I'm not sure. I feel like both options have some level of merit- if we shut multiple players outside the doors, that increases the likelihood that at least one of the people we don't want to get anything potentially can't get anything. I feel like when we're emphasizing that it increases the chance of a regular player getting something, we should also note that it simultaneously increases the chance that Zero/The Bomber could get something, because is now an additional player that is able to obtain an item that could be Zero or the Bomber. It potentially increases the odds approximately 10% that somebody we want to get stuff does, but it potentially also increases the chance that Zero/The Bomber gets something we want from 0% to an actual number. It's a give and take.

(I do think it's worth noting that BP is one of the people that we would potentially leave out if we switch to a different plan, so he isn't really an unbiased party here, particularly if he's Zero/The Bomber.)

Also

Unvote: BP's Plan

Because I want to think about this more before recommitting myself to something, if possible.

What? Hell no! I don't care if you say "Betraying" is impossible at this point. I'm not leaving myself wide open by virtue of ignorance. It makes perfect sense for someone in a pair to bite the bullet because at least they can still communicate with their partner and have a say.

It's all too easy for someone to ditch a solo, betray without discussing with their partner then beat the partner back here to claim they voted first. Then everyone is confused and your "lock out someone forever" plan goes out the window as massive finger pointing and blaming starts with no uncertain answers (except for the person who is the partner but they are also under suspicion so they can't be fully believed).

One member of a pair should get to go, having a fair and broad selection of votes is more important than just getting people through doors to look in rooms.

---

Except that's not actually going to solve that person's problem. Even if they claim that the other person was the one that voted, the other party is going to claim otherwise. So the only rational solution for everybody else is to just trust neither of them. So basically all you're really doing is taking someone else down with you- the fact that it's your word against theirs is a double-edged sword, and happening to be on the site before the other person would in no way make you more trustworthy.

Except, you can't guarantee that's how people will think. Odds are one of them will be innocent, one of them might even be the bomber in which case we'd NEED to escape with them or we all lose and locking them into permanent distrust would only harm the investigation. Plus that would only work for now, what about other pairings when the two people are split up? Is everyone other partner going to suffer and be betrayed forever because of an absolute policy to not trust this one individual?

We can't say for sure how Zero or the Bomber (or whoever else is in this game) will act and so I'm not sacrificing my free choice and defence in the matter while other people can still retain their ability to vote alongside me.

---

I of course can't guarantee that that is what people will think- you can consider my response also a suggestion that this would be a beneficial idea, in that case. After all, if we make it a policy that if one party within the pair breaks the agreement set up in-thread then neither will be trusted we are creating an effective disincentive against playing that game.

I don't see how one of them being the bomber plays into anything. If information comes out that that party is the bomber, then we can adjust the plan accordingly. This doesn't have to be a hard and fast rule with absolutely no exceptions when new information comes to light, but it is an incredibly useful rule of thumb until we have legitimate information that makes following the policy less optimal for whatever reason.

I think that in the cases where there is one trusted individual and one distrusted individual within a pair, you can decide on a case-by-case basis and put your faith in what you believe is the correct decision. However, I definitely think that at a minimum saying "I am more likely to betray as a result of X member being in the pair" acts as an incentive for nobody to take that risk.

It's also worth noting that unlike in VLR, there is very little on the line for players in this game. So I have much more faith that people will act as rational actors and not make reckless decisions for minimal benefit as long as we provide a rational incentive for them to not do so.

And yeah, maybe other people will get hurt as a result of the bad decision on one person's part. However, unless we all cooperate then things are much more likely to descend into chaos and everybody will end up getting hurt in the long run as a result. If we don't want that to happen, we need to utilize incentives to prevent it from happening.



Well, we can assume that Zero and the Bomber will act in the way that will best allow them to accumulate points. And if we instate a system that punishes pointless betrayals and encourages people to actually do as is agreed upon by the majority, then it will be in the interest of Zero and the Bomber to follow that system, because they want to win as much as anybody else does.

But, regardless, I think you raised a genuine concern. If you don't like my suggestion of the utilization of punishment as a disincentive, what solution do you think would be better? Because unless we create some safeguard against it happening, there is a decent chance it will happen because nothing bad will result from it.

I'd rather we increase the chance of a regular player getting the items than shutting them possibly out of the rooms altogether, especially since we still have no clue on who Zero or Bomber is.

