WW LII -- Clue (SOCIALITES WIN)

[Passacaglia]

List of players:

1. Lathum -- killed by the murderer Night 1, Socialite
2. st.cronin -- lynched Day 2, Murder
3. Jonathan Ezarik -- eaten by wolves Night 1, Socialite
4. Swaggs
5. Chief Rum
6. path12
7. DaddyTorgo
8. LoneStarGirl
9. Barkeep49 -- lynched Day 4, Wolf
10. oliegirl -- eaten by wolves Night 2, Col. Mustard
11. Neon_Chaos -- eaten by wolves Night 3, Mrs. White
12. SnDvls
13. saldana -- lynched Day 3, Socialite
14. ntndeacon -- lynched Day 5, Wolf
15. Crim
16. RendeR
17. Schmidty
18. Telle
19. Alan T -- killed by Mrs. White Night 3, Wolf

DAY 1 ENDS -- http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1525764&postcount=443

[Passacaglia]

It was a dark and stormy night. You've all been given invitiations to a dinner party at the stately mansion of Mr. Boddy. However, before dinner can begin, while your entire party is assembled, the lights go out! A shriek is heard, some bangs, a scuffle. When the lights come back on, your party finds that Mr. Boddy is dead -- murdered! It is your job to find who killed Mr. Boddy, in what room, and with what weapon.


The Clues
Along with your role, you will receive two or three clues about the murder. These clues will tell you a person, room, or weapon that was NOT involved in the murder. Everyone will receive these clues (socialites and wolves), except the murderer.

Nightly Suggestion
As a night action, you may propose a suggestion (via PM to me). You suggestion must comprise a person (i.e.someone's screen name), a room, and a weapon. The room you have chosen will be the room you are staying in for that night. If you do not PM me a suggestion, the room you stayed in the night before will be used. If you haven't stayed in a room the night before, a room will be chosen for you randomly.
In response, if available, you will receive evidence that your suggestion is wrong. This clue will not necessarily be chosen randomly.

Accusation (individual victory)
An individual socialite wins the game by making an accusation. This accusation must be in bold, and must be of the form:
I accuse (Passacaglia) of murdering Mr. Boddy in the (Hall) with the (Revolver).
If this accusation is correct, that socialite wins the game. If this accusation is incorrect, the socialite is lynched for his or her rabble rousing. I will wait 12 hours before processing the accusation. If someone else wants to make the same accusation, they may do so, and share either the victory or death (I'm doing this in case an accusation comes right after deadline).

Socialite Victory
A victory for the socialites is obtained if all the wolves and the murderer are lynched before a successful accusation is made.

Wolf Victory
A wolf victory is obtained if the number of wolves is greater than or equal to the number of socialites. The murderer counts as neither.

Murderer victory
A victory for the murderer is obtained if all 6 of the "named" Socialities are killed -- Col. Mustard, Prof. Plum, Mr. Green, Mrs. White, Miss Scarlet, and Mrs. Peacock.

Wolf Kills
Wolves know the identity of the murderer, and the murderer knows the identity of the wolves. However, they will not have PM privileges.
Each wolf submits a kill by naming the socialite he or she wants to kill, and a room to look for that person in. The kill is successful if the target is found in that room, or a room adjoining that room. Here is a map:

Lounge Den Parlor Room Library
Basement Hall Kitchen Study
Ball Room Dining Room Bathroom Living Room
Conservatory Billiard Room Bedroom Attic

So for example, if a wolf wants to kill Passacaglia, and looks in the hall, the wolf will successfully kill Passacaglia if Pass is in the Hall, Basement, Kitchen, Den, or Dining Room. The rooms on the edge all have secret passageways to other rooms, so if a wolf is looking for you, it doesn't matter what room you're in, you have a 5/16 chance of being caught. Wolves can target the same person on each night.

Murderer Kills
The murderer chooses one socialite to kill per night, and does not need to find them in a certain room.

Socialite Kills
Each day, the socialites decide to vote on whether or not to kill a member of your party. You may vote for someone in your party in bold, such as:
VOTE PASSACAGLIA
You may also VOTE NO LYNCH. If more people vote for no lynch than for any other person, there will be no lynch. Also, in the event of ties, there will be no lynch.

Weapons
Here's the list of weapons:
Rope
Lead Pipe
Knife
Revolver
Wrench
Candlestick
Poison
Hammer
Frying Pan

Roles
Here are the PMs that everyone will receive:
You are a nameless socialite.
You are Col. Mustard, a military officer recently returned from the Far East. Your military training allows you to protect one person each night from any kind of attack. No identities will be revealed from this action, but you will be notified if your services end up being required. You may not protect the same person on two consecutive nights.
You are Prof. Plum, the psychiatrist. Your extensive research in the paranormal allows you to identify werewolves. You may choose one player per night to scan.
You are Mr. Green, an undercover FBI agent. Each night, you can check your books to determine whether or not one person is the murderer.
You are Mrs. White, the wealthy widow. Rumors abound that you killed your husband, which is the truth. You may use this talent to kill one person, one time, any night you choose.

You are Miss Scarlet, owner of a whore house. You know the identity of the other 5 main characters -- Col. Mustard, Prof. Plum, Mr. Green, Mrs. White, and Mrs. Peacock, who were either clients of yours, or wives of clients.
You are Mrs. Peacock, the Senator's wife. You are well known throughout the community. Everyone who is not one of the 6 main characters, a wolf, or the murderer, knows your identity, and that you are good.
You are the murderer. Your goal is to kill all 6 main characters -- Col. Mustard, Prof. Plum, Mr. Green, Mrs. White, Miss Scarlet, and Mrs. Peacock. You may kill one socialite per night.
You are a wolf. You have a chance to kill one socialite per night. You may communicate with the other wolves.

We're going to run a 24-hour deadline, with each day ending at 6 PM Eastern. I will process all actions at that time, and get out PMs as soon as possible.

[Lathum]

hell yeah!!!

[Lathum]

in

[st.cronin]

Definitely in, really looking forward to this.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Um, yes please.

[Passacaglia]

Cool!

[Gonzo]

In

[Chief Rum]

I'm in if you promise not to give me a bad role for making you sneer in my game. :)

[path12]

Oh yeah.

[DaddyTorgo]

in

[KWhit]

In

[Barkeep49]

in

[oliegirl]

I'm in :)

[Neon_Chaos]

in

[SnDvls]

I've been out for a long time....I think I'll jump back in for this one

[Barkeep49]

Pass, by my count this is WW47 not 52 so it should be WW XLVII

[Barkeep49]

And nice to have you back SnDvls.

[Passacaglia]

Pass, by my count this is WW47 not 52 so it should be WW XLVII

Oh, okay. I just counted up three from tanglewood's XLIX.

[Lathum]

And nice to have you back SnDvls.

+1

[SnDvls]

And nice to have you back SnDvls.

it was a nice 3 month break from WW, but I missed you guys :p well most of you guys & gals ;)

[saldana]

keeping with the theme of coming out of retirement

in

[Passacaglia]

Good to have you back, saldana!

[Lathum]

keeping with the theme of coming out of retirement

in

sweet, we need more chicks.

[KWhit]

sweet, we need more chicks.

Word.

[saldana]

sweet, we need more chicks.

douche.

[Lathum]

douche.

well somebody has to be miss peacock

[KWhit]

douche.

Do you really douche? I didn't think chicks did that anymore.

[saldana]

well somebody has to be miss peacock

i will have a new role in this game....mr horsecock

[ntndeacon]

in

[Crim]

Still any room? If so I'm in, I'm a first timer, so be gentle.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Any idea as to when this game is going to start?

[Passacaglia]

Still any room? If so I'm in, I'm a first timer, so be gentle.

There's definitely room. You're in!

[Passacaglia]

Any idea as to when this game is going to start?

Depends on how long the current game lasts! Maybe a day or two later.

[Gonzo]

I'm going to have to drop out. I'm in Ireland at the moment and don't have internet access (at an internet cafe at the moment in Tralee). Will be back by Sunday, though.

[Swaggs]

I will have limited availability for a few nights, but I'll give it a try.

[Passacaglia]

I'm going to have to drop out. I'm in Ireland at the moment and don't have internet access (at an internet cafe at the moment in Tralee). Will be back by Sunday, though.

Sorry you won't be able to play, Gonzo. Now, if only someone else would join, so I could just put him in place of your spot, and not have to renumber the whole thing.. ;)

[KWhit]

Actually, I'll need to drop out if this is starting this week.

I'm flying to Vegas from Thursday to Sunday and will NOT be wanting to play WW.

