This is all I want. Thinking. Discussion. I have a good feeling for you.

Also, things to consider:
- Zero isn't the only one with a win condition that screws the rest of us. Remember that cultists are possibilities as well. And we don't like their kind around here. Crash Keys forever. the moon will rise again
- Productivity and cooperation is a good indicator of innocence, but not proof. While I am trying to help you, please also be skeptical of me: there is a chance I am playing helper to get on your good side. After all, I've done nothing that couldn't be done by someone else.
- I will be very inactive during this weekend because of Heroes Con. I'm assisting my dad as we go in as press for TMStash. I'll pop in now and then, but please remember that I have a life as well.



Well, that's a simple matter of wolf and sheep.

Consider that Zero might not be the only wolf, but rather a wolf that works on his own. Let's say that we expected a vanilla player, BUT IT WAS INSTEAD, DIO!!! Or some other cultist. That means there are two wolves that are independent of each other and 7 sheep. Let's pretend the wolves will kill someone if they can do so safely, but will not do so if they can be safely observed.

That means the safest option is groups of three.

A group of two sheep will be mistrustful of one another. But safe.

A group of two wolves will cause one to kill the other. Safe for us.

A group of one sheep and one wolf will cause the wolf to kill the sheep. Bad news.


That's assuming we are allowed to murder one another non-chalantly, however.

Franzise, are we allowed to kill other players? If so, does that apply to all players, or just those that have a win condition akin to Zero's?

---

I doubt we can kill players unless it's otherwise stated in our role PMs

Unless you're talking like a group execution kind of deal

It's all the same to me, JM. Killing is killing.

---

Oh hey, we already talking about lynching someone? That was pretty freakin' fast... But hey, if that's the way this is goin', that's the way it's goin'. By the way, does anyone have any dark secrets they wanna tell us? Yeah, I get that you might not wanna talk about it if you do, but it's worth a shot, right?

---

thats a bad idea as zero might likely use that info to his advantage as such revealing is bad.

I don't think there's lynching

Also, I'll say right now that the three people who haven't posted yet are usually inactive. So it's probably best to come up with plans now and have them chime in on whether they agree/disagree than to wait for them

I think we should all betray. It's the equivalent of voting "no-lynch", but the difference here is that it doesn't give Zero an advantage. We could vote all-ally, but I think getting everyone up to 5 so early is a mistake

As for whether to vote Option A/B/C, I literally don't care. I'm fine with taking Nanjo through the cyan door if Giggles is ok with that (we were the first three in this game after all)

Hence, why I ask:

Is murder an option? And if so, via what methods? Can we just go up to someone and surreptitiously snap their neck, or do we need to obtain a weapon first? Do we need to be alone, or may someone kill as they please? Are we only allowed to kill via the game's mechanics? If so, could we push someone past a door with the intention of trapping them on the other side?



I call bullshit. "No lynching" by everyone choosing in this game only shuffles up Zero to the more vulnerable players or allows Zero to be able to make a solo choice. Ideally, we all choose "cooperate" and all get points. We need as many as possible to stay a live, and by depriving EVERYONE of points, it makes us that much more vulnerable to Zero.

I say leave it up to the individual groups what to choose. We aren't operating with enough information to make sweeping orders to everyone.


Furthermore, even if they are inactive, I'd like to give them the chance to speak before we just start making plans that they would need to be involved in. Plus, we don't know the rest of the groupings, and are at a severe disadvantage anyway in actually making those plans.

---

Yeah, yeah, Cyan sounds good. I was gonna vote betray anyway if that comes up. No offense to you guys, I just don't really know any of you. Then again, who knows what we'll see behind the doors...

---

Fine, but as long as that's your prerogative and not something someone else told you to do with no good foundation.

---

I'm assuming it's the rules of the last game. We can't kill if we don't have a weapon, but there are special cases of players who can kill. That's it

There's nothing to call bullshit on. We literally don't know how the rest of the game is going to work. We can extrapolate based on the last round, but there's not much else beyond that

Voting all-betray will give us an understanding of how the rest of the game will play out. Nobody loses points in an all-betray scenario. Zero (or any other dangerous player) doesn't gain points in an all-betray scenario.

