Interesting though that the Mafia went for someone who'd been quiet, rather the likes of Ethan or Dai.
I can think of reasons why they wouldn't have gone for Dai.
He might be guilty, for one, but I'll assume that he isn't.
If he isn't guilty, then he's telling the truth about being unreadable (he's too smart to tell a disprovable lie if he's innocent). That means we could never be 100% certain of his innocence.
He had (yesterday) voiced suspicion of me. It would have suited the bad guys for me to be the focus of discussion, rather than them (however they are).
He advocated not lynching yet. He's not an immediate threat to them.
He's probably not the doctor. The rules don't explicitly include or exclude the possibility of 'unreadable' stacking with another innocent role, they do sort-of imply that the roles are separate. The bad guys need to find the doctor more than they need to get rid of an unreadable.
I don't think Dai was in any great danger. At least, if I were in their position he wouldn't have been.
Why they didn't target me is quite a bit harder to answer. I was by far the most likely to be investigated, and (if our doctor has any sense) definitely unprotected. I was the only person yesterday aggressive enough to want to vote anyone out - and since that's the only way we can win, that means I'm a threat to them. And I was the most vocal, and working on a viable plan to win by the numbers. And I was (as far as they know) as likely or unlikely to be the doctor as anyone else.
I've a couple of ideas why they didn't get me, when it seems to me I was comfortably their best target, but I'll share them after you've all thought about my other thought.
Karen White begins to noisily have hysterics after the announcement. "Someone just DIED!" she shrieks. "I was promised fame and excitement, drama! Not murder! This is terrible! Someone fix it!"
After she's calmed down a little, rationality returns, at least as far as Karen is ever rational. "Whoever is doing this is EVIL! I think they are scuzzy quiet hiding in the dark RATS! I think it's people we are not hearing from much. It's safer to be a rat if you are not in the spotlight. Which of you quiet people is secretly bloodily murdering people?!"
Mario is wondering if we can a funeral for poor dead Patrick. Poor murdered Patrick. Obviously someone among us has been scheming. But who? May God rest Patrick's soul.
He wonders what data other than the detective can be used to locate the criminals. We know they are here. I guess we just have to talk and see.
I suspect that the 'unreadable' mechanic only applies to investigation by the detective and that the death announcement would confirm citizen (+special roles)/mafia.
Since no one did point out any flaws in my thinking, if we do have any masons, now would be the time for them to say so.
I have two more thoughts. First, although the station said:
there’s no point psychoanalysing Scarlett
in guessing the roles, I think there is. Scarlett's a known quantity. Fucking evil, yes, but also very smart, and very stylish. She's practically incapable of being either dumb or crass. We can work with that.
How? She was trying to steer the aggressive types among us away from picking on the passive ones. She wants the stir things up between those she sees as players, rather than amateurs. Not just egos - we're all egos - but the real thick-skinned, dog-with-a-bone, belligerents. Players with that "I can beat you, Paupukkewis" arrogance. She wants to see those people at each other's throats. And that makes sense. Conflict makes for great TV, bullying doesn't.
But remember that Scarlett's smart and stylish. True, she may not have picked those players, but if it so happened that all the bad guys were presenting as the meek-and-mild sort, she wouldn't have wanted to spoil the game by steering us wrong. She would only have given the encouragement for infighting amongst the belligerents, because, on the basis of what she knows, it seemed to her to be an act that was neutral between the two sides. And that can only be if some of the belligerents are innocent but at least one is guilty.
Who are the belligerents? Me. Lambie. Dai. Karen. Andy. Possibly Nem. No one else.
I'm innocent. Lambie almost certainly is too. Dai I will tentatively accept as innocent for the time being because he's acting that way (though he'd be just as convincing if he were guilty). Therefore I think there's very likely one bad guy in the rest of that set, and Karen seems to me to be the best pick.
Also, if Karen is guilty, that answers the otherwise tricky question of why I am still alive.
There's two reasons not to kill an inquisitive innocent that you'd otherwise like to see dead. The first is that they are going wrong, and you don't want to stop them, the second is if they are going right, and killing them might be seen as confirming their suspicions.
Assume Karen is innocent. The bad guys would have seen that I suspected her, but no one else voted against her, and there was no guarantee that I'd have stayed on target. And Karen hadn't said anything to make herself a threat to them. I don't think that they would have thought that the chance that I might take her out was worth leaving me in the game. Especially as she was the obvious vigilante target and might be on the way out anyway.
Assume she's guilty. Then it's quite plausible that she thought "Damn, Ethan suspects me, but he can't be sure, not this early, so that's not necessarily fatal. If I kill him, though, and he's revealed to be innocent, someone might ask whether he got killed for voting against me, and make me their target. Best not to draw attention by slotting him".
Add to that the wrong steer she tried to give about Dai and my plans if there was a detective. Add to that the absolute lack of substance to everything she has said, expect in direct response to an accusation. She's performing well below her ability, and that makes me very suspicious.
I'm suspicious of Mario, too. He asks an awful lot of rhetorical questions, some of which he must be able to work out the answers for, and is giving a very good impression of someone wanting to look as if they are thinking, without burdening the rest of us with any actual conclusions. I don't like the fact that so many of you are being suspiciously quiet, because it gives us so little to consider, but only Mario is trying hard to look as if he isn't being quiet while still managing to say nothing.
