JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:46 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:34 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:31 PM

So come now people, who should the Seer investigate?

Presumably you or JLAC, going by experience, if you are correct and I’ve already been “seen.”

Well that is assuming the seer is anyone who’s ever played with you. So my preferences for the seer are as follows.

1. CW
2. JLAC
3. Everyone else who hasn’t posted yet.
4. The rest of the people who have posted.
5. Myself

Can you explain why you put yourself so low?

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:48 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:46 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:34 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:31 PM

So come now people, who should the Seer investigate?

Presumably you or JLAC, going by experience, if you are correct and I’ve already been “seen.”

Well that is assuming the seer is anyone who’s ever played with you. So my preferences for the seer are as follows.

1. CW
2. JLAC
3. Everyone else who hasn’t posted yet.
4. The rest of the people who have posted.
5. Myself

Can you explain why you put yourself so low?

Because I already know I’m human, and I want the seer finding were-beasts not humans. To go further, I put the two most experienced players 1-2 because we finding out who the most experienced players are first helps more than just picking randomly.

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:53 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:48 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:46 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:34 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:31 PM

So come now people, who should the Seer investigate?

Presumably you or JLAC, going by experience, if you are correct and I’ve already been “seen.”

Well that is assuming the seer is anyone who’s ever played with you. So my preferences for the seer are as follows.

1. CW
2. JLAC
3. Everyone else who hasn’t posted yet.
4. The rest of the people who have posted.
5. Myself

Can you explain why you put yourself so low?

Because I already know I’m human, and I want the seer finding were-beasts not humans. To go further, I put the two most experienced players 1-2 because we finding out who the most experienced players are first helps more than just picking randomly.

Yes, but you’d claim to be human regardless of whether or not you were. I mean, I know I’m human too. So since you claim to be human and I claim to be human, should we then put JLAC at the top of the list? Or once JLAC posts that he’s human (and I expect that he will), should we then conclude that there are no wolves and the seer is wasting his time looking at anyone at all?

Why should we worry so much about the Seer’s choice, anyway, when we haven’t even decided on who to kill? If nothing else, the Seer will have a much better idea of who is interesting after the voting, and failing that will at least have one fewer person to choose from once the voting’s done.

Okay, I am here.

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:56 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:53 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:48 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:46 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:34 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:31 PM

So come now people, who should the Seer investigate?

Presumably you or JLAC, going by experience, if you are correct and I’ve already been “seen.”

Well that is assuming the seer is anyone who’s ever played with you. So my preferences for the seer are as follows.

1. CW
2. JLAC
3. Everyone else who hasn’t posted yet.
4. The rest of the people who have posted.
5. Myself

Can you explain why you put yourself so low?

Because I already know I’m human, and I want the seer finding were-beasts not humans. To go further, I put the two most experienced players 1-2 because we finding out who the most experienced players are first helps more than just picking randomly.

Yes, but you’d claim to be human regardless of whether or not you were. I mean, I know I’m human too. So since you claim to be human and I claim to be human, should we then put JLAC at the top of the list? Or once JLAC posts that he’s human (and I expect that he will), should we then conclude that there are no wolves and the seer is wasting his time looking at anyone at all?

That’s an absured turn in logic. How about this, list your preferences not including yourself, then we can have a consensus opinion for the seer, and then we can get down to brass tacks, and randomly murder someone for looking funny.

bads85 - 27 January 2012 02:02 PM

Okay, I am here.

Finally clean the blood off? You owe me ten dollarbucks if you killed my goat.

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 02:03 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:56 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:53 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:48 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:46 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:34 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:31 PM

So come now people, who should the Seer investigate?

Presumably you or JLAC, going by experience, if you are correct and I’ve already been “seen.”

Well that is assuming the seer is anyone who’s ever played with you. So my preferences for the seer are as follows.

1. CW
2. JLAC
3. Everyone else who hasn’t posted yet.
4. The rest of the people who have posted.
5. Myself

Can you explain why you put yourself so low?

Because I already know I’m human, and I want the seer finding were-beasts not humans. To go further, I put the two most experienced players 1-2 because we finding out who the most experienced players are first helps more than just picking randomly.

