Octopus Overlords

I would prefer not to do this this round, but I want to force the action a little.

FWIW, I do not trust Mark. I think there is a real vampire hunter out there in hiding.

However, since that person has not come forth, I must vote Grundbegriff.

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

Sure it will, since your secret-word tactic has ensured that a solo Mason retains his value as a trustworthy node after all.

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

Right. So I moved from staying my hand and avoiding the slaughter of a possible innocent to arguing carefully that he's guilty. Meanwhile, half a dozen others started with a willingness to slaughter a possible innocent and are now armed with that, plus my careful argument.

I'm the one who looks bad in this, noxiousdog? If Mark hadn't acted so strangely to me, to others, and in the thread, I'd probably have accepted his offer of protection and guarded him as much as possible in this round. Indeed, my call for others to back off was a goodwill gesture in that precise spirit, as I was interacting with him to try to figure out what he was up to.

So the questions running round the pea sized organ in my giant noggin keep coming back to WHO AM I? WHO ARE YOU?

Imagine you are a mason, and see someone else claim to be one... do you immediately jump up to say they are not? Thereby giving yourself away? Or do you sit behind the screens of PM with your equally hesitant partner and discuss what to do? With every passing moment the usurpers hold on mason title grows... the eventual reveal will be hard to explain...

FWIW, I am musing here. I am willing to believe Nox as a Mason for the time being based solely on the immediate response that *I* am NOT a mason.

Nox was willing to state that, I am willing to state that, and barring a mason coup I still won't be a mason

But I did want to share that.

Grundbegriff wrote:

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

Sure it will, since your secret-word tactic has ensured that a solo Mason retains his value as a trustworthy node after all.

For 1 round. Mason 2 dies tomorrow in such a scenario leaving 2 seers that know each other and at least 1, perhaps as many as 4 contacts, but without protection.

It also assumes that when I die, someone doesn't argue that I was a sacrificial vamp and donated the list to a beta.

Right. So I moved from staying my hand and avoiding the slaughter of a possible innocent to arguing carefully that he's guilty. Meanwhile, half a dozen others started with a willingness to slaughter a possible innocent and are now armed with that, plus my careful argument.

But think of the trust you've garnered! How many times have you told us about your network of trust? Isn't this why the FVH is supposed to protect you, despite my uncotested stature as Mason? Despite your calls that Mason #2 is to remain hidden?

I'm the one who looks bad in this, noxiousdog? If Mark hadn't acted so strangely to me, to others, and in the thread, I'd probably have accepted his offer of protection and guarded him as much as possible in this round. Indeed, my call for others to back off was a goodwill gesture in that precise spirit, as I was interacting with him to try to figure out what he was up to.

You both are acting strangely. I'd personally lynch you both and let triggercut sort it out.

noxiousdog wrote:You both are acting strangely. I'd personally lynch you both and let triggercut sort it out.

Heh.

Fine. We must move beyond this impasse, one way or another. I'll take another gamble, since I seem to be the only gambling man around here. I'm going to gamble on you, noxiousdog, since you can't see clear to bet on me.

If you, O Reader of This Message, are the Fearless Vampire Hunter, don't tell me. You don't yet have a basis for knowing whether I'll become a Vampire. However, if you are the FVH, tell noxiousdog (and only noxiousdog). The chance that he's anything other than a Mason is small. If he were lying, at least one real Mason would have stepped up and outed him by now.

Knowing Mark to be false, noxiousdog can then vote against him without violating conscience or doing violence to his sense of strategy. You can then ask noxiousdog in private whether I've earned enough of his trust to merit protection for tonight.

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.

If i reread your explanation, I find that you added some bits later that I haven't addressed. It is true that every villager has an incentive to hide his status, just in case. However, the incentive is smaller (22% - some % deduction for being lynched innocently after making a false claim) than the competing incentive to get this game resolved with minimum casualties for the good side.

In the second round the will be 3 guaranteed lies to the 1 on the first day (leaving killings inbetween on the side). I fail to see how that is better.

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.[/quote]
If you knew then what you know, I think you would have.

Varity wrote:If i reread your explanation, I find that you added some bits later that I haven't addressed.

Maybe you should wait longer to reckon my message done before trying to reply to it.

I reply to the messages of many, some of whom edit, and I don't find it to be a problem.

...the competing incentive to get this game resolved with minimum casualties for the good side.

Minimal casualties for your team isn't the goal; winning for your team is the goal.

Ooops, sorry submitted too early. Please ignore my post above.

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.

If i reread your explanation, I find that you added some bits later that I haven't addressed. It is true that every villager has an incentive to hide his status, just in case. However, the incentive is smaller (22% - some % deduction for being lynched innocently after making a false claim) than the competing incentive to get this game resolved with minimum casualties for the good side.