I don't want split the innocent vote. Karen would be my preference, but I'll nominate either her or Mario if there's any support for voting them out.
Also, Karen's the safe eviction. She's already told us that she has no special role. If she's lying, she's guilty. If she's telling the truth, it's still the safest mistake because we won't be getting rid of (or forcing a declaration from) our doctor, or someone else we'd like to keep.
Well Mario doesn't see any actual data. Just Ethan talking on and on. Seems mean to me. It's anyone's guess at this point he thinks. Ethan is doing what they want us to. Setting is against ourselves. So far we can possibly assume that Lambie is good. Do we just make things up? And when someone lashes out do we assume they are playing a game, trying to "psychoanalyse" the rest of us or are diverting us?
Mario saw this sort of ploy many times in prison. Someone is screwing around with us, and it's more than the shows producer.
We either kill each other or preserve ourselves until we know something.
Naomi considers all the special roles. "The only person the mafia have to fear trying to kill is the veteran. The veteran in turn might try to lure the mafia into attacking him or her, Pity my Mike isn't here, he would make short work of anyone who tried attacking him or me. The masons know each other but can only talk in public; perhaps they should set up a code that only they could break perhaps using a key based on their names. for instance start a message with the first letter of one of the other masons. Then there is the vigilante who an accused has to convince in particular as well as a majority of us. Doctor stays silent. Detective is apparently revealed. This is of course assuming all these roles are filled. Innocents should talk to better hide any conversation the masons can attempt."
seeing as we didn't lynch anyone yesterday, do we know that Patrick's death really was the Mafia ?
Or, did the mafia attempt a killing which was thwarted by the good Doctor, and so the vigilante took matters into his/her own hands instead ?
Can the doctor prevent a vigilante killing in the same way as they can prevent a Mafia hit?
Ethan has I think overlooked at least two reasons that he wouldn't be targeted by the Mafia:
1) Many Mafia groups don't like to target people who are obviously enjoying taking part.
2) Ethan is I am afraid clear lynch bait, and past life regression suggests that he has a history of conducting himself in such a way as to alienate his fellow innocents and to get lynched on week three or four. If he hadn't been cleared by the detective I'd be suspicious of him as I said.
(3) Also, The Mafia for whatever reason may think he may be a veteran and trying to draw attention to himself; but his behaviour isn't so out of character that I'd think he's more likelyto be the veteran than anyone else.)
If I'd been right about Ethan I'd be feeling on a roll right now, but I wasn't, so I don't place much stock in my suspicions.
(Is it fair to say that I think our esteemed host may have inadvertently suggested that at least one of the mafia is not a newbie?)
Also, Ethan's plan seems to me to be overly reliant on there being masons, and we do not know that there are. Certainly there won't be four masons out of twelve people. I'd be surprised if there were more than two if any. Anyway, the masons aren't being forthcoming at the moment. It also seems to rely on us not lynching or outing the doctor by accident early on, which is a risk.
I'd favour the detective clearing at least one more person and maybe two before we start lynching.
Anyway, the masons aren't being forthcoming at the moment..
unless Lambie isn't the real detective, but both she and Ethan are masons, which means she is able to confirm his innocence - and the real detective isn't making themselves obvious just yet. (but why pretend to be the detective if you are an innocent)
Similarly, Lambie might not be the real detective, but is in cahoots with Ethan on the bad guy side, therefore backing him up to make them both look innocent (but then why hasn't the real detective tried to refute that)
seeing as we didn't lynch anyone yesterday, do we know that Patrick's death really was the Mafia ?
Patrick could have been killed by the vigilante, but I very much doubt it. I can't see why the vigilante would have suspected him, and a hit on him was as likely to cost us a special as take out a bad guy. Karen was really the only rational target for a vigilante, in my view.
Ethan is I am afraid clear lynch bait, and past life regression suggests that he has a history of conducting himself in such a way as to alienate his fellow innocents and to get lynched on week three or four.
I'm a gobshite, for sure, but that's 'cos I think someone needs to be. And actually, I think only one innocent ancestor of mine has ever been unjustly executed (Elcid). We've lost a couple of villains (Alison and Eusebius), but mostly Eliabs get murdered (Arwel, Erlendur, Eli, Antonio, Eliabus) or survive (Alana, Ekaterina, Eddie).
I'd favour the detective clearing at least one more person and maybe two before we start lynching
At that point we could be four known innocents, and five unknowns, and the doctor dead, meaning we lose Lambie before she can check anyone else. Or we could be two known innocents against seven unknowns, with the doctor still alive, but the bad guys killing people as fast as Lambie can clear them.
Neither of those are winning positions, and neither is 'worst case'. Worst case is we lose the doctor tonight and then the detective, and we have at most two unguarded known innocents against seven unknowns.
Also, Karen's the safe eviction. She's already told us that she has no special role. If she's lying, she's guilty. If she's telling the truth, it's still the safest mistake because we won't be getting rid of (or forcing a declaration from) our doctor, or someone else we'd like to keep.
I appreciate how you are planning to make mistakes!
This is outrageous. I am going to call the manager. This is ridiculous. There is nothing professional at all going on in this show!