Yes, but you’d claim to be human regardless of whether or not you were. I mean, I know I’m human too. So since you claim to be human and I claim to be human, should we then put JLAC at the top of the list? Or once JLAC posts that he’s human (and I expect that he will), should we then conclude that there are no wolves and the seer is wasting his time looking at anyone at all?

That’s an absured turn in logic. How about this, list your preferences not including yourself, then we can have a consensus opinion for the seer, and then we can get down to brass tacks, and randomly murder someone for looking funny.

So then why didn’t you exclude yourself in the first place, instead of putting yourself last? And again, why do you care so much about the seer does tonight? Your and my consensus isn’t binding on the seer anyway.

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 02:01 PM

Why should we worry so much about the Seer’s choice, anyway, when we haven’t even decided on who to kill? If nothing else, the Seer will have a much better idea of who is interesting after the voting, and failing that will at least have one fewer person to choose from once the voting’s done.

You seem to be implying that there’s logic used for the first kill.

BourbonSamurai is not Fausto Carmona - 27 January 2012 02:03 PM

bads85 - 27 January 2012 02:02 PM

Okay, I am here.

Finally clean the blood off? You owe me ten dollarbucks if you killed my goat.

MUNB. El Chupracabra got your goat, not a werewolf or myself. I’m just the village school teacher—an Ichabod Crane type, but overflowing with charisma.

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 02:07 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 02:01 PM

Why should we worry so much about the Seer’s choice, anyway, when we haven’t even decided on who to kill? If nothing else, the Seer will have a much better idea of who is interesting after the voting, and failing that will at least have one fewer person to choose from once the voting’s done.

You seem to be implying that there’s logic used for the first kill.

Not a whole heck of a lot, no. But like I said, at the very least the seer can’t (or at least shouldn’t) trouble themselves with looking at the dead.

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 02:07 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 02:03 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:56 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:53 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:48 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:46 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:34 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:31 PM

So come now people, who should the Seer investigate?

Presumably you or JLAC, going by experience, if you are correct and I’ve already been “seen.”

Well that is assuming the seer is anyone who’s ever played with you. So my preferences for the seer are as follows.

1. CW
2. JLAC
3. Everyone else who hasn’t posted yet.
4. The rest of the people who have posted.
5. Myself

Can you explain why you put yourself so low?

Because I already know I’m human, and I want the seer finding were-beasts not humans. To go further, I put the two most experienced players 1-2 because we finding out who the most experienced players are first helps more than just picking randomly.

Yes, but you’d claim to be human regardless of whether or not you were. I mean, I know I’m human too. So since you claim to be human and I claim to be human, should we then put JLAC at the top of the list? Or once JLAC posts that he’s human (and I expect that he will), should we then conclude that there are no wolves and the seer is wasting his time looking at anyone at all?

That’s an absured turn in logic. How about this, list your preferences not including yourself, then we can have a consensus opinion for the seer, and then we can get down to brass tacks, and randomly murder someone for looking funny.

So then why didn’t you exclude yourself in the first place, instead of putting yourself last? And again, why do you care so much about the seer does tonight? Your and my consensus isn’t binding on the seer anyway.

Of course not, but it does get everyone to lay out the suspicions and biases for us to use in evaluating tomorrows aftermath. After we pour some out from our ceremonial 40’s for the departed of course.

BourbonSamurai is not Fausto Carmona - 27 January 2012 01:22 PM

Flounder: Avowed enemy of inconvenience - 27 January 2012 01:06 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 11:08 AM

Crap, since they blocked Google Documents at work, I don’t have my vote tracker handy.

Attention:  This is only a test of the Flounder Crappy-Looking vote counter.  Repeating this is only a test.  If there had been any actual votes cast, this would be a test with some actual information.

  vote vote vote
0 Flounder  
0 Daryn  
0 CW  
0 Scotto  
0 Bourbon  
0 Accent  
0 bads  
0 JGLB  
0 JLAC  

Further updates as events warrant.