I'm telling everybody to vote all-betray BECAUSE we don't have enough information

I already PM'd Slezak on VS and texted jumpfight. Cesar checks up on CR often enough so he'll come by eventually

^what jm said

atm theres no reason to risk giving zero any points so early.

My bracelet number is 1 and I'm currently a red solo!
Sorry I'm late guys.
I like option B, Pierre's only posted once and the other person hasn't posted at all. Sure, I haven't really said anything at all either, but I think it gives me the chance to know these other characters better. If post activity continues the way it has been, this may be one of the only opportunities I will have to know them better, if I'm thinking about this right...
As far as Allying or Betraying, I guess we can all stick to Betray. If groups choose to ally, then it's fine, I guess. You just can't get too mad if you get screwed over so quickly.

Green Pair-JesusMonroe and MrGiggles
Green Solo-?
Blue Pair-Pierre and ?
Blue Solo-Doctor Nanjo
Red Pair-Ami and Cold52
Red Solo-Jumpfight

[1]-Jumpfight
[2]-Mr. Giggles
[3]-?
[4]-Cold52
[5]-Ami/Geno
[6]-Doctor Nanjo
[7]-Pierre
[8]-JesusMonroe
[9]-?

Option A:
Ami and Cold go with Doctor Nanjo through the magenta door
Pierre and ? go with ? through the cyan door
Jesus and Giggles go with jumpfight through the yellow door

Option B:
Ami and Cold go with ? through the yellow door
Pierre and ? go with jumpfight through the magenta door
Jesus and Giggles go with Nanjo through the cyan door

Option C:
Ami and Cold go with jumpfight through the cyan door
Pierre and ? go with Nanjo through the yellow door
Jesus and Giggles go with ? through the magenta door

Ohhhh! This makes a lot more sense than the abbreviated names! Thank you!

On the ally/betray front:

Allying gives us and zero, more points.

Allying gives more information faster, but only if someone betrays.

We can't die in one round, but we can in two.

Betrayers can equal bad people, but not always, so some information is not that useful.

Betraying buys us time, but we might want to act fast.

Every advantage in allying has a disadvantage. I would like to go the all-betray route, at least, in this moment.

Hello to jumpflight.

And that's why I invoke bullshit. We don't have information. You're telling us to act on blind faith in a zero sum scenario. That's dangerous and foolish. Plus, who's to say that anyone won't make other plans while the rest of us stick together? Your scenario only works in a vacuum with all participants acting entirely in line with your plan. It's not going to stand up to reality, like pretty much any plan does. At least when I was outlining some possibilities, I made room for the high chance Zero and any other malcontents won't act according to a script.

I don't trust you, JM. Now even less so than I distrust everyone in this game.

Let's run through the scenarios following your script.

Everyone chooses betray on the first voting. Okay? Okay.

Group reshuffles. Next voting comes in.

Zero is in a pair where they can intimidate, charm, trick, what have you. Or worse yet, Zero is in a booth alone. Zero gains points while innocents lose points. It would suck, but we may be able to catch Zero without any deaths. However, the only difference would be that we waited longer for the clue.

OR

Everyone votes betray again and we are still nowhere. Back to square one with no clues. No clues to Zero's identity, but Zero isn't closer to winning. However, neither are we.

OR

Everyone votes to cooperate and then Zero is slightly closer to the 9 door. Again, no clues to Zero's identity. This option, however, does allow us some breathing room to betray people without instantly going to 1 BP.




We can't afford to risk everyone acting in a uniform fashion: that puts Zero in a distinct advantage. True: when we're not organized as a single unit, we could play into Zero's hands still. True: when we're not organized, we might end up screwing ourselves.

However, I feel much more comfortable that we act as independently as possible. It doesn't allow Zero to easily predict our actions, and seeing how each individual reacts gives us clues without death, as death via point loss is a non-possibility at this juncture. I consider that to be more valuable than just putting us back at square one the next voting stage.

Your plan is short-term with no exit strategy. It doesn't allow for individuals to make choices, and it doesn't allow for the tiniest fuck up. One person chooses cooperate, and that plan goes to shit.

This is also why I wait for the GM response regarding murder.



Risk is something we may have to deal with at some point, however. Whether it's one more shuffle or a hundred more shuffles: we aren't going to bore Zero into submission. It doesn't matter what voting round it is, points will remain the same unless we do something other than constantly hitting "betray".