"Besides, you silly boy there's an obvious reason why I'm alive. Your reasoning is so bad I want to think you are evil but that requires you and Lamb to be cooperating, which does not sound particularly likely. Obviously I am alive because they figure you all will murder me yourselves. They don't need to!"
Karen is screetching with emotion now "Trust me, if I killed people, I would have killed you by now!"
I appreciate how you are planning to make mistakes!
I have to plan for mistakes. I don’t know who’s guilty, and I could be wrong.
Sorry, Kaz, but I want as many of us to make it home as we can, but to do that we are going to need to be a bit ruthless. To me, right now, getting rid of you looks like our best chance.
It’s not personal. If you can find someone who looks like a better option, fucking persuade me. I get one nomination. I haven’t used it yet, because I’m open to changing my mind. But, please, Kaz, for the love of pox, give me more than just bluster. Give me reasons to suspect someone more than I suspect you.
I suspect the newbie/experienced ratio is such that a previous player is in the Mafia is a reasonable statistical probability. I've played before, but on the Ship, and not in the last decade. I also tended to end up rather dead.
To save everyone trawling back to page 1:
The job description for the Doctor was
The doctor may protect one player from assassination overnight. A doctor may protect him/herself, but not for more than one night in succession. They may protect any other player for as many successive nights as they like, however, and may also go back to self-protecting on alternate nights as long as they choose someone else in between.
For the Mafia
The mafia are our murderous assassins who have been secretly hired by the TV station to murder their fellow contestants in the hopes of getting the ratings up. They (alone) are allowed to communicate freely in secret. They may kill one other player overnight.
For the Vigilante
The vigilante may (but is not obliged to) kill one person overnight on the days on which no one is lynched (and those days only). The vigilante is a member of the citizen party and considered to be innocent in investigations. For clarity, the vigilante may take a pop at whoever they like – it doesn’t have to be a player who was nominated for lynching.
That suggests to me the Doctor protects against Mafia but not the Vigilante. I suspect that if Patrick had given us the Gory Details or his demise we might have found out a bit more, but I'm inclined to think Mafia as the Vigilante would have had too great a risk of offing a Special.
I don't see anything in the description of the Doctor or the Vigilante to suggest that the Doctor doesn't protect against the Vigilante, except perhaps the word 'assassinate' and I wouldn't put much weight upon the precise choice of words.
Eliab, unlike some I do not quickly decide who is innocent and guilty.
By my read, Scarlett's words only were meant to say that she wished all who were new to the show and those not so new to the show to have fun. (Though anyone is likely to have fun on this cursed island with frigging murderers I do not know!)
Before we decide to attack, I'd really like to hear from everyone because I know if I were evil, I'd probably want to just pretend and chat and say nothing of substance. So those of you who are saying nothing of substance, who do you think the murder(s) among us are?
Not if we lynch Karen. She's already confirmed that she's not the doctor, or any other special.
I think we would all want the doctor to say that.
The problem with my plan is that it does require the detective to store up a couple of unnamed people so the mafia can't target them, and as you've been named I'm afraid you're probably for it.
Let me see my numbers.
We have two cleared and eight uncleared. Assume Ms LaCosta clears someone quietly and the mafia bump you off. That leaves us with two cleared and seven uncleared. But if LaCosta keeps quiet the mafia won't know who's been cleared. So the next turn LaCosta clears someone else; meanwhile there's a two in five chance (assuming three mafia) that the mafia kill someone who's been cleared, and a one in five chance that they kill the doctor (who may be the same person). LaCosta tells us what she's been doing. Ok - that's a less than fifty per cent chance of getting into a position of three known innocents and the doctor still alive.
That is, if there are no masons or they don't out themselves. Also, I'm discounting the possibility of LaCosta uncovering a mafia member, which she well might.
Ok - so if the masons do out themselves then we're in a position of more known innocents than mafia right now, which is when I think we should start lynching.
How does your plan work with no masons?
We have a one in nine chance of killing the doctor, a one in three chance of killing a mafia member, we might target a veteran if there is one. My plan certainly has no chance of targeting a mafia member. It's too late to work out all the permutations, but I think you may be right.
Dai - my laptop has finally charged enough for a brief use. I was going to play minesweeper but wondered if you wanted to make some spreadsheets instead ?
There's 11 of us now, 2 known innocents, 9 unknown.
In two days time (if my plan is followed), we'll have voted off 2 unknowns, Lambie will have cleared two unknown, innocent, readable, non-special citizens, and the vigilante will have declared, and promptly shot any guilty contrary claimant (in place of one of the votes). That makes a total of 5 known innocents, 2 eliminated, and four unknowns remaining.
Of course in that time the bad guys get to act, too. And they can choose - target 2 unknowns, target 1 unknown and 1 known innocent, or target 2 known innocents.
Depending on what they do, the ratio is then 5:2, 4:3, or 3:4.
The first two are (obviously) winning positions for us.
The third looks bad, though. With three bad guys, that leaves no room for mistakes - we have to pick all three villains ahead of the last innocent unknown. 1 chance in 4 by pure guesswork - less than that with active deception from the guilty.
BUT to get to that position, the bad guys had to make a deliberate choice not to hunt for our doctor, because the point of my plan was and is to investigate people who we can't clear by other means, and that means we keep our detective for at least one final investigation. We still have to avoid a mistake on that one day - but that's all we have to do, and that's a 3 in 4 chance in our favour. And the same logic applies to the next day - the bad guys CAN take out the doctor if they want, but doing so hands us a majority. And we win.
