Werewolf Lite CCCLXXXII: Ponies!

[jeray2000]

Vote Count

Dr.Livingstone - 4
Daffius[163]
johho888[164]
LatinKaiser[167]
Rovsea [175]

Claude LC - 2
Health[171]
De Chatillon[169]

Wagonlitz - 2
EUROO7 [146]
Jacksonian Missionary[162]

Rovsea - 1
Dr. Livingstone [156]

Daffius - 1
Dorei[178]


Not Voted -
@Wagonlitz
@Clophiroth
@Claude LC

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

Shoot, meant to post a defense earlier, will do so now.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Not sure how much stock I put in the Livingstone case. It is, IIRC, the only case aside from the case on me though. If we are to follow Livingstone's argument then both him and Claude are suspicious, as relayed by johho, though, and Claude is 2 down from Livingstone. On the other hand Livingstone might have intoxicatedly crovaxed, but as mentioned I'm not sure how much stock to put in that case---i.e. I'm not terribly convinced of it.

So I roll with the having voted a known goodie one and Claude has less votes than Livingstone.
Vote Claude

 

[jeray2000]

Vote Count ~ 25 Minutes to Deadline

Dr.Livingstone - 4
Daffius[163]
johho888[164]
LatinKaiser[167]
Rovsea [175]

Claude LC - 3
Health[171]
De Chatillon[169]
Wagonlitz[183]

Wagonlitz - 2
EUROO7 [146]
Jacksonian Missionary[162]

Rovsea - 1
Dr. Livingstone [156]

Daffius - 1
Dorei[178]


Not Voted -
@Clophiroth
@Claude LC

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

Right, as I was trying to say last night, we can categorise yesterday's suspicious activity into two parts, those who voted for SpockyT and those who didn't vote. As aedan noted earlier, voting for a goodie is not necessarily a sign of baddiness, but it's not exactly a sign of being a goodie yourself. Still, I find it, and any activity at all, less suspicious than being a zombie. Hence I voted Rov and asked the other two non votes to explain themselves. I still think Rov is a decent candidate and should be investigated further.

 

[Wagonlitz]

but it's not exactly a sign of being a goodie yourself.

So true; but how is it in any way a sign against that player either though? After all a goodie will have absolutely no way of knowing who's a goodie and who isn't, so especially on the first day goodies actually are expected to mainly vote goodies, statistically, just because there's three times the amount of goodies as baddies.

In fact I have long held it suspicious when people try to make cases against others, where the cases solely are that they voted a goodie. Later in the game if they only voted goodies, especially in races with a goodie and a baddie, it starts becoming suspicious. But after day 1 it's just statistical variance.

And non voters are shifty indeed, since they had over 24 hours to vote and it was clearly stated that yesterday was day 1 and not day 0. I would be willing to look at a Rovs switch, though for obvious reasons I want several people willing to it before committing to it. (I'm in the running too, after all.)

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

So true; but how is it in any way a sign against that player either though? After all a goodie will have absolutely no way of knowing who's a goodie and who isn't, so especially on the first day goodies actually are expected to mainly vote goodies, statistically, just because there's three times the amount of goodies as baddies.

In fact I have long held it suspicious when people try to make cases against others, where the cases solely are that they voted a goodie. Later in the game if they only voted goodies, especially in races with a goodie and a baddie, it starts becoming suspicious. But after day 1 it's just statistical variance.

And non voters are shifty indeed, since they had over 24 hours to vote and it was clearly stated that yesterday was day 1 and not day 0. I would be willing to look at a Rovs switch, though for obvious reasons I want several people willing to it before committing to it. (I'm in the running too, after all.)

By itself? It's not much of a case. It can however be the basis for an investigation as to why that particular user chose to vote for that character when they did. In the case of Claude, he broke a tie to put SpockyT over the edge, and so is more suspicious in my eyes than, say, if it was just another vote. In fact, as the Rov case appears quiet for now, I think I'll

Unvote Rov
Vote Claude

 

[Clophiroth]

It´s not the deadline yet? I have been outside all day.

I vote Dr.Livingstone, I am joining the Wagon

 

[johho888]

Regarding non-voters, yesterday was new year's eve as well as the first day of the game. Isn't it possible that people were otherwise engaged and didn't check the forum to see if the game had started?

