[WW] Fright Night! (The village wins!)

[noxiousdog]

Telling Grund only is an impossibility. Even if he's completely trustworthy NOW, there's a not insignificant chance of being untrustworthy tomorrow.

[Grundbegriff]

Telling Grund only is an impossibility. Even if he's completely trustworthy NOW, there's a not insignificant chance of being untrustworthy tomorrow.

Right. But your proposed alternative is to tell everyone, including me. How is that better?

Tell everyone, and both Masons are marked for death. Tell me and perhaps one secretly trusted other, and you retain some options if I go south.

Tell a secretly trusted other and not me, and you also retain options. The only difference is that there's a good chance I'll be Seer-evaluated before your "secretly trusted other".

Of course, the safest thing to do in the short run would be to tell nobody who the second Mason is-- but then, if you die, the second Mason's masonhood becomes pretty meaningless, since the only advantage of Masonhood is the power to leverage that partnership into a node of rock solid trust.

[Mr Bubbles]

Telling Grund only is an impossibility. Even if he's completely trustworthy NOW, there's a not insignificant chance of being untrustworthy tomorrow.

Right. But your proposed alternative is to tell everyone, including me. How is that better?

Tell everyone, and both Masons are marked for death. Tell me and perhaps one secretly trusted other, and you retain some options if I go south.

Because as a vamp you'd have more information than a villager.. I just don't think thats a good idea anytime.

edit: assuming you get infected

[noxiousdog]

There's a third scenario, and a better one:

The FVH protects me. The second Mason stays hidden. You reveal only to me who the second Mason is.

As I said before, that is unacceptable.

If you then die, are innocent, and I don't become a Vampire, I'll have a solid node of trust: the second Mason. At least one Seer will have a basis to trust me, and I'll have a basis to trust the FVH who saved me.

That's logically incorrect. If I die you'll have no basis to trust the FVH because you weren't the target. The only way a seer can trust you is to screen you. Nothing that happens at night can change that.

If you die and I do become a Vampire, I'll know who the second Mason is-- but that's no different from your proposed alternative of simply announcing to everyone (including the Vampire(s)) who the second Mason is!

It's much different. The villagers will then have noone to trust. If I reveal #2, that at least gives them something to work with tomorrow, and the seers will have as many as 4 targets that can be communicated to Mason #2.

Keeping the identity of the second mason non-public would be very wise, as I said before. Telling me privately (and telling one other trusted person privately, if you have one) would also be wise, for the reason stated. It's a no-loss/possibly-big-win scenario.

Yes. I agree that a hidden second mason is very beneficial, but only if I stay alive. I also agree that your logic is more valuable than mine. However, I don't know if the difference between our positions is greater than the advantage gained by keeping mason #2 hidden.

[Grundbegriff]

Because as a vamp you'd have more information than a villager.. I just don't think thats a good idea anytime.

edit: assuming you get infected

The hierarchy of safety with respect to this move goes like this:

Tell everyone (highly unsafe)
Tell only one other trust person (somewhat safer)
Tell only me (slightly safer still since I'll end up Seer-checked)
Tell me and one other trusted person (a lot safer insurancewise)
Tell nobody (maximally safe in the short run, but disastrous in the long run)

[Grundbegriff]

As I said before, that is unacceptable.

If that's your choice, so be it.

The play I have recommended is the smart one, whether I end up infected or not. You needn't play it, but being either more chatty or totally quiet will harm your cause.

If you don't tell me privately, at least tell someone privately-- if you have someone you can tell. If you die without having endorsed your fellow Mason, the value of the Freemasons will have been squandered. Their only special feature is the fact that they know one another to be innocent; a lone, unauthenticated Mason is just another villager.

[noxiousdog]

Telling Grund only is an impossibility. Even if he's completely trustworthy NOW, there's a not insignificant chance of being untrustworthy tomorrow.

Right. But your proposed alternative is to tell everyone, including me. How is that better?

Because everyone will have the same information. Because the villagers and seers will have someone they can trust, for at least one more round.

Tell everyone, and both Masons are marked for death. Tell me and perhaps one secretly trusted other, and you retain some options if I go south.

I don't believe this is so. When there are two masons, it confers a significant advantage. I can be the mouthpiece and it would take at least two days to destroy the info that I have. More if the FVH protects me.

However, once we lose 1 mason, the 2nd one conveys no special power. What would be the advantage of killing them? If anything an unaccompanied mason is a detriment because they can't be seered, so there is always going to be some doubt about their trustworthyness, no matter how hard I vouch up front or how hard you attempt to convince them after the fact.

Maybe more importantly, the mason's only use is to be a trusted point. How can they be a trusted point if only you know who they are?

