The Donner Party - Day 7

[Tangrowth]

Now, I know Epi likes to get the ball rolling, but I still would like to know why he thought Rico sounded like a newbie bad guy, since I think his explanation was unsatisfactory.

[triceratopzeuhl]

I figured he was just goofing off

[Tangrowth]

I figured he was just goofing off

Sounds like a logical interpretation, but if he wasn't, I'm intrigued to hear what he's thinking nonetheless.

[FZ.]

Can we lunch SVS?

By the way Russ, if your BTSC buddies are civvies at this point, then lynching them means we lose a civ role in the count. But now that I think about it, it's interesting. Are you saying that you're bad right now and if you change roles anyway, there's no point in trying to help the baddies, I'm all for it. We can lynch you.

[Ricochet]

I think Ricochet is bad too, but then I always think that about him.

Before you know it, your suspicion will be moot.

Might take four days for that, again.

[S~V~S]

Can we lunch SVS?

By the way Russ, if your BTSC buddies are civvies at this point, then lynching them means we lose a civ role in the count. But now that I think about it, it's interesting. Are you saying that you're bad right now and if you change roles anyway, there's no point in trying to help the baddies, I'm all for it. We can lynch you.

I do not wish to be lunched, I am a vegetarian and no threat to anyone

And yeah, Russ wanting to lunch his presumably civ teammates makes me wonder if they are indeed not civs.

[S~V~S]

Also Guessing 1 Spreadsheet, but a big badass one.

[FZ.]

Can we lunch SVS?

By the way Russ, if your BTSC buddies are civvies at this point, then lynching them means we lose a civ role in the count. But now that I think about it, it's interesting. Are you saying that you're bad right now and if you change roles anyway, there's no point in trying to help the baddies, I'm all for it. We can lynch you.

I do not wish to be lunched, I am a vegetarian and no threat to anyone

And yeah, Russ wanting to lunch his presumably civ teammates makes me wonder if they are indeed not civs.

Thing is, we have no idea who his BTSC are, which leaves us with him. Unless he wants to suggest someone else.

I'm going with one sheet as well.

[FZ.]

Though I would have gladly gone with the fourth option if I was allowed :P

[Ricochet]

I also don't know what sense to make of what Russ said. Players shifting from civ to bad would support their new cause, regardless of the shift, right? Win conditions haven't exactly been completely layed out (for instance, if a bad team also needs to eliminate the other to win), but a player's survival will always depend on his current alignment (i.e. one cast start as good, but get switched to bad and have to win that way and viceversa).


The only shortcoming I see to Alex's BTSC mechanism is that it's a civ tool that could be very much manipulated by the baddies. Regardless if shuffles of roles will be partial or full, a civ might change to a baddie, be aware of his past team's mechanism and instruct his team how to evade it. Or worse, civs from different camps could change and form the baddie team and thus be aware of multiple "mechanisms" and how to evade them. Does this make sense, Alex?

(Or perhaps the game design is a bit flawed, but I wouldn't want to insinuate that, because the Host might turn me into a swedish buffet. )

Anyway, I'll wait to see Russ's reply, otherwise I would also consider inviting him to dinner.

[Tangrowth]

I also don't know what sense to make of what Russ said. Players shifting from civ to bad would support their new cause, regardless of the shift, right? Win conditions haven't exactly been completely layed out (for instance, if a bad team also needs to eliminate the other to win), but a player's survival will always depend on his current alignment (i.e. one cast start as good, but get switched to bad and have to win that way and viceversa).


The only shortcoming I see to Alex's BTSC mechanism is that it's a civ tool that could be very much manipulated by the baddies. Regardless if shuffles of roles will be partial or full, a civ might change to a baddie, be aware of his past team's mechanism and instruct his team how to evade it. Or worse, civs from different camps could change and form the baddie team and thus be aware of multiple "mechanisms" and how to evade them. Does this make sense, Alex?

(Or perhaps the game design is a bit flawed, but I wouldn't want to insinuate that, because the Host might turn me into a swedish buffet. )

Anyway, I'll wait to see Russ's reply, otherwise I would also consider inviting him to dinner.

I'm not quite ready to lunch Russ just yet; I don't think expressing a logical fallacy (considering civilians do so all the time, myself included) is necessarily indicative that he has no civilian teammates. Russ is smarter than that. Nonetheless, I am very intrigued to hear his response.

