that was just played was heavily slanted toward good....evil win not withstanding....evil just got pretty damn lucky overall i think. The way things were stacked we should have lost.

I also think we should negate the sniping, that does take away the fun factor...and the only reason i employed the snipe at that game, was I earlier had come to the conclusion that was the only way that I was going to win.

I like the hit points idea that was suggested.

I like that deadlines, but i think it should be a window as I suggested before....or if you keep it a hard deadline, figure some way to counter act it, so that negates the sniping.

[Remus West]

Perhaps make the hard dealine time-stamped by something like 4:00 a.m. so that it is likely everyone is alseep when it hits?

My apologies for mis-reading your play. When I was out working on a friggin Radar system at 9pm it hit - Why the F would Remus poison early??? It gives too much time for counter-play. But I didn't think that 5 hours earlier. My complete bad on screwing this up and not going after Newcastle, like I should've after I thought he was trying to confuse things for no reason much earlier than the later posts when I was working.

Stop that. Trying to steal my thunder by making it look like you screwed up more than I did. The very idea.

[Lassr]

What? Too soon?

[theohall]

one thing i really wish we can avoid is to have a repeat of rounds 2 & 3.
These were in essence very choreographed rounds, especially round 3. At that point in time Grund pretty much had become the ringmaster, and if anyone had gone against the grain and done there own thing, there goose would have been cooked. Basically we need incentives to poor and to do so without being coerced to do so.

Maybe give a bonus if you pour or something. Lets say a random person has a random buff...lets say, immunity. or something, and if you pour for that person, you'll get immunity for that round. Or maybe, lets say there is a small chacne that you will be able to detect the alignment via the pour...so i pour for grund, and i get a pm later saying "the way he cherished the drink and smacked his lips makes you convinced he's a good guy".

So the pours can become an exploratory effort on the individual. I think any time you centralize the power, as in w/ grund this game, you loose a lot of hte motivation of the players.

Also, should figure a way to lose the stigma of the double poor, i think it's a valid evil tactic, but there should be a reason as to double poor.

If you really look back on this game, evil should have lost. Really we should have. All that was needed to be done was to run out the clock and simply hope for a rumor. I still think that the game that was just played was heavily slanted toward good....evil win not withstanding....evil just got pretty damn lucky overall i think. The way things were stacked we should have lost.

I also think we should negate the sniping, that does take away the fun factor...and the only reason i employed the snipe at that game, was I earlier had come to the conclusion that was the only way that I was going to win.

I like the hit points idea that was suggested.

I like that deadlines, but i think it should be a window as I suggested before....or if you keep it a hard deadline, figure some way to counter act it, so that negates the sniping.

I wouldn't say Round 2 was choreographed. No one made convincing enough arguments to counter Grund's period. The issue with this style game is the 2 of the bad guys know another but cannot work in private. At the same time, the goods have to find those bads while hoping the Angel and Demon don't screw up their public plans. Same applies for the Evil team. Absolutely no one stepped forward to counter Grund's early arguments - which wound up proving true.

Were I playing Evil in this style, I would do my damnedest to emulate Grund and act early every round so as to cast doubt on to my Evilness. The only reason to act late in this type of games is to do something evil - which I figured out at work while actually doing my job and not thinking about this. Folks acting early are acting on suspicion. Those acting late have some knowledge. And other than stessier's early pour in round 1 - very smart on his part - this was true.

[Unagi]

I truly thought that I had been positioned into poisoning stessier in my effort to save him in round 2. I am glad to see that it was not the case.

So, in an effort to rub this in Grund's nose... I'm dying to know the timestamp on that antidote?

i.e. If it had just been my pour in stessier's cup - would he have died from your antidote?

Yes, Stessier would have died from the Demon's anti-poison.

There's no way anyone could've known that, though, so the point is weak. It would've been wrong for Lassr and me to ignore the stessier threat.

The point though Grund, often we don't "know" anything so we take some chances - this game is always about hunches of human behaviour, etc.

I'd love it if you just gave even the slightest nod here that I indeed caught stessier, and my move to not even poison him was indeed countered by a Demon that wanted to see stessier survive my pour. As unlikely and unpredictable as it was - it indeed happened the way I had thought it might.

[Grundbegriff]

I truly thought that I had been positioned into poisoning stessier in my effort to save him in round 2. I am glad to see that it was not the case.

So, in an effort to rub this in Grund's nose... I'm dying to know the timestamp on that antidote?

i.e. If it had just been my pour in stessier's cup - would he have died from your antidote?

Yes, Stessier would have died from the Demon's anti-poison.

There's no way anyone could've known that, though, so the point is weak. It would've been wrong for Lassr and me to ignore the stessier threat.

The point though Grund, often we don't "know" anything so we take some chances - this game is always about hunches of human behaviour, etc.

I'd love it if you just gave even the slightest nod here that I indeed caught stessier, and my move to not even poison him was indeed countered by a Demon that wanted to see stessier survive my pour. As unlikely and unpredictable as it was - it indeed happened the way I had thought it might.

