Varity wrote: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.