Regarding the voted a goodie thing. Normally, and especially in a big game, I'd say it's not a very likely method for finding baddies. In a Lite on day 2, with day 1 being so close to a 5-way TIE it's not that bad I think. If you are a baddie, I don't think you would dare vote a packmate when every little vote might get someone lynched. If that assumption is true (I play too little Lite to know) then statistically there would be slightly more baddies voting any random goodie than baddies voting any random player.

 

[Claude LC]

Really don't have too much time. Traveling back home and have to take another plane right now.
Can't work on a defense but for tomorrow will.
Voting for self preservation.

Vote Dr Livingstone

 

[jeray2000]

Vote Count ~ 7 Minutes to Deadline

Dr.Livingstone - 6
Daffius[163]
johho888[164]
LatinKaiser[167]
Rovsea [175]
Clophiroth[188]
Claude LC[190]

Claude LC - 4
Health[171]
De Chatillon[169]
Wagonlitz[183]
Dr.Livingstone[156 Rovsea --> 187]

Wagonlitz - 2
EUROO7 [146]
Jacksonian Missionary[162]

Daffius - 1
Dorei[178]

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

It´s not the deadline yet? I have been outside all day.

I vote Dr.Livingstone, I am joining the Wagon

Oh come on, that's just super wolffish behaviour right there!

 

[Wagonlitz]

In the case of Claude, he broke a tie to put SpockyT over the edge, and so is more suspicious in my eyes than, say, if it was just another vote.

He broke the TIE 8 minutes to deadline. That's not really suspicious, since somebody has to break it. And hadn't the game been so inactive, for obvious reasons, there might have been gained info. As it stands I don't see how him breaking the TIE was bad.

You are aware that it was a fourway he broke? As a baddie he easily could have sniped in a five way which, while probably leading to his death, would almost have won the game for the goodies. Had he done that we'd be 10 players left and hence on the last day.

So actually he looks less suspicious now, since he did the goodie thing (break the large TIE) instead of allowing it to stand (claim not being on due to New Years, which would be really easy), or exploit the inactivity and make a fiveway.

Unvote Claude
Vote Livingstone

 

[aedan777]

Vote Count ~ 7 Minutes to Deadline

Dr.Livingstone - 6
Daffius[163]
johho888[164]
LatinKaiser[167]
Rovsea [175]
Clophiroth[188]
Claude LC[190]

Claude LC - 4
Health[171]
De Chatillon[169]
Wagonlitz[183]
Dr.Livingstone[156 Rovsea --> 187]

Wagonlitz - 2
EUROO7 [146]
Jacksonian Missionary[162]

Daffius - 1
Dorei[178]

You're missing my vote on Livingstone here-

I agree that Dr. Livingstone's attempt at analysis might well be a crovax. It certainly doesn't lead purely in the direction he would attempt to claim it does, seeing as he also voted a known goodie yesterday. Not that I think voting a known goodie is a particularly good indicator of wolfishness, since it's hardly like villagers know who the wolves are. Through sheer probability villagers are most likely to vote villagers, making an approach to vote those who vote villagers unlikely to bear fruit. So Livingstone uses an analysis method that has a poor chance of success, says that some players we don't know 100% are villagers (well I know I am a villager, but the rest of you don't), and he neglects to mention the person most implicated by his theory is in fact himself. Taken together, I think he's a very good lynch for today.

Vote Dr. Livingstone

I would have mentioned this sooner, but I've been fighting my computer to get Flash to stop crashing for the past hour and a half.

 

[jeray2000]

Deadline

 

[Wagonlitz]

Oh come on, that's just super wolffish behaviour right there!

It indeed is; and we will look into it tomorrow, since it well could have been a sellout or lazy vote.

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

Oh, happy New Years btw.

 

[johho888]

Oh, happy New Years btw.

Indeed, happy new years everyone! Spread the friendlieness all over this place and the next. *gnägg*

 

[Wagonlitz]

Happy New Years.

Also on second thought aedan's story doesn't really hold water, since there's no reason he would need to allow flash to run on the fora as explained in the bar (I went there in an attempt at stop spamming the games to make them more friendly and inviting to new players).

 

[jeray2000]

Vote Count

Dr.Livingstone - 8
Daffius[163]
johho888[164]
LatinKaiser[167]
Rovsea [175]
Clophiroth[188]
Claude LC[190]
aedan777[173]
Wagonlitz[183 Claude LC --> 193]

Claude LC - 3
Health[171]
De Chatillon[169]
Dr.Livingstone[156 Rovsea --> 187]

Wagonlitz - 2
EUROO7 [146]
Jacksonian Missionary[162]

Daffius - 1
Dorei[178]

Any objections?