Thank you, town accountant. I was suspicious of Scotto, but some of our neighbors are making me think they’re staying away because they have something to hide.

Muchas gracias.  It looks better in my excel file though.

Oh, we will by playing by the lame-ass rule that says after you kill someone you get magical psychic powers to find out if he was a werewolf or not.

Also ranking myself last is equivalent to excluding myself in my mind.

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 02:14 PM

Also ranking myself last is equivalent to excluding myself in my mind.

Since you’ve asked for my ranking, can you at least be bothered to rank everyone?

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 02:15 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 02:14 PM

Also ranking myself last is equivalent to excluding myself in my mind.

Since you’ve asked for my ranking, can you at least be bothered to rank everyone?

1. CW
2. JLAC
3. Bourbon
4. Accent
5. Darren
6. Bads.
7. Scotto
8. Flounder

Also, unless during the course of the day it transpires that I become especially suspicious of someone, or if we are short of a quorum to kill and I need to shift my vote to ensure a quorum is had, I am planning to vote via some form of random number generator (dice if I can swing it, the RAND() function in Excel otherwise).

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 02:03 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:56 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:53 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:48 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:46 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:34 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:31 PM

So come now people, who should the Seer investigate?

Presumably you or JLAC, going by experience, if you are correct and I’ve already been “seen.”

Well that is assuming the seer is anyone who’s ever played with you. So my preferences for the seer are as follows.

1. CW
2. JLAC
3. Everyone else who hasn’t posted yet.
4. The rest of the people who have posted.
5. Myself

Can you explain why you put yourself so low?

Because I already know I’m human, and I want the seer finding were-beasts not humans. To go further, I put the two most experienced players 1-2 because we finding out who the most experienced players are first helps more than just picking randomly.

Yes, but you’d claim to be human regardless of whether or not you were. I mean, I know I’m human too. So since you claim to be human and I claim to be human, should we then put JLAC at the top of the list? Or once JLAC posts that he’s human (and I expect that he will), should we then conclude that there are no wolves and the seer is wasting his time looking at anyone at all?

That’s an absured turn in logic. How about this, list your preferences not including yourself, then we can have a consensus opinion for the seer, and then we can get down to brass tacks, and randomly murder someone for looking funny.

So, I dont understand why we would even want consensus.  You are giving the wolves input, and they would use that to their own nefarious ends.  We would be much better suited in killing someone.

So are Bourbon’s dead goats werewolf related, or a result of village politics/personal squabbles?

Flounder: Avowed enemy of inconvenience - 27 January 2012 02:20 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 02:03 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:56 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:53 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:48 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:46 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:34 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:31 PM

So come now people, who should the Seer investigate?

Presumably you or JLAC, going by experience, if you are correct and I’ve already been “seen.”

Well that is assuming the seer is anyone who’s ever played with you. So my preferences for the seer are as follows.

1. CW
2. JLAC
3. Everyone else who hasn’t posted yet.
4. The rest of the people who have posted.
5. Myself

Can you explain why you put yourself so low?

Because I already know I’m human, and I want the seer finding were-beasts not humans. To go further, I put the two most experienced players 1-2 because we finding out who the most experienced players are first helps more than just picking randomly.

Yes, but you’d claim to be human regardless of whether or not you were. I mean, I know I’m human too. So since you claim to be human and I claim to be human, should we then put JLAC at the top of the list? Or once JLAC posts that he’s human (and I expect that he will), should we then conclude that there are no wolves and the seer is wasting his time looking at anyone at all?

That’s an absured turn in logic. How about this, list your preferences not including yourself, then we can have a consensus opinion for the seer, and then we can get down to brass tacks, and randomly murder someone for looking funny.

So, I dont understand why we would even want consensus.  You are giving the wolves input, and they would use that to their own nefarious ends.  We would be much better suited in killing someone.

Disagree, the wolves begin the game with more information than the villagers, we are trying to level things a bit by giving the seer information, especially if the seer has already divined the identity of a wolf (I know, an admittedly small chance).

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 02:10 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 02:07 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 02:03 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:56 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:53 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:48 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:46 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:34 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:31 PM

So come now people, who should the Seer investigate?