That's not as solid as the plan would be with two masons. With two masons, it's a guaranteed win if done right. With one vigilante, there are things that could go wrong. It's still a good plan, though.
And, of course, we aren't going to be blindly picking an unknown person at random. We'll be thinking about who is most likely to be guilty, challenging people to convince us that they are innocent, and looking closely at how people vote. The plan helps there, too - it puts the bad guys under real pressure to come up with an answer, and I don't think they'll do that without leaving clues.
So even though the plan, if it comes right down to the line, only ensures that two of us make it home, it also gives us the best chance of cracking the case before we get to that point, and might even mean that most of us get off this island. And I'm not hearing any better suggestions.
No, absolutely not. The last thing we want is for innocent people to start lying. Especially innocent specials.
If being caught in a lie doesn't mean proof of guilt, then we're fucked. Seriously.
If we do my plan, ONE person, and ONLY ONE person a day should say that they are an innocent, readable, non-special willing to be investigated. No one else should claim to be the doctor. No one else should deny being the doctor. We want the doctor to be indistinguishable from all other unknown innocents unless and until he or she needs to make an honest declaration.
If Karen claimed to be the doctor now, I'd know she was lying, and therefore I'd 'know' she was guilty. If she's the doctor playing silly buggers with false claims, we could then end up making an entirely avoidable, losing, mistake, and it would be entirely her fault, but that would be no fucking consolation at all if the bad guys win and the rest of us are dead.
If someone says they are innocent, doesn' this give the Mafia green light to kill them? I get the idea of protect and investigate. Mario sees that this works for the day and night of that person being investigated, but don't we end up with a line of confirmed innocents that the Mafia can kill like shooting fish in a barrel? Right now Dai On Stage sounds more sensible than Ethan.
[note]
Is it okay to request that each player use their playing name when posting at least once in their post? It helps the memory impaired from scrolling around trying to find a list of players.
[/note]
Depending on what they do, the ratio is then 5:2, 4:3, or 3:4.
Can you clarify what these ratios mean please as I'm confused by your argument: are you talking about known/unknown ratios or mafia/innocent?
Your plan assumes that the quieter players will put their head above the parapet and volunteer enough times if they're plain citizens that any specials can keep quiet for now.
You're not exactly giving people an incentive to do so, given that that is what Karen has done, and you're proposing lynching her for it.
No, I’m thinking about nominating Karen because she looks more guilty than anyone else. The fact that, if I’m wrong, she’s not a special, is a bonus.
Also, she hasn’t volunteered to be investigated. She mentioned in passing, in mid-bluster, that she had no special role. Which isn’t the same thing as turning out your pockets to the detective.
But it is interesting, isn’t, that it’s obvious to me, and you, and Karen, that the best answer to my suspicion would be to focus on the suspicious behaviour of Mario, my other suspect, and volunteer to be investigated herself. But she hasn’t. Why not?
If someone says they are innocent, doesn' this give the Mafia green light to kill them?
Hi, Mazza. Ethan here.
The bad guys know already who’s innocent. And they don’t need permission to target them.
Look at the plan again. They CAN do exactly what you suggest. And if they do, they lose. They lose on the numbers.
They lose every time, if we only have two provably innocent specials (masons). They lose three chances in four if we have one (vigilante).
See, Maz, my career’s been in pop, but my first love has always been metal,
And what I love about metal, is it’s weight.
And what I love about the weight of metal, is when it’s on my side.
That’s the plan. Sure, I can have fun spotting dodgy types like I think you and Karen are, and I might even call it right. It’s been known. But if I can, I’d like the intuitive knowing-me, knowing-you stuff to be backed by good solid weight of metal, and that’s what the numbers give us.
The beauty of the plan is it works even if we consistently guess wrong. The point is to reduce the pool of unknowns until the known innocents are a majority. Then it doesn’t matter which or how many of the unknowns are guilty, or how well they hide. They still can’t win.
great, says Andy Kipper so someone has been nominated
now we play the guessing game of "read too much into what timing someone speaks" to see if anyone else gets counter nominated, and then again to see who votes when.
Karen shakes her curls and takes a deep breath, trying not to shriek.
"Honestly, you've had it in for me this whole time. I'm guessing you don't like me as a person, and that is your fault. You wanted to know who was innocent and a citizen and I told you. Now you are holding that against me. You'll be mad no matter what I say. I'm not going to try to assuage you."
With that she flounces off deciding to ignore that fellow who makes random decisions based on nothing and then digs in.
great, says Andy Kipper so someone has been nominated
now we play the guessing game of "read too much into what timing someone speaks" to see if anyone else gets counter nominated, and then again to see who votes when.
Of course this is somewhat complicated by the fact that we are probably spread across different time zones.
Dame Fifi totters from her hut. She doesn't know what was in that stew but never again. And now it seems that nice Mr Royce has met with a dreadful accident. She will definitely speak to her agent after this.
Penny starts drafting a letter to her Seriously Hot Lawyer (an essential business expense if you work in the more dubious areas of Instagram) about the situation on the island, and how the production company seem to have forgotten all safeguards about the prevention of murder. The possibility of minor risk to limbs was in the contract, but there was Definitely No Mention of Risk to Life.
