# View Single Post

1. ## Re: The Thing

Spoiler: CaoimhinTheCape ISO
Originally Posted by CaoimhinTheCape
Just seeing the thread now, so I'll have a post with my thoughts later today. Still wrapping my head around the rules but a quick question on the voting extension: assuming we get a Thing and have another round to vote, do we get two votes in the extra round or one?
Null, rules clarification.

Originally Posted by CaoimhinTheCape
Caerulea's suggestion

Spoiler

So, from the original post, Cae suggests that we vote in a set order, saying we'll get a thing guaranteed by round 10. This math seems like it's based on one test though, since two votes gives us a thing guaranteed in the 6th round or earlier.

I don't like the pre-decided plan since we're telegraphing what we're doing to the Things, but with two votes per round it technically works as we'd get to a correct lynch at LyLo and then could chain a couple kills to keep the game going (unless Valmark happened to be the original thing).

Fair point about the plan, but this is when we assumed that it was one lynch per day.

I like this post overall, even if part of the analysis is from when we thought 1 vote. Like the point about this killing discussion.

It was obvious that she thought we'd have two votes from her first post, but the second part I could see either as genuine town or a Thing backtracking.

Reading this as null. Yes, Caerulea moved herself off Day 1 of a list... only to put herself on Day 2?

EDIT: OK, this argument makes sense. In a game with 1 Thing game the list change is a difference between auto-losing and having a shot. In a 2 Thing game the list change doesn't make as much of a difference. I'm assuming 2 Things, given that we have 2 votes per day and a 1 player team that could lost randomly on Day 1 wouldn't be fun.

Cutting down the post to the main analysis part, but I like this so far. The ranked list is helpful for analysis and I like the idea of making groups and picking someone random from them, rather than a straight order. This assumes we don't get anywhere with analysis (which, ya know, is the best option) but I like the different ideas floated.

As it relates to Caerulea's post, it's a good analysis of the idea which works OK for a two vote game but not for a one vote.

The Outsider

Spoiler: The Outsider

Completely ignores discussion on Caerulea's plan.

It's only the beginning of the day so I'm not worried about the ranked list yet, but there was other discussion going on that you didn't touch on at all.

Jeen Leen

Spoiler

I disagree with the AvatarVecna reasoning from an out of game perspective. That's going on an assumption of the narrator giving out roles in a way that isn't random which (unless the game is explicitly says this) isn't exactly fair.

I understand the defense of Caerulea (townie suggesting a flawed plan over her being a Thing) but something about the wording bothers me.

The vote on Valmark confuses me. If I'm reading your reasoning right... Valmark's questioning is good and Townish, but anyone could do it so Valmark is a Thing?

Self Voting is something I'll touch on below. For the second part, we do need to thread the line of not giving the Things too much info vs getting the town on board with good plans by explaining them.

Apogee

Spoiler

I'd like more explanation for the votes (even if I agree with them) and what you misremembered regarding Elenna?

AvatarVecna

Spoiler

I'd like more words from AV. I could guess your reasoning for the votes but won't put words in your mouth.

Book Wombat
Spoiler

Even if you're not great on analysis, there should be enough here for more than a random vote, yes? Looking for a little more when you have a chance to post, even if it isn't a full analysis.

Now that I'm caught up. In almost all cases I don't see how voting yourself is helpful to the town.

• As anyone, we don't get as much analysis from who you're willing to vote.
• As a townie, this is a known wasted test.
• As a townie who is suspected and wants to prove your innocence... well, you're suspicious and people are already voting you.
• As a Thing, this can be done to get brownie points if you're not in danger of being tested.

As for my list:

1. JeenLeen - Has given decent reasons not to vote the people he's voting.
2. The Outsider - Ignores Caerulea's plan and the discussion of it. Posted a few times, so avoiding that seems suspicious.
3. Caerulea - Made a plan under the idea of 2 votes a day (which wasn't perfect). Points for trying, but the arguments for her being a Thing are also decent.

4. PartyOfRouges - No posts.
5. Book Wombat - Don't love completely random votes at the moment, especially when they line up with the vote leader anyway.
6. AvatarVecna - One post on rules clarification and another with only votes. Don't like it but AV has been quiet early games as town in the past.