I do get that it wouldn't be fun to be left out all alone Pierre, but we are a group and should think of what's better for the whole group. We need to make sure that the chances of a regular player getting the items is greater, and we really cannot say that shutting two persons outside the doors makes that percentage higher than shutting one person outside the doors.

---

(i'm not reading or responding to these cuts zzz)

Man, you guys are really going to make me put effort into this? *siiiiigh*

There is no benefit to maximizing the number of players that go through a door

As it's already been pointed out before, it's a give and take. The more people that go through a door, the harder it is for Zero/bomber to get an item--but the more people that go through a door, the more chance there is that Zero/bomber gets a chance to get an item in the first place. When we have absolutely no leads on either of them, it's pointless to worry so much about these alternatives.

If we were debating two extremes, like a plan where we send 3 people total vs a plan with 8 people total, this trade-off might warrant more discussion, but with a difference of only one person there's no strong argument for one or the other, without any other leads.

In this round, it's more fair to send 7 people through doors rather than 8

Our top priority is taking down Zero/bomber--but with literally zero leads (meaning that the trade-off between sending people through doors and keeping them behind is practically equal), I think the next best heuristic for us to weigh our options with is fairness. So, why is 7 people more fair than 8? Because, as Franzise has pointed out, if we send 8 people through doors, the one person who doesn't go through must be a solo. Despite all our pretty reasoning about why it only makes sense to Ally, it's still more fair to let all 6 blocks vote than to take some votes away. In addition to being fairer, there's strategic advantages to this.

Making everyone vote will promote trustworthiness

You know, before I said there was no difference, but I take that back. The difference between not voting and voting is that when you vote, it means you actively chose to Ally. I think there's a difference between Allying because you chose it, and Allying because the other 8 players decided you don't get to vote this round. This gives all the blocks a chance to actively show they're trustworthy.

It will prevent pairs from hiding behind their partner

As already mentioned, it's possible for one member of a pair to vote Betray, and blame the other member. Yes, you'll be suspected--but the other person will, too. It may screw you over, but it can also screw the other person--sewing discord and distrust throughout the group. And who knows? Maybe you'll get partnered with someone you can convince that it was the other person who voted Betray.

But why should we even bother dealing with all of this, when we can prevent it by just having one person in the pair vote? If only one person in the pair can vote, then we know exactly who put in the vote for that pair. If there's a Betray, we know who it was. And it works the other way, too--if they come under suspicion later, we'll know that they were the one who voted Ally this round.

You might be thinking that this talk of Allying and Betraying isn't important for this round. But it is, because...

We can't guarantee everyone will Ally

We want everyone to Ally. It makes the most sense for everyone to Ally. But at the end of the day, we can't guarantee it. There may be some role in this game that wants to Betray for some reason. If we prevent a solo player from voting, locking them into Ally, and give them a pair player to hide behind, they might just go for it and Betray.


So to recap: sending 7 people through a door instead of 8 is better because (1) the trade-off between creating a greater chance of someone else taking the item before Zero/bomber can vs preventing Zero/bomber from getting the item in the first place is minimal, especially with zero clues, (2) it's fairer to let every block keep their vote, and (3) it ensures accountability of the pair voting.


I don't having any ('actual') thing for or against any particular person or door. As Franzy implied, there's no good way to send 7 people through doors 1 and 3 (if we only left pairs behind, we'd need to leave NN and cesar, but they're paired together so that's a no-go), meaning the choice is between doors 1+4 and doors 3+4. And, like I mentioned before, Ace is my favorite character from 999 so I really really really wanna go through door 1~



Side-note, to JM: As the game goes through, could you update the OP with the current color status of everyone? It's kinda annoying to have to dig through the thread to find it every time ~_~


edit: read the cuts, don't think there's anything really there that i didn't already respond to
(I guess I just want to reiterate and emphasize that letting only one member of a pair vote will prevent the whole "which one of them Betrayed?!" thing in the first place.)

---

My only real point of disagreement is that unless you suggest we do this every time this isn't a particularly good argument. I mean you're basically saying "Okay, yeah we need to discuss how to handle this issue, OR we could just ignore it for now because there's a convenient alternative and see if not discussing it hurts us later!"

Like, this is the definition of a stopgap solution and you seem to be presenting it as if it will accomplish anything more than that in the long term.

