BtPotEC GF: Ghost suggestion process, a potential revision.

[Avi]

I too was slightly influenced favorably by the appeal when it came, thus the clarification that I personally thought #4 more suggested innocence than guilt.

Two points remain:
1. An innocent Avi did seek help from the ghosts. Someone other than EC and slayer sought help. An innocent student trying to stay alive not because he really cared whether he survived to the end, but who wanted to keep the student team from wasting a turn.
2. It perhaps was critical whether Avi's appeal came this round or last. Had it come last round, it would have come before our round 4 nomination (where it turned out not to matter) and before our round 5 nomination (where I suspect we would have nominated Avi anyway because of the timing issues, but maybe would have presented Avi and Werewolf as equally likely to be EC in our opinion).Unfortunately, I'll answer your question for you, Mithrandir.

Once my name was suggested by the ghosts, the only option the ghosts had would be to actively remove my name. Unfortunately, most students are conditioned to automatically vote for the ghost recommendation; either dure to lack of independant thought on their part, or due to fear of being considered EC. Personally, I believe I did not follow y'all lemming-like, but as you said, Olorin, I am "impulsive" :burn:

So, although I put up a defense, I harbored little hope of the students buying it; especially as EK was convinced of my guilt. Which, as an aside, casts aspersions on the credibility of ALL of his work.

Now, if you ghosts would have rescinded your suggestion, your only viable option, the EC would have indubitably gotten me next round for thought I was the slayer - and that y'all messed up but good.

Now Gandalf believes that appeals to the ghosts is critical in determining guilt/innocence as posts here:

As I mentioned earlier, there is no need to appeal to the ghosts to survive, per se, as survival is not the key. The importanty point is to focus on the EC.

What this line of reasonong suggests is that y'all are focusing on people with a poor understanding of the mechanics of the game, more interested in their own survival than EC elimination.

Appeal to the ghosts for survival is only something the slayer or the EC would need to do - as their elimination changes the game critically. As long as any students remain, it really doe not matter WHICH students remain - as they all only combine to one vote.

I am seriously surprised that this line of reasoning was given any credence at all, and I think it should be dropped posthaste!
:shake: No, Avi, it assumed that you fully understood the mechanics of the game. You were in relatively little danger from the students lynching you directly. You were doomed if the ghosts nominated you.

Appeal to the ghosts is something an innocent student should do. It is not an issue of which innocent student survives; it is trying to give the lynching a chance at hitting an EC. It is far, far better to be killed by the EC, when the EC is thereby missing the slayer, than to be lynched by the students who would otherwise be taking a shot at the EC. Is there any downside for an innocent student to PM the ghosts in that situation?

I would not expect most players to realize this, and therefore for most I would attach almost no significance to it. It was not a major factor in my decision process, and I suspect most others ignored it completely.Personally, as my demise signifies, I disagree. I think the appeal must be directed publicly to the students (and by extension the slayer), as THEY are the only ones whose choice we students care about. The ghosts can only suggest, they cannot do anything to further our goal. The ghosts' role is ONLY advisory. This game has warped somehow to make the students a bunch of mindless drones and to leave the ghosts in charge.

Now if the ghosts had direct knowledge of the slayer, then I could understand this to a point. The ghosts would buffer. But where they do not have such knowledge, like now, the cons outweigh the pros. Just take a look at the sugestion history; 'nuff said.

Perhaps the following may help, although it IS risky.

Once the ghosts decide on the most likely candidate, the ghosts post the name of said person together with 2 other people and invite them all to publicly or privately defend themselves.

The first thing this accomplishes is to separate the defense process from the bandwagon, allowing some other poor soul the opportunity to mount a credible defense.

The next thing this accomplishes is that as we might hit an EC in the 3, the responses can be analyzed in THAT light as well.

Lastly, we may happen to invite defenses from both EC2 and the sleeper. In that case, I posit that there may well be a correlation between their defenses, which we could pick up on.

As for cons, I don't really see one, in that the process now has a two-person suggestion. It's just that it segues immediately into the bandwagon - which has not proven succesful these last 6 rounds.

OK, shoot me full of holes, I'm ready :D

I'm also currently ectoplasmic - so that may be difficult ;)

[Leela]

Awhile ago, I proposed that we suggest 2 or 3 names at the beginning of the students' turn. Then let them take as long as they want discussing the options. This would require the students to realize that they should discuss the options instead of forming bandwagons quickly. The downside to this is we may give away a lot of information on who is not the slayer. We could slip the slayer's name in with two other prominate names in the hopes that the students would lynch one of the other nominees.

[Avi]

What I am saying here is a PRE suggestion. We may suggest one of the three (our most probable) after the discussion. We may pull a fast one and invite 3 potential innocents to defend, and then suggest a fourth.

We might as well try and get as much information about all people as we can to flesh out our suspicions.

This should forestall your issue, Leela, as the defense discussions are meant to be separate from the suggestion - to prevent runaway bandwagoning.

[4sigma]

Avi, if I follow you correctly, you're saying that the ghosts provide 3 names for 'discussion" and then after a certain amount of public discussion, the ghosts then name one of the three (usually) for lynching?