7. Apogee1 - Not as much to go on, but OK for now.
8. Valmark - Not as sure as the people below but nothing pinged me as evil yet.

9. Grek - Good analysis, town read so far.
10. Elenna - Good analysis, town read so far. Has a few extra posts so gets the bottom spot.

I separated it out into groups just to give people a little separation. I'm happy with any of the top three as a vote for now, but I think it's ideal to have at least 3 competing wagons since 2 people are tested each day.

Could be convinced to vote for 4-6 today, depending on how it goes. Don't see myself voting for anyone I ranked 7+.

Vote Count:

Avatar Vecna (2): Valmark, AvatarVecna
Caerulea (6): Elenna, Grek, JeenLeen, Valmark, AvatarVecna, Book Wombat
Valmark (1): JeenLeen
CaoimhinTheCape (2): Caerulea, Book Wombat
The Outsider (4): Caerulea, Apogee1, The Outsider, CaoimhinTheCape
JeenLeen (4): Apogee1, The Outsider, Elenna, CaoimhinTheCape

Not voting: PartyOfRouges, PartyOfRouges, Grek
Massive analysis post and a readlist. Let's touch on a bit of that analysis:

Reading this as null. Yes, Caerulea moved herself off Day 1 of a list... only to put herself on Day 2?

EDIT: OK, this argument makes sense. In a game with 1 Thing game the list change is a difference between auto-losing and having a shot. In a 2 Thing game the list change doesn't make as much of a difference. I'm assuming 2 Things, given that we have 2 votes per day and a 1 player team that could lost randomly on Day 1 wouldn't be fun.
Let's rephrase so you see why this looks weird to me:

"Moving yourself from D1 to D2 tests isn't suspicious."

"I mean, it isn't suspicious if this is a 2 Thing game, which I think it is. If this is a 1 Thing game, it's very suspicious of course."

This kinda looks like a Thing who knows and always knew there were 2 Things, and doesn't get why people are so concerned about Caerulea's list change, then suddenly realizes and edits in his new understanding. Cao's good at analysis, and knows how strong cults can be if they start with too many, I don't think he would've immediately discounted a 1-Thing game if he were a townie. I might be wrong though.

Originally Posted by CaoimhinTheCape
OK, I can see what you guys are saying. There have definitely been games where suspicion just hung around on people but we didn't get a chance to test them (especially with having the person live if they're good). I don't think it's something I would do but there are reasons it could help.

Got a few other thoughts regarding the above but I think it's best to keep them to myself, at least until Day 2.

As for the other things that have happened since my post, Apogee answered (which is fine).

Book Wombat, I was more looking for why you chose people randomly when there are reasons to vote for someone.

AV's post was good, makes me feel better about her.

Not gonna do an updated list yet since it hasn't changed too much. I'm not a fan of voting AV right now though, so it would be the top half of my list that I'm willing to vote.

Vote Count:

Avatar Vecna (2): Valmark, JeenLeen
Caerulea (6): Elenna, Grek, JeenLeen, Valmark, AvatarVecna, Book Wombat
CaoimhinTheCape (2): Caerulea, Book Wombat
The Outsider (4): Caerulea, Apogee1, The Outsider, CaoimhinTheCape
JeenLeen (6): Apogee1, The Outsider, Elenna, CaoimhinTheCape, AvatarVecna, Grek

Not voting: PartyOfRouges, PartyOfRouges
Walking back their statement in the face of decent arguments. I like it. It feels genuine.

Unsure what to make of Cao. They've called out a bunch of people in little ways, and defended Caerulea in a way that makes me think they're scummy, but then Caerulea had Cao at the top of her scumlist...hrm. I'm currently leaning town, or at the very least not the person we're testing today.

- - - Updated - - -

Spoiler: The Outsider ISO
Originally Posted by The Outsider
Hmm. Ordinarily, I'd RNG vote from the whole list to start things off. But since the vote only kills evils, I honestly feel a bit better about starting a wagon early. So I'm going to vote for the first person who received a vote: AvatarVecna.
Post order:

Caerulea: [awful plan]
Apogee1: "that plan is awful"
Elenna: "that plan is awful"
The Outsider: [essentially RNG vote]

This isn't necessarily proof, but it's potentially corroborating evidence.