[Barkeep49]

Actually, I'll need to drop out if this is starting this week.

I'm flying to Vegas from Thursday to Sunday and will NOT be wanting to play WW.
That's a very long flight. I wouldn't want to play WW either if I were on a plane for four days.

[LoneStarGirl]

I am back from vacation and ready to play a game!

[RendeR]

Sign me UP!!!

1+2+2+1

[saldana]

Sign me UP!!!

1+2+2+1

nice.

how many husbands have you had?

[Schmidty]

Ok, I'll play, but I am saying this right now: I WILL NOT BE AROUND AT THE SAME HOURS AS THE REST OF YOU, SO DON'T USE THE "SCHMIDTY SURE IS QUIET" BULL. Also, in less than 2 weeks, I'm getting a promotion at my job from coordinating the dock, to overseeing the customer care reps, so I'll be more busy at that time learning the job.

Just a heads-up.

[RendeR]

Telle would love to play also, she was busy with the lil-ones tonight and wasn't logged in.

[Passacaglia]

Seems like we have a good group! Rules will go out sometime tomorrow morning, and roles sent out late afternoon/evening.

[Passacaglia]

I'll keep signups open until tomorrow afternoon.

[KWhit]

Seems like we have a good group! Rules will go out sometime tomorrow morning, and roles sent out late afternoon/evening.

Did you see where I needed to drop out? I'm unavailable from Fri-Sun.

[Passacaglia]

Did you see where I needed to drop out? I'm unavailable from Fri-Sun.

Yeah, I took you out. Sorry you can't make it!

[path12]

Schmidty sure seems quiet.

[Barkeep49]

Ok, I'll play, but I am saying this right now: I WILL NOT BE AROUND AT THE SAME HOURS AS THE REST OF YOU, SO DON'T USE THE "SCHMIDTY SURE IS QUIET" BULL. Also, in less than 2 weeks, I'm getting a promotion at my job from coordinating the dock, to overseeing the customer care reps, so I'll be more busy at that time learning the job.

Just a heads-up.
As long as your contributing at your odd hours I also would hope that no one would give the Schmidty has been quiet rationale.

[path12]

I dunno. He just seems quiet to me.

[saldana]

Ok, I'll play, but I am saying this right now: I WILL NOT BE AROUND AT THE SAME HOURS AS THE REST OF YOU, SO DON'T USE THE "SCHMIDTY SURE IS QUIET" BULL. Also, in less than 2 weeks, I'm getting a promotion at my job from coordinating the dock, to overseeing the customer care reps, so I'll be more busy at that time learning the job.

Just a heads-up.

can you just give me some idea what time you are going to post the "i suck, i am the worst player ever" speech....i dont want to miss it :D

[Passacaglia]

But...didn't you see his all caps? That's definitely not quiet. :)

[KWhit]

Ok, I'll play, but I am saying this right now: I WILL NOT BE AROUND AT THE SAME HOURS AS THE REST OF YOU, SO DON'T USE THE "SCHMIDTY SURE IS QUIET" BULL. Also, in less than 2 weeks, I'm getting a promotion at my job from coordinating the dock, to overseeing the customer care reps, so I'll be more busy at that time learning the job.

Just a heads-up.


That is JUST what a wolf would say.

[Barkeep49]

I hope we have public roles again since Schmidty's playing of the Incredible Hulk is my all time favorite role playing ever. I'd love to see what he'd do with Miss Scarlet :)

[Passacaglia]

I hope we have public roles again since Schmidty's playing of the Incredible Hulk is my all time favorite role playing ever. I'd love to see what he'd do with Miss Scarlet :)

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Rules are up. I'm off to lunch -- I anticipate some questions by the time I'm back!

[Lathum]

when are roles going out?

[Passacaglia]

Roles will go out around 6 PM Eastern -- or so. Signups are sill open until then.

[Alan T]

I'll play.

Going to try a different style of play out this game. (So I'll likely get lynched on day 2)

[hoopsguy]

Alan is going to be playing the part of "UTR wolf" this game.

[Lathum]

Alan is going to be playing the part of "UTR wolf" this game.

schmidty already claimed that role

[Barkeep49]

Hey hey hey. I claimed LAST game the UTR approach. Just a reminder of that fact.

[Passacaglia]

Why don't you all just send your votes to me via PM, and I'll tell you who gets lynched? That way none of you have to talk at all! :)

[ntndeacon]

Does that mean I need to be the out in front villager?

[Barkeep49]

Does that mean I need to be the out in front villager?
Yes.

And pass thanks for that mechanic! I think it'll really help my gameplay.

[Telle]

I hate waiting...

[RendeR]

I hate waiting...


..

[RendeR]

While we're waiting I'd just like to say...


"I'm going home and sleeping with MY WIFE..."

[Passacaglia]

Signups are closed. PMs going out.

[Telle]

While we're waiting I'd just like to say...


"I'm going home and sleeping with MY WIFE..."

Thanks for the notice, but do you really have to share that with the whole board?? :)

[saldana]

While we're waiting I'd just like to say...


"I'm going home and sleeping with MY WIFE..."

i think you and i may be the only people getting these jokes.

[Lathum]

While we're waiting I'd just like to say...


"I'm going home and sleeping with MY WIFE..."

Thanks for the notice, I'll make sure I leave early

[Lathum]

I just got it.

poor Telle, she is gonna hold him to it.

[Passacaglia]

i think you and i may be the only people getting these jokes.

Well, there's me, too.

[Chief Rum]

I have received my PM. I'm not going to say anything more, though, until Pass opens the game.

[Telle]

i think you and i may be the only people getting these jokes.

Oh not at all.. Clue's one of my favorite cheesy movies :)

[Passacaglia]

All PMs have been sent out. Play on!

[Chief Rum]

Woot! Game on. I'm your bargain basement socialite.

[Alan T]

Alan is going to be playing the part of "UTR wolf" this game.


Hehe, didn't mean UTR.. thats not really my style. I get too into these games to be UTR as wolf or villager. I meant more that this game I'm not going to be super ultra defensive every time attacked, and try to not egg folks on either. I think I learned some last game where I just watched by not being so too involved in the decision, my decision making actually improved. Going to see this game if it works as well if I'm not right in all the hubbub attacking people.

THat said, got my pm.. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't share clues. I'll reread over the Rules when I get home to make sure I don't see something, but for now I think once everyone gets their PMs we should share clues.

Back later

[Neon_Chaos]

great movie. tim currey and michael mckean rock.

[Passacaglia]

As the thread title now indicates, Day 1 deadline is 6 PM Eastern.

[Neon_Chaos]

oh, and i'm in illinois, so i'll be on regular time! YAY! no more mulling around with only schmidty to talk to in the wee hours of the morning! :P

[oliegirl]

Socialite checking in...going to be heading home soon but I should be back on later this evening - excited for this game, it sounds like it's going to be very fun!

[Telle]

I'm just a nameless socialite. How boring.

[RendeR]

PM recieved, simple socialite sitting boredly in the dining room waiting for some food.

[Neon_Chaos]

#generic "i am a villager" introductory post#

bah.

[DaddyTorgo]

checking in. Continuing my solid run of being a vanilla villager.

[Lathum]

socialite here

[DaddyTorgo]

rules say central time, thread title says eastern time. What gives??

[RendeR]

Just once I think it'd be hilarious if someone just came out and said "Wow, KEWL I have a ROLE!!! guess which one ;)"

I mean its not like we could just insta-lynch them, it could be a good role, right?

[RendeR]

Been reading and re-reading the roles a bit.

The seer and bodyguard style roles are obvious, we also have a secondary seer who can find the murderer. The ones that intrigue me are scarlett and peacock.

All the normal villagers know who peacock is. ;) They also know she's good, now how can we manage to disseminate that to the 6 primaries without giving it away to the 4 baddies?

Scarlett knows all 6 primaries, again how can she get that out to those that need it?

If we can somehow build from those two pockets of data, we can win this game in 2 days flat.

Of course, the opportunity for any single player to win the game on their own sticks a fork in my idea, since if someone really wants to win as an individual they will not want that information to spread.

bleh
my head hurts

2+1+2+1

[st.cronin]

oh, and i'm in illinois, so i'll be on regular time! YAY! no more mulling around with only schmidty to talk to in the wee hours of the morning! :P

Poor Schmidty, nobody to talk to.

[Barkeep49]

Pass what happens if the socialite is lynched before a correct accusation has been made? Can you still win the game individually from making a correct accusation?