(I mean, unless you're saying "Okay, yeah, but there is basically no way we can devise an actual workaround for this so it'd be better to not actually plan any contingencies for it and just rely on short-term solutions like this." And you would have to do a lot to convince me that that is a reasonable position.)

To be perfectly honest, I wasn't thinking about the long-term.

But y'know what? I think it can work fine for the long term, too. It all comes down to this: it will always be fairer to leave behind a member of a pair than a solo. So if we leave behind a member of a pair every time, then that will naturally lead to having only one member of a pair voting, creating accountability for voting.

Moreover, we're talking about two completely things. You were talking about punishment; I was talking about prevention. We can still do a punishment system; in fact, we probably should, if someone decides to Betray. However, if we only let one member of a pair vote, we'll know exactly which person to punish, rather than needing to punish an innocent person.

Knowing exactly who to punish also has the advantage that it will most likely be easier to work things out in terms of numbers and doors. It's much easier to exclude one specific person than two. For instance, you and Pierre were a pair last game. If we wanted to punish you this round, there's no "good" way to punish both of you at the same time, but if we knew which one of you did it, it'd be easy for us to punish the offender.

So I think this isn't totally unreasonable for the long-term, and it will in fact make a punishment system easier to implement.

---

Done

Thing is, let's say someone in a pair wants to Betray and frame their partner for it. If they're unable to convince the others it wasn't them that chose to Betray, they'd be stuck at 6 points for the rest of the game. Taking someone else down with them (their partner) doesn't seem like a good tradeoff to me since everyone's goal is to get out.

Important question to the GM: Z4, is there any way to earn more Bracelet Points besides playing the AB Game?

---

Yes but you are assuming that by accusing their partner is a guaranteed lock-out. Remember the rules state we need to get the bomber out, therefore blindly locking people out without further investigation could be detrimental to the game.

You can say "Well we'd all never ally with said person ever again" but can you guarantee that they'd never once be able to persuade other people they aren't Zero or the bomber? You are acting under the assumption that locking people into 6BP forever would actually work.

BP's plan allows for accountability, and not condemning innocent people to permanently being stuck at 6BP and accused of being Zero.

---

I refer you back to my "We can't guarantee everyone will Ally" section.

No matter how much reasoning we do on why it makes the most sense for Ally, we can't guarantee what people will actually do, especially since we don't know what sort of crazy roles are in this game. As such, we shouldn't base our reasoning and actions on the assumption that nobody will Betray, because it's just not a safe assumption to make.

I don't think it's likely somebody will Betray, but if someone does, I think things will be much easier for the rest of the group if we know exactly which person it was, rather than having to wonder which of two people it was. (Edit: I refer you back to my example in my previous post with NN and Pierre. With the number/door system, it is much easier to punish one specific person rather than two people. Plus one of those two people will be innocent, which is even more reason to go for a system that will prevent them from being punished.)


If we send 8 people through, we get a greater chance (not even a guarantee) of someone else taking the item before Zero/bomber. If we send 7 people through, we get a greater chance of Zero/bomber not having the opportunity to get an item at all, and it's fairer, and we get accountability for the pair voting, which will not only disincentive Betraying, but will also make punishment easier if someone does decide to Betray.

---

whatever, i'll just go through the door with no number, then

I, uh, don't think you can

---

He can. The door with no number is where people who can't vote in the AB Game go

I thought that was where people got back from the numbered doors (like the unnumbered door in the 3/7/8 room in 999) but ok

Does that count as a vote for my plan, or...?


i've been defeated
*seppuku*

---

what's the vote tally at, actually?

Seems like me, Pierre, and Slezak at the moment.

---

and what does everyone else want to do, then?

I can't do it now since I'm not on my computer, but it's at 3 for BP's plan. 5 is needed to move on (majority). Nothing else concrete has been proposed, so nobody else has voted for anything else

i think if we go for bp's plan, i can trust that lida will not dick with the a/b vote. even if she's zero or the bomber, i'd be safe because she's not gonna intentionally sabotage the vote. but the question here is will slezak fuck us over??

What if their partner is the bomber? They'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

Nothing in this is absolutely guaranteed, but any way I look at it, anyone choosing to Betray at this stage in the game would be taking a huge risk. Also there's really no guarantee that just because someone is able to vote in a round, the other side of their group won't just Betray them anyway.

