Octopus Overlords

No, actually he's going to antagonize the ones with Oppositional Defiant Disorder until he can manipulate their vote into something he wants by claiming to want something protected and they'll piss on it just to keep him from eating it meanwhile PMing the loyal ones so that they understand the truth behind his ploy and ...

I can't believe I spent time typing that in.

noxiousdog wrote:Why will you give away the other seer's name so quickly to somone who claims to be a seer?

Do I seem like the sort of person who would rush into that move without taking appropriate precautions? I said I'd be in a position to introduce them, not that I'd do so instantly and without due diligence.

Suppose I'm not a Seer. Suppose you're a Vampire and you know I'm not a Vampire. You have to suspect that at least one Seer will dream on me tonight. You must also realize both might do so.

Knowing that both Seers may have checked me, and realizing that Seers who had checked me would certainly contact me, would a Vampire risk trying to bluff me by pretending to be a third Seer?

Probably not, but if so, it would only be to present me with three professing Seers in an effort to confuse me. Why would that be a highly risky move? Because I would then know that one of the three who had contacted me is unquestionably a Vampire, and finding out which it is would only be a matter of careful detective work.

And if you are the alpha and we vote for Mark, we lose a FVH and a Mason.

You're at risk, yes. However, you know as well as I do how dodgy Mark has been, and have said as much.

noxiousdog wrote:Each of you send me a code word or phrase that I will give to Mason #2. When/if I die, mason #2 can verify trustworthyness by sending you back the code word/phrase.

Clever! Incoming....

Of course, when the 3rd mason gives you back the right password...

Grundbegriff wrote: Do I seem like the sort of person who would rush into that move without taking appropriate precautions? I said I'd be in a position to introduce them, not that I'd do so instantly and without due diligence.

So, what you meant to say was if I am (and remain) a simple villager, and if I survive the night, and if both Seers confirm simple villager status tonight, and if each then contacts me with the good news, I'll be in a position to introduce them to one another, forging a three-node alliance, eventually?

As the mason I already have a completely trusted source, so I'm already able to forge a 4 node alliance. The difference being that they have to trust me rather than me trusting them.

Suppose I'm not a Seer. Suppose you're a Vampire and you know I'm not a Vampire. You have to suspect that at least one Seer will dream on me tonight. You must also realize both might do so.

I would hope that both would, unless they are already in contact with one another rendering this whole argument m00t.

Knowing that both Seers may have checked me, and realizing that Seers who had checked me would certainly contact me, would a Vampire risk trying to bluff me by pretending to be a third Seer?

This hypothesis would have to include you being wrong about Mark, and that I just as brazenly am a fake mason. Would they bluff you? I'd say it's not likely. But it's possible enough that you'd have to consider it. How possible is it that I'm bluffing? Even smaller I'd think, yet the risk is still high enough that you council the real FVH to remain silent.

You're at risk, yes. However, you know as well as I do how dodgy Mark has been, and have said as much.

Absolutely. Yet, no 'real' FVH has come forth. Until that happens we have to leave Mark off the lynching block, just like we have to leave you off the lynching block.

Now this will really bake your noodle:
Grund wants to vote for Mark.
Mark wants to vote for Grund.
I want to vote for neither, yet.

What if I'm the alpha and have selected you two as my betas?

You know what? This password isn't that bad an idea, I think it might behoove us to do the same with others as well (not the same password, you goons!) and use that to our advantage... I mean, you don't have to trust them, but assuming you do it adds a link to the chain.

Users browsing this forum: Chaosraven, Crux, docvego, Dramatist, noxiousdog, Orinoco, RLMullen, setaside



Ok you quiet guys... we have a nearly 9 to 1 ratio of views versus posts for this thread...

Does anyone *else* have an opinion?

Hehe. I've not been terribly quiet to date. And remember there are people not in the game viewing this as well...

But I'm waiting to see what shakes out once people start casting votes again. I've done my probing with a few ghost votes of my own, but I'm not ready to commit to anything yet. Hell for all I know I could be a vampire tonight!

Oh I understand plenty of people could be viewin' the proceedinz that don't need to respond...

But I do catch glimpses of the silent ones browsing and not responding.

And a batch of them lynched me in recent history so it's apt to make one a bit paranoid.

Grundbegriff wrote:
[*]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,

<snip>

I love this gem...