You have spoken truly. You were a good. You were suspecting stessier. You wanted to a nail him indirectly by inducing the Demon to try to save him. The Demon did in fact try to save him.

[theohall]

I truly thought that I had been positioned into poisoning stessier in my effort to save him in round 2. I am glad to see that it was not the case.

So, in an effort to rub this in Grund's nose... I'm dying to know the timestamp on that antidote?

i.e. If it had just been my pour in stessier's cup - would he have died from your antidote?

Yes, Stessier would have died from the Demon's anti-poison.

There's no way anyone could've known that, though, so the point is weak. It would've been wrong for Lassr and me to ignore the stessier threat.

The point though Grund, often we don't "know" anything so we take some chances - this game is always about hunches of human behaviour, etc.

I'd love it if you just gave even the slightest nod here that I indeed caught stessier, and my move to not even poison him was indeed countered by a Demon that wanted to see stessier survive my pour. As unlikely and unpredictable as it was - it indeed happened the way I had thought it might.

The problem with that is the counterpoint is also true. Just because it would've happened as you suspected it might, the odds were far greater of that not happening. Hindsight is 20/20. One has to consider current known facts without consideration of the actual results.

[Grundbegriff]

The problem with that is the counterpoint is also true. Just because it would've happened as you suspected it might, the odds were far greater of that not happening. Hindsight is 20/20. One has to consider current known facts without consideration of the actual results.

You have spoken truly. The fact that things unfolded as Unagi wrongheadedly hoped they might doesn't mean his hope wasn't wrongheaded, and certainly doesn't mean that others who decided to nail down stessier's execution for sure were in any sense mistaken to do so.

[theohall]

Honestly, after thought prior to the deadline hour, I regretted my prior posts. Around 9pm ET it hit me, why would Remus pour early if he was evil? The problem for me - I couldn't get back to a PC to say anything - but that's ok, because I like how hard deadlines move games along. The best action once Remus had poured - since both you and I suspected Remus and Newcastle as evil - would've been to split pours on Newcastle and Remus or wait for Newcastle's action. The longer Newcastle waited, the more evil he would appear. But this is looking in hindsight, so can't say if it would've worked.

One red flag Newcastle flew before I poured was his mass suicide post. It just sounded confusing but I only had a one minute to sort crap out before going to work. Didn't trust stessier not mentioning Remus, so that was a good play on his part naming Newcastle among his 3 most suspected evils.

[Isgrimnur]

A thought on hard deadlines:

Perhaps some sort of hourglass threshold could be used.

Ex.

Majority is seven votes. If majority is not reached after 48 hours, the actionable threshold will be dropped to six votes, and so forth, with the threshold dropping every 48 hours until such time that either the threshold is reached through player action or the threshold drops to a pre-existing plurality.

[Grundbegriff]

Honestly, after thought prior to the deadline hour, I regretted my prior posts. Around 9pm ET it hit me, why would Remus pour early if he was evil?

My thought, as illustrated in my working again and again through combinations, was that Remus's early vote against me would've been a losing play for Evil.

What I just couldn't figure out, given how evil his approach and style seemed, was this: was Remus making a move that would lose him the game if he were Evil because he was actually Good? Or was Remus making a move that would lose him the game if he were Evil because he was Evil but confused?

In general in Werewolf, it's hard to tell whether a given move is (a) a symptom of alignment (actual or bluffed) or (b) just a symptom of confusion.

Like Lassr, I thought Remus's final comment about Newcastle might've been penitence on his part: trying to make Newcastle look good so Isgrimnur would kill him. That's why I said "Is Remus right about Newc? Hard to tell." Even then, as evil as Newcastle had looked for a good long time, I was foiled by the apparent Eviltude of Remus's play. In fact, that's also why I asked for redundant clarification of every aspect of the pours and their stacking; I kept thinking there must be something I was overlooking-- a possibility for which Isgrimnur's surprise play had prepared me.

Of course, now that you've pointed out the "If early, then Good" inference, the possibility that Evil will exploit it next time strips it of diagnostic value!

The longer Newcastle waited, the more evil he would appear. But this is looking in hindsight, so can't say if it would've worked.

At 9:58, I had typed an accusatory pour against Newcastle, for coverage of everyone as my last combinations had prescribed, but I figured (as those calcs also suggested) that it was hopeless since I fully expected Isgrimnur to save Newc if he was evil and I poisoned him. Apparently, though, Isgrimnur thought you were the Evil. So-- and again, there's no way anyone could've known this-- the actual last-second sniping pattern would've allowed my poisoning Newc to kill and reverse the game's outcome.

Instead, as I sat there staring at what seemed a pointless move, I decided that the pleasure of slaying Remus West (regardless of alignment, as I mentioned in context) definitely outweighed everything else.

[Unagi]

You have spoken truly. You were a good. You were suspecting stessier. You wanted to a nail him indirectly by inducing the Demon to try to save him. The Demon did in fact try to save him.

Thanks Grund.

