Lost Werewolf - GAME THREAD

Conor WW

Thank you Oisin - spot check didnt show up any issues to me. This will get more useful as we go on....but here is how people reacted to finding out their interactions were being tracked. There are obvious get out of jail cards for those who havent been online....that will become less relevant as we go on and more people interact more.


Before reveal After reveal Variance Notes
Average Interactions per player by the below Average Interactions to the player Average Interactions per player by the below Average Interactions to the player Average Interactions per player by the below Average Interactions to the player Notes
Vernon WW 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 Increased posting
Barbara WW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.1 not online?
Henry WW 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 not online?
Oisin WW 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.1 0.0 has been online
Gertrude WW 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.4 has been online
Patrick WW 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.1 not online?
Conor WW 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.4 not online
Mary WW 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 not online?
Frank WW 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.5 has been online
Abigail WW 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 not online?
Wendy WW 1.3 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.9 not online?
Nigel WW 1.7 1.8 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.4 was online
Phil WW 1.6 2.0 0.1 0.2 1.5 1.8 was online
Orla WW 2.8 2.7 0.4 0.4 2.4 2.3 was online
Angus WW 2.6 3.3 0.2 0.4 2.4 3.0 not online?
Derry WW 2.7 3.5 0.1 0.1 2.6 3.4 was online
Emily WW 2.7 2.2 0.0 0.1 2.7 2.1 not online?
Fiona WW 6.5 6.0 1.8 1.0 4.7 5.0 decreased against a high base


Again, this is a tool that will aid in conjunction with detective work and wagonomics to close the noose on the wolves. Not a silver bullet.

From it, people im curious about are Derry, Nigel, Phil and Orla. Derry in particular since he said he had been caught by it before and disappeared. He is the biggest dropper in terms of post count before/after

Patrick WW

Nigel WW wrote: »

@Patrick, you okay to input the numbers?

Ya, I'll do it after the smoke thing as per Oisin's request

Vernon WW

Mary WW wrote: »

Afternoon, thanks Vernon for the ISO, I agree with you on some points but not on others. You have some queries down as fluff and as they are out of context here I think you misinterpreted them as fluff when they were questions. But overall not bad bar your surmation that I am SK. You also left out my comment I made while naked which was a definite assertion that I had volunteered to push the button.

I am wondering why you are trying to pin a role that is not in the game on me. Do you have an angle? Should we be wondering did you deserve the 2 prize vote? Are you going for an easy target to look like you are being village? Afterall your assumption is most of my posts are fluff but yet you target me with SK.

Sly move. Wolfy in fact

I think I was clear Mary. You can't be an SK, there isn't one in the game. That leaves you with wolfy vibes.

You are the middle of the road, unoffensive and colourless. In a game where you must shake trees to get information you've just drifted upsetting no one. I don't trust players who don't look like they are out to get information that helps the village.

You going OMGUS doesn't make me feel any better about you.

Mary WW

Vernon WW wrote: »

I think I was clear Mary. You can't be an SK, there isn't one in the game. That leaves you with wolfy vibes.

You are the middle of the road, unoffensive and colourless. In a game where you must shake trees to get information you've just drifted upsetting no one. I don't trust players who don't look like they are out to get information that helps the village.

You going OMGUS doesn't make me feel any better about you.

You trying to imply what isnt there has me wondering about you.

Patrick WW

@Conor - what are you talking about before reveal and after reveal?
What reveal is that?

Frank WW

Conor WW wrote: »

Thank you Oisin - spot check didnt show up any issues to me. This will get more useful as we go on....but here is how people reacted to finding out their interactions were being tracked. There are obvious get out of jail cards for those who havent been online....that will become less relevant as we go on and more people interact more.


Before reveal After reveal Variance Notes
Average Interactions per player by the below Average Interactions to the player Average Interactions per player by the below Average Interactions to the player Average Interactions per player by the below Average Interactions to the player Notes
Vernon WW 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 Increased posting
Barbara WW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.1 not online?
Henry WW 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 not online?
Oisin WW 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.1 0.0 has been online
Gertrude WW 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.4 has been online
Patrick WW 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.1 not online?
Conor WW 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.4 not online
Mary WW 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 not online?
Frank WW 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.5 has been online
Abigail WW 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 not online?
Wendy WW 1.3 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.9 not online?
Nigel WW 1.7 1.8 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.4 was online
Phil WW 1.6 2.0 0.1 0.2 1.5 1.8 was online
Orla WW 2.8 2.7 0.4 0.4 2.4 2.3 was online
Angus WW 2.6 3.3 0.2 0.4 2.4 3.0 not online?
Derry WW 2.7 3.5 0.1 0.1 2.6 3.4 was online
Emily WW 2.7 2.2 0.0 0.1 2.7 2.1 not online?
Fiona WW 6.5 6.0 1.8 1.0 4.7 5.0 decreased against a high base


Again, this is a tool that will aid in conjunction with detective work and wagonomics to close the noose on the wolves. Not a silver bullet.

