Yeah, part is that, and other part is me thinking that you want to lynch him because it would be best for you.Maybe because you're defense it's your job to not like it?
Trials of Murder [GAME THREAD]
- Thread starter LivingAngryCheese
- Start date
I'm just applying logic and seeing what sticks. I also partially agree with the people saying that we shouldn't let everyone go innocent. If we do, we'll never get any wolves. Though I don't agree that we should be lynching one person every night for no reason.
Now, let me just lay my logic out for the world a bit better regarding my reasons.
If dragonfang is a villager:
- He's entirely worthless to us if he isn't active.
- If he does have a power role, it's wasted on him. Therefore we can assume that he's a vanillager because even if he is a bodyguard/jailer then he's not using that power at all.
- If he's lynched, then we gain nothing. We'd just have another dead inactive villager.
- If he's lynched, we don't lose much more than a slight numbers advantage.
- If he's spared, we gain a slight numbers advantage. He buys a bit of time to get the actual wolves. He can be safely ignored because if he is a wolf, then he's worthless to them too. If he's the final wolf, then we basically win by default.
- He'd be entirely worthless to the wolves as well. If the active wolves get lynched, then they would lose anyways because dragon wouldn't schedule any kills.
- If he's lynched, then we gain quite a bit. We'd know that only one wolf remains and would be that much closer to victory.
- If he's lynched, then we don't lose anything at all.
- If he's spared, then he could be ignored until the end when there's one wolf left. If there's one wolf left and no kills are made one night, we could safely assume that dragonfang is the last wolf.
If we lynch him, we either have a dead villager who was worth slightly more alive then dead, or we have a dead wolf and all would be well.
If we spare him, we either have a number advantage against the wolves, or we have a proven wolf/villager when there's only one wolf remaining. Either way that's good.
So actually I changed my mind a bit. Maybe we should spare him if he doesn't speak up. If he stays inactive, he could still prove slightly useful. If he becomes active again, then cool we have another player in the mix which can only be good.
I'll mull this over a bit as there's still like 8 hours for me to make a final decision.
That makes me think its best keep him alive for now and then only lynch him if we have no other better option.
As I said, I didn't consider the fact that if he'd be as useless a wolf as he is a villager due to his inactivity.
I've read the thread on and off throughout the day. But it's just very difficult to find anything concrete with most people being a villager..
Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk
Guys, the trick with this whole "lynch somebody vs lynch nobody" thing is really simple. You (the real town, not me) need to do a better job of picking the two most suspicious plebes to put up here. You're not going to get anywhere by always ensuring you lynch at least one of them: statistically you will lose most games in this setup doing that.
Note that this is not a loss. There's an awful lot of information to be gleaned just by going through the discussions. I'd rather let two villagers go and the wolf eats one and gain valuable data, then hope and pray I'm possibly lynching a wolf.
Last night was a great example: you picked two guys, one of them had a sufficiently wolfy profile that we called him on it in the defendant thread, and when he fessed up, spwnx voted him into oblivion. Let's try to keep going in that logical direction guys.
Note that this is not a loss. There's an awful lot of information to be gleaned just by going through the discussions. I'd rather let two villagers go and the wolf eats one and gain valuable data, then hope and pray I'm possibly lynching a wolf.
Last night was a great example: you picked two guys, one of them had a sufficiently wolfy profile that we called him on it in the defendant thread, and when he fessed up, spwnx voted him into oblivion. Let's try to keep going in that logical direction guys.
Hiya! Prosecutor with too much time on his hands here. I have no strong opinion on J either way right now, but I believe this argument's flawed.
It's based around the burden of proof fallacy, where you made the claim that "the_J has never taken a cynical anti-murder tone as a wolf in any werewolf game ever" without any supporting evidence (such as "Here's cynical anti-murder J as a villager! *quote*"). The burden of proof falls to whoever tries to disprove it, since they'd have to search a huge number of games for any kind of relevant information.
Speaking of which:
-
- -"Murder at Monocon", the_j the Identity Theft (anti-town neutral)
-
- -"Beware, wolf!", the_j the Rabid Wolf (wolf)
-
- -"Heaven and Hell", the_j the Gem Wolf (wolf)
No crazy defenses were attempted, and respect to you and Spwn for that.