I think that I agree that this protects the slayer fairly well, though it is possible that it may draw attention to protecting them if the "discussion" suggests that they are the most likely EC, but we then name someone different. Still, I think this protects the slayer at least as well as we have been under the circumstances.

I think that the students may protest this a bit, since there may be active sentiment to lynch someone not among the 3 names we suggest. For example, if I were a living student and I were leading the charge to lynch Will Durant, I would become peeved if the ghosts went 3 or 4 rounds without naming Will Durant.

On the plus side, we could indicate that we want to be responsive to whoever the students want to discuss, and they should PM us the reasons that they want to discuss certain students. This would probably get us some better PM traffic, along with better thought-out reasoning.

[Gandalf]

Now Gandalf believes that appeals to the ghosts is critical in determining guilt/innocence as posts here:

(Lots snipped)I would not expect most players to realize this, and therefore for most I would attach almost no significance to it. It was not a major factor in my decision process, and I suspect most others ignored it completely.
This is totally at variance with the suggestion I consider it critical.

I see little reason to debate it further. Both you and I were innocent students.

Now, if you ghosts would have rescinded your suggestion, your only viable option, the EC would have indubitably gotten me next round for thought I was the slayer - and that y'all messed up but good.
No. Why? As a living student, weren't you convinced the ghosts knew who the slayer was? Could any player conceive of the ghosts accidentally proposing our slayer, especially as the primary nomination? A player might possibly think the ghosts had been planning all along to rescind it, but more likely they would think we had been convinced you were an innocent student.

Anyway, why would it be a big deal if the EC had killed you? They're going to kill some innocent student, and as long as it's not the slayer we don't care all that much which one.

But as to your positive idea: inviting comments on some names, perhaps stating some reasons, making it clear that we will recommend a target later, works for me. We must be very clear that we may mention some names we do not want hit, including the slayer's.

[Rocky]

I'm still of the mindset that public debate of innocence only helps the EC. It took me a little while to come away with that idea from last game, but I hold to it pretty firmly now.

It's awfully hard to prove innocence. What would be Ultimate Anyone?'s defense? "I never posted here, can't be EC". Extreme example, but it's indicative of the lack of information that an innocent student should want to provide.

The advantage of Avi's suggestion is that students can "cross-examine" each other. That's something that I wanted last game, but was not able to get due to the fact that it would help the EC determine who the students felt were "most innocent" (and best targets for the EC). This is still a drawback, but a risk that it seems as if some ghosts now want to take.

As for Avi's point about the GC having a more major role in the game, I don't see what's wrong with that. It brought the students their first victory last game (small sample, I know).

We are part of the game. We're not out of the game, nor did we lose it because we got killed. The only differences between us and the living students are (1) we can't vote, (2) we have communication constraints - i.e. no PM's to living students, and (3) we're KNOWN to be innocent. Nonetheless, we're still in the game and should be utilized in the best possible way. We may not be there yet, but we should think about how to leverage our roles to tilt the advantage in the game as much in the students' favor as possible.

[Gandalf]

It could be helpful to get suspects', and other players' reactions to reasons we have for threatening to lynch them.

What we don't want is public posts of innocence unrelated to the actions deemed suspicious. It would give us a more clear reason for saying we wanted PMs giving any other reasons why the suggested list is innocent.

[Avi]

As a student, I was in favor of keeping all information to myself for security reasons. I also did not understand some of the ghosts decisisons, and had doubts about their efficacy.

be that as it may, I am on the other side of the ectoplasmic curtain now, and would like to get as much data as we can handle.

So shall we implement this plan?

[Leela]

If we do decide to implement this plan, it would probably be good idea to throw out the discussion names during the slayer's turn or EC's turn, especially the first time we use this plan. That way the students won't be able to bandwagon yet, and we might get some good discussion going.

I'm in favor of going ahead with this plan. I think we should ask them to discuss Werewolf, Kaput Shakur, and EK.

[Gandalf]

I am fine with those three names, but suggest we provide some specific reasons for giving them those names. Also, I would suggest that we specifically ask them about the merits of hitting someone, not naming any specific person, who has been very quiet without doing anything explicit to arouse suspicion.

Finally, I think it is critical to remind them that
1. These are for discussion. They cannot safely lynch these people.
2. Do not go overboard on the defense of anyone. It does us no good to let the EC know who our team feels strongly is innocent. If you think one of these people is innocent, be sure to PM the ghosts, but tone it down publicly, especially if no one is putting much pressure against the person.

[snafu]

I am fine with those three names, but suggest we provide some specific reasons for giving them those names. Also, I would suggest that we specifically ask them about the merits of hitting someone, not naming any specific person, who has been very quiet without doing anything explicit to arouse suspicion.

Finally, I think it is critical to remind them that
1. These are for discussion. They cannot safely lynch these people.
2. Do not go overboard on the defense of anyone. It does us no good to let the EC know who our team feels strongly is innocent. If you think one of these people is innocent, be sure to PM the ghosts, but tone it down publicly, especially if no one is putting much pressure against the person.