From it, people im curious about are Derry, Nigel, Phil and Orla. Derry in particular since he said he had been caught by it before and disappeared. He is the biggest dropper in terms of post count before/after

Stunning analysis spurts out 4 of the top 8 posters as persons of interest.

Tool that checks for peoples interactions finds that the people who have the most posts are likely to have the most interaction. We need to keep a greater eye on the people posting most to the thread.
Also noteworthy, the people who have not posted and are not online are not worthy of keeping an eye on.
More news on this stunning development as it arrives.

This has been a breaking news anointment from Frank WW.

Patrick WW

And what does Average Interactions per player by the below mean?



Have to say your table posts remind me of this guys gags

https://twitter.com/Michael1979/status/1310303615484076034?s=20

Frank WW

*announcement*

We have auto-priest, so no need to be going around anointing people. ;D

Conor WW

Patrick WW wrote: »

@Conor - what are you talking about before reveal and after reveal?
What reveal is that?

After i revealed i was tracking interactions. Knowledge of tracking is bound to impact peoples interactions. If you were a wolf, for example, wouldnt you make sure you interacted with the other wolves now that you know thats being looked at?

Frank WW wrote: »

Stunning analysis spurts out 4 of the top 8 posters as persons of interest.

Tool that checks for peoples interactions finds that the people who have the most posts are likely to have the most interaction. We need to keep a greater eye on the people posting most to the thread.
Also noteworthy, the people who have not posted and are not online are not worthy of keeping an eye on.
More news on this stunning development as it arrives.

This has been a breaking news anointment from Frank WW.

As i say, it gets better with more time and interactions to look at.

However you are fundamentally not understanding this data. This isnt 'people who are online more post more'. This is 'how does a persons interaction rates increase or decrease if they know they are under scrutiny'. Do you have an issue with me looking at this? Worried perhaps? Because if you feel its not worthwhile why not leave me to it? And if you feel its worthwhile why the negging?

The people who have not posted are of course worth looking at but if they havent been online, this isnt the tool to look at them.

Its just information Frank - no need to get your knickers in a twist.

Conor WW

Patrick WW wrote: »

And what does Average Interactions per player by the below mean?



Have to say your table posts remind me of this guys gags

https://twitter.com/Michael1979/status/1310303615484076034?s=20

The number of times that person made a post at someone else. Which is just an average so it doesnt matter in and of itself. But if you compare that to the rate AFTER they know they are being tracked.....basically if wolves know they have to interact with other wolves without being obvious about it, that number should go up and point us to someone who is worried about their number of interactions (UNLESS there is a good reason for it going up i.e. wagon forming, someone gets a prize etc etc).

Frank WW

Conor WW wrote: »

After i revealed i was tracking interactions. Knowledge of tracking is bound to impact peoples interactions. If you were a wolf, for example, wouldnt you make sure you interacted with the other wolves now that you know thats being looked at?



As i say, it gets better with more time and interactions to look at.

However you are fundamentally not understanding this data. This isnt 'people who are online more post more'. This is 'how does a persons interaction rates increase or decrease if they know they are under scrutiny'. Do you have an issue with me looking at this? Worried perhaps? Because if you feel its not worthwhile why not leave me to it? And if you feel its worthwhile why the negging?

The people who have not posted are of course worth looking at but if they havent been online, this isnt the tool to look at them.

Its just information Frank - no need to get your knickers in a twist.

I have no bother with you doing the analysis, just that it has spurted out 4 of the top 8 posters as the result.
User Name Posts
Fiona WW 246
Orla WW 118
Derry WW 84
Emily WW 81
Angus WW 78
Oisin WW 78
Phil WW 74
Nigel WW 70

Conor WW

What this boils down to is people behaviour before and after they know we are watching for how many times they interact with others.

Not only are we tracking that, but we are tracking who they are avoiding too.