[Schmidty]

I am a nameless socialite, but I KNOW THINGS!!!!! Wahahahahahaha!!!!!

Oh wait, everyone else knows too? Damn, I thought I was special. :(

[DaddyTorgo]

initial thoughts on the wisdom of pooling information to catch the murderer? is there a downside (aside from possible contamination of data by the murderer? and maybe the wolves although they don't have a reason to help him), which can be mitigated by weighting the liklehood of the evidence being correct based on the trust level of the person giving it?

[Lathum]

we really need to think it through all angels before revealing what we know.

[DaddyTorgo]

we really need to think it through all angels before revealing what we know.

which is why i'm asking for initial thoughts on the feasability

[st.cronin]

initial thoughts on the wisdom of pooling information to catch the murderer? is there a downside (aside from possible contamination of data by the murderer? and maybe the wolves although they don't have a reason to help him), which can be mitigated by weighting the liklehood of the evidence being correct based on the trust level of the person giving it?

Why do you think the wolves have no incentive to help the murderer? I'm reading the rules different from you.

VOTE NO LYNCH

My feelings on this are known from other games, and in this game, with information apparently flowing to multiple players every night, I see no reason to approach it differently.

[RendeR]

IS it just me or was DT's post in greek?

Why wouldn't the wolves help the murderer? they're goal and his are almost the same, kill everyone and anyone to get the win.

[RendeR]

Pass: Do ALL players get clues in their PM's or just the primary 6?

[saldana]

socialite here

great....another word lathum can't spell!

[RendeR]

great....another word lathum can't spell!


Umm, what'd he spell wrong?

[Passacaglia]

rules say central time, thread title says eastern time. What gives??

My bad. Deadline is 6 PM Eastern. Rules have been fixed.

[Passacaglia]

Pass: Do ALL players get clues in their PM's or just the primary 6?

All players get their clues in PMs. If you didn't get clues, let me know.

[Barkeep49]

IS it just me or was DT's post in greek?

Why wouldn't the wolves help the murderer? they're goal and his are almost the same, kill everyone and anyone to get the win.
Perhaps the wolves and the murderer know differently?

[Barkeep49]

Umm, what'd he spell wrong?
What doesn't he spell wrong?

[saldana]

we really need to think it through all angels before revealing what we know.

quoted the wrong message

[RendeR]

Ok, so we know that we all got clues, lets brainstorm a bit:

What are the benefits of sharing clues?
1)helps us find the murderer
2)helps everyone get closer to individual victory conditions.
3)if enough information is given the murderer could be outed day 1 or 2 as that role shouldn't have any real clues and if they make shit up or decline to join in they will give themselves away.

What are the drawbacks?
1)murderer could contaminate the information
2)players could contaminate the informaation

[RendeR]

quoted the wrong message


Ahh see, now THAT makes sense.=)

[RendeR]

Lets add to this that the wolves don't really care a bit about any of the murder mystery crap, they just want people to die, fast. lets hope our seers get lucky asap.

[saldana]

Ok, so we know that we all got clues, lets brainstorm a bit:

What are the benefits of sharing clues?
1)helps us find the murderer
2)helps everyone get closer to individual victory conditions.
3)if enough information is given the murderer could be outed day 1 or 2 as that role shouldn't have any real clues and if they make shit up or decline to join in they will give themselves away.

What are the drawbacks?
1)murderer could contaminate the information
2)players could contaminate the informaation

no way #3 can happen....all the murderer would have to do is sit and wait until a couple of us gave our clues, and then give bits and pieces of a couple different ones and say they were what he/she was given.

honestly, i doubt that even if all of us gave our clues, there would be enough to put them all together to catch the murderer. i am sure pass would have thought about that possibility and made sure there wasnt enough on day 1 to do it.

[st.cronin]

Ok, so we know that we all got clues, lets brainstorm a bit:

What are the benefits of sharing clues?
1)helps us find the murderer
2)helps everyone get closer to individual victory conditions.
3)if enough information is given the murderer could be outed day 1 or 2 as that role shouldn't have any real clues and if they make shit up or decline to join in they will give themselves away.

What are the drawbacks?
1)murderer could contaminate the information
2)players could contaminate the informaation


What would make more sense, rather than asking everybody to turn over their cards, is to ask players about to be lynched to turn over their cards. That might actually work, since we will be able to immediately evaluate their information (assuming they do get lynched).

[RendeR]

What would make more sense, rather than asking everybody to turn over their cards, is to ask players about to be lynched to turn over their cards. That might actually work, since we will be able to immediately evaluate their information (assuming they do get lynched).


The inherint problem with this is they have absolutely no incentive to do so.

[Alan T]

I thought about this some even before I received my role. We know everyone except the murderer got clues. It doesn't add anyone to the trust list or non-trust list based on having a clue. Sharing the clue does nothing but help us narrow down who the murderer isn't. Sure the wolves or the murderer could lie about it, but that type of information is exactly what we want to get out in day 1-2-3 by encouraging others to talk. Only by catching people in lies can we put together a piece by piece puzzle of who isnt being straight with us.

I haven't heard anyone give me a reason not to share.. and I have no problem sharing a victory with others if they are just as forthcoming with their clues. If someone "hordes" their clues, I guess that will just stink.

So I'll be the first. I was told that the murder was not committed with a revolver and DaddyTorgo did not commit the murder.

Also on the subject of lynches, I think I'll go with the thoughts extended from the last game I was in with no lynch possibilities. No lynch on both days 1 and 2 actually helped the village enourmously. With this seemingly being a pretty wide open game, I think the same thing applies here. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I'm going to still go with a no lynch here. If people want to know more of my feelings about lynch vs no lynch and why it led me to suspecting Chief Rum that game (when he was a wolf), you can go look in that past game thread (it was the van helsing game I think?)

Vote No Lynch

[Neon_Chaos]

Are voting Day 1, or No Lynch?

Hopefully, it's harder for the Wolves to kill us off due to the rules about rooms and stuff.

[Chief Rum]

If people want to know more of my feelings about lynch vs no lynch and why it led me to suspecting Chief Rum that game (when he was a wolf), you can go look in that past game thread (it was the van helsing game I think?)

Vote No Lynch

The only problem is what I said after you brought this up after that game: my vote day had absolutely nothing to do with the fact I was a wolf or not. It would have been my vote as a villager, too. So I hesitate to put any value in it whatsoever.

[Neon_Chaos]

Best way to go.

Vote No Lynch

[Chief Rum]

I do agree, though, that throwing out the clues can't hurt. I was told the murder did not happen in the Living Room, and that the murderer is not Telle.

[RendeR]

I'll join the clue sharing crowd, it really can't hurt us unless someone wants to be greedy and win individually.

I was told it was not Schmidty and it did not take place in the bathroom.

[Lathum]

I think it's to soon to reveal information

[DaddyTorgo]

The murder was not done in the Lounge, and it was not done with the Knife.

[DaddyTorgo]

dola

meant to have 1 post, but hit enter.

No-lynch actually didn't hurt us in this game, and with the possibility that the wolves will have additional trouble killing people in this game, plus all of the information we can get, no lynch doesn't bother me on Day 1.

VOTE NO LYNCH

[RendeR]

I think it's to soon to reveal information


You had best come up with a real good reasoning for this. Only one player has any real reason to not share and thats the murderer. Since he has no information and will be lying out his ass =)

[st.cronin]

I understand trying to narrow down who the murderer is, but I will not be sharing my clues on murder weapon and location.

[Lathum]

You had best come up with a real good reasoning for this. Only one player has any real reason to not share and thats the murderer. Since he has no information and will be lying out his ass =)

because in every game like this we rush to share info and realize after the fact maybe we shouldn't have.

[Chief Rum]

I think it's to soon to reveal information

Why? This information only helps the villagers and hruts the wolves. Revealing it doesn't make us targets; actually, it frees us from being targets (at least for this). Our information is already out there; there is no reason to kill us to "keep us quiet".

The wolves and the murderer will offer disinformation, yes, but there are probably at most four of those. If the rest of us offer up our information, that's a lot of "X" does NOT mark the spot on our map to the murderer. And we will gain more information as the game moves on.

[Chief Rum]

I understand trying to narrow down who the murderer is, but I will not be sharing my clues on murder weapon and location.

Care to share why not?

It's pretty likely the murderer isn't going to reveal clues early on, because the longer he waits, the less likely it is that his information "guess" will be contradicted by another's information.

Quite frankly, I am thinking that any resistance to revealing their clues without at least some reasonable rationale for doing so is an indication you're not on our side.

That's not meant for st. cronin alone, but for all people in the game.