I like this idea. For our own edification, can we get confirmation that these three are all actually non-slayer. I have Werewolf and EK as definitely OK'ed by the slayer but nothing on Kaput Shakur.

[Avi]

Even if we find out the one is the slayer, we should post the name anyway - for future leeway.

Also, I still beleive we should suggest a completely different name every now and then (like next round), just to play with the ECs' minds.

[Gandalf]

Why not some completely different names every round, pointing out that we are still interested in new thoughts on any of the previous names?

[Sunny]

What I am saying here is a PRE suggestion. We may suggest one of the three (our most probable) after the discussion. We may pull a fast one and invite 3 potential innocents to defend, and then suggest a fourth.

We might as well try and get as much information about all people as we can to flesh out our suspicions.

This should forestall your issue, Leela, as the defense discussions are meant to be separate from the suggestion - to prevent runaway bandwagoning.

I like this idea very, very well guys.

[Rocky]

I'm more in favor of using a plan that's similar in nature to Gandalf's revisions.

The main things to consider are:

1) The introduction of the idea needs to be very explicitly explained. Outline the intent and discuss the pros of following a protocol and the cons of deviating.

2) We can't rein this in if it gets out of control. Players can get sensitive when they feel accused. There's no way for us to stop the discussions (and possibly too much info for EC) that may come out of this.

3) Be prepared to refute EK :judge: . I could be wrong, but I see him as being against this idea since it limits his hording of information and makes more things public. If he's truly for the students, he'll not put up too much of a fight. If he's looking out for himself, he won't shut up.

[snafu]

Rocky, the judge smiley is supposed to be a stupid stick.

The stupid stick is an inside joke from when EK and I used to work together. If you did something really stupid, you got a whack on the head with the non-material stupid stick.

Correct usage of the stupid stick involves a whack on the head.

Therefore, proper usage should be

:judge:
EK - whatever you want to say

acceptable alternative usage might be
:judge:
:duh: EK
:blah: to EK from you

[snafu]

Also, for what it is worth. Even though the stupid stick is an imaginary item (like a unicorn horn or something) it resides in my office. The stupid stick is MINE (although correct usage sometimes involves contorting a little). When the gang from where EK and I worked together all parted ways, the stupid stick went with me!!!

Proper application of the stupid stick is only done by me.

EK will have a most proper dose next time we meet :D
:judge:
:duh: EK

[snafu]

Gotta love that alternate usage. Maybe I'll add that to my sig.

:judge:
:duh: EK

[Rocky]

Snafu,

I like using it for pounding things into his thick head. I'll keep that meaning for my posts. Nice history though...

FWIW, you should put it into your sig line.

[4sigma]

How about we run this strategy suggestion past the students? Before naming names, just propose the strategy in general. That way we can see if they like it, but more importantly, make sure they fully understand it before they lynch our slayer.

Avi, you're something of a lightning rod at the moment, so if we want to float this trial balloon, I think it might best come from Leela.

[Sunny]

I agree, let's go for it! :D Go Leela! :clap:

[Avi]

Avi, you're something of a lightning rod at the moment, so if we want to float this trial balloon, I think it might best come from Leela. :evil: :burn: :wall: :crying: :roll:


Sure :D

[Leela]

Here's what I've come up with. Let me know what you think.



The ghosts have been working on a way to elicit more discussion about possible suspects. The following is what we have come up with. We would like to hear your feedback on this idea…..


Early in the lynching process, possibly during the slayer’s turn or EC’s turn, the ghosts will propose 3 – 4 names, which we think merit further discussions. These players are invited to publicly and privately defend themselves. The rest of the student should publicly and privately provide their thoughts of guilt or innocence.

Then, closer to the lynching time, the ghosts will suggest a player who they think should be lynched that round. The student should be aware that we may propose names in the first stage that we feel are innocent, but want more feedback about. Therefore, they should refrain from lynching someone until the ghost make their final recommendation.

[Sunny]

Avi, you're something of a lightning rod at the moment, so if we want to float this trial balloon, I think it might best come from Leela. :evil: :burn: :wall: :crying: :roll:


Sure :D

Avi, I'd really like to meet you someday, especially to see how you have all these expressions all at a consecutive fast speed.

:D

[Gandalf]

I would change "The student should be aware that we may propose names in the first stage that we feel are innocent, but want more feedback about." to
"The students should be aware that we may propose names in the first stage that we feel are innocent, even the slayer's."

Also add that we may or may not give reasons for some or all of the names.

[4sigma]

I think we should also add that we are very interested in student input in order to determine who those 3-4 names will be each round, so please PM us your ranking lists with clearly stated reasons... :D

[Leela]

I would change "The student should be aware that we may propose names in the first stage that we feel are innocent, but want more feedback about." to
"The students should be aware that we may propose names in the first stage that we feel are innocent, even the slayer's."

Also add that we may or may not give reasons for some or all of the names.

My reason for not saying anything about including the slayer is that the EC would, hopefully, think that we wouldn't include the slayer's name. Then, they would be busy looking at who we didn't propose in hopes of finding the slayer.