[theohall]

Honestly, after thought prior to the deadline hour, I regretted my prior posts. Around 9pm ET it hit me, why would Remus pour early if he was evil?

My thought, as illustrated in my working again and again through combinations, was that Remus's early vote against me would've been a losing play for Evil.

What I just couldn't figure out, given how evil his approach and style seemed, was this: was Remus making a move that would lose him the game if he were Evil because he was actually Good? Or was Remus making a move that would lose him the game if he were Evil because he was Evil but confused?

In general in Werewolf, it's hard to tell whether a given move is (a) a symptom of alignment (actual or bluffed) or (b) just a symptom of confusion.

Like Lassr, I thought Remus's final comment about Newcastle might've been penitence on his part: trying to make Newcastle look good so Isgrimnur would kill him. That's why I said "Is Remus right about Newc? Hard to tell." Even then, as evil as Newcastle had looked for a good long time, I was foiled by the apparent Eviltude of Remus's play. In fact, that's also why I asked for redundant clarification of every aspect of the pours and their stacking; I kept thinking there must be something I was overlooking-- a possibility for which Isgrimnur's surprise play had prepared me.

Of course, now that you've pointed out the "If early, then Good" inference, the possibility that Evil will exploit it next time strips it of diagnostic value!

The longer Newcastle waited, the more evil he would appear. But this is looking in hindsight, so can't say if it would've worked.

At 9:58, I had typed an accusatory pour against Newcastle, for coverage of everyone as my last combinations had prescribed, but I figured (as those calcs also suggested) that it was hopeless since I fully expected Isgrimnur to save Newc if he was evil and I poisoned him. Apparently, though, Isgrimnur thought you were the Evil. So-- and again, there's no way anyone could've known this-- the actual last-second sniping pattern would've allowed my poisoning Newc to kill and reverse the game's outcome.

Instead, as I sat there staring at what seemed a pointless move, I decided that the pleasure of slaying Remus West (regardless of alignment, as I mentioned in context) definitely outweighed everything else.

This is very similar to the Unagi/theohall arguments the last two games. He keeps wanting to kill me, so I think he's evil because of that and I want to kill him. Maybe that might change in the future. Who knows?

I would have to say of the 4 I've played - this and Unagi's Norse Gods thing were the most fun.

[Grundbegriff]

Were you around for Austin's secret toy surprise game? That was amazing.

[Remus West]

What? Too soon?

No, but it was a misuse. Sheesh.

[theohall]

Were you around for Austin's secret toy surprise game? That was amazing.

Nope. Didn't get to play at all really until around Oct/Nov 08. Work schedule didn't support it - out of the country too much. I'll have to look that one up.

[Newcastle]

theo - if you hadn't poured when you did, i would have to do have done somethign during the day. Probably have gone with the flow, but i saw victory so close, I had to take the chance and wait. After your pour, i was actually waiting to see what Grund would do. Because I was extremely wary that he might pour for me. I was absolutely surprised when he poured for Remus. I really thought he would pour for me and hedge his bets, and give Semaj some wiggle room.

Also - i tried during the game to seem as "good" as possible. But you also have to realize in these games things can change at teh drop of a dime, at one point you think you're leading the charge of a bandwagon, next second you are the feast for that bandwagon.

Also - you said that the longer i waited, the more evil i seemed? Why was that? Grund also waited. This is more rhetorical than anything else. Did you have absolute faith in him being good?

-Just wait until he's bad or you're up against him, or you're the object of his bandwagon.....you'll look so evil, even your grandmom would lynch you in a heartbeat....then...then your faith in him will be shattered. Grund is a whole different animal in these games. He is scheming and very intuitive in these games.

I was actually wondering if Remus pour early on was some sort of trick to see who would do what. And then in the end i was wondering if he was prepping me to be "good" to have Isg. pour me a poisoned drink. I was very wary of that.

[Newcastle]

You have spoken truly. You were a good. You were suspecting stessier. You wanted to a nail him indirectly by inducing the Demon to try to save him. The Demon did in fact try to save him.

Thanks Grund.

That's actually the fun of these games as well...how far can you do the double and triple reverse on it. really leads you down into strange avenues of game theorizing...will unagi really poison, or is he hoping that isg will use the antidote...And I feel for you, because you were thinking on it, jut didn't work out for ya!

[Grundbegriff]

Were you around for Austin's secret toy surprise game? That was amazing.

Nope. Didn't get to play at all really until around Oct/Nov 08. Work schedule didn't support it - out of the country too much. I'll have to look that one up.

What do you do? Are you a flying quarternote?

[Scoop20906]

BTW, Scoop-- would you like to play in the second incarnation of your game? I'd be glad to mod if you'd like to play.

Thats a very generous offer, Grund. I accept!! I leave the details of when to start and rulez mods of next iteration up to you.

[Lassr]

What? Too soon?

No, but it was a misuse. Sheesh.

I know but I like whipping it out ever chance I get...

[Remus West]

Are you a flying quarternote?

His avatar is the St Loius Blues symbol (hockey team). Just in case you did not know.