[st.cronin]

Why? This information only helps the villagers and hruts the wolves. Revealing it doesn't make us targets; actually, it frees us from being targets (at least for this). Our information is already out there; there is no reason to kill us to "keep us quiet".

The wolves and the murderer will offer disinformation, yes, but there are probably at most four of those. If the rest of us offer up our information, that's a lot of "X" does NOT mark the spot on our map to the murderer. And we will gain more information as the game moves on.

The problem is there is no way of evaluating what's been posted.

[Barkeep49]

Pass: What happens if a wolf makes a correct accusation?

[RendeR]

because in every game like this we rush to share info and realize after the fact maybe we shouldn't have.


Umm....granted, i've only played 6 games prior to this, but I haven't seen this to be true at all. You might want to try harder.

[Lathum]

Something just doesn't jive with me so far.

[Chief Rum]

because in every game like this we rush to share info and realize after the fact maybe we shouldn't have.

Not true. Sharing information in the ingredients, spells game by Alan helped us. And I am certain there are others if I put some thought into it. And ones where we chose not to share and it hurt us.

[Lathum]

Umm....granted, i've only played 6 games prior to this, but I haven't seen this to be true at all. You might want to try harder.

you may want to not try so hard, we are only 2 hours in.

[Chief Rum]

The problem is there is no way of evaluating what's been posted.

Yet.

I'm not saying we rush off to make a lynch off of this information now. It's foolish to think we'll catch the murderer in a day. But getting the information out there is the first step, and then as each day progresses, we'll know more about who is and isn't lying (based on lynches and kills and reveals). We'll also have more information to go with each day, if I am reading the rules right.

Just because we can't make good calls on it now doesn't mean it won't be good down the road.

[RendeR]

Something just doesn't jive with me so far.


Look at it from the original game stnadpoint. in that game you don't want to reveal things because it helps yur opponents get a singular win, in this game we're not looking for a singular win (or at least shouldn't be from the villagers standpoint) and logic dictates that the best direction for the vollage to go is to share what they know and pool info.

What is it about that that "doesn't jive" with you?

I thought they stopped talking jive in the 70's?

[Chief Rum]

Something just doesn't jive with me so far.

So what is it specifically that has you concerned?

[RendeR]

Great, now I'm being pushy. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Seriously, I want to win, I see the clues as a DAMN fast way to get real close to a winning scenario of finding the murderer.

PLEASE, give us a real reason that sharing info would possibly be bad?

[RendeR]

Man my typing skills suck balls tonight

[Chief Rum]

Great, now I'm being pushy. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Seriously, I want to win, I see the clues as a DAMN fast way to get real close to a winning scenario of finding the murderer.

PLEASE, give us a real reason that sharing info would possibly be bad?

I want a reason, too, Render, but I can understand being cautious. I think Lathum and st.cronin and probably others need more time to evaluate things.

If they want to take more time, I hope they say so and then do so. Then we can evaluate things again at that point.

For now, though, I stand by what I said earlier. Until someone comes up with a legitimate reason to keep this information secret, I will regard their silence as a dark mark toward their probable guilt as wolves or the murderer. Once placed, that suspicion will likely not easily be removed.

[RendeR]

I want a reason, too, Render, but I can understand being cautious. I think Lathum and st.cronin and probably others need more time to evaluate things.

If they want to take more time, I hope they say so and then do so. Then we can evaluate things again at that point.

For now, though, I stand by what I said earlier. Until someone comes up with a legitimate reason to keep this information secret, I will regard their silence as a dark mark toward their probable guilt as wolves or the murderer. Once placed, that suspicion will likely not easily be removed.


See I'm thinking that the only person who should be averse is the murderer himself, because I think even the wolves recieved clues.

Pass, can you verify this?

[Barkeep49]

Ok I see no reason to not share information: I know it's not Lathum or saldana.

[Lathum]

PLEASE, give us a real reason that sharing info would possibly be bad?

Show me where I said it would be bad?

I said it is to soon.

Do you seriously think there arent safeguards in place to balance the game so it isn't as easy as everyone dumping their info out there?

[saldana]

Care to share why not?

It's pretty likely the murderer isn't going to reveal clues early on, because the longer he waits, the less likely it is that his information "guess" will be contradicted by another's information.

Quite frankly, I am thinking that any resistance to revealing their clues without at least some reasonable rationale for doing so is an indication you're not on our side.

That's not meant for st. cronin alone, but for all people in the game.

i love when i post something and no one reads it.

all you have done is made it possible for the murderer to have enough information to hide behind.

all he has to do now is take one thing that you revealed and one thing that render revealed and repeat them as the 2 clues he got, and he has an instant hiding place.:mad:

[Alan T]

See I'm thinking that the only person who should be averse is the murderer himself, because I think even the wolves recieved clues.

Pass, can you verify this?

The rules state the wolves received clues.. and obviously the murderer knows what the actual murder weapon and location was.

Everyone starts the game with some ability to provide information for us to narrow things down. Based on everyone having 2 different clues out of 3 possible (area, weapon, person).. I am guessing we won't have a complete picture, plus we'll possibly have duplicates.

I doubt we'll be able to start the game knowing who to go after for our win condition, but I think it will help get us on the right start.

[RendeR]

Ok I see no reason to not share information: I know it's not Lathum or saldana.

Interesting that you got two of teh same category of information while everyone else got one from 2 of the 3.

nothing important I don't think, but interesting to see.

[Alan T]

i love when i post something and no one reads it.

all you have done is made it possible for the murderer to have enough information to hide behind.

all he has to do now is take one thing that you revealed and one thing that render revealed and repeat them as the 2 clues he got, and he has an instant hiding place.:mad:

I assume the murderer knows the weapon and location. so realistically he only has to list two things it wasn't and he's all set.

Like I said before, we can't take what everyone says at face value here.. What will be helpful perhaps is looking down the road a few days and catching someone in a day 1 lie.

[RendeR]

i love when i post something and no one reads it.

all you have done is made it possible for the murderer to have enough information to hide behind.

all he has to do now is take one thing that you revealed and one thing that render revealed and repeat them as the 2 clues he got, and he has an instant hiding place.:mad:


I don't think so, because one premise of the board game is that no-one CAN have the same clues, its possible that Passacaglia decided to allow it, but for now I'm going to assume there are no duplicates. (and thus far there have been none)

[Barkeep49]

See I'm thinking that the only person who should be averse is the murderer himself, because I think even the wolves recieved clues.

Pass, can you verify this?
I have to believe the wolves and murderer are linked and would be looking out for each other.

[Chief Rum]

i love when i post something and no one reads it.

all you have done is made it possible for the murderer to have enough information to hide behind.

all he has to do now is take one thing that you revealed and one thing that render revealed and repeat them as the 2 clues he got, and he has an instant hiding place.:mad:

Do you really think we're going to catch the murderer in this manner? Sorry, but I'm not wild on shooting down our most viable plan for catching him on the offchance your wild shot in the dark will work.

[saldana]

Show me where I said it would be bad?

I said it is to soon.

Do you seriously think there arent safeguards in place to balance the game so it isn't as easy as everyone dumping their info out there?

hey someone did read what i posted 3 hours ago!!!

[RendeR]

I assume the murderer knows the weapon and location. so realistically he only has to list two things it wasn't and he's all set.

Like I said before, we can't take what everyone says at face value here.. What will be helpful perhaps is looking down the road a few days and catching someone in a day 1 lie.

And Alan states the real point, its not gonna get us a murderer day 1 or 2 unless he's a complete idiot. (no offense to whomever you are if you DO get caught) but there really is no reason to not let this info out.

[Chief Rum]

Interesting that you got two of teh same category of information while everyone else got one from 2 of the 3.

nothing important I don't think, but interesting to see.

I don't know enough to question it yet, but I thought that was curious, too. I would feel better about Barkeep's information if others also came out with information items relating to the same area.

[Barkeep49]

Interesting that you got two of teh same category of information while everyone else got one from 2 of the 3.

nothing important I don't think, but interesting to see.
Randomly speaking that's to be expected, in a group this large. I was surprised as well when everyone started coming out with different info, but then thought about the math (which I would perform upon request) and realized it's nothing out of the ordinary.

[saldana]

Do you really think we're going to catch the murderer in this manner? Sorry, but I'm not wild on shooting down our most viable plan for catching him on the offchance your wild shot in the dark will work.


what are you talking about....

i am one of the only ones saying we ARENT going catch the murderer by everyone giving all their clues right now.

what viable plan are you talking about

[Chief Rum]

I have to believe the wolves and murderer are linked and would be looking out for each other.

