Werewolf XXVIII - Eastenders

Conor WW

Holly WW wrote: »

Surely it's better to have a group of people we can all agree to trust for the day? After the day is over we can re-evaluate then no?

If we get a group of say 5 people together the wolves can only target one of those in the munch so we're still keeping 4/5 people that we think are ok? Is that not better than running around like headless chickens for the day?

We have no guarantee those 4/5 are good though, wolves pick them off leaving 2. Have they been left because they're trusted wolves, or is it just blind luck. Long term its a bad idea.

The wolves aren't headless chickens, they're just pretending to be, keep that in mind.

Derry WW

Steve WW wrote: »

I have a gun

Dun dun dun dununun dun dun

Ewan WW

Steve WW wrote: »

I have a gun

A gun is of limited use if we are not getting roles revealed when a character dies.

Liam WW

Why did Steve get the gun again?

Brendan WW

Liam WW wrote: »

Why did Steve get the gun again?

They were all out of almanacs

Conor WW

Steve WW wrote: »

Use of that phrase - Two Stunners for you.

Stunner 1


Stunner 2

Steve WW

Liam WW wrote: »

Why did Steve get the gun again?

Ewan WW

In the interests of conversation I'll make my two suggestions:

#Lynch: Derry WW
Had two sly digs at posters for being on the ball and posting early. Wolf trying to get peoples names out as suspects early, possibly for bandwagon use later? Has been posting fluff since then, staying seen but not committing to anything.

#Dontlynch: Steve WW
Be friends with the man with a gun, at least until it turns out he doesn't have a gun.

Holly WW

Conor WW wrote: »

We have no guarantee those 4/5 are good though, wolves pick them off leaving 2. Have they been left because they're trusted wolves, or is it just blind luck. Long term its a bad idea.

The wolves aren't headless chickens, they're just pretending to be, keep that in mind.

Yeah but we can't really figure out what the wolves are doing so we have to try something to inform ourselves.

Say we pick 5 people, 3 of them (entirely possible) happen to be wolves. So they pick off the other 2 on the list. Wouldn't that look mighty suspicious then to the rest of us? We can then look into the other 2 a bit more closely.

It's giving us something to focus on. I rather this plan than just randomly flailing until a rolled player is forced to come out to give us some direction.

Liam WW

Steve WW wrote: »

I wasn't having a go, I just couldn't remember reading why you got it

Derry WW

Ewan WW wrote: »

In the interests of conversation I'll make my two suggestions:

#Lynch: Derry WW
Had two sly digs at posters for being on the ball and posting early. Wolf trying to get peoples names out as suspects early, possibly for bandwagon use later? Has been posting fluff since then, staying seen but not committing to anything.

#Dontlynch: Steve WW
Be friends with the man with a gun, at least until it turns out he doesn't have a gun.

What a load of bollox.

Conor WW

Holly WW wrote: »

Yeah but we can't really figure out what the wolves are doing so we have to try something to inform ourselves.

Say we pick 5 people, 3 of them (entirely possible) happen to be wolves. So they pick off the other 2 on the list. Wouldn't that look mighty suspicious then to the rest of us? We can then look into the other 2 a bit more closely.

It's giving us something to focus on. I rather this plan than just randomly flailing until a rolled player is forced to come out to give us some direction.

And if we pick 5, they kill 3 and then we spend two days looking at and then lynching our most trusted villagers because why would the wolves leave them alive.

The chances of us picking 2-3 wolves are way lower than the chances of us picking 5 villagers, there's only downsides, confusion and time from that route.

Conor WW

Clodagh what say you on the trust list given you're following mine and Hollys discussion

Ewan WW

Derry WW wrote: »

What a load of bollox.

You can convince me otherwise, but you'll need a better argument than that.

Conor WW

Conor WW wrote: »

And if we pick 5 villagers, they kill 3 and then we spend two days looking at and then lynching our most trusted villagers because why would the wolves leave them alive.

The chances of us picking 2-3 wolves are way lower than the chances of us picking 5 villagers, there's only downsides, confusion and wasted time from that route.

Sorry Holly I accidentally a few words

Clodagh WW

Conor WW wrote: »

Clodagh what say you on the trust list given you're following mine and Hollys discussion

Ive already given my trusted person in Fiona.

I think its worth a shot. I think the more info we have down the line, the more patterns we can detect to ultimately root out any wolves.

And if the wolves pick off our top 5 save 2 or 3 people, its a handy list for the seer (if we have one) and the bg (if we have one) to go from, as well as stopping any trigger happy vigs (if we have one).

Steve WW

Ok. Just on the No Lynch idea...

It's day by day.

Re-evaluation after each munch is the key to this working.

Ok... running out the door now but be back later

Clodagh WW

Ive a feeling its the type of thing that really only works well if everyone (or at least the majority) contribute.

Same with FFAs really.

Someone always gives out about D1 FFAs. Its helped catch wolves in the past. Not because of the actual FFA guiding tonight's lynch. But in terms of seeing who flip flops on and off people later in teh game.

id imagine the no lynch list will work similarly.