Rico, I would assume both baddie teams need each other dead in addition to the civilians, as is typical, but that's an interesting thought to ponder.

In addition, you make excellent points. Devising a mechanism that avoids baddie manipulation is indeed difficult, and something that the civilian BTSC groups need to consider. But it doesn't hurt to devise something that, even if a baddie can possibly lie and go undetected, that can still catch them in such a lie. I still believe I have come up with something that, while not foolproof, might work in practice -- but only if it remains within a small group. If everyone were to use this same mechanism, I think it would be way too easily manipulated.

It's really just a theory; who knows if it is even possible to design such a thing that will actually catch a future switched baddie in a lie? I only hope so. I'm sure there will be ways other than random voting as we go along and understand how the switches might work. Especially since, at a minimum, there will always be "cycle suspicion", in that, at least at the worst case scenario if everyone switches roles every cycle, then evidence can be compiled within one cycle. It's far from ideal, and perhaps will lead to many failed suspicions, but it's something.

[triceratopzeuhl]

I do not wish to be lunched, I am a vegetarian and no threat to anyone

And yeah, Russ wanting to lunch his presumably civ teammates makes me wonder if they are indeed not civs.

Don't you know that herbivores taste much better and carnivores or omnivores?

[thellama73]

I do not wish to be lunched, I am a vegetarian and no threat to anyone

And yeah, Russ wanting to lunch his presumably civ teammates makes me wonder if they are indeed not civs.

Don't you know that herbivores taste much better and carnivores or omnivores?

Debatable.

[Roxy]

Epi has won by a landslide in a solo victory!
Congrats Epi!

[Ricochet]

[Black Rock]

Epi has won by a landslide in a solo victory!
Congrats Epi!

What? An Epi wins game?

I voted for 3 SS because 6 is insane! You would have to have a SS to keep track of the other SS's in that case.

[Spacedaisy]

Hey guys, I just want to put it out there that we have a younger player in this game (along with his parents) and it would be great if we could keep the language kid friendly. That would be greatly appreciated!

[Epignosis]

Epi has won by a landslide in a solo victory!
Congrats Epi!

[Tangrowth]

Epi has won by a landslide in a solo victory!
Congrats Epi!

What? An Epi wins game?

I voted for 3 SS because 6 is insane! You would have to have a SS to keep track of the other SS's in that case.

I can attest to this.

[Marmot]

Epi has won by a landslide in a solo victory!
Congrats Epi!

I'm glad you're okay Epi. I don't know what you were doing near a landslide.

[Black Rock]

Epi has won by a landslide in a solo victory!
Congrats Epi!

What? An Epi wins game?

I voted for 3 SS because 6 is insane! You would have to have a SS to keep track of the other SS's in that case.

I can attest to this.

This does not surprise me. I thought it might but it does not. :P

[Tangrowth]

Epi has won by a landslide in a solo victory!
Congrats Epi!

What? An Epi wins game?

I voted for 3 SS because 6 is insane! You would have to have a SS to keep track of the other SS's in that case.

I can attest to this.

This does not surprise me. I thought it might but it does not. :P

Mafia, work, and hobby-related spreadsheet endeavors have actually told me that or at least something similar. Don't know whether to be proud or embarrassed.

[Bass_the_Clever]

I'm going to say 3 spread sheets. Also whats up with Russ?

[Russtifinko]

I also don't know what sense to make of what Russ said. Players shifting from civ to bad would support their new cause, regardless of the shift, right? Win conditions haven't exactly been completely layed out (for instance, if a bad team also needs to eliminate the other to win), but a player's survival will always depend on his current alignment (i.e. one cast start as good, but get switched to bad and have to win that way and viceversa).


The only shortcoming I see to Alex's BTSC mechanism is that it's a civ tool that could be very much manipulated by the baddies. Regardless if shuffles of roles will be partial or full, a civ might change to a baddie, be aware of his past team's mechanism and instruct his team how to evade it. Or worse, civs from different camps could change and form the baddie team and thus be aware of multiple "mechanisms" and how to evade them. Does this make sense, Alex?

(Or perhaps the game design is a bit flawed, but I wouldn't want to insinuate that, because the Host might turn me into a swedish buffet. )

Anyway, I'll wait to see Russ's reply, otherwise I would also consider inviting him to dinner.