Oh, and you can raise my count to three posts - starting a new project with very tight deadlines means that I will have a low post count for a few months. I'm reading everything with interest however

Chaosraven wrote:Oh I understand plenty of people could be viewin' the proceedinz that don't need to respond...

But I do catch glimpses of the silent ones browsing and not responding.

And a batch of them lynched me in recent history so it's apt to make one a bit paranoid.

When I see something that I think needs to be said or expanded upon, I speak up. Until then, I'm content watching and reading until something catches my eye. Things that I believed yesterday have now been called into question. I'm not overly excited at the thought of trusting any particular person at this point.

setaside wrote:

Chaosraven wrote:Oh I understand plenty of people could be viewin' the proceedinz that don't need to respond...

But I do catch glimpses of the silent ones browsing and not responding.

And a batch of them lynched me in recent history so it's apt to make one a bit paranoid.

When I see something that I think needs to be said or expanded upon, I speak up. Until then, I'm content watching and reading until something catches my eye. Things that I believed yesterday have now been called into question. I'm not overly excited at the thought of trusting any particular person at this point.

Yes, me too. There are a lot of people going into intricate detail based on absoultely nothing - we haven't even had the first day yet! (edit: and I'd love it if some of those people find themselves becoming beta vampires and backpeddling frantically )

At this point, I'm thinking that being eaten by a Vampire is the lesser of two evils... Oh, and that lynching Grund will be the only way to make my headache go away...

So far, I may have explained poorly the most important part of my posts, dabbling on side issues too long. I will try again, and reiterate my proposal, step by step:

• 1. Both masons make a post in which they declare that they are masons and each mentions his partners name.
• 2. Currently the masons are the only ones who can do this, because there is only one vampire who knows that he is a vampire and would have a motive to derail this attempt. If somebody other than a mason were make such a claim, we would then have 3 or more posts of people claiming to be masons, which would be fishy and we could investigate.
• 3. Now that we KNOW and are absolutely CERTAIN who our 2 masons are, we know that they are playing on the good side and everyone can trust them with all their secret information, just as a seer could once he gets an innocent reading of someone.
  So everyone tells the masons by PM what their secret roles are in the game and other stuff they may have learned. Note that this is a one-way relationship so far: you completely trust the masons, but they can't trust you.
• 4. The masons make a tally of the information gathered during the roll call. 14 out of 15 people will have tried to answer truthfully, to the best of their knowledge, only the alpha vampire has to lie. So the tally will look something like this:
  • 9 innocent claims
  • 2 seer claims
  • 1 hunter claim
  • (2 mason claims)
    + 1 additional claim trying to hide among the others.
  If the alpha were to claim to be
  • a mason, this would be suicidal.
  • a seer, this would mean that the 3 seers claims needed to be scrutinized closer, the single hunter claim would be from the real hunter and the masons could trust the hunter. (web of trust has now size 3)
  • a hunter, this would mean that the 2 hunters claims needed to be scrutinized closer, the only seers claims would be from the real seers and the masons could trust the seers. (web of trust has now size 4)
  • an innocent, this would mean that the 10 innocents claims needed to be scrutinized closer, the only seers+hunters claims would be from the real people and the masons could trust both seers and the hunter (web of trust has now size 5)
• 5. The newly built web of trust could now put their heads together and make educated guesses as to who is lying. This will be easier if the alpha is hiding among the smaller subgroups (hunter or seers). (I have some additional thoughts here that I wouldn't like to share with alpha, I will PM these only to a mason) They make a recommendation who should be lynched and post it for everyone to see. Since we trust them to be good and give their best effort, we all accept the recommendation. The person is lynched.
• 6. Night falls.
• 7. The masons( + trusted web) privately figure out which of the innocent villagers should be investigated by the seers. All 10 innocents could be investigated in 3 days (!), if both real seers stay alive. The results would be non-ambiguous. If a seer gets a "not-an-innocent" reading the person in question MUST be a vampire, since all good-side-specialty professions are accounted for.
  The seers are PMed by the masons with the person who the should investigate and PM back the result. There may be interference from an alpha posing as a seer. He could be caught by asking him to investigate a known person or once 2 seers contradict each other.
• 8. The vampires now need to strike back, at the web of trust. But who should they target? They need to stop the seers from investigating the innocents, if they don't, they'll be flushed out in 4 days at most. They need to kill the hunter, because they cannot afford to lose a single attack to his interference. They'll want to kill the masons as the central hub to prevent the village from getting their lynching recommendations from a trusted source, but there are 2 of them and the number will grow as they could introduce innocent villagers as trustworthy to the public once they are cleared be the seers. Killing just one makes no difference to them and give both seers a free round in which to investigate. They could get them both in round 3 at the earliest, if they get their attacks through and hit hunter-mason-mason. At that point already 6 innocents have been investigated and three more have been lynched, justly or unjustly.
• 9. Day breaks
• 10. goto step 5

That's a very good idea, Varity, but how can you guarantee that all 'specials' will talk to the masons?