[4sigma]

I would change "The student should be aware that we may propose names in the first stage that we feel are innocent, but want more feedback about." to
"The students should be aware that we may propose names in the first stage that we feel are innocent, even the slayer's."

Also add that we may or may not give reasons for some or all of the names.

My reason for not saying anything about including the slayer is that the EC would, hopefully, think that we wouldn't include the slayer's name. Then, they would be busy looking at who we didn't propose in hopes of finding the slayer.

I agree with Gandalf. No sense risking the students getting out of hand. Let the EC wonder when we are protecting the slayer. Hey, we only have to list them if we want to. Maybe EC will wonder whether we actually do or not.

[Avi]

I agree with Gandalf. No sense risking the students getting out of hand. Let the EC wonder when we are protecting the slayer. Hey, we only have to list them if we want to. Maybe EC will wonder whether we actually do or not.That's why when I originally posted this, I did not say anything about "may or may not be innocent"

Just say we want info about the following three people - and at the suggestion phase, pick any one of them or a fourth.

Fear and Ignorance can work both ways :burn:

[Leela]

After a few revisions ...



The ghosts have been working on a way to elicit more discussion about possible suspects. The following is what we have come up with. We would like to hear your feedback on this idea…..


Early in the lynching process, possibly during the slayer’s turn or EC’s turn, the ghosts will propose 3 – 4 names, which we think merit further discussions. These players are invited to publicly and privately defend themselves. The rest of the student should publicly and privately provide their thoughts of guilt or innocence. Since we will be proposing names in order to create a discussion, we may not provide reasons for some or all of the names

Then, closer to the lynching time, the ghosts will suggest a player who they think should be lynched that round. The students should be aware that we may propose names in the first stage that we feel are innocent, even the slayer's. Therefore, they should refrain from lynching someone until the ghost make their final recommendation.

We want to choose the 3 - 4 names to propose each round based on student input. So please PM us your rankings with clearly stated reasons if you have not done so already.

[Gandalf]

Sounds good to me.

[Avi]

I would edit it to read as follows (deleteions in red, additions in blue):

Early in the lynching analysis process, possibly during the slayer’s turn or EC’s turn, the ghosts will propose 3 – 4 names, which we think merit further discussions. These players are invited to publicly and privately defend themselves. The rest of the student should publicly and privately provide their thoughts of guilt or innocence. Since we will be proposing names in order to create a discussion, we may not provide reasons for some or all of the names. Once we are satisfied with the results we will return our suggestion to the students.So please PM us your rankings with clearly stated reasons if you have not done so already.

Do not give away too much information :dsmile:

[Gandalf]

Even if we emphasize that we might include the slayer, the EC doesn't know whether we will. They'll be guessing. Let's guard against a bad result if we suggest for discussion a name we don't want lynched.

I'm assuming that as long as we make sure the students aren't going to lynch on their own, we don't have to clear with the slayer before suggesting for discussion. For all we know, Kaput could be the slayer, right?

[Avi]

Even if we emphasize that we might include the slayer, the EC doesn't know whether we will. They'll be guessing. Let's guard against a bad result if we suggest for discussion a name we don't want lynched.

I'm assuming that as long as we make sure the students aren't going to lynch on their own, we don't have to clear with the slayer before suggesting for discussion. For all we know, Kaput could be the slayer, right?

The fact that we 1) post this BEFORE it's the student's turn and 2) We say we will come back with a suggestion after we get the data should be sufficient.

[Leela]

We can always jump in and say we meant for these names to be discussed only, and not lynched yet if the voting gets out of hand. This would most likely happen the first time we use this, which means we wouldn't want to include the slayer's name the first time.

[4sigma]

How about this:

The ghosts have been working on a way to elicit more discussion about possible suspects. The following is what we have come up with. We would like to hear your feedback on this idea…


Early in the process the ghosts will propose 3 – 4 names which we think merit further discussions. These players are invited to publicly and privately defend themselves. The rest of the students should publicly and privately provide their thoughts of guilt or innocence. Since we will be proposing names in order to create a discussion, we may not provide reasons for some or all of the names. Closer to the lynching time, the ghosts will make a final recommendation for who they think should be lynched that round, along with the reasons for that suggestion.

The students should be aware that we may propose names in the first stage that we feel are innocent, even the slayer's. This is necessary in order to prevent EC from identifying the slayer due to their absence from ever being listed. Therefore, they should refrain from lynching someone until the ghosts make their final recommendation.

We want to choose the 3 - 4 names to propose each round based on student input. So please PM us your rankings with clearly stated reasons if you have not done so already.

I think we may not want to pin ourselves down to providing these names before EC makes their selection. This may influence EC's choices. Of course, maybe we'd rather that it did? :-?

I think it's fine to be clear up front about why we may or may not list the slayer. Let EC guess.