I'm not quite ready to lunch Russ just yet; I don't think expressing a logical fallacy (considering civilians do so all the time, myself included) is necessarily indicative that he has no civilian teammates. Russ is smarter than that. Nonetheless, I am very intrigued to hear his response.

Rico, I would assume both baddie teams need each other dead in addition to the civilians, as is typical, but that's an interesting thought to ponder.

I definitely wouldn't call what I said a logical fallacy, or lunch me over it. I suppose it all depends on how often you expect roles to switch. Based on what I've read, it seems likely they'll switch a lot, in which case there's no reason not to lynch your BTSC-mates (unless they do stop completely, in which case you've likely screwed yourself). Other players seem to expect relatively little switching, at least across alignments, and it that case it does make more sense to look outside your group.

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

[thellama73]

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

Oh snap, Russ is right.

[Roxy]

In the beginning it was easy. Just like they said it would be.

But then, oh then, They had arrived about a week late to travel with Hastings' party, and on his suggestion pioneered an alternate route to avoid Weber Canyon. The road building required through the Wasatch Mountains and the grueling Great Salt Lake Desert delayed them. When they had arrived at the California Trail, they were delayed about a month. The party arrived at the now Donner Pass just as an early winter storm closed it. People were getting quite hungry and all the animals had already been eaten. They were now deciding who would be lunch George hugged Elizabeth to keep her safe while Weather and Hunger were watching silently Hunger hugged Weather and said "Won't be long now"

You have 48 hours to eat your lunch!

[Tangrowth]

I definitely wouldn't call what I said a logical fallacy, or lunch me over it. I suppose it all depends on how often you expect roles to switch. Based on what I've read, it seems likely they'll switch a lot, in which case there's no reason not to lynch your BTSC-mates (unless they do stop completely, in which case you've likely screwed yourself). Other players seem to expect relatively little switching, at least across alignments, and it that case it does make more sense to look outside your group.

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

No, I respectfully disagree.

You're right, it does depend on how often you expect roles to switch. However, it also depends on how you're approaching the game: for your current alignment (i.e., for the benefit of civilians) or for your own self-interest (i.e., as an LMS), the latter of which you are doing.

I completely recognize your POV, and you are right, there is a point to be made with my exact argument as to preferring to lynch your teammates rather than defending them.

However, here's why the latter (your) viewpoint makes less sense:

1) Regardless of how often you expect the roles to switch, one has to make assumptions. The latter viewpoint makes many more assumptions than the former. The only assumption that one is making right now, if one is civilian, is that: I am civilian and my teammates are as well. This is a confirmed true assumption. Any other viewpoint is mere speculation. The problem with your viewpoint is that you're making several assumptions:

a) That roles are going to switch every night. We don't know this.
b) That everyone's roles will switch every night. We don't know this.
c) That, at some point, you or one of your teammates will be switched to a baddie role. We don't know this. See 2) for more detail.

The truth is, right now, we have no idea how often roles, and more importantly alignments, are going to switch. If one is going to play the game covering every possible contingency that one can never trust anyone else, even if one knows others are civilians right now, then the civilians have little to no chance of winning this game. Your viewpoint will essentially lead to the "random lynch" mentality, or rather, the "lynch my BTSCmates mentality". That's a dangerous mentality, especially at this stage where we have no idea how Rox planned these mechanics. In addition, you never explained why you believe the bolded and underlined above. What are you basing that on? Even if you believe you're basing it on solid information, is it not possible your interpretation is flawed?

2) Even if one expects the roles to cycle out every single night, with every player receiving a new role, it is still statistically likely that most players will be given civilian roles, just as it was at the start of the game. Even at the extreme of everyone's roles cycling out every night, it still very well could be possible for members of an original civilian BTSC group to never switch to a baddie role. That is possible. Naturally, it is even more possible the less that roles and alignments are switched.

3) Perhaps most importantly, mechanisms that assist one's original BTSC grouping in possibly rooting out future baddie converts, may hurt you, if you're the one that's switched alignments. What if you're one of the ones that hasn't, and you're still a civilian? Why would you argue against developing such a policy, and instead advocating lynching your BTSCmates? Developing ways to catch baddies in lies does not hurt the civilians one bit; in fact, it gives them an advantage, which they very much need this game. Why would you oppose that?