Clodagh WW

FWIW ill be voting with my gut this evening. FFA will only be for the above purpose. If the FFA aligns with my gut, then great. If not, im still voting with my gut.

Clodagh WW

Would be great to hear the thoughts of Angus/Riona/Mary/Orla and Dessie on the couple of discussions taking place.

Would be even better to get their vote for the no lynch.

Conor WW

Steve WW wrote: »

Ok. Just on the No Lynch idea...

It's day by day.

Re-evaluation after each munch is the key to this working.

Ok... running out the door now but be back later

If I was a betting man Id put money on the same three people making the list every day

Conor WW

Clodagh WW wrote: »

Ive already given my trusted person in Fiona.

I think its worth a shot. I think the more info we have down the line, the more patterns we can detect to ultimately root out any wolves.

And if the wolves pick off our top 5 save 2 or 3 people, its a handy list for the seer (if we have one) and the bg (if we have one) to go from, as well as stopping any trigger happy vigs (if we have one).

Are you purposely only looking at this from a villager POV? Think of how easy it would be for the wolves to totally play us all the way to the endgame.

Clodagh WW

Conor WW wrote: »

If I was a betting man Id put money on the same three people making the list every day

Which would tell us something if the wolves are purposefully avoiding our top 3 trusted people wouldnt it?

Holly WW

Conor WW wrote: »

And if we pick 5, they kill 3 and then we spend two days looking at and then lynching our most trusted villagers because why would the wolves leave them alive.

The chances of us picking 2-3 wolves are way lower than the chances of us picking 5 villagers, there's only downsides, confusion and time from that route.

But it will take the wolves 3 days to kill off those 3 villagers then. And during that time we are gathering more and more info on them to narrow the pool. And as Clodagh said there, it's also providing info to our rolled players on who we think they should protect/peek/whatever.

It's a new strategy but I think it's worth a shot.

Abigail WW

Barbara WW wrote: »

It was discussed earlier...did the wolves have to do tasks to get their kill. The kill post suggests they might have.



The wolves apparently had been "working" the day previous to the munch, or at least the kill message implies that, right?

So that, to me, suggests there was possibly a task for them to complete.

Tryin to see if there's anything worth examining then. What would these tasks have been?

Simple "Post X times" before lynch? There's people who got 5 posts in pre-lynch and then just stopped talking.

Something more? Post a tonne of gifs? Use the word "Innit" a dozen times? Straight out role claim a wolf?

There's a tonne of people who have still barely posted. Makes it difficult to get a read on their stuff though. If someone only has 5 posts, and all 5 are gifs, was that them just doing bare minimum and doing their task? Or were they just fluff posting, and not contributing at all.

On tasks, the flavour seems to imply there was one alright. However postcount ones only really make sense in a two team game where they race for a kill. If there’s a task I’d expect something more subtle tbh. May be hard to find so I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to spend a day searching for possible tasks at this point.

I don’t like the no lynch ffa, frankly it just gives wolves somewhere to hide and helps the hem pocket the village

On the gun, I suggest hold of till lynch or later to use it. We’re still light on info so let’s work on building that. However we should absolutely use it at some point

Clodagh WW

Conor WW wrote: »

Are you purposely only looking at this from a villager POV? Think of how easy it would be for the wolves to totally play us all the way to the endgame.

They have perfect knowledge. We cant change that. And they can see who is agreeing with one another and challenging one another. Whether we do this or not, the wolves will be trying to play us, wont they?

At least this way we might see a pattern.

Gertrude WW

Clodagh WW wrote: »

Ive already given my trusted person in Fiona.

I think its worth a shot. I think the more info we have down the line, the more patterns we can detect to ultimately root out any wolves.

And if the wolves pick off our top 5 save 2 or 3 people, its a handy list for the seer (if we have one) and the bg (if we have one) to go from, as well as stopping any trigger happy vigs (if we have one).

But this will all be done out in the open leaving the wolves free to use this info against us later on.

The more I think about it the worse it sounds

beakerjoe

Pter wrote: »

Thats a novel approach. Any downsides to creating such a list? Could be used as a wolf hit list? A wolf could sneak in there and escape some peoples FFAs owed to their presence on the list?

For what its worth, the mods have decided against punishment for this offender as he was the first.

But be warned........ we will punish others!

So keep yer clobber on when posting!

Conor WW

Clodagh WW wrote: »

Which would tell us something if the wolves are purposefully avoiding our top 3 trusted people wouldnt it?

Yeah, they're either wolves or villagers, we get the same information by not doing the no Lynch. It literally gives us no information and makes us very easy to manipulate unless we get very lucky with the list. Even if we get 1 wolf on the list, its still going to be day 4 or so before that becomes useful info.

Brendan WW

Wolves will like if the village go ahead with this idea and thats why I don't think people should.

Rechecking the OP and its hard to know what to look out for, no character specifics to try and match with actions, could be task flasks or could not be. Think we will get more light shed on the situation at some point but for now its leaving us hoping someone pushes themselves into the spotlight. Perhaps it's good that Steve got the gun as that has kinda stopped people just jumping on him for his idea even if I don't agree with it. At least it got discussion flowing.