In the second round the will be 3 guaranteed lies to the 1 on the first day (leaving killings inbetween on the side). I fail to see how that is better.

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"?

See above.

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.

If you knew then what you know now, I think you would have.

Varity wrote:In the second round the will be 3 guaranteed lies to the 1 on the first day (leaving killings inbetween on the side). I fail to see how that is better.

Indeed. It's better to have a batch that includes 3 lies on day 2 because on day 1 you'll have severely limited participation, if the simple villagers who are candidates for infection have any sense about them.

Varity wrote:

Grundbegriff wrote: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.

If you knew then what you know now, I think you would have.

Well, of course. Why's that an insight?

As it happened, I didn't know then what I know now; I had to gain that knowledge through careful investigative legwork.

Due to Grund's endorsement, I withdraw my vote.

How long do we wait for a FVH?

If you're the real FVH, you have to know that Mark is ferociously pleading his case behind the scenes and may end up winning trust after all if you don't take action as described. This is your moment. Be a hero (secretly, to noxiousdog).

Grundbegriff wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:You both are acting strangely. I'd personally lynch you both and let triggercut sort it out.

Heh.

Fine. We must move beyond this impasse, one way or another. I'll take another gamble, since I seem to be the only gambling man around here. I'm going to gamble on you, noxiousdog, since you can't see clear to bet on me.

If you, O Reader of This Message, are the Fearless Vampire Hunter, don't tell me. You don't yet have a basis for knowing whether I'll become a Vampire. However, if you are the FVH, tell noxiousdog (and only noxiousdog). The chance that he's anything other than a Mason is small. If he were lying, at least one real Mason would have stepped up and outed him by now.

Knowing Mark to be false, noxiousdog can then vote against him without violating conscience or doing violence to his sense of strategy. You can then ask noxiousdog in private whether I've earned enough of his trust to merit protection for tonight.

On page 7 you advised the FVH differently.

Grundbegriff wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:7 players, Grund.

Even worse!

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.

Not true. Given the rules, the FVH's best move is to choose cleverly whom to protect, but never to reveal his own identity. After all, the FVH is an enormously valuable asset on the villagers' side. Nothing can be gained by a FVH who steps forward early in the game.

In contrast, it's not as big a deal to lose a Mason (with all due respect, etc.) as it is to lose a FVH, and stepping forward to expose a bluffing pseudo-Mason could very well be worth that loss.

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....

"Could be a good play"? It would be utter folly for the FVH to expose his status without some excellent reason for doing so, and no such reason arises until late in the game.

Why would you (noxiousdog) want to contact the FVH? Why would he want contact with you? He can read the thread and can make up his own mind. If you want contact, you have a way to earn his trust.

Grundbegriff wrote:

Varity wrote:In the second round the will be 3 guaranteed lies to the 1 on the first day (leaving killings inbetween on the side). I fail to see how that is better.

Indeed. It's better to have a batch that includes 3 lies on day 2 because on day 1 you'll have severely limited participation, if the simple villagers who are candidates for infection have any sense about them.

I explained above that their chances as a person increase when they don't lie. The odds that they would benefit from a lie are just too small.

Varity wrote:I explained above that their chances as a person increase when they don't lie. The odds that they would benefit from a lie are just too small.

You're thinking too woodenly about the odds. Understand this: if a simple villager does draw the short straw, his self-exposure makes the chance of his (new) team's victory nearly 0%. Without the self-exposure, his new team's chance of victory is much higher.

As for my call to the FVH: interpret it as you will. I think it's clear why I've asked him/her to take a calculated risk at this juncture: earlier, in view of our PMs, I didn't expect that noxiousdog would lose his nerve.

Varity wrote: On page 7 you advised the FVH differently.

I forced his hand.

Why would you (noxiousdog) want to contact the FVH? Why would he want contact with you?

If the FVH contacts me, then mark is lying (or the new FVH is lying), and grund is innocent (for now).

If he does not....

He can read the thread and can make up his own mind. If you want contact, you have a way to earn his trust.

If I've earned Grund's, that should be good enough for a FVH, a seer, or you.

Grundbegriff wrote:I didn't expect that noxiousdog would lose his nerve.

Nice.


Perhaps instead I'm going for the WTFPWN3D!!111 first round kill.

noxiousdog wrote:Perhaps instead I'm going for the WTFPWN3D!!111 first round kill.

Then don't shoot yourself in the foot.

Grundbegriff wrote:

Varity wrote:I explained above that their chances as a person increase when they don't lie. The odds that they would benefit from a lie are just too small.

