Meaning the wolves aren't any old dumbasses. It's probably two experienced players and a newer one, since blah said he'd change it if it were unfair (3 newbs or 3 vets). I'd say look for some of the ones who are more devious. Guido and Hans were sneaky wolves in Infiltration. I'm not saying that it's definite, but there could be a possibility that they're going to pull another quick one. (ex. get more than one kill in a night, make us believe that someone who is a human is a wolf, while wolfing another one during their turn)

Still not a safe risk to vote one of the better players on day one I feel

Okay, people are just saying the same thing over and over again, about this whole double reverse pyschology thing, while it may be a possibilty, it is not going to help us at this point, because it is almost impossible to figure out, so I'm not sure what to go off of right now.

@whorli: No vote is ever random ;). I purposely voted Roopert because he is known to be rather quiet, and we need all the people we can get to be active as possible, think of the vote as kind of a boost, and, I wanted to see how he responded. Remember, in TWG 8 LD was a wolf, and went along his whole "I always random vote, so i'm not suspicous, and later on he ends up being a wolf, I just don't want the same thing happening with Roopert.

Well, I haven't posted in awhile, so here's my two cents.

Personally, since I have nothing better to go on, I like the double reverse psychology-thing. Reverse psychology may be an endless cycle, but I believe it ends on double. I personally do not feel strongly enough to vote on it though.

I also think that we are not going to really get anywhere until Day 2, so we are just grasping for straws. I don't want to lynch a human, no one does (wolves aside of course) but we are very likely going to do just that. The wolves are not stupid, and they would need to have an I.Q. of 4 to make an obvious mistake on Day 1.

Don't mean to be so negative, but it's a little depressing

Anyone else wondering where Kefit is?

Kefit's working or something. I think it's the same for Kilga.

He is probably working, many people have lives outside this game, and he could be busy, but he might be a good night one lynching, so we can minimize our losses.(if he is human of course)

I CAN'T agree that lynching Kefit or Kilga would minimize our losses. I still maintain that we need to take this to the deadline to make the most educated vote we can. After that, though, it's up for grabs. I personally would vote for Matt or Mead simply because I don't know what they're capable of (anyone recall my Day 1 vote for roopert in TWG II?). Heh, funny thing is that I rolled a die in the chat room for the sake of seeing for whom my random vote would be and it came up as Kefit.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

mead keeps advocating this reverse reverse psychology junk. I'm tempted to vote Matthew, but his PM business may be due to a special role, and I'd rather not risk killing a special person. Also, don't take this vote too seriously. It's mostly just that I don't know when the day ends and I don't want any phantoms ;D

I'm not saying to vote off Kilga or Kefit to minimize our losses, I just happened to muse about Kefit's whereabouts directly after that rant of hopelessness. Just some wacky coincidence. I didn't know Kefit was working and I am sorry if my statement appeared to imply anything.

I was talking about what TPS said, both here and in the chat.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

I don't really have much to say as of yet. Analyzing the night one kill isn't going to get us anywhere, mostly for the reasons that aperson gave. Besides that, no one has said anything or done anything that strikes me as odd.

Well, actually, the Tps quote that I just provided does. Aside from the fact that he is trying to raise suspicion against me for an invalid reason (for the last freaking time, inactivity does not equal wolfishness), the way it is worded strikes me as odd. He is stating that I might be a "good night one lynching" under the assumption that I am human. Lynching a human is never a good lynching.

I'm going to hold off on my vote for now, but I am watching Tps closely.

HEY GUYS

HOW ABOUT WE VOTE OFF WHO WE THINK ARE WOLVES


I don't care if we have no leads. We can't just go and vote off the inactive people just because we don't want to lose someone that is available for this 24/7. If we do that, we might as well just give the game to the wolves, right here and now.

True that. Inactivity has never been shown to prove wolfishness. But I think what TPS was saying is that most likely we'll vote of a human, so we might as well vote off somebody who isn't coming to the forefront. The wolves will be killing all the people who add to discussion, and if we lynch those people too the thread will become very inactive and nothing will happen except we'll all die and the wolves will win. Voting off an inactive player is a good bet because random chance shows they could be a wolf, but if they are a human then at least we didn't kill somebody who is contributing a lot.

Not that I agree with his reasoning, just that it's more than "he's inactive, he must be a wolf."

Yeah, Hans has a point.

It's Day 1, you can't really tell too much out of anything except if you talk to the person privately, and I doubt that they will really say anything too sketchy because they're trying to be really cautious. It seems more things start to spill after a few days have passed, so it's best to just try to pick up little things by yourself until you and others can come to a consensus about who has racked up the most "suspicious points" and lynch them. It's THEIR fault for acting like an idiot and suspiciously.

voting ends in 25.5 hours to clarify...
Carry on.

evilbutterfly has the right idea, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily going to have to happen. We can chill on the voting, because we still have lots of time. I would rather we take a 1/4 chance on one of the less active / helpful posters then go on really bad reasoning and take out one of our valuable players, like guido or kilga, or kefit.

Kilga said activity doesn't mean wolfishness. That's true, but that's not the point. The point I want to make no is that activity doesn't not mean useseless. Kefit and Kilga are both good players. I think those chats are a good idea, because there are a couple of people who act like jackasses the whole time and avoid any real talking. These people could be wolves. Then there are people that act entirely too serious and get mad when people go off topic - overdoing it essentially - this is suspicious. Then I'm sure there's the completely perfectly blended in wolf that is serious when he needs to be, and a jackass when he can eb. *be ;)

I would like to agree with Kefit's suspicions on tps' statement. Note how if you read his statement and apply it, he saws if they were wolves, it would be a bad lynching. That was really, really, badly worded, or it was the mistake I said that the wolves would never make. Tps is also on my radar now.

Also, I am no longer suspicious of Guido. When tps suggested the "damage control" lynching, it would have been the perfect time to come up with some inane support of it that might get a few of us to join up too. I really don't think a wolf would pass up an oppurtunity like that. Then again, he kilga and kefit could all be wolves, but I'm not going there.

As I said in the chat, probability is that we are getting a human night one, so it is better to off someone who isn't contributing much. I know that there isn't too much talk about, but it would be nice to be around. Kefit has been a little more active, so he should stay, since he is a good player, but I am going to have to stay with my inactivity vote for night one, which I will change as soon as I get home from school. We need the most active people as possible, not talking does not help us.

As what Mead is saying about my post, I meant that it would be a plus if he is a wolf, and we got lucky.