For what it's worth, I don't have any more reason to trust Karen than I did yesterday, so I'm happy to support her nomination.
Ethan - I'm trying to work out if your figures and analysis would benefit from having a second person being nominated, (potential for a no-majority) or whether it's better to work on the innocence/guilt of one person at a time.
I don't think anyone else has drawn enough attention to themselves to warrant a nomination, but am willing to be persuaded.
Ethan - I'm trying to work out if your figures and analysis would benefit from having a second person being nominated.
It depends if Karen is guilty. If she is, it’s mostly in the bad guy’s interests to nominate a second person, but if the vote goes against Kaz, the person nominating someone else will look very suspicious, unless they give good reasons for that nomination. So if she is guilty, I can see why they might not have done that.
If Karen’s innocent, we would obviously want a more plausible suspect, but so far, no one has thought of one.
So I don’t know. I don’t know if Karen is guilty. Several things about her behaviour make more sense if she is, but that’s not certain proof. I can’t see anyone who looks guiltier, and despite what Kaz says, this isn’t personal, it’s just about what’s most likely. If I’m wrong - if anyone has any reasons why I’m wrong - I want to know.
So I guess I’m saying play your best game. If you’re innocent and can’t honestly see a more dodgy suspect, don’t nominate for the sake of it, and let’s play the odds, hope we’re right, and see if any other guilty fucker breaks cover.
But if you genuinely think I’m wrong, then take the fuck over from me and make a case against your best suspect instead.
I'm not guilty but I'm sure my husband will make sure I'm fine, so if you all want to screw yourselves? Go for it. I played your game and told you I was a roleless innocent figuring a show of honest and support for your plan would allay your perhaps reasonable confusion. If you don't want to listen? You're either mob or being taken for a ride and either way I can't save you. Fare thee well.
so either Karen is innocent, and the Mafia are happy to have us all lynch her, or they are particularly cold blooded enough to let one of their own get lynched, in order to not raise further suspicions by nominating someone else......
It’s not much of a choice, but even so I want to set the principle that we let accused people see what danger they are in, and let them respond, before commiting to votes.
I’m planning to vote Karen out. I don’t know for sure that she’s guilty, but:
1. She’s the one person who definitely tried to steer us away from potentially useful analysis;
2. I gave her every chance to say something to help us find a more likely suspect, and she didn’t even try;
3. I can’t see anyone who looks more suspicious.
Not conclusive, but it’s the best I’ve got at the moment.
And that kind of reaction, although I know it's in character, is not really helping your cause.
It would be good to hear from some of the silent players what they think
Lambie stretches, looks around, and says, "Did I miss anything? Oh dear, I obviously DID. I was having such a nice dream about being away at a nephew's wedding... well, that's over, and it's time to pay proper attention to LIFE and DEATH on this island! What to do, what to do..."
Right: so a couple of nights ago I convinced myself that Eliab's lynching plan is better than mine because his plan has a chance of uncovering mafia and mine doesn't. It was late.
This morning, thinking it over, I think I got that entirely the wrong way round. My plan has a small chance of hitting on mafia and his has none. Am I right this time?
Comments
I can think of reasons why they wouldn't have gone for Dai.
He might be guilty, for one, but I'll assume that he isn't.
If he isn't guilty, then he's telling the truth about being unreadable (he's too smart to tell a disprovable lie if he's innocent). That means we could never be 100% certain of his innocence.
He had (yesterday) voiced suspicion of me. It would have suited the bad guys for me to be the focus of discussion, rather than them (however they are).
He advocated not lynching yet. He's not an immediate threat to them.
He's probably not the doctor. The rules don't explicitly include or exclude the possibility of 'unreadable' stacking with another innocent role, they do sort-of imply that the roles are separate. The bad guys need to find the doctor more than they need to get rid of an unreadable.
I don't think Dai was in any great danger. At least, if I were in their position he wouldn't have been.
Why they didn't target me is quite a bit harder to answer. I was by far the most likely to be investigated, and (if our doctor has any sense) definitely unprotected. I was the only person yesterday aggressive enough to want to vote anyone out - and since that's the only way we can win, that means I'm a threat to them. And I was the most vocal, and working on a viable plan to win by the numbers. And I was (as far as they know) as likely or unlikely to be the doctor as anyone else.
I've a couple of ideas why they didn't get me, when it seems to me I was comfortably their best target, but I'll share them after you've all thought about my other thought.
After she's calmed down a little, rationality returns, at least as far as Karen is ever rational. "Whoever is doing this is EVIL! I think they are scuzzy quiet hiding in the dark RATS! I think it's people we are not hearing from much. It's safer to be a rat if you are not in the spotlight. Which of you quiet people is secretly bloodily murdering people?!"
Nominations open
He wonders what data other than the detective can be used to locate the criminals. We know they are here. I guess we just have to talk and see.
I have two more thoughts. First, although the station said:
in guessing the roles, I think there is. Scarlett's a known quantity. Fucking evil, yes, but also very smart, and very stylish. She's practically incapable of being either dumb or crass. We can work with that.