Also also this is nitpicky, but just want to point out how BP mentioned his plan would "build trust" but making a limited number of people able to vote actually implies the exact opposite; that he doesn't trust people to vote correctly.

---

Everyone's in the same boat as you--that's kinda the entire point of the AB game. Slezak can screw you over just like NN/Cesar can screw me over.

Betraying at this point, though, would be a very bad idea, as has been explained multiple times in the thread by now. Namely, if you betray now, nobody will ever trust you again.


You're right about all of this.

...So?

No matter what plan someone proposes, it'll always be possible to think of some crazy "what if" where it ends up being a bad idea. We shouldn't throw out a plan on the off-chance that somebody decides to betray and their partner is the bomber. (Besides, they wouldn't even know their partner is the bomber.)


Not... exactly...? If I didn't trust people to Ally, then (1) I wouldn't be suggesting that everyone Ally this round (why suggest something I think/know is going to fail?), and (2) I'd be suggesting a plan to get as few people as possible to go through the door, to maximize the number of votes that are auto-locked into Ally.

It does exactly what I said it does--it provides the opportunity to prove that they're trustworthy by actively choosing Ally, rather than being auto-locked into it.

Even if you throw away my point about trust, there's still the factors of fairness and vote accountability for the pairs. I think the point about the items is basically equal for sending 7 vs 8 people through the doors, without more information. So when you consider the fairness of letting every block vote, and the fact that we can prevent a confusing situation where a pair Betrays but we don't know which of them did it, what exactly do you have against my plan at this point?

---

the plan this round is to all ally, right, so that everyone gains points?

the way bp's plan works seems okay, in that there are less potential voters so that if somebody betrays, we'll know the traitor instantly, and then there won't be any argument about "it was you!" "no it was you!"

if the bomber is stupid enough to betray and subsequently never gain any more points, then it's their own fault and they should think up smarter plans, franzie

p.s. why is shameninja abbreviated to nn?

Cuz that's the abbreviation for his username on AAO :P

---

This is exactly my point. ANYONE risking to Betray and not get any more points would be stupid. Which is why I feel it'd be a little better to give us a better chance at getting the items.

Honestly, at this point I'd like to hear Lida's thoughts on the matter since she and I are the only ones who'd be able to vote no matter which plan we go with.

---

i might have missed something, but why is that? going with bp's plan, only nn and i will be out of the vote pool, won't we?

edit: ooh i see what you're saying. gotcha

But we still can't guarantee that nobody will Betray. The chance of the extra person who can take the item before Zero/bomber is offset by the chance of Zero/bomber not getting to go through a door at all. Considering that, even if I don't think it's likely someone will Betray, I think we should set ourselves up so that if somebody does Betray we're in the best position to deal with it, and that also happens to be a way that's fairer (by letting all six blocks vote).


EDIT: Franzy, let me ask this: Do you have any arguments against my plan that aren't predicated on the assumption that nobody will Betray?

---

do you have to specifically name the item when claiming it?

I can't believe I did this, but...

MATH TO THE RESCUE

This is assuming every has an equal chance--equal chance of everyone being Zero/Bomber, and equal chance for everyone to get the item.

8 people go through (assuming we split them up 4-4):

Scenario I: Zero and Bomber go through different doors
Probability: 8/9*4/8=4/9
Chance of Zero or Bomber getting an item: 2*(3/4)*(1/4)+(1/4)*(1/4)=7/16

Scenario II: Zero and Bomber go through same door
Probability: 8/9*3/8=1/3
Chance of Zero or Bomber getting an item: 1/2

Scenario III: One of Zero and Bomber don’t go through a door
Probability: 1/9+8/9*1/8=2/9
Chance of Zero or Bomber getting an item: 1/4

Total chance of Zero or Bomber getting an item: 5/12

7 people go through (note that 3-door and 4-door refer to the doors with 3 and 4 people going through them, respectively, not door #3 and #4):

Scenario I: Zero and Bomber both go through 3-door
Probability: 3/9*2/8=1/12
Chance of Zero or Bomber getting an item: 2/3

Scenario II: One goes through 3-door, other goes through 4-door
Probability: 3/9*4/8+4/9*3/8=1/3
Chance of Zero or Bomber getting an item: 1/3*3/4+2/3*1/4+1/3*1/4=1/2

Scenario III: One goes through 3-door, other doesn’t go through a door
Probability: 3/9*2/8*2=1/6
Chance of Zero or Bomber getting an item: 1/3