[Avi]

How about this:

The ghosts have been working on a way to elicit more discussion about possible suspects. The following is what we have come up with. We would like to hear your feedback on this idea…


Early in the process the ghosts will propose 3 – 4 names which we think merit further discussions. These players are invited to publicly and privately defend themselves. The rest of the students should publicly and privately provide their thoughts of guilt or innocence. Since we will be proposing names in order to create a discussion, we may not provide reasons for some or all of the names. Closer to the lynching time, the ghosts will make a final recommendation for who they think should be lynched that round, along with the reasons for that suggestion.

The students should be aware that we may propose names in the first stage that we feel are innocent, even the slayer's. This is necessary in order to prevent EC from identifying the slayer due to their absence from ever being listed. Therefore, they should refrain from lynching someone until the ghosts make their final recommendation.

We want to choose the 3 - 4 names to propose each round based on student input. So please PM us your rankings with clearly stated reasons if you have not done so already.

I think we may not want to pin ourselves down to providing these names before EC makes their selection. This may influence EC's choices. Of course, maybe we'd rather that it did? :-?

I think it's fine to be clear up front about why we may or may not list the slayer. Let EC guess.

I still disagree with the paragraph in red. Why isn't the bloded sentence enough?

[Leela]

How about I post Avi's version. Then we can clarify with the red paragraph if we think it's necessary. We want to get feedback from the students before it's their turn.

[Avi]

We lightning rods agree with that :D

[4sigma]

I still disagree with the paragraph in red. Why isn't the bloded sentence enough?

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. (http://www.mentalsoup.com/mentalsoup/basic.htm) Avi, I would think you would take that as axiomatic by now.

[Leela]

We need to come to some kind of decision on this soon, before the EC strikes.

[Gandalf]

I prefer 4Sigma's version. I could live with Avi's, provided any ghost is authorized (and encouraged) to step in as soon as anyone gets within 2 votes of being lynched.

[Leela]

I would say that any ghost should step in when someone gets half the votes needed for lynching during the discussion phase.

[Avi]

That's 5 votes now, ehich usually occurs within 3 minutes.

I think that any ghost can and should step in with a reminder that this is NOT a lynching suggestion as soon as they feel it necessary, even if <5 votes are cast.

Perhaps we should have a back up lynching candidate that we can actually suggest if we feel we need to take the heat off. Although I do not think that will be necessary.

[Leela]

This is what I plan on posting within the next half hour, with the contingency that any and all ghosts (except KP) should step in with a reminder that this is NOT a lynching suggestion if they feel that voting is occurring prematurely.



Early in the process the ghosts will propose 3 – 4 names which we think merit further discussions. These players are invited to publicly and privately defend themselves. The rest of the students should publicly and privately provide their thoughts of guilt or innocence. Since we will be proposing names in order to create a discussion, we may not provide reasons for some or all of the names. The students should refrain from lynching someone during the discussion phase. Closer to the lynching time, the ghosts will make a final recommendation for who they think should be lynched that round, along with the reasons for that suggestion.

We want to choose the 3 - 4 names to propose each round based on student input. So please PM us your rankings with clearly stated reasons if you have not done so already.

[4sigma]

I am OK with the above, but I do really like my paragraph that Avi put in red. I think that if we omit it, students may raise the concern as to whether or not this helps EC identify the slayer, and we will find ourselves providing subsequent amendments that get lost in the confusion.

Also, it has the merit of making it known up front that the students had really better not bandwagon onto anyone. Of course, we won't propose the slayer the first round, but we will see if we can instill the discipline in the mob such that we could actually risk this.

[Avi]

Just yanking your chain, Leela :)

Seriously, perhaps anyone who does not like the idea will PM me or post why, and students should like the idea!! :dsmile:

[4sigma]

I think that last round was not a particular success in terms of the nominating strategy. Once again, the students piled onto a single favorite (EK) and by not lynching him, it was clear that we were protecting him.

While this is all fine and good with EK, this will be a disaster if a similar thing should happen with our slayer. We need a way to elicit nominees without there being any single favorite that we are clearly protecting. As the field narrows, this becomes increasingly important in order to protect our slayer.

A couple of thoughts that I have had -- feel free to let me know if you like these, or if you have others of you own.

1) We can continue trying to educate the students not to bandwagon. After all the efforts we have made, however, I am not hopeful that this will have any success.

2) We can try and force the students to stop bold voting, and go back to red voting. It is possible this may encounter some resistance. But last game, the red votes tended to be more evenly distrubted compared to the way the bold votes have been going this game.

3) We can emphasize that the number of votes a person receives has no relation whatsoever to how much weight the ghosts give to lynching that person. A person is either a candidate for that round or he isn't. The ghosts will pick from all eligible candidates, based solely on the merits of lynching that candidate, and regardless of how many votes they have -- bold, red, or otherwise.

In any event, I think we need to make it clear that there is no purpose served whatsoever in casting a vote for a person who already is clearly a lynching candidate. All this does is serve to make that person an EC target in the event that the ghosts would like them spared.

[Leela]

I think 3) is a bad idea. If we don't take number of votes into consideration, the players will have no reason to defend themselves. Also, we won't know who has more people suspicious of them. And it doesn't give any power to the students.