...I'm not sure how much of it resulted from your clients not having stories for most of the day, but still.
Hey, no sweat. Vike and I are fact-checking each other best we can (neither of us voted guilty on Real yesterday, for example), and y'all have been doing a great job of challenging us where you see bad evidence. The discussion this game has been awesome.
Your tone's changed a little over the last few days, by the way.
Never change.
Last edited:
Good post! I agree with your first three cases, but I don't fully understand your fourth. Help me out.
In the Spare -> Wolf branch (underlined), we have a "proven wolf/villager" when one wolf is left. What does that mean? Like, to use your example, say we spared dragon_fang today and he stayed alive until one wolf remained. Are you saying he'd then be a proven wolf? A proven villager? Proven to be either a wolf or a villager?
Hmm let me see. My argument probably touches on burden of proof but I don't actually mind in this instance for the simple reason that the alternative borders on proving a negative. I don't want to prove that the_J never does something. No burden on you though, you can just take my word for it
(Teasing)That said, its common to to refer to someone's playstyle when profiling them in werewolf, and nobody expects anyone to cite specific examples. Its your prerogative if you wanna call bullshit. I don't see your examples as contradicting my statement
Nope, I profiled them as too sketchy to defend until I could get them to natter with me.
+1 !
BustedYour tone's changed a little over the last few days, by the way.
Never change.
One-time angle for my amusement though since I had the opportunity. Not over the last few days, just that one statement I genuinely feel you're in the same bind I was in last night. I don't expect you to find him innocent on my recommendation (You'd have to have the glorious honour of a SpwnX to do that) but I think you'll admit there's nothing jail-worthy about either of these gentlemen.
BTW, this whole lack of activity situation: I wonder how much worse it would have been if Vike hadn't been cattle-prodding the town to discuss stuff, jebus.
@All, please contribute to the game if you sign up
@All, please contribute to the game if you sign up
I'd like to point out that in heaven and hell, when that post was made the_j was not a wolf. He was a survivor, a role whos win condition is just to survive to the end, but he was planning to kill someone with the copycat gem set to viketep's imp role and it just so happened to turn him into a wolf.Hiya! Prosecutor with too much time on his hands here. I have no strong opinion on J either way right now, but I believe this argument's flawed.
It's based around the burden of proof fallacy, where you made the claim that "the_J has never taken a cynical anti-murder tone as a wolf in any werewolf game ever" without any supporting evidence (such as "Here's cynical anti-murder J as a villager! *quote*"). The burden of proof falls to whoever tries to disprove it, since they'd have to search a huge number of games for any kind of relevant information.
Speaking of which:
- -"Murder at Monocon", the_j the Identity Theft (anti-town neutral)
- -"Beware, wolf!", the_j the Rabid Wolf (wolf)
- -"Heaven and Hell", the_j the Gem Wolf (wolf)
No crazy defenses were attempted, and respect to you and Spwn for that.
...I'm not sure how much of it resulted from your clients not having stories for most of the day, but still.
Hey, no sweat. Vike and I are fact-checking each other best we can (neither of us voted guilty on Real yesterday, for example), and y'all have been doing a great job of challenging us where you see bad evidence. The discussion this game has been awesome.
Your tone's changed a little over the last few days, by the way.
Never change.
I call on... the glorious honour of a SpwnX!
If I understand this correctly, no information is gained from sparing an inactive player unless he is the only inactive player remaining.
Both trial candidates today are very much inactive (each has ~2 game-related posts so far), and other low-posters like Nojr and erindalc aren't even on the stand. Any one of them could be spared and thus proven as a wolf, I agree, but not while the other 3 are still alive. Process of elimination cannot apply when there are four unknowns.
If we spare him and we reach a point where there's one wolf left, then if it is dragonfang, we'd know because there would be no kill the next day. Meanwhile if there is a kill the next day, then we can be certain that dragonfang is a villager as he is missing and wouldn't have made the kill.
That was my logic at the time at least. It is true that no kill doesn't necessarily mean that dragon would be a wolf. It could mean that a different inactive player is the wolf, or that the remaining wolf wanted the town to believe that dragon was the last wolf so he abstained from killing that night to get dragonfang lynched.
The implication here is that the guys on trial are the only source of information. On the contrary, it's far more interesting seeing who is excited to kill someone and who takes a more considered approach.