Ah, but the wolves only know the murderer, correct? Not the murder information. They don't know how the murder happened or where. Only who.

So they are limited in how they can look after each other in this proposed plan.

[Lathum]

And Alan states the real point, its not gonna get us a murderer day 1 or 2 unless he's a complete idiot. (no offense to whomever you are if you DO get caught) but there really is no reason to not let this info out.

well the problem I have is it seems TO obvious that we should be revealing info

[Passacaglia]

Pass what happens if the socialite is lynched before a correct accusation has been made? Can you still win the game individually from making a correct accusation?


Yes, the socialite can still win the game, even if they are lynched after the accusation.

[st.cronin]

Ok I just did some arithmetic.

18 non murderers
9 murder weapons
16 rooms

That's a total of 43 clues. 2 clues per non-murderer = 7 clues not distributed. That's if there's no duplication, which I'm guessing there probably is. Ridiculous to think we can catch the murderer this way.

[Chief Rum]

what are you talking about....

i am one of the only ones saying we ARENT going catch the murderer by everyone giving all their clues right now.

what viable plan are you talking about

The viable plan is us revealing this information.

Your "shot in the dark" is everyone keeping their information hidden while we all pray for the murderer to screw up.

Plan A mucho mucho better than Plan B.

[saldana]

I don't think so, because one premise of the board game is that no-one CAN have the same clues, its possible that Passacaglia decided to allow it, but for now I'm going to assume there are no duplicates. (and thus far there have been none)

i cant believe that pass would have created a mechanic that would be so easily defeated as 17 people saying "here are my 100% unique clues" and one person having to say "here are my clues that are the same as someone elses" resulting in their being easily named....takes a bit of the fun out of it.

[Barkeep49]

well the problem I have is it seems TO obvious that we should be revealing info
Except we almost always have collective action problems. I'm actually amazed at how much information has already been revealed. It seems like some of us are always encouraging information revealing, others don't, and there ends up being little info shared initially. If I were the GM I think I'd count on that dynamic and am pleasantly surprised that we've gone against it.

[saldana]

I don't know enough to question it yet, but I thought that was curious, too. I would feel better about Barkeep's information if others also came out with information items relating to the same area.

i wont be giving my clues quite yet, but i will say that they are 2 bits of info in the same category.

[Barkeep49]

Yes, the socialite can still win the game, even if they are lynched after the accusation.
Great except that's not the question I meant to ask. Can there still be an individual socialite victory if the murderer has been lynched before the accusation? Guessing from your last answer the answer is yes, but just want to make sure.

[Chief Rum]

well the problem I have is it seems TO obvious that we should be revealing info

Sometimes a duck is a duck. If we spend our time being supremely cautious, we'll spin in circles of suspicion while the wolves and murderer pick us off one by one.

[saldana]

Ah, but the wolves only know the murderer, correct? Not the murder information. They don't know how the murder happened or where. Only who.

So they are limited in how they can look after each other in this proposed plan.

except for the fact that they can coordinate what they are going to say via PM or IM and then come back one at a time and run the plan.

[Chief Rum]

Ok I just did some arithmetic.

18 non murderers
9 murder weapons
16 rooms

That's a total of 43 clues. 2 clues per non-murderer = 7 clues not distributed. That's if there's no duplication, which I'm guessing there probably is. Ridiculous to think we can catch the murderer this way.

You realize we'll get more clues as the days go on, right? And that determing that 80% of what the murder is NOT, leaves us a much mroe manageable 20% of what it is.

[Alan T]

I never figured we would catch the murderer this way.. However what I am looking for perhaps is ways to narrow down where to look at night, and perhaps come closer to being able to figure out the murderer down the road.

The more we know now means the less we have to figure out.

[Lathum]

except for the fact that they can coordinate what they are going to say via PM or IM and then come back one at a time and run the plan.

I think the rules said th wolves can't communicate

[saldana]

Sometimes a duck is a duck. If we spend our time being supremely cautious, we'll spin in circles of suspicion while the wolves and murderer pick us off one by one.

you do realize we are playing Werewolf, where a duck is never. ever. just a duck.:eek: :D

[Chief Rum]

i cant believe that pass would have created a mechanic that would be so easily defeated as 17 people saying "here are my 100% unique clues" and one person having to say "here are my clues that are the same as someone elses" resulting in their being easily named....takes a bit of the fun out of it.

Fun shmun.If it gets results, I say give it a shot. This is a game with tons of information in it. The way to win the game is through this information. Why are we hiding it?

Even if you think it does no good, how does it help the other side? They can't use this information. It's not going to give them better targets. They already know who the good guys and bad buys are.

There is no downside I can see to revealing this information.

[st.cronin]

You realize we'll get more clues as the days go on, right? And that determing that 80% of what the murder is NOT, leaves us a much mroe manageable 20% of what it is.

That's if you can trust the information that's out there, which I remind you we cannot.

[Barkeep49]

i cant believe that pass would have created a mechanic that would be so easily defeated as 17 people saying "here are my 100% unique clues" and one person having to say "here are my clues that are the same as someone elses" resulting in their being easily named....takes a bit of the fun out of it.
Perhaps the murderer knows, like last game, which clues haven't been given out. I thought that was an elegant game solution in CR's game.

[Lathum]

nevermind, I misread that the wolves and murderer can't communicate

[saldana]

Wolf Kills
Wolves know the identity of the murderer, and the murderer knows the identity of the wolves. However, they will not have PM privileges.



wolves cant talk to the murderer

I think the rules said th wolves can't communicate

but....

[Chief Rum]

except for the fact that they can coordinate what they are going to say via PM or IM and then come back one at a time and run the plan.

So what? It doesn't matter if it's coordinated. Their clues are going to be intentionally wrong, whether they plan it being wrong or not. We know the murderer and the wolves will put out disinformation. The goal of the plan as we gain new bits of information will be to evaluate the sources and determine what is ironclad true and what is a lie.

[saldana]

You are a wolf. You have a chance to kill one socialite per night. You may communicate with the other wolves.


...they can talk to each other

[Chief Rum]

you do realize we are playing Werewolf, where a duck is never. ever. just a duck.:eek: :D

lol...yeah, I know.

The Ripper game is like this, though, I think, from a planning point of view. Lots of bits of information and who's and where's. My guess is that it itself is the game, not a mask for misdirection.

For instance, in my other game, the nightly baseball games were really sort of a misdirection. Yes, they mattered, but the game underneath (the WW game was all that really mattered).

In my Ripper game, the information sent out was key to how the game was run and played. I see this one as much more like that game than my other game.

And, yes, sorry to both Lathum and saldana for bringing up the Ripper game. :D

[Neon_Chaos]

I think we should not be as obsessed to look for the murderer that we're forgetting that we should be looking for the wolves. That's priority #1.

[saldana]

So what? It doesn't matter if it's coordinated. Their clues are going to be intentionally wrong, whether they plan it being wrong or not. We know the murderer and the wolves will put out disinformation. The goal of the plan as we gain new bits of information will be to evaluate the sources and determine what is ironclad true and what is a lie.

check the rules...the wolves all received their own clues, which are just as real as the ones we got as socialites.

[oliegirl]

Count me in the group that thinks sharing the clues we were given in a good thing. I don't see how it could possibly hurt...as in all WW games, you have to start somewhere and I think this is as good a place as any. So, that being said...I know it wasn't Jonathan Ezarik and the murder weapon wasn't the candlestick.

[Chief Rum]

That's if you can trust the information that's out there, which I remind you we cannot.

We can't right now, of course. As I said earlier and as (I believe) it was Lathum said, we don't have a way to evaluate it right now. But we will. As the game progresses, we will get more information and we'll know more of who was lying and who wasn't.

We can't evaluate the information, regardless, if it isn't out there. And since keeping the information only helps the wolves/murderer and doesn't seem to hurt it being revealed, I see no reason to keep it secret.

I do think we should lynch someone, though. Even if they're good, we can then evaluate their information as being true.

[Chief Rum]

...they can talk to each other

Wolf != Murderer

[DaddyTorgo]

damm ripper game. Damm ripper getting lynched N1 and making it hell on evil. We were pretty close to taking that one.

[st.cronin]

We can't right now, of course. As I said earlier and as (I believe) it was Lathum said, we don't have a way to evaluate it right now. But we will. As the game progresses, we will get more information and we'll know more of who was lying and who wasn't.

We can't evaluate the information, regardless, if it isn't out there. And since keeping the information only helps the wolves/murderer and doesn't seem to hurt it being revealed, I see no reason to keep it secret.