Tell a secretly trusted other and not me, and you also retain options. The only difference is that there's a good chance I'll be Seer-evaluated before your "secretly trusted other".

I have no way to trust anyone except Mason #2.

Of course, the safest thing to do in the short run would be to tell nobody who the second Mason is-- but then, if you die, the second Mason's masonhood becomes pretty meaningless, since the only advantage of Masonhood is the power to leverage that partnership into a node of rock solid trust.

Yep.

[noxiousdog]

If you don't tell me privately, at least tell someone privately-- if you have someone you can tell. If you die without having endorsed your fellow Mason, the value of the Freemasons will have been squandered. Their only special feature is the fact that they know one another to be innocent; a lone, unauthenticated Mason is just another villager.

Unfortuately, if the FVH doesn't choose to inform me of protection, I'll probably be forced to tell several people, in hopes of the information being used next round.

Tell me, either here or by pm, of what value is a single mason?

[Crux]

Grundbegriff. It's all a posture. Surely. His "Only I can be trusted" schtick isn't something I'm buying.

[Leigh]

ok, guys, I'm running out of time. I have to go to work tonight, so I won't be on until the morning. Please don't lynch me while I'm gone.

As an aside, Grund, I had no idea playing with you would make my head hurt thinking so much!

Oh! It would be really good for the seer to vision Grund tonight, then we'll have a quick lynching tomorrow.

And people, we have to start trusting each other!

I'm not the Alpha vamp, I guess the gods of DaOC who randomly determined our roles wanted to keep me in peasant costume one more game.

[Mr Bubbles]

Oh! It would be really good for the seer to vision Grund tonight, then we'll have a quick lynching tomorrow.

And people, we have to start trusting each other!

I'm not the Alpha vamp, I guess the gods of DaOC who randomly determined our roles wanted to keep me in peasant costume one more game.

Only problem.. Unless Im totally mistaken.. We are in the day cycle and need to lynch before night falls.

[Mark]

Right, I'm back on board.

What have I missed? A whole lot of "hmmm...seems fishy" from Chaosraven, who quite rightly feels put upon at the moment. Not that I can blame him - 24 hours ago I was in his shoes.

Chaos asks why votes were withdrawn against me. Obviously, for the same reason that votes were withdrawn against Leigh in short order. I started posting, people reconsidered and the game started in earnest. My vendetta against him is nothing more than a gut feel that his original 'we' post was an attempt at obfuscation. Should he provide a reasonable answer for why this was posted, I am more than happy to reconsider. I bear him no ill will, and truly hope he is no bloodsucker.

Noxiousdog asked who has not been contacted by the FVH. I have been contacted by someone who claims to be that FVH, and by one other person who vouches for them, but that could be a ploy by a very clever Alpha.

Apart from that, I've got bubkus.

Oh, and I'm not sure where Grund is going with the whole "tell me and everything will be fine" ploy. It would be a big call to make if he was the alpha, because it would immediately raise our hackles. But he may be counting on this double-bluff to gain a circle of confidants that he can exploit to his own advantage.

And we're yet to hear from some of the quieter ones. Come on, guys - help us out here!

[Crux]

If I were a vampire... and I'm not... my tops choices of people to convert would be...


Mr. Bubbles - who can suspect someone named "Mr. Bubbles" of being a vampire?

Leigh - She's been lynched by accident in just about every game she's played. She almost gets a free pass on suspicion.

Setaside - Another frequent lynchee

Crux - I play a solid game, but I'm more under the radar than Grund.

Grundbegriff - Obvious choice due to his high profile as a tactician. However, his skills might be enough to offset it.

Chris Grenard - Plays a good game, and was recently a vampire. What are the chances he'd be chosen again? So obvious it is sneaky.

That's just some off-the-cuff thinking.

[Grundbegriff]

Because everyone will have the same information. Because the villagers and seers will have someone they can trust, for at least one more round.

That one additional round doesn't win the game. A secret alliance wins the game, whether of 1-3 Vampires or >=4 Non-Vampires. The secrecy of the alliance's membership is vital; else it at becomes a game of mere attrition.

However, once we lose 1 mason, the 2nd one conveys no special power. What would be the advantage of killing them?

To close a trusted conduit. If Trusted Mason tells Bubba Sue in round 7 that Henry Boy is unreliable, Bubba Sue will reckon Henry Boy's unreliable. If Trusted Mason is dead in round 7, the intel about Henry Boy may not circulate at all, or may circulate only among rivulets of doubt.

If anything an unaccompanied mason is a detriment because they can't be seered, so there is always going to be some doubt about their trustworthyness, no matter how hard I vouch up front

Nearly everyone's somewhat suspicious; a legacy Mason is slightly less suspicious because even though Dead Mason's witness isn't indubitable, it's something.