We all have 3 BP like in ZE:VLR, right?

From the wiki,



We keep coming back to this if we just keep hitting betray and stagnate the game.

• Everyone cooperates gets everyone +2. That means we all increase our BP to 5. Zero still needs TWO more voting sessions at minimum to win.
• Everyone betrays and nothing happens. BP stays the same and we're back to where we started. Now everyone needs at least two voting sessions to win at minimum, but betraying is necessary to do so in that short of a time.
• Everyone cooperates except Zero. One to two people go to 1 BP, Zero to 6 BP, everyone else at 5. Zero needs one betrayal or two more cooperations to win, 5 players need either two cooperations, a cooperation and a betray, or two betrayals.
• Everyone cooperates, but Zero is betrayed by another. Zero goes to 1 BP, good betrayer(s) at 6 BP, Everyone else at 5.
• Everyone betrays except Zero. Zero goes to 1 BP, good betrayer(s) to 6, everyone else doesn't change.

Behaving uniformly to betray or cooperate always puts Zero at the benefit of predicting us. Especially when three players haven't had the chance to voice their opinions, especially when we don't know if we're able to kill via group, individually, et cetera and so forth.

This is much like another game theory problem: Hunters, Deers, and Rabbits.

If all hunters cooperate, they get a deer that feeds everyone.
If all hunters cooperate except one, the hunter that betrayed gets a rabbit and feeds themselves.
If no hunters cooperate, they all get rabbits and feed themselves.

Right now, we're at that juncture: do we all go with JM's sweeping plan with absolute certainty? Or do we decide things for ourselves. However, we deviate from the game theory with one notable exception: the deer (in this case, everyone hitting betray) gives everyone nothing, and only works in wasting our time.



Buying us time from what? Remember that we don't have a time limit to how long this game lasts. We aren't going to starve from lack of supplies, drown, or anything else.

What time are we supposed to be buying? What is beyond the doors that would give us clues as to who Zero is? What are we buying time FOR?

Let's look at the scenarios I've put: this game is far from over should Zero even somehow go to 5 or 6 points this round.

---

Amy's got some valid points guys, I think we should listen to her. I trust you!

Last edited by jumpfight5 on Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh okay sorry. To address your point about what I said, betraying gives us a round where nothing happens. I would assume at least one role has time as a factor: a bomber, an amnesiac, zero, etc. A bomber might want more rounds where nothing happens so they can plant bombs, an amnesiac might want to have more rounds so they can remember things.

Could it work against us? Possibly. Could it help us? Possibly.

You bring up some good points though. I don't think trying to ally would be so bad.

Ami, you're acting ridiculous. Think rationally

If almost everyone agrees to the all-betray plan, everyone else doesn't have a choice. They HAVE to vote betray

Hell, that's not even true. If all the solos agree to betray (THREE PLAYERS), then everyone else doesn't have a choice. They have to betray

And in case it wasn't clear to you, I'm only advocating all-betray for the first round

Why wouldn't anyone follow the plan? Everybody did so in the first Nonary game. What advantage is there to somebody going against the grain and voting ally? They'd get fucked

If everyone agreed to vote ally, it's so easy for Zero or a survivalistic player to betray

If everyone agrees to vote betray, there's no advantage to not-betraying. Get it?

Think about this, Ami.

Everyone votes ally. Everyone has five points

Something mechanic in round 2 that prevents (a) player(s) from voting (this happened in the last game). If you don't vote, you automatically ally. Zero allies his non-voting partner and gets to 7 BP. Hell, Zero could betray and get to 8. It doesn't matter. In round 3, Zero and his assistant (there was an assistant in the last game) are partners. They ally each other. Zero wins

Jesus has some valid points guys, I think we should listen to him instead!

JM, your scenario could happen in rounds 2, 3, and 4 just as easily in rounds 1, 2, and 3.

Jumpfight, (sorry for saying jumpflight earlier, my mistake) why is that the turnaround for you?