I do think we should lynch someone, though. Even if they're good, we can then evaluate their information as being true.

So let me see if I understand this, by way of example. Oliegirl says Jonathan E. is not the murderer. So tomorrow we lynch her (for example). She turns out to be a wolf. Do we lynch JE next?

The problem is that all players (including villagers) have some incentive to put forth both true and false information.

[Swaggs]

Checking in.

Nothing exciting to report.

Will be interesting to see if someone tries to lynch Mrs. Peacock after a few days.

[Chief Rum]

I think we should not be as obsessed to look for the murderer that we're forgetting that we should be looking for the wolves. That's priority #1.

I'm not forgetting that myself. It's just that we don't have that information yet. As per normal WW games, we're not going to have role information or a body of evidence via pages and pages of posts from which to go off of and pin the wolves. We do, however, have information we can evaluate for catching the murderer. Thus, the focus.

[Chief Rum]

check the rules...the wolves all received their own clues, which are just as real as the ones we got as socialites.

Still irrelevant. That just means there's a possibility they aren't lying. If we assume they are lying and only make positive inferences from them, we can still use their information.

[Lathum]

Will be interesting to see if someone tries to lynch Mrs. Peacock after a few days.

why would you say that?

[saldana]

Still irrelevant. That just means there's a possibility they aren't lying. If we assume they are lying and only make positive inferences from them, we can still use their information.

and exactly who are "they"? you want to start making inferences but have no idea on whom to draw them upon. this is completely illogical at this point in the game.

[Chief Rum]

So let me see if I understand this, by way of example. Oliegirl says Jonathan E. is not the murderer. So tomorrow we lynch her (for example). She turns out to be a wolf. Do we lynch JE next?

The problem is that all players (including villagers) have some incentive to put forth both true and false information.

You're taking an extreme and then making the most extreme connection. It's unlikely she is a wolf, but if she was, we wouldn't take anything from her information. We would treat it like we didn't receive it, or only put it to use if we have corroboration.

And if the villager incentive you're talking about is the individual win, I hardly think that's a big deal at this point. If there are people who are deliberately keeping this information abck just in the hopes their key information will get them the individual win, at the cost of the village, well, I find that to be extremely selfish and unlikely, too. I don't think anyone here would be that unselfish this early. Not to mention, at this point everyone revealing information also helps them toward that individual goal as well.

[Lathum]

FWIW my info is 2 things about the same subject

[Neon_Chaos]

Remember, just because someone isn't the murderer, it doesn't mean he or she isn't a wolf.

Any socialite/villager who wants to go for the quick win, feel free, as long as you know damn well that you're right. I might take a stab at it if I feel confident enough.

I know for a fact that LoneStarGirl or oliegirl is not the murderer.

[Neon_Chaos]

Do the wolves have any incentive to keep the murderer alive, though?

[Chief Rum]

and exactly who are "they"? you want to start making inferences but have no idea on whom to draw them upon. this is completely illogical at this point in the game.

"They" are the wolves.

And, I will say this again in bold since some of you refuse to actually read it. This information is not going to help us now, but will down the road.

Of course drawing inferences at this point in the game without anyway to vouch for anyone is illogical. It's not going to help until down the road. I have said this in one way or another now three or four times already.

That doesn't mean we should all hide that information until we can use it. More risk there that it never gets revealed. In fact, there is no risk to revealing that is evident from the rules. There is only risk in NOT revealing.

[st.cronin]

Not to mention, at this point everyone revealing information also helps them toward that individual goal as well.

It helps us if we can trust the information. I know, you're going to say maybe we can't trust the info today but we can re-evaluate it down the road. But if we can't trust the info today, there's no reason to reveal it today.

There's no reason why a villager about to be lynched wouldn't lay his cards on the table. There's plenty of reasons, both selfish and unselfish, for a villager to put out false information when he's not worried about being lynched - I do it in almost every game where I'm a villager, and I know other players do it too.

[oliegirl]

Since we aren't voting tonight and I had a hellacious day at work, I'm going to go crash and watch a movie with my son before going to sleep. Please note this doesn't make me a wolf or the murderer...just someone tired from a very very long day :)

[RendeR]

So let me see if I understand this, by way of example. Oliegirl says Jonathan E. is not the murderer. So tomorrow we lynch her (for example). She turns out to be a wolf. Do we lynch JE next?

The problem is that all players (including villagers) have some incentive to put forth both true and false information.


Ahh but here you hit the main reasoning behind gettingthe inforamtion out there. There are only 7 clues that are not distributed (IF in fact all clues are unique) and saldana's rather blinder driven comments aside, it doesn't force a bad guy to get nailed immediately. Even if the murderer wants to cover himself he doesn't have to take any chances on giving duplicate info, all he has to do is give 2 pieces of the REAL crime scene. he simply says "NOT here and NOT with that."

Seriously folks, there is aboslutely no reason to NOT give out the clues. yes there may be disinformation in there, but that will be found out in time.

Passacaglia: Can you verify wether the clues are all unique or are there duplicates? If you can't say one way or the other thats fine, but I thought I should at least ask.

If they are unique then we have a viable path to follow, if they are not then the path is muddier but still plausible to finding the murderer.

[Poli]

I should have told Pass I'd play if I got to play the murderer.

[Chief Rum]

It helps us if we can trust the information. I know, you're going to say maybe we can't trust the info today but we can re-evaluate it down the road. But if we can't trust the info today, there's no reason to reveal it today.

There's no reason why a villager about to be lynched wouldn't lay his cards on the table. There's plenty of reasons, both selfish and unselfish, for a villager to put out false information when he's not worried about being lynched - I do it in almost every game where I'm a villager, and I know other players do it too.

Yes, there is. If you don't reveal today, you could die without revealing it period. Then it doesn't help anyone but wolves and murderers.

And you must not have ever seen frustrated villagers so "screw you, I'm not telling you anything", or never seen lynch victims not be around at the lynch or never see lynch victims lynched via some late deadline vote that doesn'rt allow them to reveal in time. I wuld say you're taking an awful risk that information doesn't get out, and making a careless assumption that every villager will ve "laying his cards on the table."

Don't give me the "plenty of reasons" and "I have done it" answers. Give me the actual reasons. Why would a villager put out false information?

[saldana]

"They" are the wolves.

And, I will say this again in bold since some of you refuse to actually read it. This information is not going to help us now, but will down the road.

Of course drawing inferences at this point in the game without anyway to vouch for anyone is illogical. It's not going to help until down the road. I have said this in one way or another now three or four times already.

That doesn't mean we should all hide that information until we can use it. More risk there that it never gets revealed. In fact, there is no risk to revealing that is evident from the rules. There is only risk in NOT revealing.


i will put this in bold for you.
i dont appreciate being yelled at in a werewolf game


rule #1 - dont be an asshat

see you all tomorrow

[saldana]

Don't give me the "plenty of reasons" and "I have done it" answers. Give me the actual reasons. Why would a villager put out false information?

to spite people that he perceived acted like a jerk that are still in the game.

[st.cronin]

Don't give me the "plenty of reasons" and "I have done it" answers. Give me the actual reasons. Why would a villager put out false information?

I think you're being intentionally obtuse. There is no way I'm spelling this out for you.

[RendeR]

It helps us if we can trust the information. I know, you're going to say maybe we can't trust the info today but we can re-evaluate it down the road. But if we can't trust the info today, there's no reason to reveal it today.

There's no reason why a villager about to be lynched wouldn't lay his cards on the table. There's plenty of reasons, both selfish and unselfish, for a villager to put out false information when he's not worried about being lynched - I do it in almost every game where I'm a villager, and I know other players do it too.

There is a real good reason, the player being lynched is getting tossed and has no chance at winning the game, why help everyone else at that point? This is where the INDIVIDUAL victory gives us a serious wrench in the works. The "If I can't win, I'm certainly not going to help YOU" theory.

And further the only real reason to not give out clues at this point is literally to be selfish and focus on a singlular victory instead of a villager one.

There is no downside to revealing the clues, why is this such an issue?

[RendeR]

I think you're being intentionally obtuse. There is no way I'm spelling this out for you.


Spell it out for those of us that haven't played 10k games of this then. Whay the hell would you as a villager, give out false information? It sounds like a real easy way to get lynched and screw the village.

[Chief Rum]

i will put this in bold for you.
i dont appreciate being yelled at in a werewolf game


rule #1 - dont be an asshat

see you all tomorrow

Sorry, saldana. I didn't mean to upset you. But, really, I said that several times. Ignoring it doesn't in your responses doesn't make it go away.