Presumably you or JLAC, going by experience, if you are correct and I’ve already been “seen.”

Well that is assuming the seer is anyone who’s ever played with you. So my preferences for the seer are as follows.

1. CW
2. JLAC
3. Everyone else who hasn’t posted yet.
4. The rest of the people who have posted.
5. Myself

Can you explain why you put yourself so low?

Because I already know I’m human, and I want the seer finding were-beasts not humans. To go further, I put the two most experienced players 1-2 because we finding out who the most experienced players are first helps more than just picking randomly.

Yes, but you’d claim to be human regardless of whether or not you were. I mean, I know I’m human too. So since you claim to be human and I claim to be human, should we then put JLAC at the top of the list? Or once JLAC posts that he’s human (and I expect that he will), should we then conclude that there are no wolves and the seer is wasting his time looking at anyone at all?

That’s an absured turn in logic. How about this, list your preferences not including yourself, then we can have a consensus opinion for the seer, and then we can get down to brass tacks, and randomly murder someone for looking funny.

So then why didn’t you exclude yourself in the first place, instead of putting yourself last? And again, why do you care so much about the seer does tonight? Your and my consensus isn’t binding on the seer anyway.

Of course not, but it does get everyone to lay out the suspicions and biases for us to use in evaluating tomorrows aftermath. After we pour some out from our ceremonial 40’s for the departed of course.

Except couldn’t we lay out biases and suspisions in determining who to vote today?  You seem to be putting the cart before the horse and conceding we will kill a human.  (Which is probably likely, I admit).

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 02:22 PM

Flounder: Avowed enemy of inconvenience - 27 January 2012 02:20 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 02:03 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:56 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:53 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:48 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:46 PM

CW hits the pinata for the candy - 27 January 2012 01:34 PM

JGLB Will Soon Be A Sad Old Man - 27 January 2012 01:31 PM

So come now people, who should the Seer investigate?

Presumably you or JLAC, going by experience, if you are correct and I’ve already been “seen.”

Well that is assuming the seer is anyone who’s ever played with you. So my preferences for the seer are as follows.

1. CW
2. JLAC
3. Everyone else who hasn’t posted yet.
4. The rest of the people who have posted.
5. Myself

Can you explain why you put yourself so low?

Because I already know I’m human, and I want the seer finding were-beasts not humans. To go further, I put the two most experienced players 1-2 because we finding out who the most experienced players are first helps more than just picking randomly.

Yes, but you’d claim to be human regardless of whether or not you were. I mean, I know I’m human too. So since you claim to be human and I claim to be human, should we then put JLAC at the top of the list? Or once JLAC posts that he’s human (and I expect that he will), should we then conclude that there are no wolves and the seer is wasting his time looking at anyone at all?

That’s an absured turn in logic. How about this, list your preferences not including yourself, then we can have a consensus opinion for the seer, and then we can get down to brass tacks, and randomly murder someone for looking funny.

So, I dont understand why we would even want consensus.  You are giving the wolves input, and they would use that to their own nefarious ends.  We would be much better suited in killing someone.

Disagree, the wolves begin the game with more information than the villagers, we are trying to level things a bit by giving the seer information, especially if the seer has already divined the identity of a wolf (I know, an admittedly small chance).

What information are we giving the seer, though? I know you listed me first for how I’ve done in previous games, but that doesn’t really affect my probability of being a werewolf. Just like your experience doesn’t really affect your probability of being a werewolf.

bads85 - 27 January 2012 02:21 PM

So are Bourbon’s dead goats werewolf related, or a result of village politics/personal squabbles?

I’m betting werewolves, since anyone out early enough to be killing my goats is probably a werewolf anyway. Or a weregoat.

Either way, I demand compensation.

The more I think about it, the more I don’t see the sense to JGLB’s list idea. At least two players (the werewolves) have an incentive to lie about their lists. (The seer may also have an incentive to lie.) They’re also the only two players who know which players are villagers, and thus are more likely to submit honest ballots. So the werewolves get a LOT more information out of the lists than any of the villagers would.