Originally Posted by The Outsider
I'm going to switch my vote to JeenLeen. I see the point you're making about AV and agree in theory, but I can't deny that it would be an excellent way for a Thing to protect another Thing. This seems like it might be a stretch, though, so I might change it later. On another note, I'll gladly vote for The Outsider as my second vote.

Also, I like the idea of ranked lists. I'll make one after I've had a bit more time to observe, because I'm very slow when it comes to these games.
Still no comment on anything to do with Caerulea despite everybody else getting swept up in it.

Originally Posted by The Outsider
Hoo boy. I am not going to do well with this game.
I don't have any good reason for my initial lack of commentary aside from "I'm bad at analysis and have a crippling fear of getting things wrong" (no pun intended). As already noted, my arguments so far weren't great arguments, and at this point I worry that any analysis I add is just going to end up parroting someone else's analysis. That said, I'm going to attempt to make a ranked list anyway, if for no other reason than to get my thoughts out of my head. From most to least sus:

Most sus-
1. The Outsider. Multiple people have pointed out that self-voting is a waste for either side, and I can see their point. At this point, however, I've done enough sus actions and been quiet enough to warrant a test. I've unwittingly made myself the best option.
2. JeenLeen. The thing I find most suspicious in any game is inconsistency, and Jeen has repeatedly ignored their own reasoning of why not to vote people in determining their votes. Keeping my vote on him.
3. PartyOfRouges, because they've been silent. I'm starting to realize that this is how they usually roll, but as a matter of principal I have to find it sus.
4. BookWombat: Random votes when there's reasoning to analyze is a suspicious maneuver. I did practically the same thing only with flimsy reasoning attached, and I'm now at the top of my own sus list.

Null sus-
5. Caerulea. People have made good arguments about their evil alignment, but I'm in agreement with JeenLeen's initial reasoning on this one: I don't think a Thing would have risked drawing attention to themselves like that, even if there were two of them. I can understand why people find their arguments fishy, and creating a new plan where they don't get tested does look a bit shady, but I can't help but feel like our attention is being diverted somehow.
6. Apogee1.
7. Valmark. Both of them having been making somewhat good points, but Apogee seems to have a rather limited presence in the thread and Valmark is impossible for me to read. So I'm putting them in the null category for the time being.
8. AvatarVecna. Their math and analysis goes over my head, but it always does that. What I can understand of it seems solid, and considering they're one of the best analyzers I've seen so far I almost have to trust them. Though going forward, that makes them a prime candidate for Thing conversion.

Least sus-
9. Elenna.
10. CaoiminhTheCape.
11. Grek. All three of these people are making solid analytical progress and calling people out for their more sus actions. Bonus points to Grek for having quiet people at near the top of their list, because quiet people are always sus.
You remember what I said in the Caerulea post about scum psychology? About how scum doesn't wanna throw scumbuddies under the bus immediately, but also doesn't wanna hard-defend them just in case they get caught out soon? And how that results in them having wishy-washy middle-of-the-road opinions on scumbuddies regardless of how strong an opinion the actual behavior has warrranted? If The Outsider is scum, this post right here is textbook proof of exactly what I'm talking about. This post basically refuses to scumread or townread Caerulea, refuses to make a call on whether they think Valmark or Apogee is more sus following their argument, puts the two quietest players in the scum slots (which is exactly what Caerulea did too), and only clears a handful of people who are doing serious analysis and not getting called out by anybody else. This is a very safe list for scum to post.

It really doesn't help that they're being so vague on why they think scumreading Caerulea is a mistake. Others have already harped on that better than I can, though. The opening of "I'm bad at games and I'm scared to mess up" doesn't help either.

Originally Posted by The Outsider
Well, I miscalculated. Badly. I don't have time for a full-on analysis or defense, but I'll do my best to try and come back to this as soon as I can.
This is their initial reaction to seeing Caerulea and JeenLeen flip. I don't think a townie makes a post like this, especially in this game: if The Outsider knows they're town, and knows that town will now be out for their blood, there's no need to make an apologetic post like this promising analysis later. Just get your analysis done and post it, and people will see you're trustworthy once you're checked. The only reason to perform sorrow is if it's fake.

The Outsider