You can't even get a single 'real' mason to challenge me. I can't get a 'real' FVH to show up.

It's a fine idea, and if I were confident that I'd get all the specials to respond, I'd council my partner to do just that. But unless we get both seers and the FVH, it will be a wasted gambit.

So, if you can get unanimous buy in, let's do it. But I need 15 posts saying they are in.

There's no way you can get a total buy-in to that plan, Varity. It would be great if you could, because it would potentially win the game for the village, but there's no way you can execute it.

After reading the thread over, it's insane the amount of debate and solid logic going on. However, we eventually need to decide on SOMEONE. We cannot go around in circles forever hoping for some ideal play to work itself out.

noxiousdog wrote:That's a very good idea, Varity, but how can you guarantee that all 'specials' will talk to the masons?

You can't even get a single 'real' mason to challenge me. I can't get a 'real' FVH to show up.

It's a fine idea, and if I were confident that I'd get all the specials to respond, I'd council my partner to do just that. But unless we get both seers and the FVH, it will be a wasted gambit.

So, if you can get unanimous buy in, let's do it. But I need 15 posts saying they are in.

Why shouldn't they? They know that the masons are trustworthy once they have established themselves. What should they wait for? Christmas? Whom could they ever hope to trust more?

But it could be indeed a useful exercise to see who disagrees with the plan.

I now call upon everyone to state their agreement or disagreement

pr0ner wrote:There's no way you can get a total buy-in to that plan, Varity. It would be great if you could, because it would potentially win the game for the village, but there's no way you can execute it.

Why can't you get total buy in? Explain me a situation that could make it fail?

Varity wrote: Why shouldn't they? They know that the masons are trustworthy once they have established themselves. What should they wait for? Christmas? Whom could they ever hope to trust more?

That's what I've been saying for pages, but I think there are two schools of thought to this situation. 1) Secrecy and alliance building wins or 2) open exchange and public record wins.

My strategy has always been #2, but there seems to be a lot of people that favor #1.

But it could be indeed a useful exercise to see who disagrees with the plan.

I now call upon everyone to state their agreement or disagreement

Good luck.

noxiousdog wrote:

pr0ner wrote:There's no way you can get a total buy-in to that plan, Varity. It would be great if you could, because it would potentially win the game for the village, but there's no way you can execute it.

Why can't you get total buy in? Explain me a situation that could make it fail?

Just if you either a) don't get everyone to respond for whatever reason, or b) you get some whopping amounts of people claiming to be seers or innocent.

In all honesty, though, it would be worth a shot if you can get everyone to do it.

pr0ner wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

pr0ner wrote:There's no way you can get a total buy-in to that plan, Varity. It would be great if you could, because it would potentially win the game for the village, but there's no way you can execute it.

Why can't you get total buy in? Explain me a situation that could make it fail?

Just if you either a) don't get everyone to respond for whatever reason, or b) you get some whopping amounts of people claiming to be seers or innocent.

In all honesty, though, it would be worth a shot if you can get everyone to do it.

Currently 14 out of 15 people believe themselves to be on the good side.

They don't have a reason to lie. The plan offers their side a way to win the game with minimum casualties. They can be certain that any information that they give the masons will not reach a vampire.

They have a strong reason NOT to lie. Lying will put them in the crosshairs of the masons and will, eventually, very likely lead to their lynching.

noxiousdog wrote:to introduce them to one another, forging a three-node alliance, eventually?

Soon, but with proper safeguards in place.

How possible is it that I'm bluffing? Even smaller I'd think, yet the risk is still high enough that you council the real FVH to remain silent.

I think the best course of action for the real FVH is to remain silent. However, there are worse things he or she could do than to inform you, and you alone. I'm not counseling that he or she do so; but I am observing that doing so wouldn't be cataclysmic, and might resolve some of your issues.

I put that out there for the FVH to contemplate, because I know I'm not presently a vampire.