[Chief Rum]

I think you're being intentionally obtuse. There is no way I'm spelling this out for you.

Spell it out for me. Please.

[Chief Rum]

to spite people that he perceived acted like a jerk that are still in the game.

And to those people I say leave WW and don't come back until you grow up.

Note, I'm not talking about you, so please don't take it that way. That is just my honest opinion of the hypothetical people who would act in the manner you suggest as a possibility.

[st.cronin]

And further the only real reason to not give out clues at this point is literally to be selfish and focus on a singlular victory instead of a villager one.

Um, no. I strongly disagree. There are very good reasons for the village to try to mislead both the murderer and the wolves about what they know.

[Chief Rum]

Um, no. I strongly disagree. There are very good reasons for the village to try to mislead both the murderer and the wolves about what they know.

Okay. What are they?

[st.cronin]

For one thing, the wolves have to FIND the player they are trying to kill - and where a player is at night relates directly to the clues he has.

[RendeR]

For one thing, the wolves have to FIND the player they are trying to kill - and where a player is at night relates directly to the clues he has.


no one is asking you to GIVE that information cronin, we only want the CLUES, not your night actions, wtf are you talking about?

how does anyone's nightly location relate at all to the clues he has? Please explain it to me because my obviously inneffective brain just can't figure it out.

do tell.

[RendeR]

Gotta log out to run some shut down scripts, back in a bit.

[Chief Rum]

For one thing, the wolves have to FIND the player they are trying to kill - and where a player is at night relates directly to the clues he has.

See, now that's a reason with some legitimacy. Thanks for providing it. Why we should go through two pages of thread dithering about before having one posted, I don't know, but I do appreciate it.

I see that as a reason that also will only carry more legitimacy down the road. The map is pretty big, and no one is locked into going to the rooms that haven't been "outed". Especially since staying in the other rooms may still reveal evidence about the who and the what.

I still see much more value in reveealing, with little true risk, than in keeping quiet.

[st.cronin]

no one is asking you to GIVE that information cronin, we only want the CLUES, not your night actions, wtf are you talking about?

how does anyone's nightly location relate at all to the clues he has? Please explain it to me because my obviously inneffective brain just can't figure it out.

do tell.

Am I the only one who has read the rules? :confused:

To investigate a room you have to be IN that room. If I already know the murder was committed in room X, I won't be in that room.

[Chief Rum]

no one is asking you to GIVE that information cronin, we only want the CLUES, not your night actions, wtf are you talking about?

how does anyone's nightly location relate at all to the clues he has? Please explain it to me because my obviously inneffective brain just can't figure it out.

do tell.

No, he has a point, Render. If we all reveal and thus have some seven clues left "unclaimed for", it could help the wolves narrow down where those people might look for new clues (those "unclaimed rooms"), and thus they would know where potential victims are. There is risk to that, but I also posted my counter argument to that in my response to st.cronin.

[LoneStarGirl]

This game should be fun. I was thinking that if we revealed all our information the game would be over rather quickly wouldn't it?

[Chief Rum]

Am I the only one who has read the rules? :confused:

To investigate a room you have to be IN that room. If I already know the murder was committed in room X, I won't be in that room.

No, I understand what you're driving at. I disagree about the level of risk, but it's a legitimate reason to hide the information.

I still believe revealing the information gives us much more to gain than hiding it. The risk of secrecy far outweighs it being out there, even if it aids the wolves in finding their victims.

PASSACAGLIA: Do the wolves have individual kill orders? As in, more than one person can die per night by wolves, with each of them naming a potential target? Or is it one kill per night?

[Chief Rum]

The Clues
Along with your role, you will receive two or three clues about the murder. These clues will tell you a person, room, or weapon that was NOT involved in the murder. Everyone will receive these clues (socialites and wolves), except the murderer.

Anyone receive three clues?

[Passacaglia]

Yes, each wolf has an individual kill order, so more than one person can be killed by wolves each night.

[st.cronin]

Yes, each wolf has an individual kill order, so more than one person can be killed by wolves each night.

Oof.

[Chief Rum]

Yes, each wolf has an individual kill order, so more than one person can be killed by wolves each night.

Okay, that raises the risk element significantly.

[Passacaglia]

To answer RendeR: There are no duplicate clues.

[Telle]

Finally got caught up. I have three clues. I know the murder was not commited in the Kitchen, Study, or Billiard Room.

[Chief Rum]

Hmm, we have 19 players, one of whom is the murderer. My guess is four total "bad guys", meaning three wolves plus the murderer. You might get one more in there, but anymore than that would certainly unbalance the game.

With three wolves and the right placing, I would imagine you could cover 15/16 of the map and practically ensure you get one target every night. Or if that person does as st.cronin suggests and only goes to rooms that are uncleared, then you can concentrate your focus on those rooms.

I think the key question now is, is there value in going to cleared rooms? Does staying in a supposedly cleared room still reveal information about the other aspects of the murder? If so, even this latest revelation doesn't improve the risk above the value of a mass reveal.

If it does, though, then that would make a mass reveal much more tricky. Leading to my next question...

PASSACAGLIA: Do the same people learn the same things from the a stay in the same room on different nights? So if I stay in the Lounge one night and find a clue, and st. cronin stays in the Lounge the next night, will he also find the same clue?

And can item and murderer identity information only be gained from the room where the murder occurred, or can it be found in any other room?

Hopefully you can respond to some of this.

[Chief Rum]

Finally got caught up. I have three clues. I know the murder was not commited in the Kitchen, Study, or Billiard Room.

Interesting. Not only are you the first to reveal you received three clues, but they are also all the same sort of clue. No, two and one or one of each, but all three.

[Telle]

Yes, each wolf has an individual kill order, so more than one person can be killed by wolves each night.

Plus the murderer gets a guaranteed kill each night. So I'd say that's a good reason to figure out who the murderer is as soon as possible.

[Passacaglia]

PASSACAGLIA: Do the same people learn the same things from the a stay in the same room on different nights? So if I stay in the Lounge one night and find a clue, and st. cronin stays in the Lounge the next night, will he also find the same clue?

And can item and murderer identity information only be gained from the room where the murder occurred, or can it be found in any other room?


Each night, you name a person, room, and weapon. By the next morning, if available, you will learn evidence that one of those three things was not involved in the crime.

[Chief Rum]

Each night, you name a person, room, and weapon. By the next morning, if available, you will learn evidence that one of those three things was not involved in the crime.

Oh, got it. I think I was getting that confused with the accusation element.

Well, that improves things a bit. You don't have to go to uncleared rooms to get information. And we can get corroboration, too, if people get information about other aspects from their nightly actions.

Of course, to get information about the cleared rooms, someone will have to go there and hope they get information from being there, and that person might be at risk from the wolves. But the wolves would still have to be looking for that specific person. I think that risk is acceptable when compared to the value of mass information reveal.

So I would still advocate revealing our clues.

[Passacaglia]

Each night, you name a person, room, and weapon. By the next morning, if available, you will learn evidence that one of those three things was not involved in the crime.

And as soon as I post this, I get a night action that doesn't follow it. Just a reminder: each nightly suggestion MUST have a person, room, and weapon.

[Crim]

Holy Crap, the game has started! Just checking in, I read the rules, haven't read my PM yet, haven't read any discussion. I'll read through, and offer any (unlikely) insights, and whatnot, before going to bed. I will be at work most days at deadline, so I'll contribute mostly late at night.

[Crim]

Dola, my first game, thank goodness I'm a nameless socialite, not too much pressure!

[st.cronin]

Chief, the problem is, let's say I stay in a room that is CLEARED. Pass sends me a message clearing that room. What have I accomplished?

[path12]

Jesus people. I'm here just to check-a-diddily-ding-dong in and there's five damn pages to get through.

And just for RendeR -- I have a role. Dig it.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Another nameless socialite checking in. I know two rooms that the murder was not committed in, but I'm going to hold off on giving that info right now.

[Chief Rum]

Chief, the problem is, let's say I stay in a room that is CLEARED. Pass sends me a message clearing that room. What have I accomplished?

You have corroborated what the previous clue claimant said and given us more backing for what is correct and incorrect. Obviously, it would be better for us to clear items or people not already cleared if you go to a cleared room, but that doesn't mean receiving "room" information doesn't have value.

[Passacaglia]

Great except that's not the question I meant to ask. Can there still be an individual socialite victory if the murderer has been lynched before the accusation? Guessing from your last answer the answer is yes, but just want to make sure.