How? She was trying to steer the aggressive types among us away from picking on the passive ones. She wants the stir things up between those she sees as players, rather than amateurs. Not just egos - we're all egos - but the real thick-skinned, dog-with-a-bone, belligerents. Players with that "I can beat you, Paupukkewis" arrogance. She wants to see those people at each other's throats. And that makes sense. Conflict makes for great TV, bullying doesn't.
But remember that Scarlett's smart and stylish. True, she may not have picked those players, but if it so happened that all the bad guys were presenting as the meek-and-mild sort, she wouldn't have wanted to spoil the game by steering us wrong. She would only have given the encouragement for infighting amongst the belligerents, because, on the basis of what she knows, it seemed to her to be an act that was neutral between the two sides. And that can only be if some of the belligerents are innocent but at least one is guilty.
Who are the belligerents? Me. Lambie. Dai. Karen. Andy. Possibly Nem. No one else.
I'm innocent. Lambie almost certainly is too. Dai I will tentatively accept as innocent for the time being because he's acting that way (though he'd be just as convincing if he were guilty). Therefore I think there's very likely one bad guy in the rest of that set, and Karen seems to me to be the best pick.
There's two reasons not to kill an inquisitive innocent that you'd otherwise like to see dead. The first is that they are going wrong, and you don't want to stop them, the second is if they are going right, and killing them might be seen as confirming their suspicions.
Assume Karen is innocent. The bad guys would have seen that I suspected her, but no one else voted against her, and there was no guarantee that I'd have stayed on target. And Karen hadn't said anything to make herself a threat to them. I don't think that they would have thought that the chance that I might take her out was worth leaving me in the game. Especially as she was the obvious vigilante target and might be on the way out anyway.
Assume she's guilty. Then it's quite plausible that she thought "Damn, Ethan suspects me, but he can't be sure, not this early, so that's not necessarily fatal. If I kill him, though, and he's revealed to be innocent, someone might ask whether he got killed for voting against me, and make me their target. Best not to draw attention by slotting him".
Add to that the wrong steer she tried to give about Dai and my plans if there was a detective. Add to that the absolute lack of substance to everything she has said, expect in direct response to an accusation. She's performing well below her ability, and that makes me very suspicious.
I'm suspicious of Mario, too. He asks an awful lot of rhetorical questions, some of which he must be able to work out the answers for, and is giving a very good impression of someone wanting to look as if they are thinking, without burdening the rest of us with any actual conclusions. I don't like the fact that so many of you are being suspiciously quiet, because it gives us so little to consider, but only Mario is trying hard to look as if he isn't being quiet while still managing to say nothing.
I don't want split the innocent vote. Karen would be my preference, but I'll nominate either her or Mario if there's any support for voting them out.
Mario saw this sort of ploy many times in prison. Someone is screwing around with us, and it's more than the shows producer.
We either kill each other or preserve ourselves until we know something.
Or, did the mafia attempt a killing which was thwarted by the good Doctor, and so the vigilante took matters into his/her own hands instead ?
Can the doctor prevent a vigilante killing in the same way as they can prevent a Mafia hit?
1) Many Mafia groups don't like to target people who are obviously enjoying taking part.
2) Ethan is I am afraid clear lynch bait, and past life regression suggests that he has a history of conducting himself in such a way as to alienate his fellow innocents and to get lynched on week three or four. If he hadn't been cleared by the detective I'd be suspicious of him as I said.
(3) Also, The Mafia for whatever reason may think he may be a veteran and trying to draw attention to himself; but his behaviour isn't so out of character that I'd think he's more likelyto be the veteran than anyone else.)
If I'd been right about Ethan I'd be feeling on a roll right now, but I wasn't, so I don't place much stock in my suspicions.
(Is it fair to say that I think our esteemed host may have inadvertently suggested that at least one of the mafia is not a newbie?)
Also, Ethan's plan seems to me to be overly reliant on there being masons, and we do not know that there are. Certainly there won't be four masons out of twelve people. I'd be surprised if there were more than two if any. Anyway, the masons aren't being forthcoming at the moment. It also seems to rely on us not lynching or outing the doctor by accident early on, which is a risk.
I'd favour the detective clearing at least one more person and maybe two before we start lynching.
unless Lambie isn't the real detective, but both she and Ethan are masons, which means she is able to confirm his innocence - and the real detective isn't making themselves obvious just yet. (but why pretend to be the detective if you are an innocent)
Similarly, Lambie might not be the real detective, but is in cahoots with Ethan on the bad guy side, therefore backing him up to make them both look innocent (but then why hasn't the real detective tried to refute that)
Patrick could have been killed by the vigilante, but I very much doubt it. I can't see why the vigilante would have suspected him, and a hit on him was as likely to cost us a special as take out a bad guy. Karen was really the only rational target for a vigilante, in my view.
I'm a gobshite, for sure, but that's 'cos I think someone needs to be. And actually, I think only one innocent ancestor of mine has ever been unjustly executed (Elcid). We've lost a couple of villains (Alison and Eusebius), but mostly Eliabs get murdered (Arwel, Erlendur, Eli, Antonio, Eliabus) or survive (Alana, Ekaterina, Eddie).
True - it absolutely requires the masons to exist. But unless we misplay, or lose the doctor tonight, it'll work tomorrow with a vigilante instead.
Doesn't matter. Two would be enough.