I have no way to trust anyone except Mason #2.

Delightfully frustrating.

[triggercut]

Ok, I think I'm caught up, but I won't update the vote totals for a bit more.

I love reading this thread, there's some serious "contest with a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line" vibe going on. My one worry is that there's so much going on behind the scenes that once we actually have a lynching, and then the craziness of night one, everything will fall into place for one team like a stand of dominoes.

We'll see, I suppose!

[Mark]

<bump>

I think everyone is getting gun-shy. Doubtless there's a bunch doing on behind the scenes.

And why is Kelric so quiet?

[Varity]

Grundbegriff,

A) I think that you're less trustworthy than the average player.

Compared to other players, your chance of being picked as a beta vampire is higher than average, due to your reputation here. Even if you allow for the argument that you won't get picked because you would be an obvious choice, there is still the reverse-psychology counterargument of being picked BECAUSE the choice would be TOO obvious. Alpha could assume you to be capable of talking your way out of an early death; even if you cannot do so anymore at some point, you're wouldn't be an asset for the good side.

B) I think your life expectancy is lower than that of any other player.

If you're not a vampire, the vampires may well make plans to kill you off, again due to reputation. You'd tie the vampire hunter down to protect you (even if you turn out to be a vampire yourself), when there may be more important people to protect. The village may become suspicious that you haven't been slain by the vampires yet, and, analysing that you have no web of trust pointing _towards_ you, run out of trust and decide to lynch you eventually. Or, should that not happen fast enough for their liking, the vampires may do the deed themselves, when the attention is focused elsewhere.



On this basis it would be folly for the village to make a large investment in you. There are others (a pair of publicly known masons) who would be more deserving of trust and protection.

I can certainly understand that you're fighting for your life, but putting you, less trustworthy than average, more at risk than average and with no credentials, in the center of the operation is not the best choice for the village as a whole.

The two candidates for protection are you and I. If the FVH protects you and the Alpha Vamp doesn't infect me, the Vampires will probably kill me.

Why should the vampires attack you NOW? Either you're one of them, or they may try to implicate you by leaving you alone and have good hope that the village will do the job for them. If they do press the attack, they would run a significant risk of losing a full day AND possibly giving the FVH reason to vouch for you. Not a good strategy for them.

There's a third scenario, and a better one:

The FVH protects me. The second Mason stays hidden. You reveal only to me who the second Mason is.

There is no basis (yet) for the masons (or anyone) to trust you.

If you then die, are innocent, and I don't become a Vampire, I'll have a solid node of trust: the second Mason. At least one Seer will have a basis to trust me, and I'll have a basis to trust the FVH who saved me.

If you die and I do become a Vampire, I'll know who the second Mason is-- but that's no different from your proposed alternative of simply announcing to everyone (including the Vampire(s)) who the second Mason is!

Keeping the identity of the second mason non-public would be very wise, as I said before. Telling me privately (and telling one other trusted person privately, if you have one) would also be wise, for the reason stated. It's a no-loss/possibly-big-win scenario.

I don't see how the seer could have a basis to trust you, if you are a vampire or seer. If you're not a seer, your death wouldn't be a huge blow to the village, provided the village doesn't start with the nonsense of making you the central information hub. In fact, you'd make for a nice decoy from the masons.

The possible huge loss would be the vampires gaining a significant information advantage and you gaining more and more undeserved trust, by sitting in the center of the net.

Anyone who thinks this through and then re-reads your comment will certainly find it odd that you're stretching so hard to cast doubt on me-- for the second time.

BTW: why are you so interested in "letting Noxiousdog" go public with the identity of the second Mason? Why do you think that's a good idea?

You are asking for people to simply trust you for no good reason. That is a behaviour that highly deserves to have doubt cast upon.

Did you read my post above? Don't you see the advantages gained by putting them at risk?

Tell a secretly trusted other and not me, and you also retain options. The only difference is that there's a good chance I'll be Seer-evaluated before your "secretly trusted other".

I don't see how the masons could have any secretly trusted others, yet. Even if you are Seer-evaluated could the result(s) well be inconclusive, as you're not even ready to rule out that you're a seer yourself. There is a possibility of 2 seers wasting a turn just to find out that you're suspicious, which wouldn't be news, instead of looking for innocents and expanding their own webs of trust.
Even if a seer were to investigate you tonight and find you innocent, who should he share than information with? Why would that party trust that information?



Don't misunderstand me: I have absolutely no evidence that you're doing anything else than trying to beat the odds and staying alive. I just think that people need to be stopped from trusting you, as long as there is no sound basis for that.

[J.D.]