[Gandalf]

I would like to try the EK plan, as modified by me, again. We can say in advance that it will apply. We can invite EK to identify differences, if any, between it and his ideal. That way we are fairly much going with a strategy proposed by a (possibly EC) student.

We need to remind them not to lynch anyone, that it is a good idea to roll votes to give us more options. We need to be prepared to hit if they give us a good option; maybe we should try to have 3 in mind.

Finally, we need to remind them that at some time (if we have not nominated someone earlier), we will choose among the top two then plus some other (and invite them to suggest who that other is). We need to clarify when that time is, to allow us some time (even if only an hour) for deliberation, and then allow them enough time to lynch.

Having us suggest people for discussion was good in theory, but will not fly now, IMO.l

I don't think we need to discuss the issue of how much the number of student votes influences us.

[Leela]

I would like to try the EK plan, as modified by me, again.

I like your original modification better, where anyone who has received half the votes needed to lynch will be considered even if they are no longer in the top 2 or 3.

[Gandalf]

EK's gives more power to the living students and is easier for them to understand. I think we should stick with it, at least for one more round.

[snafu]

Actually I think if the EC doesn't take out EK then our course of action is pretty simple for this round. Time to give up on the Karma Police thing as it doesn't seem to be having any effect.

Assumptions:
Slayer takes out Werewolf who is one of our short-list candidates
EC doesn't take out EK, which is suspisious in itself
Will Durant is no longer protected as part of our Karma Police gambit, which doesn't seem to be panning out

I suggest we make our suggestion early and announce a Steel Cage Death Match between EK and Will Durant. Listing evidence for and against each one and let the students decide. It should lead to a pretty fun round. Slayer can then take out the survivor.

[Leela]

Sounds good to me. :)

[Rocky]

Here's my thought (shoot holes in it, if you must):

If EK and Will Durant are still around after the EC strike, we can certainly offer up these 2 names for debate. As long as we're giving out multiple names, the EC should expect that we would include the slayer as an option at some point. The most likely point being one where we think that the slayer does not have a chance in Hades of getting chosen over the other option(s). It's not a stretch to say that EK would be expected to garner more lynch votes than Will Durant. But, EK may be the only one that would.

So, that would give us 3 scenarios:
1) Lynched EK - You've seen my reasons for why I don't think this is a bad thing. Plus, this should get the EC thinking that there's a chance that Will is the slayer. This should make an EC hit of Will more attractive. If that doesn't happen, then his probability of being EC goes up quite a bit IMO.
2) Lynched Will - seems to be pretty high on multiple "guilt" lists.
3) students go a different way. Almost 0% chance of this.

[snafu]

We have a motion and a second. Can we get a show of hands, please.

This is of course all assuming that the EC doesn't eliminate Will or EK from consideration.

[Leela]

:wave:

How many votes does it take to make it official?

[snafu]

Also, would something like this work going forward. Announce two candidates for the round. Lay out evidence for / against. Let the feeding frenzy begin.

Loser gets lynched. Winner is pretty high on slayers list but not a definite choice. If winner survives the slayer then winner gets a new opponent in the next round?

[snafu]

:wave:

How many votes does it take to make it official?

A solid concensus of the active ghosts. We still have the slayer and EC turns so there is a little while to debate.

[Sunny]

What you guys are suggesting sounds fine to me!

[Maine-iac]

I haven't been active here at all, but I like the plan. The students are getting bored and restless.

[ahow]

I second that emotion...

[Gandalf]

Why do we want to do this? Especially, if slayer takes out the other of EK and Will, and neither is EC, then we have gathered no info about anyone else.

If slayer doesn't take out the other, we have told the EC that someone isn't the slayer.

We said we wanted to get EC2 first. Snafu, aren't you still convinced that EK is not EC2?

I prefer to stick with the EK method for another round.

[Rocky]

Also, would something like this work going forward. Announce two candidates for the round. Lay out evidence for / against. Let the feeding frenzy begin.

Loser gets lynched. Winner is pretty high on slayers list but not a definite choice. If winner survives the slayer then winner gets a new opponent in the next round?

If we use this idea this round, we should highly suggest that the slayer not hit the loser this round. We'll be better off seeing if the EC strikes the loser down. If that doesn't happen, then the slayer should be very suspicious of the loser's survival.

[Rocky]

I prefer to stick with the EK method for another round.

Do you think that it worked very well for the students last round? I don't mean "did it hit the target", the only method that's done that is the let the slayer do what they want method. But, was information gleaned from the discussion? I didn't see any benefit to it.

[snafu]

Currently weighing in on the Steel Cage Death Match format

snafu for
Leela for
Sunny for
Maine-iac for
ahow for
Gandalf against
Rocky for
Avi for (see below)
Hagbard Celine for (see below)

Not yet weighed in
4Sigma
Butters
Cho Da
Jables
Kenshiro
Super Silver Haze
Thing

edited to correct ahow and add Avi, Hagbard Celine

[snafu]

Why do we want to do this? Especially, if slayer takes out the other of EK and Will, and neither is EC, then we have gathered no info about anyone else.

If slayer doesn't take out the other, we have told the EC that someone isn't the slayer.