We'll have a better understanding of the game in round 2 than round 1, though

Hypothetically, let's say Zero gets a gun in round 3

If we follow Ami's plan, Zero can be at 7 BP by that point. He can then just execute his opponent in the AB Game and win

If we follow my plan, Zero can't do anything in that scenario

Also, remember this:

The longer we stay in the game, the more Zero is at a disadvantage

There could be an item in a door of round 4 that's a hint to Zero's identity. With Ami's plan, we could miss that item

That's all I'm saying. Find your own reasons to ally or betray. Don't do it because someone just says "it'll help", especially if they don't give you much reasoning for doing so. I don't want us to lose, but to win? We need information, and by seeing the actions and justifications for said actions, we'll come closer to Zero.



Well, I'm glad you trust me, but do try to remain skeptical of me: after all, I could be Zero and be using my role as "the helpful person" to draw you in. I want more conversation and ideas. The more we think together, the more we converse, the less Zero is able to reign us in under a "follow the leader" attitude.



Not necessarily. Let's say we all agree to betray, but one team makes a back-room deal to cooperate. That puts the rest of a groups at a +-0 with the groups that cooperated a +2. Worse yet, if someone were tricked in this way, one side gets +3 points while one to two others are put on death's door at 1 BP after a -2 deduction. Your plan means that everyone would have to follow what you do, which is difficult given that we all want out of where we are and to escape without Zero.



Again, that assumes that at least three individuals follow your plan to a T. Furthermore, the others might choose to cooperate- which means that we're again at the same end.



This would be nice if we knew we could narrow down suspects like scum can do in mafia. There, no lynching means someone gets hit- and thus we have more information to go with. Here, we don't have that guarantee.



You're asking me to predict why someone might not do what you say. But the first example that would come into my head is that someone tricks another into breaking from the group. Maybe Zero?



Only if that meant Zero gets points. Keep in mind that we don't ALL have to beat Zero. Only one of us does.



How is it any more difficult than not choosing to go with you? If everyone agreed to vote ally and everyone does, everyone benefits. If someone chooses betray, they sacrifice trust for a short-term advantage. Zero doesn't win the game from one voting round, and anyone that voted betray in that scenario severely loses any and all credibility. If we could find Zero in this manner, we can easily plan around them.



But there's no benefit, either. No advantage is the same as a disadvantage in this game.



Which I already pointed out.



But that has the base assumptions that:
- Zero (or an affiliate) has a priority power.
- That there are mechanics that prevent someone from voting.
- Everyone votes uniformly.

We can't assume that Zero (or anyone) goes on any script. Doing so allows Zero to play around us instead of against us. Furthermore, the fear that Zero "might" have a power isn't a good enough reason at this point to do anything.

We go to the next round. We have those exact same problems all over again.

If we choose what to do in our individual groups, we have something to analyze. If we all do the same thing, all that happened is that Zero either had everyone ally/betray and hides in a leadership position, or that Zero went with the plan to gain the advantages of trust and/or points.

To defeat Zero, we need to avoid group thinking or Zero can and will take advantage of that. The fact that you encourage group thinking means that you are steering us towards a disadvantage.



There's a flaw in your theory: Zero gets a gun at the same point, but let's pretend there was no voting change the first time.

Zero can either save the gun for one phase later than what you talk about, or Zero can use it at any time in early-voting.

With your plan, all we succeed in doing is giving Zero a phase to look for a weapon to keep and use at any point. Or giving the weapon to someone that uses it and still uses it wrongly, even an innocent. We'd all look at the person who has the gun as too much of a threat to ignore, and that allows Zero to unite everyone under the cause of going against the gun-wielder (regardless of innocence), much like how Dio united everyone else in their mutual dislike and loss of trust in Dio.

Stalling puts us at a disadvantage just as much (and imo, even more so) than not stalling.

I'm asking everyone to make their own choice. Not just to follow you.






But let's change this up a little. I'm going to make some declarations.

If I am put in a group against anyone that promises to follow JM's plan, I will choose "ally".
If I am put against JM in voting, I will choose "betray".
If I am put in a group against someone that doesn't fit the above criterion, I will make a choice based off of trust and what my "spouse" thinks.

---

It feels like it'd be better to know about everybody. Without anyone dying



Can I change my group so I can go with Amy? I'd like to start at +3 if that's okay with all of you.