This is the most interesting first lynching discussion I've seen yet.

[Grundbegriff]

Grundbegriff. It's all a posture. Surely. His "Only I can be trusted" schtick isn't something I'm buying.

Posture? Only I can be trusted?

Hey! Don't misrepresent my schtick. I've said openly and repeatedly that trusting me now runs a risk that I'll be infected tonight. What I have also said is that if a bet on me does pay off, it pays big, and that if it doesn't pay off, I'll be easy enough to lynch in a subsequent round.

I've said all of this quite clearly, and anyone who ponders the situation will see that it's so.

Why you would misrepresent this is anyone's guess-- especially when it's easy to read the thread and see that you're not dealing straight.

[Grundbegriff]

A) I think that you're less trustworthy than the average player.

Compared to other players, your chance of being picked as a beta vampire is higher than average, due to your reputation here. Even if you allow for the argument that you won't get picked because you would be an obvious choice, there is still the reverse-psychology counterargument of being picked BECAUSE the choice would be TOO obvious. Alpha could assume you to be capable of talking your way out of an early death; even if you cannot do so anymore at some point, you're wouldn't be an asset for the good side.

That's a fair analysis. As I said before, the first consideration in my gambit was that I wanted to live to play the game, at least for one solid round. It's no fun being killed right off the bat.

If you're not a vampire, the vampires may well make plans to kill you off, again due to reputation. You'd tie the vampire hunter down to protect you (even if you turn out to be a vampire yourself), when there may be more important people to protect.

Whether there's someone more important to protect depends mostly on the value of what I learned when I asked certain classes of player to PM me, and partly on whatever skill I bring to the table.

analysing that you have no web of trust pointing _towards_ you

You're right. Staying alive beyond the first couple of rounds will require that I figure out a way to prove myself trustworthy to someone whom I regard as trustworthy.

I can certainly understand that you're fighting for your life, but putting you, less trustworthy than average, more at risk than average and with no credentials, in the center of the operation is not the best choice for the village as a whole.

That depends.

Suppose I'm just an innocent villager, and suppose a Seer confirms that I'm just an innocent villager (as any Seer who finds a villager should do). Two nodes plus whatever lore I've acquired. If you're the Hunter, you're hidden, and you're trying to establish an inviolable web of at least 4 nodes, protecting me would be a big step forward.

Suppose, on the other hand, that I'm the Alpha Vampire or that I become a Vampire tonight. In that case, the Seer cannot vouch for me (since I might be either a Vampire or a Special). In that case, the people would probably stake me in short order for all the reasons you've mentioned.

On this analysis, I'm likely to be eliminated quickly if I'm a Vampire. Gambling that I'm not a Vampire is therefore a good bet, for at least one or two rounds. As I've said before, it'll be easy enough to lynch me if it turns out I can't be authenticated as trustworthy.

Suppose on the third hand that I'm a Seer or Mason. In that case, too, I'd be at risk of death by mob justice, since a Seer couldn't authenticate me. However, I'd live for at least one more round and be able to pass on my knowledge (including whatever I learn from the first overnight) before being unjustly slain.

Those are the three cases. So you're right-- I can't be fully trusted right now. But you're wrong to think it's unwise to protect me for this round. If the Hunter protects me and I'm non-Vamp, that's a big win lore-wise; if the Hunter protects me and I'm Vamp, I'll be dead in short order anyhow. (That's why in asking for the Hunter's help in this thread, I stated plainly that the Hunter doesn't even have to identify himself or herself to me.)

There is no basis (yet) for the masons (or anyone) to trust you.

Correct; right now, I'm risky. The gamble is that one turn out, at least a Seer may have rock solid reason to trust me.

provided the village doesn't start with the nonsense of making you the central information hub.

I've already taken care of that. The village needn't act in that regard.

The possible huge loss would be the vampires gaining a significant information advantage and you gaining more and more undeserved trust, by sitting in the center of the net.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If I prove undeniably trustworthy, protect me; if I cannot be proven trustworthy, stake me through the heart and see what comes of it.

You are asking for people to simply trust you for no good reason. That is a behaviour that highly deserves to have doubt cast upon.

I'm asking people to gamble. It's not all or nothing; it's odds and contingencies.

I don't see how the masons could have any secretly trusted others, yet.

Careful deduction. I respect that your analysis is based on careful reasoning, so let me point out some patterns of inference that you may find interesting.

If you think through what the optimum strategy is for each role, you'll see that drawing some pretty reliable conclusions at this stage isn't impossible. For instance, why believe that noxiousdog is a Mason at all?