We said we wanted to get EC2 first. Snafu, aren't you still convinced that EK is not EC2?

I prefer to stick with the EK method for another round.

We can continue trying to gather information or we can start acting on some of the information that we have. The information gathering approach last round didn't gather crap for information. I am saying it is time to try a round of acting on information that we already have.

[Gandalf]

It didn't work last round, but we were already into the round before I said we were going to use it. If we point out the importance of getting more votes (for more pressure), giving reasons (so those accused have something to deny or explain), and some rolling of votes (so those in the top two have a strong incentive to get out), we may get more discussion. Remind the students that if there is someone else they want us to hit, they need to drum up living student support for lynching them.

If we propose the candidates for discussion, and we pick one of them, the students will feel totally powerless. If we propose the candidates, and we pick someone else entirely, they will feel even less involved in the process.

[snafu]

Case for / Against Will Durant

Evidence Against

Active in political thus fits EC2 profile
Active over Memorial Weekend thus fits EC2 profile
Unnaturally quiet per several PM'ed comments


Evidence For

Going against initial Oblomov bandwagon and thus drawing un-EC-like attention to self
PM to one student questioning strategy of going along with slayer suggestions suggests un-EC-like behavior as EC would have a more vested interest in understanding the game rules

[Gandalf]

I am saying it is time to try a round of acting on information that we already have.
What info would we be acting on? Doesn't the info we have gathered suggest EK is not EC2? Likewise with Will. We don't really think he is EC2, though he's much more likely than EK to be EC2.

edited to add: Oh, that evidence.

[snafu]

I am saying it is time to try a round of acting on information that we already have.
What info would we be acting on? Doesn't the info we have gathered suggest EK is not EC2? Likewise with Will. We don't really think he is EC2, though he's much more likely than EK to be EC2.

edited to add: Oh, that evidence.

I think the above is a pretty good representation of both side for Will Durant. Care to take a stab at presenting the evidence for / against EK?

[snafu]

It didn't work last round, but we were already into the round before I said we were going to use it. If we point out the importance of getting more votes (for more pressure), giving reasons (so those accused have something to deny or explain), and some rolling of votes (so those in the top two have a strong incentive to get out), we may get more discussion. Remind the students that if there is someone else they want us to hit, they need to drum up living student support for lynching them.

If we propose the candidates for discussion, and we pick one of them, the students will feel totally powerless. If we propose the candidates, and we pick someone else entirely, they will feel even less involved in the process.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting we propose the candidates for discussion and that we then pick one of them. I am suggesting that we present evidence on two candidates and step aside with a suggestion that the students should not be too quick to lynch the candidates but that they should definitely pick one of them. Let the accusations fly from the two up for discussion. Let the counter-accusations fly about the people voting to each of them.

In case we attempt to pull a real fast one and put up the slayer (and very weak evidence) versus someone with a strong case against. We could end-up providing some real protection to the slayer but run a very real risk that they will get lynched.

I'm just saying that the current roll the vote thing ain't working and therefore suggest a change of pace for a round. If it doesn't work well then we can reconsider.

[Avi]

The only caveat I have is that whoever was not picked over 2-3 rounds becomes semi-obvious as slayer.

I still like my idea of floating 2 names and suggesting a third, just to keep everyone honest.

[4sigma]

Here are my thoughts on the merits of the steel cage match:

Basically, this is a decision on our part to kill off both EK and Will Durant. Any "survivor" of the match will shortly be dead.

So in effect, this is equivalent to saying that we think 2 of our next 3/4 hits should be used to take out EK and Will Durant. I'm not convinced that we want to do this. I think both of them are a bit less likely than average to be EC2.

I confess I am beginning to warm to the idea of Will Durant or Anonymouse as the sleeper, since EC has failed to act on KP's tip, despite a reasonably plausible hoax.

I do still think that we should get a set of nominees from the students somehow, and select one of them each round to hit. This better protects the slayer compared to if we provide multiple names.

The hard part seems to be convincing the students not to give us a "single favorite" each round, but a set of 3-4 students with almost equal weight.

[Hagbard Celine]

for

[snafu]

If we get the students to "provide" us a list it is usually on 2 players long. We can move further down the list but then seemingly protect the person at the top and they get taken out.

If we go with a Death Match - then we have some fun for a round or two, eliminate two above average candidates (assumption up for discussion on this). The down side is that we gain little or no information.

If we go with the current system - then we are bored for yet another round, we spend a page or two debating the relative merits of the ghosts, we eliminate someone other than the slayer, we may bait the EC into wasting another turn eliminating the #1 candidate that we bypass. The down side is that we gain little or no information.

If we go with an Avi feeding freenzy (suggest 3 for discussion ONLY, then suggest whomever we please for lynching) - then we gain information and discussion, we potentially give additional information to the EC, we quite possibly have some fun, we quite possibly piss off the students.