How you should be reading that last table is: who has increased or decreased their number of interactions, and why? And if the why isnt obvious, they should be telling us why.

If we get someone who is bad on wagonomics and bad on interactions, i guarantee you we have a wolf.

Nigel WW

Conor WW wrote: »

Thank you Oisin - spot check didnt show up any issues to me. This will get more useful as we go on....but here is how people reacted to finding out their interactions were being tracked. There are obvious get out of jail cards for those who havent been online....that will become less relevant as we go on and more people interact more.


Before reveal After reveal Variance Notes
Average Interactions per player by the below Average Interactions to the player Average Interactions per player by the below Average Interactions to the player Average Interactions per player by the below Average Interactions to the player Notes
Vernon WW 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 Increased posting
Barbara WW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.1 not online?
Henry WW 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 not online?
Oisin WW 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.1 0.0 has been online
Gertrude WW 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.4 has been online
Patrick WW 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.1 not online?
Conor WW 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.4 not online
Mary WW 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 not online?
Frank WW 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.5 has been online
Abigail WW 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.2 not online?
Wendy WW 1.3 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.9 not online?
Nigel WW 1.7 1.8 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.4 was online
Phil WW 1.6 2.0 0.1 0.2 1.5 1.8 was online
Orla WW 2.8 2.7 0.4 0.4 2.4 2.3 was online
Angus WW 2.6 3.3 0.2 0.4 2.4 3.0 not online?
Derry WW 2.7 3.5 0.1 0.1 2.6 3.4 was online
Emily WW 2.7 2.2 0.0 0.1 2.7 2.1 not online?
Fiona WW 6.5 6.0 1.8 1.0 4.7 5.0 decreased against a high base


Again, this is a tool that will aid in conjunction with detective work and wagonomics to close the noose on the wolves. Not a silver bullet.

From it, people im curious about are Derry, Nigel, Phil and Orla. Derry in particular since he said he had been caught by it before and disappeared. He is the biggest dropper in terms of post count before/after

Interesting analysis and as you say, it may become more relevant as data is added, the low posters either come online or get killed and most importantly when players flip.

It's worth noting that the dataset before the reveal is ~3X the size of the dataset after the reveal

Phil WW

Jesus Christ, Princess. You do like to natter!

Conor WW

Frank WW wrote: »

I have no bother with you doing the analysis, just that it has spurted out 4 of the top 8 posters as the result.
User Name Posts
Fiona WW 246
Orla WW 118
Derry WW 84
Emily WW 81
Angus WW 78
Oisin WW 78
Phil WW 74
Nigel WW 70

Thats the beauty of it though! It doesnt matter how many times they posted or not and whether their interactions are high or low. Its how they compare to the before and after they knew it was being tracked...thats the important part. So Fiona's numbers are high because she is the top poster - but how did she react before and after i told the thread i was tracking this? Her interactions decreased. She stopped talking to so many people. Why?

Any eejit can be a top poster - but how easy is it to match the level of interactions you had vs. yesterday? Not easy. Thats why its such a good tell.

Conor WW

Nigel WW wrote: »

Interesting analysis and as you say, it may become more relevant as data is added, the low posters either come online or get killed and most importantly when players flip.

It's worth noting that the dataset before the reveal is ~3X the size of the dataset after the reveal

I do understand that - but i could die at any stage - if i dont put the template out there and make sure the thread understands it, it will be forgotten - which imo would be bad for the village.

The more interactions we have the better. The above is just a demo of how it works and what it can point us towards.

Nigel WW

I'm wondering also Conor, would the data be more valuable if the numbers also took into account the number of other posts a player had? Say for example, someone has 40 posts and say 4 interactions before the reveal and then 10 posts and 4 interactions afterwards, that won't show as changed behaviour here but it's a jump from 10% of their posts being interactions to 40% of their posts being interactions.

It may be difficult to add that data retrospectively now but possibly something to consider for next time

Conor WW

Of people ive looked at to one degree or another....

Wolfiest
Angus
Derry
Oisin
Nigel
Phil
Orla
Henry
Gertie
Fiona
Villageriest

Nigel WW

Conor WW wrote: »

Of people ive looked at to one degree or another....

Wolfiest
Angus
Derry
Oisin
Nigel
Phil
Orla
Henry
Gertie
Fiona
Villageriest

Eh, what is it about Henry that makes him villager??