Suppose you were the Alpha Vamp. Right now, you could approach a random player with this threat: "I am the Alpha Vamp. If you cast suspicion on me, that won't look any different from any of the other first-round randomness. So don't bother screaming. Nobody will care. Now, if you agree to work with me, I'll let you live and guarantee your safety; if you do not agree to work with me, the vampires will slay you and you'll be out of the game."

Given such an ultimatum, a villager might very well join up with the Vampire -- or pretend to-- to save his own skin. If he has any goodness in him, the villager would also work very hard to stab the vampires in the back for putting him in such a bind....

Now, suppose for the sake of argument that noxiousdog is such a villager, and is pretending to be a Mason at the behest of the Alpha Vamp (and hoping desperately that the real Masons will call him out). If you're a real Mason and you see noxiousdog pretending to be a Mason, you'd face a tough choice-- out him and expose your own Masonic status, or let him abide in the lie while trying to figure out his game (thus protecting the Masons).

The point of this illustration is that there's a plausible scenario under which it doesn't presently make sense to trust noxiousdog. I'm not saying that I personally doubt noxiousdog. I am saying that assuming he's trustworthy carries its own risks.

(For that matter, suppose noxiousdog is the Alpha Vamp and consider what follows in terms of how he might play his hand.... Pretend for the sake of argument that he's a bloodsucker and then reread his contributions to the thread so far.)

I just think that people need to be stopped from trusting you, as long as there is no sound basis for that.

For the sake of your interest in sound reason, what is the rational basis for your trust that noxiousdog is worthy of protection? You have his word.

Well, you have my word that I'm not the Alpha Vamp and not the Hunter. You have my frank acknowledgement that I can't yet prove my trustworthiness. And you have my straightforward argument regarding why a brief gamble on me, in view of my earlier move, would be a pretty good move.

It's up to you -- and/or the Hunter-- to weigh those factors.

[triggercut]

At this point, actually lynching someone and getting on with the game almost feels...anticlimactic! I'm perfectly content to let this discussion go on and on for days, weeks, months, hell....years! This stuff is fascinating, especially if you know the roles each player is assigned....

[Crux]

Grundbegriff. It's all a posture. Surely. His "Only I can be trusted" schtick isn't something I'm buying.

Posture? Only I can be trusted?

Hey! Don't misrepresent my schtick. I've said openly and repeatedly that trusting me now runs a risk that I'll be infected tonight. What I have also said is that if a bet on me does pay off, it pays big, and that if it doesn't pay off, I'll be easy enough to lynch in a subsequent round.

What makes the payoff any better for you than protecting some other random innocent villager? Why the big call for attention? Absent your claim or proof of having some special role, you're basically saying 'protect me and I'll make a huge difference'. Except you've got no proof to back that up.

Why you would misrepresent this is anyone's guess-- especially when it's easy to read the thread and see that you're not dealing straight.

I'm not dealing straight? I'm not the one calling for the Freemasons to trust me, nor for anyone to protect me. I'm just casting votes to see what stirs up so I can gain information.

[Crux]

Bah. I withdraw my vote for Grundbegriff for now. Nobody is biting to give us any useful information. And Grund has stated his case.

[Grundbegriff]

What makes the payoff any better for you than protecting some other random innocent villager? Why the big call for attention?

Only one thing: I was first on the block to solicit PMs of a certain kind, people sent me some, and the people who sent 'em didn't know who else had sent 'em.


That play, and only that play, is the basis for singling me out. I thought about the rules and contrived a special role.

Absent your claim or proof of having some special role, you're basically saying 'protect me and I'll make a huge difference'. Except you've got no proof to back that up.

Here's the gamble-- to think my argument is just another bag of wind, you must also think that in response to my call for PMs (early on Day 1 in the midst of much confusion), I received none that were useful (one way or another). If you believe that's likely, then you should disregard my argument.

{Edit: thanks for the retraction! I think I'll post my guide to lynching now.}

[triggercut]

Ok, there are hibs and mids who need to die, so I'm going hunting for a bit. First though, a vote count for those interested. Again if any of these are wrong, let me know ASAP!:

Crux: vote withdrawn
Mark: lynch Chaosraven
noxiousdog: vote withdrawn
setaside: vote withdrawn
Chaosraven: vote withdrawn
Mr Bubbles: Lynch Chaosraven
pr0ner: lynch Chaosraven
msteelers: lynch Grundbegriff
J.D.: vote withdrawn
Varity: No vote
ChrisGrenard: lynch Varity
Grundbegriff: No Vote
Orinoco: lynch Grundbegriff
Kelric: No vote
Leigh: Lynch ChrisGrenard

Totals:

Chaosraven: 3 votes
Grundbegriff: 2 votes
Varity: 1 vote
ChrisGrenard: 1 vote

(Updated for Crux's vote withdrawal) (Edited to include Leigh's vote to lynch CG) (Edited for Orinoco's lynch vote for Grundbegriff)

[Grundbegriff]

Lynching 101

[Chaosraven]

I am stuck on the coincidental vote tide changing with pr0ner and msteelers,

so I will cast my vote for pr0ner

[noxiousdog]

I just want you bastards to know that my inbox is full. I'm going to have to delete important records!