Scenario IV: Both go through 4-door
Probability: 4/9*3/8=1/6
Chance of Zero or Bomber getting an item: 1/2

Scenario V: One goes through 4-door, other doesn’t go through a door
Probability: 4/9*2/8*2=2/9
Chance of Zero or Bomber getting an item: 1/4

Scenario VI: Neither goes through a door
Probability: 2/9*1/8=1/36
Chance of Zero or Bomber getting an item: 0

Total chance of Zero or Bomber getting an item: 5/12


In other words:

Whether we send 7 or 8 people through the doors, we have the exact same chance of Zero and/or Bomber getting an item. There is literally no reason to send 8 people through the doors; every single factor is either neutral or in favor of sending 7 people through.

---

Fear not, Gorgeous! I am here to state my views!

I found myself agreeing for a time that leaving out one of the solos so that we have as many people going through the doors as possible was the better plan. It would mean that more regular players go through the doors and increase the chance of one of us getting the item rather than Zero or the bomber. However, Bad Player made a very convincing argument for why leaving out two paired players is better than leaving out one solo this round. He is right in that this increases accountability and trust for this round. Plus, it seems like the fairer option. Since Rov would be the one of us left out this round under BP's proposal, I differ to his judgement. He seems on board, so I see no reason to object.

And . . . Now Bad Player did the math. My sister would be so proud of you for doing that, BP! Anyway, I shall now vote.

Vote: Bad Player's Proposal

---

I'm at work on my phone so sorry for no quotes

There's a flaw with those calculations. If Zero gets a bomb device or password they have no reason to withhold it. Same goes for the Bomber getting a clue about Zero. So if they get an item in those cases it's fine.

Before I answer the other question, let me ask JM again in case he didn't see:

Is there any way to earn BP besides playing the AB Game? A simple yes or no will be fine.

---

-Franzise: I considered it before starting, but I decided no. The only way to earn BP is through the AB Game

-Rov: The item will only be identified as an "item" until it's picked up. Then, the person who picked up the item will be informed of what it is

Okay, but... I don't think that'd really change anything.

Factoring that stuff in will make the calculations really complex and difficult. But we also have no idea what the items are or what they do, so any probabilities we come up with in terms of the item are going to be completely arbitrary, and therefore worthless.

I also suspect that even if you put it in, you'd still just end up with the same result. For instance, suppose that there's a 50% chance the item they get would be fine, and a 50% chance they'd get an item we don't want them to get. Then in either case, there's a 5/12*1/2=5/24 of Zero/Bomber getting an item we don't want them to get. That factor is still neutral between the two cases, and every other factor is still in favor of sending 7 people through.

---

Then again we cannot know if the member of the pair who did not get a vote chose to betray as well. Maybe they talked it beforehand?


I do however, like your notions regarding the voting and rather leaving a member of a pair outside rather than a solo.

You are forgetting time zones.

---

I suppose that's true.

However, if only one member of a pair can vote and they Betray, we know for sure that that one person actively chose to Betray, even if we don't know whether the other person assented or not.

If both members of a pair can vote, we will have no idea which one was the one that chose to Betray.


I'm not sure how that factors into it.

I'm assuming you're trying to say that there aren't equal chances for each person to get the item, due to differing time zones.

However, because we have absolutely no idea who Zero/Bomber is, they have just as much of a chance of being in a "good" or "bad" timezone as everyone else, and so the average probability should work out to the same.

Moreover, because the purpose of the analysis was to compare sending 7 vs 8 people through, rather than to calculate the actual probability of Zero/Bomber getting an item, I believe adding that factor to the calculations won't change the end result. (I'm not going to do the actual calculations for the same reasons as Franzy's point: it'd be way to complex, and the probabilities we'd assume for time zones would be completely arbitrary and therefore worthless.)

---

I'm saying that I'm at EET a.k.a. GMT+2. It's 10:49 PM right now. Usually when the rounds change I'm busy sleeping or just not being on my laptop. Since the items will be given as first-come-first-serve, I do not believe I will be getting a hold of any of the items on offer. Thus I'd really like the chances of non-Zero and non-Bomber players getting the items. Each additional possible vanilla player that are able to fight for the items thus helps. I do not need to get the items as long as we make sure that they do not fall in the wrong hands.

---