[Avi]

If we go with an Avi feeding frenzy (suggest 3 for discussion ONLY, then suggest whomever we please for lynching) - then we gain information and discussion, we potentially give additional information to the EC, we quite possibly have some fun, we quite possibly piss off the students.What's not to like? :burn:

[ahow]

If we go with a Death Match - then we have some fun for a round or two, eliminate two above average candidates (assumption up for discussion on this). The down side is that we gain little or no information.
I am still a big fan of this. I saw we do Will v. EK, winner takes on Kaput...

[Rocky]

If we go with a Death Match - then we have some fun for a round or two, eliminate two above average candidates (assumption up for discussion on this). The down side is that we gain little or no information.
I am still a big fan of this. I saw we do Will v. EK, winner takes on Kaput... :lolup:

[Butters]

I guess I would be for the death match because it sounds like fun. However, I'm against the competitors being EK and Will, at least for now. Why not have it be someone that has been quiet but voted for? I like throwing in Traina and Kaput or something like that. Traina and All Clear wouldn't be a bad option (the accused vs. the accuser). Personally, I think EK and Will should survive another round.

[Leela]

I don't know how the ghosts select each victim, but I am going to ask that they NOT throw out multiple names, since that only alerts the EC of people that are definitley not the slayer. Figure out who you think is most likely to be EC, and tell the students that name. If this person is someone no student had even considered, and the person the ghosts think is "second-most-likely to be EC" is also a strong EC candidate by the ghosts, give us that person. Or, I will leave it up to you guys as to how to select. I see no reason to follow EK's idea of one of the top 2 or 3 at any time. As far as I could tell, no other student has said they truly like this specific idea that EK has thrown out. As you may have known already, Werewolf was selected by me not because of any strong idea that he was EC, but that the EC knew Werewolf is not the slayer. Without any extremely strong reason to slay another person, I went with him, therefore.

[Rocky]

I guess I would be for the death match because it sounds like fun. However, I'm against the competitors being EK and Will, at least for now. Why not have it be someone that has been quiet but voted for? I like throwing in Traina and Kaput or something like that. Traina and All Clear wouldn't be a bad option (the accused vs. the accuser). Personally, I think EK and Will should survive another round.

I like the EK v. Will idea for the following reasons:

1) it should be good entertainment...EK won't shut up and Will will try to get his digs in too

2) the students have shown that they suspect some guilt (or at least were annoyed) by both of them.

3) I'd like to see them both dead (since I'm inclined to think that at least one of them has been moonlighting as an EC member)...

But, let's not debate this for days. Let's start some action for the students! Name the combatants...

[Avi]

I don't know how the ghosts select each victim, but I am going to ask that they NOT throw out multiple names, since that only alerts the EC of people that are definitley not the slayer. Figure out who you think is most likely to be EC, and tell the students that name. If this person is someone no student had even considered, and the person the ghosts think is "second-most-likely to be EC" is also a strong EC candidate by the ghosts, give us that person. Or, I will leave it up to you guys as to how to select. I see no reason to follow EK's idea of one of the top 2 or 3 at any time. As far as I could tell, no other student has said they truly like this specific idea that EK has thrown out. As you may have known already, Werewolf was selected by me not because of any strong idea that he was EC, but that the EC knew Werewolf is not the slayer. Without any extremely strong reason to slay another person, I went with him, therefore.


Another vote for my "throw out a bunch of names for discussion and throw someone unrelated under the bus" technique :)

[Mulan]

Can't we ask the slayer if he/she would be willing to kill the other if we suggest EK vs Will... it would be awesome if we won that way... what a dramatic finish!

[4sigma]

Mulan,

We don't have any way to get that detailed a message to the slayer, unless we want to post it in the public thread. This sort of defeats the purpose of the students engaging in the death match if they realize that the slayer will take out the loser anyway.

Avi,

I am personally fond of your proposal that we throw out 3 names for discussion purposes, and then perhaps throw someone under the bus. I think we have a better chance of hitting EC this way. But so far, the students have been resistive. It is true that we could declare such a system by ethereal fiat and just hope to ride out the backlash that EK will likely foment. I am concerned that in the backlash, the students might do something rash to endanger our slayer.

[Rocky]

Mulan,

We don't have any way to get that detailed a message to the slayer, unless we want to post it in the public thread. This sort of defeats the purpose of the students engaging in the death match if they realize that the slayer will take out the loser anyway.

I saw this (and understand snafu's description) as a one-time shot. The students/EC would not know what the slayer's intentions were in advance of his/her action. That's the beauty of it.

[4sigma]

Regarding the steel cage deathmatch vs. Avi's method vs. EK's method vs. the Gandalf/EK compromise, I'm in agreement that we need a different nominating system if we can't get the students to use the current method. I've made a post in the public thread clarifying this.

I do think it is worth discussing Avi's method and the "steel cage" method in the public thread as possibilities for next round. Personally I am becoming fond of Avi's suggestion. I expect that the students will not be fond of it, since it limits their influence. However, perhaps it will inspire them to be more active in the current system and give us some respectable choices. And if they don't we can better defend our reasons for implementing it.

[Jables]

Currently weighing in on the Steel Cage Death Match format

Not yet weighed in

Jables


Sorry about the delay in getting here, but in case you're still wondering, I'm all for it! :)