[noxiousdog]

You know, we've made a repeated call to the 'real' masons. What we really need is the 'real' vampire hunter.

[pr0ner]

I am stuck on the coincidental vote tide changing with pr0ner and msteelers,

so I will cast my vote for pr0ner

Such poor logic.

It's a COINCIDENCE! Nothing more. I have had no contact with msteelers during this game; he can vouch for that if he wishes.

[Chaosraven]

As compared to your vote to lynch me?

[setaside]

At this point, actually lynching someone and getting on with the game almost feels...anticlimactic! I'm perfectly content to let this discussion go on and on for days, weeks, months, hell....years! This stuff is fascinating, especially if you know the roles each player is assigned....

You're damn right. I've almost forgotten that we actually have to lynch somebody in this game.

[Grundbegriff]

OK, whom should one nearly-randomly lynch on a sultry midsummer day?

Let's see....

Naturally, the criteria on the first day are few. Here's what we know about patterns of activity:

• I refer to casting the first vote against someone as "taking the initiative" to accuse that person. On that definition, noxiousdog, Leigh, and Orinoco have taken initiative once, while JD, pr0ner, and Mark have taken initiative twice.
• Changing one's mind by withdrawing one accusation and leveling another isn't supicious if it only happens once. A villager's prerogative, eh? Wavering seems a bit more dodgy if it happens again and again. With that in mind, here are the numbers: Mr Bubbles, Kelric, noxiousdog, and setaside have changed vote once; Chaosraven, Crux, JD, msteelers, and pr0ner have changed vote twice; Mark has changed vote three times
• Being silent is suspicious, if enough time has passed for everyone to have a shot at saying something. Well, everyone here has checked in at least once. Talking a lot is also suspicious. Finally, aiming for the middle is suspicious. With those three facts in mind, make of this what you will: Orinoco has posted twice; Leigh, msteelers, and Varity have posted four times each; ChrisGrenard has posted six times; Crux has posted eight times; J.D. has posted ten times; Kelric, pr0ner, and setaside have posted eleven times each; Mark has posted sixteen times; Mr Bubbles has posted eighteen times; I have posted twenty-four times (including this message); Chaosraven has posted twenty-five times; and noxiousdog has posted thirty-two times. These counts are as of this point

Sometimes, voting patterns (whether in tandem or conspicuously unaligned) are revelatory. Here's what happened with the bandwagons:

• The Anti-Leigh bandwagon: pr0ner, msteelers, Chaosraven
• The Anti-Mark bandwagon: JD, Kelric, setaside, msteelers, pr0ner, Mr Bubbles, Chaosraven, Crux
• The Anti-Chaosraven bandwagon: pr0ner, Mark, Crux, Mr Bubbles
• The Anti-Grundbegriff bandwagon: Orinoco, Crux

[Chaosraven]

Should I waffle my vote back to mark again? Maybe I can tie the indecisive vote...


I don't think of it as indecisive, actually, more like fishing... that's why I'm more inclined to watch the ones who add on to a vote rather than leading or finalizing one.

[Grundbegriff]

Now, if you're a villager and you must lynch someone on the first day, you hope beyond hope that you name the Alpha Vampire. Killing the Fearless Vampire Hunter would be a tragedy. Killing a Seer would be awful. Killing a Mason, though less awful because they lack special powers, would still be hugely unfortunate. Finally, killing a simple Villager would be bad, since it'd reduce the pool of potentially rock-solid trustables.

To increase the odds of finding the Alpha Vampire, the non-Vampires must consider how they would play if they were the Alpha.

• The Alpha doesn't want to call too much attention to himself.
• The Alpha hopes above all to find out who the Hunter is.
• The Alpha would love to find out who the Seers are.
• The Alpha wouldn't mind learning the identities of the Masons.
• The Alpha wants to avoid being killed by the crowd, and would therefore be inclined to take initiative against someone else, or to follow the momentum if a bandwagon develops.

How might the Alpha find out who the Specials are? By PMing. What would he PM? Either a threat, or a lie, or a question.

I've described the threat tactic earlier in the thread.

To lie, the Alpha would try to earn private trust by claiming to be a Special. At this point in the game, a Seer has nothing to offer, and bluffing that you're a Mason is pretty risky (since you might bluff someone who is a Mason!). Likewise, a simple Villager has nothing to trade. The best lie would therefore be to claim to be the Fearless Vampire Hunter, since ( a ) the Hunter has something to offer, and ( b ) everyone who isn't a Vampire wants the Hunter to live.