Not if we lynch Karen. She's already confirmed that she's not the doctor, or any other special.
At that point we could be four known innocents, and five unknowns, and the doctor dead, meaning we lose Lambie before she can check anyone else. Or we could be two known innocents against seven unknowns, with the doctor still alive, but the bad guys killing people as fast as Lambie can clear them.
Neither of those are winning positions, and neither is 'worst case'. Worst case is we lose the doctor tonight and then the detective, and we have at most two unguarded known innocents against seven unknowns.
Why is your plan better than mine?
I appreciate how you are planning to make mistakes!
This is outrageous. I am going to call the manager. This is ridiculous. There is nothing professional at all going on in this show!
Karen is screetching with emotion now "Trust me, if I killed people, I would have killed you by now!"
I have to plan for mistakes. I don’t know who’s guilty, and I could be wrong.
Sorry, Kaz, but I want as many of us to make it home as we can, but to do that we are going to need to be a bit ruthless. To me, right now, getting rid of you looks like our best chance.
It’s not personal. If you can find someone who looks like a better option, fucking persuade me. I get one nomination. I haven’t used it yet, because I’m open to changing my mind. But, please, Kaz, for the love of pox, give me more than just bluster. Give me reasons to suspect someone more than I suspect you.
To save everyone trawling back to page 1:
The job description for the Doctor was
For the Mafia
For the Vigilante
That suggests to me the Doctor protects against Mafia but not the Vigilante. I suspect that if Patrick had given us the Gory Details or his demise we might have found out a bit more, but I'm inclined to think Mafia as the Vigilante would have had too great a risk of offing a Special.
By my read, Scarlett's words only were meant to say that she wished all who were new to the show and those not so new to the show to have fun. (Though anyone is likely to have fun on this cursed island with frigging murderers I do not know!)
Before we decide to attack, I'd really like to hear from everyone because I know if I were evil, I'd probably want to just pretend and chat and say nothing of substance. So those of you who are saying nothing of substance, who do you think the murder(s) among us are?
The problem with my plan is that it does require the detective to store up a couple of unnamed people so the mafia can't target them, and as you've been named I'm afraid you're probably for it.
Let me see my numbers.
We have two cleared and eight uncleared. Assume Ms LaCosta clears someone quietly and the mafia bump you off. That leaves us with two cleared and seven uncleared. But if LaCosta keeps quiet the mafia won't know who's been cleared. So the next turn LaCosta clears someone else; meanwhile there's a two in five chance (assuming three mafia) that the mafia kill someone who's been cleared, and a one in five chance that they kill the doctor (who may be the same person). LaCosta tells us what she's been doing. Ok - that's a less than fifty per cent chance of getting into a position of three known innocents and the doctor still alive.
That is, if there are no masons or they don't out themselves. Also, I'm discounting the possibility of LaCosta uncovering a mafia member, which she well might.
Ok - so if the masons do out themselves then we're in a position of more known innocents than mafia right now, which is when I think we should start lynching.
How does your plan work with no masons?
We have a one in nine chance of killing the doctor, a one in three chance of killing a mafia member, we might target a veteran if there is one. My plan certainly has no chance of targeting a mafia member. It's too late to work out all the permutations, but I think you may be right.
I can do it with one vigilante.
Think two days ahead.
There's 11 of us now, 2 known innocents, 9 unknown.
In two days time (if my plan is followed), we'll have voted off 2 unknowns, Lambie will have cleared two unknown, innocent, readable, non-special citizens, and the vigilante will have declared, and promptly shot any guilty contrary claimant (in place of one of the votes). That makes a total of 5 known innocents, 2 eliminated, and four unknowns remaining.
Of course in that time the bad guys get to act, too. And they can choose - target 2 unknowns, target 1 unknown and 1 known innocent, or target 2 known innocents.
Depending on what they do, the ratio is then 5:2, 4:3, or 3:4.
The first two are (obviously) winning positions for us.
The third looks bad, though. With three bad guys, that leaves no room for mistakes - we have to pick all three villains ahead of the last innocent unknown. 1 chance in 4 by pure guesswork - less than that with active deception from the guilty.
BUT to get to that position, the bad guys had to make a deliberate choice not to hunt for our doctor, because the point of my plan was and is to investigate people who we can't clear by other means, and that means we keep our detective for at least one final investigation. We still have to avoid a mistake on that one day - but that's all we have to do, and that's a 3 in 4 chance in our favour. And the same logic applies to the next day - the bad guys CAN take out the doctor if they want, but doing so hands us a majority. And we win.
That's not as solid as the plan would be with two masons. With two masons, it's a guaranteed win if done right. With one vigilante, there are things that could go wrong. It's still a good plan, though.
And, of course, we aren't going to be blindly picking an unknown person at random. We'll be thinking about who is most likely to be guilty, challenging people to convince us that they are innocent, and looking closely at how people vote. The plan helps there, too - it puts the bad guys under real pressure to come up with an answer, and I don't think they'll do that without leaving clues.
So even though the plan, if it comes right down to the line, only ensures that two of us make it home, it also gives us the best chance of cracking the case before we get to that point, and might even mean that most of us get off this island. And I'm not hearing any better suggestions.
No, absolutely not. The last thing we want is for innocent people to start lying. Especially innocent specials.