You're thinking too woodenly about the odds. Understand this: if a simple villager does draw the short straw, his self-exposure makes the chance of his (new) team's victory nearly 0%. Without the self-exposure, his new team's chance of victory is much higher.

But chances of being on that new team are small (22%). His chances of being cought lying and staked (while innocent - 78%) are large.

But it's nice to see you admit that the plan is a sure way for the good side to win.

You know, I'm beginning to think that Mark was just excited about his role and simply made some strategical errors.

The problem with a lot of this logic is that it assumes a level playing field.

While ND and Varity are holding their own in the arguments (and doing a fine job, I might add. ) This is Grund we're talking about here.

Come on, guys, except for climactic moments in After School Specials, a lynch mob (which is what we are, especially in round 1) rarely listens to sound logic.

Grundbegriff wrote:Fine. We must move beyond this impasse, one way or another. I'll take another gamble, since I seem to be the only gambling man around here. I'm going to gamble on you, noxiousdog, since you can't see clear to bet on me.

With all due respect, Grund. Trusting ND is hardly a gamble at all, especially since no one has come forward to refute him.

This a lynch mob pretty words and flowery speeches confuse us. They leave us hanging our heads with pitchforks dangling from our hands, wondering whether or not we turned the oven off.


They cause the mob to dissipate (and even consider looking up the spelling for words like dissipate) and wander home to finish their chores.

What if we took everyone's claim at face value. (Which is what we would have to do if we followed Varity's plan, anyway.)

What decisions would we make, then? Even in just doing that, we have WAY more information out in round 1 than I've ever seen in one of these threads.

I'm not even sure what claims everyone has made, so far.

I've claimed to be an Innocent Villager.

Mark, apparently, (I can't seem to find the post) has claimed to be the FVH.

Grund claims to not be a vampire.

NoxiousDog claims to be a Mason.

J.D. claims to be an innocent villager.

Chaosraven claims to be an innocent villager.

These are just the claims that I remember without culling through the posts. I know I'm missing a LOT. It's not because I don't love you, it's just because I want to submit my post before I lose it. Everyone, please feel free to build on, or correct my lists.

To clarify, this isn't true.

Leigh wrote:Grund claims to be an Innocent Villager.

He's claimed that he's not the alpha and he's claimed that he's not the FVH. That's all he's willing to commit to at this point I think. He's made no claim that he's not a seer. Which, unfortunately, if/when a seer has a vision of him during nightfall it will be entirely possible that he will STILL come up as "not what he seems".

setaside wrote:To clarify, this isn't true.

Leigh wrote:Grund claims to be an Innocent Villager.

He's claimed that he's not the alpha and he's claimed that he's not the FVH. That's all he's willing to commit to at this point I think. He's made no claim that he's not a seer. Which, unfortunately, if/when a seer has a vision of him during nightfall it will be entirely possible that he will STILL come up as "not what he seems".

I'll edit my post. And what is YOUR claim, setaside?

Vote! Vote! Vote!

Varity wrote:But it's nice to see you admit that the plan is a sure way for the good side to win.

You really have a problem with accurately representing what others say.

The plan would only be a sure way for the Villagers to win if the simple Villagers were foolish enough to sign up on Day 1.

If, as they should, the Villagers pursue the plan on a subsequent day, it still enhances their chance of winning, but doesn't guarantee it.

Leigh wrote:With all due respect, Grund. Trusting ND is hardly a gamble at all, especially since no one has come forward to refute him.

I'm referring to a non-public gamble with high stakes. Buying into the idea that he's a Mason isn't that hard, as I've repeatedly pointed out.

It's not because I don't love you, it's just because I want to submit my post before I lose it.

Well, I'm off to play some tennis. I'll be back later this evening. hopefully we have some developments by then!

Crux wrote:Well, I'm off to play some tennis. I'll be back later this evening. hopefully we have some developments by then!

We'd get some developments if people actually voted.

If my records are correct, here's where we stand:

against Chaosraven: 3 votes (pr0ner, Mark, Mr Bubbles)
against Grundbegriff: 2 votes (Orinoco, msteelers)
against Mark: 3 votes (Grundbegriff, Kelric, Chaosraven)
against Varity: 1 vote (ChrisGrenard)

Leigh wrote:
What if we took everyone's claim at face value. (Which is what we would have to do if we followed Varity's plan, anyway.)

What decisions would we make, then? Even in just doing that, we have WAY more information out in round 1 than I've ever seen in one of these threads.

If you trust noxiousdogs claim that he is a mason, you should follow the recommendations that he gives you, because he, most likely, has more information than you do.
Also, you may consider sending him your information (role and gathered intelligence), if you think that no other mason will come forward and dispute him.