Especially noteworthy is the fact that if the Alpha claims to be the Hunter and offers protection, the Alpha can simulate hunterly protection by simply not killing the person he lied to.

The Alpha who chooses to pursue this strategy-- to pretend to be the Hunter-- desires nothing more than to find the real Hunter. At the same time, the Alpha doesn't want to pretend to be the Hunter to the real Hunter. Therefore, the Alpha would first probe a bit, feeling out whether the target of his lie is the Hunter before proceeding.

This outline of strategy is apparent just from thinking about the rules.

Now, here's something you can't get just from thinking about the rules: working in tandem with two others, one of whom I have good reason to trust, I have established the following facts:

• Player X approached me in PM and felt out whether I was the Hunter, by saying, "I at least know what you aren't. You are not the Fearless Vampire Hunter". If I were the Hunter, and if I played hastily, I might be expected to reply "Oh, yes, I am!" If I were not, and if I had my wits about me, I'd be expected to infer that the only person who could know I'm not the Hunter on Day 1 is the Hunter himself.
• Player X tried again to feel out my status, saying "I am but an innocent villager" and asking what I could offer. The Vamp, like everyone else, knows that (apart from audacious gambits such as my earlier one!) the only person on Day 1 who has anything to offer is the Hunter.
• Once I had denied Hunterhood, Player X immediately did a 180 and professed that he was the Hunter-- not even knowing whether I was the Alpha! Would the real Hunter take that risk? The real Hunter would keep as low a profile as possible, since he has nothing to gain by doing otherwise (until the endgame).
• In light of this strange behavior, my two colleagues (acquired through my PM move) and I set about tracking other instances of this behavior. We confirmed that Player X has promiscuously declared himself the Hunter to no fewer than six other players.
• Player X readily offered to enter a pact to protect me, just as a lying Alpha might do.
• Player X refused to consider protecting noxiousdog (even though noxiousdog has a good claim for protection)-- an idea that a genuine Hunter would at least consider.

Pretty exciting, no?

I'm not sure there's any good strategy that would have someone other than the Alpha pretending to be the Hunter so openly. If I'm right about that, then Player X is either the real Hunter or the Alpha Vampire.

I think the odds are good that by lynching or staking Player X, the village can actually take out a Vampire on the first strike. If I'm wrong, then not only will the Hunter be killed by villagers, but I'll have led the charge against my one and only possible protector, and I'll undoubtedly die shortly afterward. I'm therefore betting my life that the person who claims to be protecting me is lying to me, and that my partners in investigation are as trustworthy as I take them to be. I'm going to recommend strongly that everyone vote to lynch Player X. He has played just the way the Alpha would play, but has overplayed his hand, not anticipating my surprise move-- that I'd build an ad hoc network that could expose how widely he was PMing people with his lies.

Now, here's the final irony. In my call for sanity, I asked people to back off their bandwagon votes so we could think this thing through and have reasons for our choice that we, as a village, could be feel comfortable with. But the irony-- the delicious irony of this odd little game -- is that one victim of the early bandwagon phenomenon actually teetered on the brink of destruction. That was Mark, and Mark is Player X.

[Grundbegriff]

By the way: I've said it twice, and I'll say it one last time. My alleged protector is the one I believe to be the Alpha Vampire, and he now officially has every reason to kill me.

If you're the real Hunter, you needn't reveal yourself to me or anyone else. However, please protect me tonight.

[noxiousdog]

7 players, Grund.

However, the same reasoning that makes me a legitimate Mason is the same logic that makes him a legitamate FVH. If the real one doesn't choose to step forward, logic dictates that he's legit however strange the play might be.

Certainly, it's possible that the real FVH wishes to remain anonymous and it could be a good play. But after reading your analysis, and still remaining quiet....

[Chaosraven]

Now that's an interesting turn of events... of the PMs I have received regarding this game half of them came from the same individual...

[noxiousdog]

7 players, Grund.

However, the same reasoning that makes me a legitimate Mason is the same logic that makes him a legitamate FVH. If the real one doesn't choose to step forward, logic dictates that he's legit however strange the play might be.

Certainly, it's possible that the real FVH wishes to remain anonymous and it could be a good play. But after reading your analysis, and still remaining quiet....

And as further fuel to the fire, because of your analysis, and because of some of the logical leaps you have made, I find it likely that either Mark is the Alpha, or you are the alpha.

Think of the advantage you would have by getting us to lynch Mark, while giving you the opportunity to kill me (especially if I were to confide mason #2 to you).