So, no, Llama, Russ is not "right". He has a valid and logical viewpoint, yes, but only if one cares only about him or herself, an attitude (LMS) that will very likely result in the civilians losing this game, and one that I think needs to be avoided at all possible cost.

[Tangrowth]

The TL;DR version: Please defend your teammates before you lynch them. And please devise mechanisms to catch baddies in lies, if you are indeed civilian.

I see no reason Russ would propose not doing either of these things unless he had not considered the correct perspective or he is a baddie.

That said, I have no substantial reason to believe Russ is bad at the moment. I do wonder, but I am not sure either way.

I was, however, definitely pinged at Llama's "Oh snap, Russ is right" comment. Seems like a way to push a faulty agenda without being the one contributing the original thoughts. In addition, I have not yet seen the civilian aggressiveness I come to expect of him. Not enough for me to lynch him at this point, but a very solid in his direction, that's for sure.

And it seems it is now Day 1. Let the lunch begin.

[S~V~S]

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

Oh snap, Russ is right.

I don't totally get it; can you explain it like I am in kindergarten? (I am asking you to be condescending to me; make the most of it )

[Tangrowth]

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

Oh snap, Russ is right.

I don't totally get it; can you explain it like I am in kindergarten? (I am asking you to be condescending to me; make the most of it )

Does my explanation/response to Russ make sense?

[S~V~S]

I am hoping Llama will explain it. He is a bit more direct, he will give me the brass tacks version. It did make sense, but I want the sound bite version.

[Marmot]

The TL;DR version: Please defend your teammates before you lynch them. And please devise mechanisms to catch baddies in lies, if you are indeed civilian.

I see no reason Russ would propose not doing either of these things unless he had not considered the correct perspective or he is a baddie.

That said, I have no substantial reason to believe Russ is bad at the moment. I do wonder, but I am not sure either way.

I was, however, definitely pinged at Llama's "Oh snap, Russ is right" comment. Seems like a way to push a faulty agenda without being the one contributing the original thoughts. In addition, I have not yet seen the civilian aggressiveness I come to expect of him. Not enough for me to lynch him at this point, but a very solid in his direction, that's for sure.

And it seems it is now Day 1. Let the lunch begin.

I dare you to lynch llama.

[Ricochet]

Actually, I'm still trying to figure out what Russ is really endorsing. The fear of what your teammates on a certain day might become (and what might think of you) the next day, if you get shuffled away from them, is pretty general for this game. I assume we won't know if shuffling was partial or complete, either. That puts us back to the basics of this game: you serve the cause of your alignment, but more restricted to the group you'll be currently part of, because outside of the group lies great uncertainty.

On the other hand, the way I see it, here are the possible scenarios for your "my former teammates are the ones I need dead most in the game" mentality:
- I'm a civ who didn't get switched at all: I wouldn't know my teammates' new alignments and couldn't trust them anymore
- I'm a civ who gets switched to another civ: I wouldn't know if my teammates stayed the same or not, if they switched to civs or not, and couldn't trust them entirely
- I'm a civ who got switched to a baddie: I have every reason to kill lunch my former teammates, no matter of their alignment
- I'm a baddie who didn't get switched at all: my former teammates wouldn't know for sure that I stayed a baddie, but would try to figure out by catching me in a lie, so I need them dead the most

So make me understand, Russ, how would a civvie have this main mentality.

linki: oops, massive linkitis while I was writing all this.
I probably also won't be helpful to SVS.

[Tangrowth]

I eagerly await Llama's response as well, since I found it odd he didn't consider what I said in my response above.

I just wanted to make sure what I said was explained adequately, so thanks, S~V~S.

MM, I will lynch Llama if I believe he is an opportunistic baddie, as it appeared in his post there, but considering he hasn't yet explained his train of thought and we have 48 hours remaining in the day, I'm definitely giving him the BOTD, and don't intend on lynching him any more than anyone else at the moment. But there's no denying his comment caught my eye, especially since I thought it was a bit uncharacteristically not fully explained.

Linki w/ Rico: The only one of those that is logical is your last one, but of course, that helps the civilians. So I eagerly await another response from Russ as well.

[Ricochet]

Since we're on our own tracking votes, should we make a rule about being clear in our posts what our final vote will be?

[Tangrowth]

Since we're on our own tracking votes, should we make a rule about being clear in our posts what our final vote will be?