Absolutely. Yet, no 'real' FVH has come forth. Until that happens we have to leave Mark off the lynching block, just like we have to leave you off the lynching block.

It seems to me that Mark's erratic behavior speaks for itself: either he's a very tactically confused real FVH or a duplicitous Alpha Vamp. His public behavior and PMs (to me and others) make me think the latter.

Now this will really bake your noodle:
Grund wants to vote for Mark.
Mark wants to vote for Grund.
I want to vote for neither, yet.

What if I'm the alpha and have selected you two as my betas?

That would at least account for your otherwise inexplicable brinksmanship with respect to whether or not we should take down Mark. You'd be afraid of losing a key asset.

But consider this: what's more valuable, a third Vampire (whose marginal utility is small), or a Vampire thought to be a Villager who has actually led the charge against another Vampire and thereby established his Village-cred?

You see? Every angle points to the prudence of offing Mark in the first round.

Sure, I'll state my role to the Masons.

Varity wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:So, if you can get unanimous buy in, let's do it. But I need 15 posts saying they are in.

Why shouldn't they? They know that the masons are trustworthy once they have established themselves. What should they wait for? Christmas? Whom could they ever hope to trust more?

Your plan, which I'll call the Make Everyone A Freemason (MEAF) strategy, is interesting. However, there's one factor you don't take into account.

Two of the people who are innocent villagers on Day 1 will become Vampires overnight. Every innocent villager therefore must realize that if he does become a Vampire, he'll be playing for that team. Every innocent who realizes this would be foolish to burn all the Vampires' bridges.

If you're a Day 1 simple villager, you reveal your true status to the MEAFcore, and then you become a Vampire, what options are left to you? Since the Seers know that visions of you should be 100% clean, telling everyone you're a simple villager has landed you on the shortlist of people who will soon be scanned by a Seer, and anything other than a clean reading will out you as a Vampire, losing the game for your team.

What follows is this: every simple villager has an incentive to hide or ambiguate his status on Day 1, in case he ends up switching teams. Only a villager who knows he will never become a vampire would be OK with exposing his status in this way, and no simple villager has that knowledge. The optimal strategy for a simple villager on Day 1, then, would be to say nothing or to claim (falsely) to be a non-Masonic Special.

Varity wrote:I now call upon everyone to state their agreement or disagreement

That call is premature. MEAFstrat would make much more sense after every innocent villager knows that he's not infected.

Varity wrote:Currently 14 out of 15 people believe themselves to be on the good side. They don't have a reason to lie.

But 9 of the 14 must bear in mind that by tomorrow, 2 of the 9 will have a reason to lie. How sad for them if they're forced to switch teams and have already outed themselves!

They have a strong reason NOT to lie. Lying will put them in the crosshairs of the masons and will, eventually, very likely lead to their lynching.

Indeed-- especially the lynching (or staking) of the two who vamp out overnight.

setaside wrote:Sure, I'll state my role to the Masons.

If you're a simple villager and you become a Vampire tonight, your words to the Masons will have sealed your fate and harmed your team.

Extremely busy day at work today has limited my OO time. This is extremely fascinating. I will have to catch up this evening when I get home and weigh in with my own opinions.

First of the month is always very busy at work, otherwise I'd be here as much as possible.

Grundbegriff wrote:

setaside wrote:Sure, I'll state my role to the Masons.

If you're a simple villager and you become a Vampire tonight, your words to the Masons will have sealed your fate and harmed your team.

Well crud. I'll call that one a flaw in the game mechanics. I guess I won't be declaring anything to the masons, which of course takes us back to the point that the 2nd mason should NOT declare himself just yet.

I honestly don't think we're going to get much further until after the first night.

setaside wrote:I'll call that one a flaw in the game mechanics.

Why? The name of the game isn't "Villagers Defeat Vampires".... Without the teamswitching rule, the game would be too easy for the non-undead team.

setaside wrote:I honestly don't think we're going to get much further until after the first night.

That's right. Folks need to bite the bullet and decide to do now, for pretty good reasons, what they were perfectly willing to do earlier in the day for no reason at all other than impatience: stake Mark.

Grundbegriff wrote:

setaside wrote:Sure, I'll state my role to the Masons.

If you're a simple villager and you become a Vampire tonight, your words to the Masons will have sealed your fate and harmed your team.