If being caught in a lie doesn't mean proof of guilt, then we're fucked. Seriously.
If we do my plan, ONE person, and ONLY ONE person a day should say that they are an innocent, readable, non-special willing to be investigated. No one else should claim to be the doctor. No one else should deny being the doctor. We want the doctor to be indistinguishable from all other unknown innocents unless and until he or she needs to make an honest declaration.
If Karen claimed to be the doctor now, I'd know she was lying, and therefore I'd 'know' she was guilty. If she's the doctor playing silly buggers with false claims, we could then end up making an entirely avoidable, losing, mistake, and it would be entirely her fault, but that would be no fucking consolation at all if the bad guys win and the rest of us are dead.
[note]
Is it okay to request that each player use their playing name when posting at least once in their post? It helps the memory impaired from scrolling around trying to find a list of players.
[/note]
Can you clarify what these ratios mean please as I'm confused by your argument: are you talking about known/unknown ratios or mafia/innocent?
Your plan assumes that the quieter players will put their head above the parapet and volunteer enough times if they're plain citizens that any specials can keep quiet for now.
No, I’m thinking about nominating Karen because she looks more guilty than anyone else. The fact that, if I’m wrong, she’s not a special, is a bonus.
Also, she hasn’t volunteered to be investigated. She mentioned in passing, in mid-bluster, that she had no special role. Which isn’t the same thing as turning out your pockets to the detective.
But it is interesting, isn’t, that it’s obvious to me, and you, and Karen, that the best answer to my suspicion would be to focus on the suspicious behaviour of Mario, my other suspect, and volunteer to be investigated herself. But she hasn’t. Why not?
Hi, Mazza. Ethan here.
The bad guys know already who’s innocent. And they don’t need permission to target them.
Look at the plan again. They CAN do exactly what you suggest. And if they do, they lose. They lose on the numbers.
They lose every time, if we only have two provably innocent specials (masons). They lose three chances in four if we have one (vigilante).
See, Maz, my career’s been in pop, but my first love has always been metal,
And what I love about metal, is it’s weight.
And what I love about the weight of metal, is when it’s on my side.
That’s the plan. Sure, I can have fun spotting dodgy types like I think you and Karen are, and I might even call it right. It’s been known. But if I can, I’d like the intuitive knowing-me, knowing-you stuff to be backed by good solid weight of metal, and that’s what the numbers give us.
Sure, Penny. It’s:
Known-to-be-innocent : unknown-so-possibly-guilty.
The beauty of the plan is it works even if we consistently guess wrong. The point is to reduce the pool of unknowns until the known innocents are a majority. Then it doesn’t matter which or how many of the unknowns are guilty, or how well they hide. They still can’t win.
I think Karen White is most likely to be guilty.
(And Maz - this is Ethan, you know, the loud-mouthed stoner.)
now we play the guessing game of "read too much into what timing someone speaks" to see if anyone else gets counter nominated, and then again to see who votes when.
"Honestly, you've had it in for me this whole time. I'm guessing you don't like me as a person, and that is your fault. You wanted to know who was innocent and a citizen and I told you. Now you are holding that against me. You'll be mad no matter what I say. I'm not going to try to assuage you."
With that she flounces off deciding to ignore that fellow who makes random decisions based on nothing and then digs in.
Of course this is somewhat complicated by the fact that we are probably spread across different time zones.
For what it's worth, I don't have any more reason to trust Karen than I did yesterday, so I'm happy to support her nomination.
I don't think anyone else has drawn enough attention to themselves to warrant a nomination, but am willing to be persuaded.
It depends if Karen is guilty. If she is, it’s mostly in the bad guy’s interests to nominate a second person, but if the vote goes against Kaz, the person nominating someone else will look very suspicious, unless they give good reasons for that nomination. So if she is guilty, I can see why they might not have done that.
If Karen’s innocent, we would obviously want a more plausible suspect, but so far, no one has thought of one.
So I don’t know. I don’t know if Karen is guilty. Several things about her behaviour make more sense if she is, but that’s not certain proof. I can’t see anyone who looks guiltier, and despite what Kaz says, this isn’t personal, it’s just about what’s most likely. If I’m wrong - if anyone has any reasons why I’m wrong - I want to know.
So I guess I’m saying play your best game. If you’re innocent and can’t honestly see a more dodgy suspect, don’t nominate for the sake of it, and let’s play the odds, hope we’re right, and see if any other guilty fucker breaks cover.
But if you genuinely think I’m wrong, then take the fuck over from me and make a case against your best suspect instead.
You may vote for
Karen White (nominated by Ethan Eliab)
No lynching
As ever, all players still alive must cast a vote. Six votes are needed to ensure a lynching.
I’m planning to vote Karen out. I don’t know for sure that she’s guilty, but:
1. She’s the one person who definitely tried to steer us away from potentially useful analysis;
2. I gave her every chance to say something to help us find a more likely suspect, and she didn’t even try;
3. I can’t see anyone who looks more suspicious.
Not conclusive, but it’s the best I’ve got at the moment.
This is not a vote.
With that Karen flounced off to examine her nails again. They were a little rough on the right side.
It would be good to hear from some of the silent players what they think
This morning, thinking it over, I think I got that entirely the wrong way round. My plan has a small chance of hitting on mafia and his has none. Am I right this time?