This is a good point, and I believe that would be helpful, yes. Also, if someone can take a screenshot of the poll if possible right as it ends, that'd be great, but I know that's a lot to ask, so at the least, everyone should bold their final votes.

On that note, I don't recall if this was asked...

Rox: Are votes changeable this game or final upon casting? Thanks.

[Ricochet]

Since D0/N0 polls were changeable (actually, I don't know if N0 was), I assumed there would not be a strict rule of stating a clear vote, once - especially since it's all verbal, the development of the debate might often cause people to make statements about what they intend to vote, but not mean it to be final.

[Marmot]

Since we're on our own tracking votes, should we make a rule about being clear in our posts what our final vote will be?

This is a good point, and I believe that would be helpful, yes. Also, if someone can take a screenshot of the poll if possible right as it ends, that'd be great, but I know that's a lot to ask, so at the least, everyone should bold their final votes.

On that note, I don't recall if this was asked...

Rox: Are votes changeable this game or final upon casting? Thanks.

I just voted and they appear to be changeable.

[Marmot]

Also MP, I noticed llama is not on the poll which is why I was teasing you. :P

[Ricochet]

Oh, wait, we have a poll after all.

[S~V~S]

Since D0/N0 polls were changeable (actually, I don't know if N0 was), I assumed there would not be a strict rule of stating a clear vote, once - especially since it's all verbal, the development of the debate might often cause people to make statements about what they intend to vote, but not mean it to be final.

I am of the opinion that you should always clearly state a lynch vote, final or not. It looks sneaky voting without stating it.

[S~V~S]

Also, MP, I guess I AM confused. I thought you agreed on what Russ said. Now that i am rereading it not on phone, I see that you do not. I was not trying to put llama in a spot. I just wanted it explained like I was in grade school, and I thought he would be better at that than you would.

[Marmot]

Oh, wait, we have a poll after all.

Roxy isn't making a poll thread, so end-of-day polls won't be archived somewhere unless we save a record ourselves.

[Ricochet]

Oh, wait, we have a poll after all.

Roxy isn't making a poll thread, so end-of-day polls won't be archived somewhere unless we save a record ourselves.

Ah, I understand now.

[Roxy]

Since we're on our own tracking votes, should we make a rule about being clear in our posts what our final vote will be?

This is a good point, and I believe that would be helpful, yes. Also, if someone can take a screenshot of the poll if possible right as it ends, that'd be great, but I know that's a lot to ask, so at the least, everyone should bold their final votes.

On that note, I don't recall if this was asked...

Rox: Are votes changeable this game or final upon casting? Thanks.

I just voted and they appear to be changeable.

What the Newt/Aardvark/Marmot said

Also page one now tells win conditions

[Marmot]

Roxy - Are Making Things Impossible also categorized under Unforeseen Forces?

[nijuukyugou]

This game is going to be crazy confusing. I do agree with MP that if Civs at any point want any chance of survival/winning, they would have to devise ways to "tell" if a former/current/whatever BTSC-mate is acting bad.

Ugh, but that's about all I can understand at the moment. I hope mechanisms become a bit more clear after Day 1 (or Night 1)? We can at least see what might happen in a Day/Night cycle.

[thellama73]

However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.

Oh snap, Russ is right.

I don't totally get it; can you explain it like I am in kindergarten? (I am asking you to be condescending to me; make the most of it )

Russ's point was this, and I think it is a very good one: MP says he has a way to detect when his teammates rotate into bad roles. If this is true, his teammates should want to lynch him, knowing that he will be able to get them lynched later if they are on the other team. Anyone can become bad, so why would anyone want someone kept alive who can easily get them killed later?

I hope that makes sense, SVS.

As for you, MP, what am I meant to be aggressive about? There is literally no information to go on. We haven't had a kill and we haven't had a lynch to analyze. I think you going after Russ is ridiculous. I think you eyeing me now because I am not quixotically tilting at windmills is ridiculous. I agree with you that we are not likely to see complete role switches every cycle, so I am waiting for data. I don't currently have any suspicions to speak of, but your scattershot approach this game is not productive, or at least I don't think so. A game like this requires some circumspection.

[thellama73]

Also MP, I noticed llama is not on the poll which is why I was teasing you. :P

Oh wait, I'm not? Cool. Take that, MP :P

[Ricochet]

Llama, are you bad?