Must have missed this -- here, the answer is no! Is the murderer is lynched, the best the village can hope for is a shared victory -- if they lynch all the wolves.

[path12]

That's if you can trust the information that's out there, which I remind you we cannot.

Such an obvious point that seems so ignored thus far.

[Chief Rum]

Such an obvious point that seems so ignored thus far.

Keep reading. Trust me, it's addressedm such to the point that I had to bold my response to it.

[st.cronin]

You have corroborated what the previous clue claimant said and given us more backing for what is correct and incorrect. Obviously, it would be better for us to clear items or people not already cleared if you go to a cleared room, but that doesn't mean receiving "room" information doesn't have value.

Um, here you seem to be agreeing with me - when I say a "cleared" room, I mean a room cleared FOR THAT PARTICULAR PERSON. Those rooms are useless to stay in, except to hide out from the wolves.

For example, one of my clues is a room. If I told you what room it was, sure, another villager might stay in it - but that would be a room the wolves might be looking for that villager in. Similarly, the wolves would NOT look for me in that room.

[path12]

Keep reading. Trust me, it's addressedm such to the point that I had to bold my response to it.

Yep, got there. Have a weapon and a room, but I think I'll keep it at that for now -- especially with the room.

[path12]

OK. 19 players.

6 name socialites
1 murderer
? wolves (let's say two just for giggles)

That's nearly half of us (over half if you try 3 wolves) with a role. I'd have to go back and count, but sure seems like there was a ton of nameless socialites checking in.

So if you're a wolf, doesn't seem like a ton of downside to making attempts each night, right? And the murderer is going to make their kill also.

We could be looking at up to 3-4 kills a night, barring Colonel Mustard blocking someone, and assuming the wolves guess rooms right. Add Mrs White's assassin role and we've got a whole lotta killin' in front of us. Interesting.

[Chief Rum]

Um, here you seem to be agreeing with me - when I say a "cleared" room, I mean a room cleared FOR THAT PARTICULAR PERSON. Those rooms are useless to stay in, except to hide out from the wolves.

Incorrect. You can still get weapon or person info. If you get room info that is already out there, it is less useful, but it does corroborate the previous person's claim. It's a trust building mechanism in that sense.

For example, one of my clues is a room. If I told you what room it was, sure, another villager might stay in it - but that would be a room the wolves might be looking for that villager in. Similarly, the wolves would NOT look for me in that room.

In that case, we're in good, because if every person individually will only have cleared a room at night at best. There are 16 rooms in this mansion. The wolves will have to check (16-every room that person claims to have cleared) to find them. And that's assuming the player doesn't return to that room, which he or she may.

It's far more likely the wolves would take into consideration the original crux of your argument--all of the information that is out there. So they wouldn't check a room that was cleared by anyone, much less the person they are looking for. They would concentrate on the uncleared rooms. That was the true danger of what you were suggesting. What you are suggesting with this example is that the wolves would NOT use the information available to them (the information you want to keep secret). So you seem to be going against your own argument with this example.

[Chief Rum]

OK. 19 players.

6 name socialites
1 murderer
? wolves (let's say two just for giggles)

That's nearly half of us (over half if you try 3 wolves) with a role. I'd have to go back and count, but sure seems like there was a ton of nameless socialites checking in.

So if you're a wolf, doesn't seem like a ton of downside to making attempts each night, right? And the murderer is going to make their kill also.

We could be looking at up to 3-4 kills a night, barring Colonel Mustard blocking someone, and assuming the wolves guess rooms right. Add Mrs White's assassin role and we've got a whole lotta killin' in front of us. Interesting.

The potential for a lot of killing is another reason to reveal that information actually. As I pointed out earlier, if the wolves want to kill a specific person, they almost certainly can. By combining their efforts, they can cover 15 of the 16 rooms. So no one is likely to survive being targeted by all three wolves.

My guess is they will only do this when they need to get a kill, and they're not sure the murderer will take care of the needed kill for them. It's more likely they will vary it up, with either all three going their own ways, or two combining and a third his/her own way.

An individual wolf kill has about a 30% chance of working (5/16). Two wolves in tandem cover 10/16, a little over 60%. Point is, it all adds up to about one kill per night for the wolves, and the murderer gets his kill.

So on the average, two people will die every night unless we get a bodyguard protection. And we will probably lynch someone every day.

At that rate, this game ends within five to six days. Not really a point to saying that, just pointing it out. We don't really have all that much time.

[st.cronin]

Incorrect. You can still get weapon or person info. If you get room info that is already out there, it is less useful, but it does corroborate the previous person's claim. It's a trust building mechanism in that sense.



In that case, we're in good, because if every person individually will only have cleared a room at night at best. There are 16 rooms in this mansion. The wolves will have to check (16-every room that person claims to have cleared) to find them. And that's assuming the player doesn't return to that room, which he or she may.

It's far more likely the wolves would take into consideration the original crux of your argument--all of the information that is out there. So they wouldn't check a room that was cleared by anyone, much less the person they are looking for. They would concentrate on the uncleared rooms. That was the true danger of what you were suggesting. What you are suggesting with this example is that the wolves would NOT use the information available to them (the information you want to keep secret). So you seem to be going against your own argument with this example.

No, what I'm suggesting is simply this: If I say I have cleared room X, the wolves, if they decide they want to kill me, will look for me in some other room than X.

[Lathum]

The potential for a lot of killing is another reason to reveal that information actually. As I pointed out earlier, if the wolves want to kill a specific person, they almost certainly can. By combining their efforts, they can cover 15 of the 16 rooms. So no one is likely to survive being targeted by all three wolves.


does it say somewhere there are exactly 3 wolves?

[Chief Rum]

No, what I'm suggesting is simply this: If I say I have cleared room X, the wolves, if they decide they want to kill me, will look for me in some other room than X.

No, I get that. Not sure what changes. You seem to be suggesting the wolves will only follow what you say in searching for you. Why wouldn't they take advantage of all the information that is out there? That was the sticking point of your earlier argument, actually--that by getting all the room information out there, we risked leaving the wolves with a small number of uncleared rooms with which to find us.

What you are now suggesting seems to be that the wolves would ignore all that information (which would work against your original objection) and stick with only what you yourself say about clearing a room. I would say losing 1/16 every night isn't going to significantly increase your risk, and if you were worried, there is nothing stopping you from going back to one of your cleared rooms and hoping you instead get a clue about an item or a person.

[Chief Rum]

does it say somewhere there are exactly 3 wolves?

No, that's my assumption. I posted a little above about that. But, yes, you're right, it's more likely if it's not three wolves, that it will be four, then two. Two is way too small, but four a little more understandable.

Still, considering that there is also a murderer afoot, I think four bad guys is a reasonable guess for 19 players. What do you think?

[Crim]

No, what I'm suggesting is simply this: If I say I have cleared room X, the wolves, if they decide they want to kill me, will look for me in some other room than X.

Okee, caught up... I have three clues, only two of which I'll share: SnDvls is not the murderer (obviously I have no opinion yet on his lycanthropy situation), and the murder was not commited with the Frying Pan.

I also know a room that's clear, but I'll choose not to share it atm, for the same reasons that Cronin has been preaching.

[st.cronin]

No, I get that. Not sure what changes. You seem to be suggesting the wolves will only follow what you say in searching for you. Why wouldn't they take advantage of all the information that is out there? That was the sticking point of your earlier argument, actually--that by getting all the room information out there, we risked leaving the wolves with a small number of uncleared rooms with which to find us.

What you are now suggesting seems to be that the wolves would ignore all that information (which would work against your original objection) and stick with only what you yourself say about clearing a room. I would say losing 1/16 every night isn't going to significantly increase your risk, and if you were worried, there is nothing stopping you from going back to one of your cleared rooms and hoping you instead get a clue about an item or a person.


No, my objection has been that THERE IS NO REASON FOR US TO TRUST THAT ANYBODY, VILLAGER OR WOLF, IS PUTTING FORWARD GOOD INFORMATION. Now you are trying to engage me in the reasons why, which as I have said are myriad.

[Crim]

Having said that, I do think there is value in everyone sharing thier non-room clues. As CR points out, this info will likely become more valuable in the future, as we're able to start constructing a COT.

I'm curious, though, does anyone have an opinion of whether someone who is attacked but protected by Col. Mustard gets any info? Will they even be notified that they were attacked? If not, it's going to be hard to corroborate any bodyguard reveal.

Also, will we know if Mr. Green (or Prof Plum) scans us? I've prolly only read through about five WW games, and generally the scannee gets some sort of info, yes?