Well that's curious. Why does this concern you in the MEAM strategy, but not in the lynch Mark strategy?

noxiousdog wrote:

Grundbegriff wrote:If you're a simple villager and you become a Vampire tonight, your words to the Masons will have sealed your fate and harmed your team.

Well that's curious. Why does this concern you in the MEAM strategy, but not in the lynch Mark strategy?

Who says it doesn't? Taking down the Alpha Vampire would be marginally bad for a simple villager who ends up becoming a Vampire.

On the other hand:

• If I'm a simple villager contemplating his possible infection, I may be wagering that the value of a mole trumps the value of a third vampire. (Losing 1 vampire in 3 doesn't guarantee defeat, and may offer advantages).
• If I'm a Seer (for example), I'm not worried about being converted to the other team.

For those reasons, it makes sense for a simple villager to gamble that he's not infected (a 2 in 9 chance of infection) and to take down the Alpha early if that's possible.

In contrast, for the reasons stated in my earlier note, it doesn't make sense for a simple villager in Round 1 to gamble that he's not infected by joining everyone in going on record MEAFwise, since doing so nearly guarantees defeat for the Vampires.

Note well: Varity's MEAF strategy makes good sense beginning in Round 2, provided there's total confidence in those claiming to be Masons. (This suggests that just as MEAF won't work in Round 1, CounterMEAF in any subsequent round depends on two Vampires claiming to be the real Masons publicly or the real Seers privately (for a total of 4 claimants)).

Grundbegriff wrote:

setaside wrote:I'll call that one a flaw in the game mechanics.

Why? The name of the game isn't "Villagers Defeat Vampires".... Without the teamswitching rule, the game would be too easy for the non-undead team.

Because without the game mechanics as they are, I'm a villager. I know for a fact that I'm a villager. There is a vampire in the town. I want the vampire dead. I have no clue if I am a vampire or not. I will do anything I can to ensure that vampire is staked as soon as possible. If I can trust somebody wholeheartedly, I wouldn't hold back ... not know if I was going to become a vampire that night. The game mechanic doesn't fit my thought process if I'm a plain jane villager who's none the wiser that somebody that night will turn into a vampire.

Another game mechanics question, obviously the 2 hidden vamps don't know that they are vamps yet. The alpha however, knows who those 2 hidden vamps are. Is the alpha feeding information to the 2 sleepers right now in the event that he is staked today before he really has a chance to share what he knows?

And I'm still not ready to commit one or another on who to stake.

Now that's funny. This whole time I've been operating under the "Betas know they will be vampires already as the seer will discover the not-a-normal vision" assumption.

So any of us that are not currently mason, fvh, or seer might receive a PM after we lynch someone?

I thought we had our roles (including vamps that had been chosen before the villager roles were assigned) PM'd...

Well based on the logic I see so far, if Mark is indeed the alpha, he would not have started a bloodhunt for me... so that allows me to assume he is and I will not be a bloodsucker.

If he is someone with an ability in the villager population, my own survival will need to maintain that level of scrutiny for those who try to have me killed as well. And if I happen to end up a bloodsucker, he was not the alpha and I wanted him dead anyway.

I don't even remember where my vote was.

But make sure it gets changed to MARK if I had indeed withdrawn or changed it.

Any of that seem illogical?

Grundbegriff wrote:

Varity wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:So, if you can get unanimous buy in, let's do it. But I need 15 posts saying they are in.

Why shouldn't they? They know that the masons are trustworthy once they have established themselves. What should they wait for? Christmas? Whom could they ever hope to trust more?

Your plan, which I'll call the Make Everyone A Freemason (MEAF) strategy, is interesting. However, there's one factor you don't take into account.

Two of the people who are innocent villagers on Day 1 will become Vampires overnight. Every innocent villager therefore must realize that if he does become a Vampire, he'll be playing for that team. Every innocent who realizes this would be foolish to burn all the Vampires' bridges.

If you're a Day 1 simple villager, you reveal your true status to the MEAFcore, and then you become a Vampire, what options are left to you? Since the Seers know that visions of you should be 100% clean, telling everyone you're a simple villager has landed you on the shortlist of people who will soon be scanned by a Seer, and anything other than a clean reading will out you as a Vampire, losing the game for your team.

What follows is this: every simple villager has an incentive to hide or ambiguate his status on Day 1, in case he ends up switching teams. Only a villager who knows he will never become a vampire would be OK with exposing his status in this way, and no simple villager has that knowledge. The optimal strategy for a simple villager on Day 1, then, would be to say nothing or to claim (falsely) to be a non-Masonic Special.