If you do not trust noxiousdogs claim that he is a mason, I'd recommend you tell him so, either publicly or privately, and ask for further proof. He can then decide if the trust in him is sufficent enough to continue.

If you disagree with noxiousdogs claim that he is a mason, you'd need to come forward now and dispute that, or the whole affair will have a terrible ending.

Leigh wrote:

setaside wrote:To clarify, this isn't true.

Leigh wrote:Grund claims to be an Innocent Villager.

He's claimed that he's not the alpha and he's claimed that he's not the FVH. That's all he's willing to commit to at this point I think. He's made no claim that he's not a seer. Which, unfortunately, if/when a seer has a vision of him during nightfall it will be entirely possible that he will STILL come up as "not what he seems".

I'll edit my post. And what is YOUR claim, setaside?

My claim? I have this uncanny ability to roll up as an innocent villager every time I play one of these games. This time is ... I was going to say unfortunately but I think in this particular game it's VERY fortunate ... no different. I am innocent. And hopefully innocent come morning. Grund, however, has made me very hesitant to commit to anything until after the first night. If forced to vote, there is one person whose actions are very strange to me and it's not one of the ones listed so far. I'm holding my vote for a bit longer.

Leigh wrote: Everyone, please feel free to build on, or correct my lists.

I claim to be a dumb, lack-witted villager. I am however hoping that tonight I will acquire some cool (beta) vampire gear and become irresitable to goth chicks

This will make you laugh, if you're keeping tabs on indecisiveness:

I withdraw my vote for Chaosraven.

Just like the energizer bunny.. it just keeps on going. But I got my wooden stake by my bed.. I dare you!

Mark wrote:I withdraw my vote for Chaosraven.

... in a transparent bid to get him to withdraw his vote against you.

Grundbegriff wrote:

Mark wrote:I withdraw my vote for Chaosraven.

... in a transparent bid to get him to withdraw his vote against you.

You want me to lie? Of course I want him to withdraw my vote against me. I want to keep playing, which is going to be hard since you've managed to make quite the convincing case that I'm the Alpha, which I am assuredly not.

The problem is, people want to have you around on their side (understandably), which makes it more likely that I'll get the stake. Of course, if you're the Alpha, then the village has dug themselves a big hole.

But I don't think you're the Alpha - otherwise I would have voted for you by now. I think you're blinded by your own logic, and can't see some of the more obvioud alternatives.

It is foolish to think we can really know who is guilty on the first night. The only option we have is to know perhaps one or two who are innocent. The rest is fluff. If we're going to take a chance, let's just do it and be done.

I am going to vote for Mark. Not because I pretend to know he is guilty. I just know he'd be a good under-the-radar choice for the vamps. Every night that passes we gain information and can learn more. Let's get on with it already

Crux wrote:It is foolish to think we can really know who is guilty on the first night. The only option we have is to know perhaps one or two who are innocent. The rest is fluff. If we're going to take a chance, let's just do it and be done.

I am going to vote for Mark. Not because I pretend to know he is guilty. I just know he'd be a good under-the-radar choice for the vamps. Every night that passes we gain information and can learn more. Let's get on with it already

If you believe Grund, then I'm hardly an under-the-radar candidate. He has managed to implicate me in almost every nefarious activity so far.

I am going to cast my vote for Leigh.

She has had the opportunity to be more engaged in the game, and when she has, has avoided saying anything of real substance. That is a genuine under-the-radar play, and will be my final say on the subject.

Mark wrote:She has had the opportunity to be more engaged in the game, and when she has, has avoided saying anything of real substance.

I don't know, Mark. Right here, she seems to offer the single best argument in your defense!

Leigh wrote:You know, I'm beginning to think that Mark was just excited about his role and simply made some strategical errors.

That point is substantial enough that I'm thinking through my argument one last time, just in case....

Ok. This is insane. I don't trust Mark and I don't trust Grund, but there's not enough evidence to crush them.

I vote for someone completely random so we can move on. Mr. Bubbles.

noxiousdog wrote:Ok. This is insane. I don't trust Mark and I don't trust Grund, but there's not enough evidence to crush them.

I vote for someone completely random so we can move on. Mr. Bubbles.

Oh I see how it is.. Lets continue with the poor innocent... noxiousdog because any excuse is better then none

J.D. wrote:Looks like I'm a lowly villager again. It would be nice if I had a special role for one of the games I play. This is my fourth time out of four games being an ordinary villager.

That being said, we still have a job to do fellow innocents!

Who are the quiet ones?

I keep coming back to this statement from page 1 by J.D.
I think he doth protest too much.
At the very least, it's a smidge too whiney.
I vote we Lynch: J.D. .