Conor WW

Nigel WW wrote: »

I'm wondering also Conor, would the data be more valuable if the numbers also took into account the number of other posts a player had? Say for example, someone has 40 posts and say 4 interactions before the reveal and then 10 posts and 4 interactions afterwards, that won't show as changed behaviour here but it's a jump from 10% of their posts being interactions to 40% of their posts being interactions.

It may be difficult to add that data retrospectively now but possibly something to consider for next time

Are you trying to kill me?

Yeah that would be useful but no chance im going back over 1200+ posts to count that.

You can do it approximately by adding up the number of interactions and taking it away from overall post count. Most interactions were one interaction per post so it will work out for the mostpart.

Conor WW

Nigel WW wrote: »

Eh, what is it about Henry that makes him villager??

Yeah he probably shouldnt be there really. He was there earlier in a more neutral position as i gave him a pass until we heard from him

Wolfiest
Angus
Derry
Oisin
Nigel
Phil
Orla
Gertie
Fiona
Villageriest

Need the low posters to start posting tbf.

Necro

Oisin WW

Conor a question about Fiona for you.

Your data highlights her as having had the biggest decrease after your tracker reveal. Yet she is your biggest village lean?

Oisin WW

Oh cripes here it comes....

Fiona WW

Conor WW wrote: »

Thats the beauty of it though! It doesnt matter how many times they posted or not and whether their interactions are high or low. Its how they compare to the before and after they knew it was being tracked...thats the important part. So Fiona's numbers are high because she is the top poster - but how did she react before and after i told the thread i was tracking this? Her interactions decreased. She stopped talking to so many people. Why?

Any eejit can be a top poster - but how easy is it to match the level of interactions you had vs. yesterday? Not easy. Thats why its such a good tell.

Just my posts decreased and with whom, after the "reveal" is immaterial. Can we even call it a reveal?

I certainly didnt purposefully change my behaviour because your logging intercation data. I couldnt care less.

Conor WW

Its a fair point for concern Oisin but overall i think she is pro village and has done her best. Her interactions with Orla and Angus seem legit and not theatre; i believe Angus is a wolf and Fiona is not on the same team as him; and tbh id be amazed if she could maintain the level of interaction she had yesterday.

Added to that is Nigels point that the dataset for the 'after' phase is low.

The lean is more based on posts, reading interactions and the hard data rather than just the hard data. While the data points to her, i just cant see her and Angus on the same team, so have to put a pin in it for now.

Fiona WW

Oisin WW wrote: »

Conor a question about Fiona for you.

Your data highlights her as having had the biggest decrease after your tracker reveal. Yet she is your biggest village lean?

Yeah I dont follow that either.

Surely the interaction data isnt worth much as it doesnt capture exactly what people chatted about and most of the content can be subjective anyway.

Nigel WW

WTF is going on with inputting the numbers Oisin???

Mary WW

First off I think based on numbers that there are between 5 to 7 wolves including the rolls mentioned on first page.

Frank: village lean prior to his assessment of me

Orla Still not sure she is village.Yesterday felt like a script between her and Fiona

Fiona hopped in to control things from the start, organising and had an onging head to head with Orla which felt orchestrated.

Angus - TWTBAW I think village ALso the way shade was thrown on him by Fiona as an experiment

Nigel- wolfy questions everyone but uses someone elses ISO to decide about me lazy

Emily - still decided

Phil- village lean voted for him as I wanted to see how Anghus Orla and Fiona played out and I knew he wasnt going to be voted off. So a throwaway vote, sorry Phil.

Derry -I feel village maybe on a task yesterday but was trying to keep away from code input Why?


Abigail - Wolfy based on how she intereacted with Anghus and used her vote.

Gertie - Old Gerties not much posting yesterday. New Gertie questioning and catching up tbd

Conor - good analysis, though I cant make head not tail of it, it looks pretty helpful leaning villagey but could be wolf pocketing

Vernon - wolf based on his ISO which is waaaaay off in its final outcome

Mary - Village as ye will find out tonight:D

Oisin - village lean, will look into more


Vote to be decided.

Conor WW

Fiona WW wrote: »

Just my posts decreased and with whom, after the "reveal" is immaterial. Can we even call it a reveal?

I certainly didnt purposefully change my behaviour because your logging intercation data. I couldnt care less.

Lets not get hung up on terminology. Reveal is perhaps a loaded term when it comes to WW. Wrong choice of word there.

It will average out - wait and see!