Ami, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the game. There is no "town"

If you don't escape, you don't win. The only players who win are the ones who escape without Zero

Also, if we vote to all-betray, why don't we just not trust anybody who uses a backroom deal? That's the easiest solution in the world and it automatically narrows down Zero suspects

Your "plan" makes no difference whether it starts round 2 or round 1. So why not round 2?

hate to break it to you but i will be betraying this round as I dont see a good reason to do anything other then that.

Logical point, Cold! I agree with you. I trust you too!

Feel free to, Jumpy.

I only care about winning. And that doesn't require me to live. It only requires that Zero loses.



You're the one that tries to make it into a mafia game. We gain less than nothing by stalling: if there's an item that could force votes, and it's guaranteed that Zero gets it? All we do is allow Zero to get it before points change and save it for a more opportune time.

Oh, I don't win if I don't escape? Oh well. I guess I'll just define winning as "Zero loses", and move from there. Because frankly, this would be my attitude in a real nonary game where a zero was amongst us.

But I've listed several reasons not to wait until round two. It shuffles around people and allows Zero some more maneuverability. Stalling allows Zero to sheep while maintaining credibility. Stalling allows Zero to find weapons before any BP changes.

And your plan is the one that causes us to stagnate. If it makes no difference, why not round one? The sooner we can develop reads on people, the sooner we can win.

So, now you have me actively defying you. I'm not budging from this until I start trusting you again. It's time for you to change strategies.



I literally don't care. Take my BP. I will make sure Zero doesn't win as hard as I can, and right now throwing a wrench in group think seems like a plan.

---

Thanks! I really can trust you!

I thought winning was escaping? I am confused now, can someone clear this up?


I still trust you!




You seemed to have thrown a wrench, but it landed in between you and cold :///
And I will extract precious BP from this wrench.

JM, the players that make a deal aren't automatically Zero. Also you have a weird assumption about this game. The idea that only players that live and leave win, is likely flawed.

Based on VLR:

Players could have a Dio-esque win condition, the specific death of a player.

Other players could have one that's Tenmiyouji-esque, getting a specific player to escape.

Both of those players would be against Zero too.

Skulking in the corner, hands in pockets, Lucky rolls his eyes.

Man you guys are way over thinking it this early. Already at each other's throats! Some of our padres ain't even at the party yet. Plus we don't even know who is voting with whom yet.

Pulling out a small dime Lucky began to idly flip the coin over and over in middair.

Since you all are so quick to jump the gun however I'll pitch in. Let's just roll the dice and all ally. Its early doors yet we got room to gamble a bit and make a few mistakes. Plus I like a table where everybody wins

Catching the coin he clenched his fist. The leather gloves crackling audibly in the large room before giving the others a stern look.

Though I definitely think we can't deal until everyone has ante'd up. If you want my honest opinion I think we all should go through an elevator before we even consider this next step. Might be something in there to change our minds.

---

I'm following what I know of the first Nonary Game played on this site

If you're simply a vanilla player and weren't given a different win condition, you need to escape. Nobody else matters

Figuring out Zero's identity is literally good for everyone except Zero and his possible assistant, so it doesn't hurt to stay in the game a little longer and make them sweat
-------
Ami

Losing is defined by "not-winning." You dying=you losing. In a real Nonary Game, you'd try to survive


You can't change the rules of a game to what you would do. You're literally acting like the rules are different so you can be "right"

Oh no! What ever will we do if Zero has maneuverability!

Seriously, though. This is such a small downside. Like I said, the longer we're in the game, the worse it is for Zero. How's this for a rule?: "Don't sheep."

It's impossible for you to be my partner this round so your trust means nothing to me. I'm not changing a good strategy because you're upset with me

I think we should leave this to a ...

Grabs coin out of Pierre's hand

Coin flip

Tucks thumb into fist, and carefully places coin onto hand. It is a quarter.

Heads we ally, tails, we betray

Launches coin into the air, it seems to hang for a moment, as if asking for attention. The whole group is silent as they await their fate.

The coin slowly falls down, and lands on the floor. Everyone leans in, to see the results.

TO BE CONTINUED

Neptune prepares to bring his boot down, covering up the coin. He's not about to let a quarter decide his fate.

But wait...the coin didn't land on heads or tails. It's on its side, completely still. It's nature is about to change, even at the slightest gust of wind.