Varity wrote:I now call upon everyone to state their agreement or disagreement

That call is premature. MEAFstrat would make much more sense after every innocent villager knows that he's not infected.

Varity wrote:Currently 14 out of 15 people believe themselves to be on the good side. They don't have a reason to lie.

But 9 of the 14 must bear in mind that by tomorrow, 2 of the 9 will have a reason to lie. How sad for them if they're forced to switch teams and have already outed themselves!

They have a strong reason NOT to lie. Lying will put them in the crosshairs of the masons and will, eventually, very likely lead to their lynching.

Indeed-- especially the lynching (or staking) of the two who vamp out overnight.

The risk for each of the 9 "innocent" villagers of being infected and finding himself on the losing side is 2/9 (~22%). These odds are a LOT lower than those they could hope for during a "normal" game with 5 rounds and 10 killings. The strategy still remains valid even when some villagers choose to tell a lie, the odds just degrade gracefully.

The masons still can use the seers to check peoples claims and anyone caught lying will be staked. Im a not going to do the math here, but telling a lie would decrease a persons individiual chance of survival rather than increase it.


The point a make seems to have some validity at first glance, but I cannot help but wonder why you are making it and asking people to lie, thereby decreasing your own chances of survival.

To me, this looks like the last straw of someone who desperately wants to prevent this strategy from being tried. Such a person would do everything possible (via posts and PMs) to get someone random lynched and move the game into the first night when the chance will have been wasted.

Also, I would be grateful if you could desist from editing your post several time to add or change content. It is very confusing when the text you copied to your text editor to quote doesn't match what you see when you're ready to enter your post.

Varity wrote:The point a make seems to have some validity at first glance, but I annot help but wonder why you are making it and asking people to lie, thereby decreasing your own chances of survival.

If you reread my explanation carefully, you'll see that I don't call for anyone to lie. I assert that MEAF is premature in Round 1, and I call for you to hold off on your summons until Round 2, when your clever tactic will be likely to garner 100% participation.

To me, this looks like the last straw of someone who desperately wants to prevent this strategy from being tried.

I twice call for it to be tried in the very next round. How (and why?) do you twist that into "desperately wants to prevent this strategy"?

Maybe you're just a not a careful reader.

Such a person would do everything possible (via posts and PMs) to get someone random lynched

If I had wanted someone randomly lynched, I could've just shut up in the first place and allowed Mark to die when the madding crowd was after him.

But amusingly enough it does furnish us with a copy of the original, no?

Varity wrote:Also, I would be grateful if you could desist from editing your post several time to add or change content.

That's silly. I always edit my posts to ( a) correct typos I notice after posting, ( b ) to save progress while composing if I'm interrupted in RL, ( c ) to keep related material together if not many subquent posts have occurred, and ( d ) to clarify things I've explained poorly, if my rereading suggests a useful amplification.

Deal with it.

Grundbegriff wrote: If you reread my explanation carefully, you'll see that I don't call for anyone to lie. I assert that MEAF is premature in Round 1, and I call for you to hold off on your summons until Round 2, when your clever tactic will be likely to garner 100% participation.

It will not be effective when there is only one mason and no vampire hunter.

I twice call for it to be tried in the very next round. How (and why?) do you twist that into "desperately wants to prevent this strategy"?

Maybe you're just a not a careful reader.

I see the value of your analysis, I just disagree with it. But I've been willing to trade 1 FVH for 1 vampire the whole game, so at least we're being consistent.

If I had wanted someone randomly lynched, I could've just shut up in the first place and allowed Mark to die when the madding crowd was after him.

Except you didn't know he was claiming to be the FVH at the time.

Chaosraven wrote:But amusingly enough it does furnish us with a copy of the original, no?

Right. That's why I'm not worried about it. I never alter my posts deceitfully, and I have a years-long established pattern at GG and OO of editing most of my posts for the cosmetic reasons mentioned.

I deliver a lot of content. I want it to be clear and look nice.

Anyone who is worried that I'm doing something sneaky is perfectly welcome to archive every iteration of every message I post. Eventually, either the archivist will die of boredom or the point will be made that it's a non-issue, or both.

What's "amusing" is that people who have nothing to say against my open, detailed, evidentially-grounded arguments end up taking sad little potshots at my posting and proofreading procedures.