No, the more you talk, the less I trust you. This is NOT a call to lynch Grund. We'd be much better off once a seer can get a reading. But this is a call to hold off on Mark as well.

HOWEVER, if you are the real vampire hunter, come forward, preferably in confidence, but even a public acknowledgement would be a good trade for a vamp this early I think.

But, if no vamp hunter comes forth, I have to conclude that mark is innocent.

[Varity]

Whether there's someone more important to protect depends mostly on the value of what I learned when I asked certain classes of player to PM me, and partly on whatever skill I bring to the table.

I hope that people weren't actually foolish enough to pass information instead of disinformation to someone they can't trust. If some people feel that they were, I'd advise them to argue for your lynching tonight, before the vampires get the chance to communicate with each other, as the chance, that this information will benefit the wrong side, is significant. Any advantages, that skill might give you, are most likely more than offset by the situation you're in.

You're right. Staying alive beyond the first couple of rounds will require that I figure out a way to prove myself trustworthy to someone whom I regard as trustworthy.

That is of central importance in your whole scheme, assuming it is and remains genuine. Your death seems the only way to _prove_ your trustworthiness to the rest of the village, unless you want to hope for luck with the hunter.

That depends.

Suppose I'm just an innocent villager, and suppose a Seer confirms that I'm just an innocent villager (as any Seer who finds a villager should do).

I think that's doubtful or you would already have stated that this _will_ be the case.

Two nodes plus whatever lore I've acquired. If you're the Hunter, you're hidden, and you're trying to establish an inviolable web of at least 4 nodes, protecting me would be a big step forward.

Suppose, on the other hand, that I'm the Alpha Vampire or that I become a Vampire tonight. In that case, the Seer cannot vouch for me (since I might be either a Vampire or a Special). In that case, the people would probably stake me in short order for all the reasons you've mentioned.

Only if the seers find it worthwhile to investigate you _and_ if they find a way to communicate their suspicions in a way that wins a majority. That a big hurdle for a seer to jump over after just one vision. Even then you still may claim to be a seer and ask for another day during which you hope to find more information.

On this analysis, I'm likely to be eliminated quickly if I'm a Vampire. Gambling that I'm not a Vampire is therefore a good bet, for at least one or two rounds. As I've said before, it'll be easy enough to lynch me if it turns out I can't be authenticated as trustworthy.

If one assumed that you are a Vampire, it would be most benificial to kill you now, before you get a chance to talk to the others.

Suppose on the third hand that I'm a Seer or Mason. In that case, too, I'd be at risk of death by mob justice, since a Seer couldn't authenticate me. However, I'd live for at least one more round and be able to pass on my knowledge (including whatever I learn from the first overnight) before being unjustly slain.

If you are a seer, it was very unwise of you to try to solicit "information" in the way that you have done, as it increases your attractiveness to both the lynchmob (if they lost trust with you since they revealed stuff) and the vampires, of course. Relying on the hunter to bail you out is a weak strategy with masons present.

Those are the three cases. So you're right-- I can't be fully trusted right now. But you're wrong to think it's unwise to protect me for this round. If the Hunter protects me and I'm non-Vamp, that's a big win lore-wise; if the Hunter protects me and I'm Vamp, I'll be dead in short order anyhow. (That's why in asking for the Hunter's help in this thread, I stated plainly that the Hunter doesn't even have to identify himself or herself to me.)

I think it would be best to let the _threat_ of you being protected scare off the vampires and have the hunter protect more important people.
If you're a vampire, I'm not so sure that you be "dead in short order anyhow" (see above).

Correct; right now, I'm risky. The gamble is that one turn out, at least a Seer may have rock solid reason to trust me.

I'm asking people to gamble. It's not all or nothing; it's odds and contingencies.

Very risky. The odds outweigh the potential gains. There are better bets out there and that is a good reason not to increase the bet on you any further.

I've already taken care of that. The village needn't act in that regard.

I have to admit to being confused. You mean you have placed trust in someone else who also hasn't had a chance to prove it to be justified?

For the sake of your interest in sound reason, what is the rational basis for your trust that noxiousdog is worthy of protection? You have his word.

I have no reason to trust noxiousdog, yet, so I don't. In fact, I would advocate that the village community put pressure on him and _demand_ that he prove his claims either with his partner or through his death by the stake. If he were lying, he mustn't be allowed to spread confusion by living until it is easy for him to recruit aid and fortify his claims, as masons become indistinguishable from vampires after the first night.

On the other hand, the fact that no other masons have come forward and contradicted him, when they could easily prove that he is lying, speaks in his favour. So my guess is, that he may very well be genuine, its just cowardice holding him back and he just needs a little push to do the right thing for his village.