"Just like our lives...hanging in the balance to the environment around us."

Reaching low Lucky swiftly scooped up the coin tucking it back away in his waistcoat securely.


Nice try pardner but don't assume I want to leave it ENTIRELY up to chance.

House always wins as they say. At some point we gonna have to tip the scales in our favour to ensure that don't happen.

---

Not to mention someone that would simply sacrifice their own victory to make sure Zero loses. That's where I'm at. I don't have win conditions like those, but I'm considering it a win if not Zero wins. I don't know who it is, but frankly? JM is acting super scummy right now, and it's getting my nose all twitchy.

Especially when he tried to intimidate me with lose conditions. I won't be cowed down just because someone says that I'll lose by not following what they say.



Um... mind tl;dr'ing thsi for people that can't understand what your character means?



And we can deduce Zero better if we don't all act in unison.
-------


You severely underestimate my resolve, then. This is how I would operate in real life. Ideally, I'd like to live and escape, but I would sacrifice that in a heartbeat to make sure Zero doesn't get out.



I didn't change the rules, I just decided what would make me happy within those rules. Again: you are not going to intimidate me into silence. The rules are as such:
- The game mechanics
- The win conditions
- The lose conditions

I do want to live and win, but I will sacrifice winning to make Zero lose. This is why I am making these plans: to minimize the chance of Zero escaping (no pun intended). If someone gets out before Zero, I'll be happy. If I get out before Zero, I'll be happy. If Zero is put into a stalemate, I'll be happy. If Zero loses, I'll be happy.

So if you think I'm breaking the rules, report me to Franzise. Otherwise, you're running out of road.



Great rule! So I assume this also means that you are no longer going to tell the entire playerbase what to do in regards to their ambidex voting? Because that would be lovely.

And maneuverability is everything in this game. The more Zero can use us to their advantage by making us predictable, the worse off we are. If Zero were to ever get into a leader position in our group with no questioning? We'd be at a severe disadvantage that would be hard to break out of: trust is hard to break when you're sheeping. Even if Zero didn't get into a leadership position, a sheeping Zero can still take full advantage of our fully announced positions the second they get a chance to.


It's impossible for you to be my partner this round so your trust means nothing to me. I'm not changing a good strategy because you're upset with me[/quote]

HAHAHAA You're so silly. I'm not upset with you, and you can take your poisoning the well elsewhere. I don't trust you. I think your suggestions are counter-intuitive and dangerous. You are using ill-thought-out plans that leave us vulnerable, and you threatened me with lose conditions when I refused to play along. You expect everyone to do what you say at the expense of their own opinions, even going so far as to suggest making plans without the inactives getting a chance to make it. What would Slezak say if you put him in a group without his say-so? I wouldn't know. But as long as you prevent them from having a voice, you are effectively trying to substitute it with your own.

So, go be salty if you like, but I'm not going with your half-assed plan. And I will intentionally subvert it just to make sure that someone knows that the plan has already failed. As long as your plan is a possibility, it will appeal to people wishing to sheep and pretend they're safe from point loss or Zero gaining points. All it does is give Zero more time to find items, more time to use powers, and more room to trick us.

Now that your plan is impossible, I am forcing everyone to do what they want to do as opposed to sheeping your plan.

---

Hello there,everyone,number 9 ( I still can't decide whether that's a badass number or not) of the blue pair is here!

Honestly,I think we should all wait until we go through the elevators before deciding on an strategy.Having a plan is fine,but we don't even know if there's some new mechanic in this round regarding the colored doors.

But still,I think all-betraying my be the best thing to do.We still can't trust anyone,and I prefer that we have as much information as possible before taking risks.

---

Hello to cesar!

Yeah I was about to mention how JM and Ami are arguing awfully hard for two people who can't play each other in the upcoming ambidex game. I have my A/B/C vote ready since I know all my choices anyway, but I'll wait just a little longer for 3 to talk.

Jfc, Ami. I'm going to take a page from Pierre's book and just calm down because you're just an uncompromising wall. If you don't want to follow my plan, fine. I don't see how you allying against someone who's following my plan is going to help anything, though

Everybody else. You don't have to follow my plan. You guys can decide to all-betray "with your own intentions and logic" *wink wink*