well

i mean its obvious he's talking about them. he's been complaining about them in turbos all month

two players having an agreement between themselves to never lynch each other on day 1 of a game is definitely cheating

based on a couple of day 1 lynch quotes though, it doesn't look like SIU/Kaw have such an agreement?

not wanting to lynch someone you like or like playing with is pretty normal, and just part of exploitable meta when one of them rands wolf

I am interested in the accured advantage Chips.
If I am proved wrong - or it is statistically unreliable - I will accept the findings. I really do hope someone with a strong maths background crunches the impact of any twoplayers acting in an implicitly colluding fashion on day 1 independently of their roles upon the overall game balance.

A very respected poster - suggested to me that it was likely to be a smaller advantage than I was suggesting but an advantage nonetheless.
I would like to see it quantified - so that my argument with these players is not seen as just poor sportsmanship. Because I have seen a pattern and have sought clarification so that I can interrogate my own bias in this matter.

and lets not forget, SIU had the best lynch rate as a villa on the entire site well before kawa ever showed up

so that needs to be factored in

I could find ten or more games where I have played each other and they go through an effective negotiation about the terms of their relationship thus precluding them voting each other.

It is a pattern.

They were both at one stage peeking each other as rule.

Then what you would see is if one was attacked the other player would come in and hard defend them - when objectively there was nothing other than the assurance or negotiated position as the basis for their action.

This basically results in a positive disincentive for either of them to ever be lynched day 1.

I think you will find that in the last 50 games between them - maybe less than 3 or 4 times combined would either of them lynched day 1.

SIU is the only player I've seen who can correctly POE the game on D1 with any reasonable accuracy.

Kawamii is super game-solvey as a villager and a great wolf hunter. Put them together as V/V and wolves will get crushed.

As demonstrated though, you put any 2 good villagers together and you will get great WP%.

SIU has like never peeked me day 1 before unless he was actually seer

stop making stuff up digger

So basically I can come into a game with two other players

Say gambit, Sun Tzu and me - (two random choices) and I never vote them day 1, they never vote me or each other - and we carry on like SIU and Kawamii.

Then we could have 5 players acting like they do and see how the turbos then function.

And that illustrates the problem - if everyone acted the way they did - the game degenerates.

Note - they do not deny doing it - they just point to one example and hang there hat on that.

go for it?

^

Which game prompted this discussion? I don't feel like reading all of tonight's turbos.

it wasn't just one game, its been their meta for the entire month that prompted this

SIU and Kawa lynching a lot of wolves

Right, which I'm pretty familiar with.

But is there an actual agreement (unspoken or not) to not vote each other on d1?

Basically, I'm interested in this part.

There is no agreement.

im not sure how i would know if they had an unspoken agreement lol, but no as far as i know they don't. they just each other

digger I think you need to start with a much broader test. Don't look at these two, look at everybody you play with and how often you vote them day 1 when you are v. Repeat for each person. Then see if they are outliers (I doubt this but intuition is pretty worthless).

My guess is lots of people have blind spots in who they vote, sometimes not obvious or conscious choices. The opposite of always thinking somebody is evil (which is definitely a thing) is never suspecting somebody because you just don't.

The test you want can't easily be done. The mapping from nonsense people bold -> a player voted is in code, not in a db. You could parse it out of Tatiana posts I guess but it's work. You'll need to get somebody with the skills to care enough to find out.

I peeked SIU n0 before we were even friends in the first 3 games we played together

he was just so nice to me and everyone else was rude so i liked him the best

qq more

also this is still the most relevant thing imo

i think he was getting mislynched in only like 5% of his games or something, and this was before kawa got here

All I am asking is for someone to have a look at the maths if two players did what I suggest.
An implicit but not necessarily agreed upon collusion - would that have a statistically significant impact particularly on the village/village stats where the advantage would like accure.

If it is so - then I would propose looking back at the play of two particular players.

If it is found to be so - I am not calling for a ban but I asking for a discussion about what rules or guidelines we can have in turbos for fair play.

Basically Digger is randing wolf a lot, can't get Ship or Kawamii mislynched even though he tunnels Kawamii every D1, and he gets rekt and doesn't like it.

-- 30 --

It's a self-correcting problem that isn't even a problem

SIU/Kawa have been killing it as v/v lately; unless we are putting a penalty on competency, IDK what to tell you.

They read each other pretty well after interacting, which has made it easy for village to trust them when they are able to read each other v/v. Again: competence, not collusion.

In a "collusion" scenario, it breaks down pretty easily; they still only compromise 2 of 9 players. If it's demonstrated they are blindly village reading each other (which seems to not be the case) and have no actual degree of accuracy in reading each other, nobody is going to listen to their mutual reads on each other. As to this point, this is demonstrably not the case.

You are basically saying "Villagers should do a worse job reading people they are good at reading, because it's unfair", which seems a lot more against the spirit of the game than whatever they are doing. There is no such thing as "inadvertent collusion" in a game about reads; reading games makes it pretty glaringly obvious they have no "pact" with each other and generally just respect the other's level of competency to the point where they don't heavily pursue lynching each other d1. Which, again, seems like perfectly fine and good play.

Your job in a wolf in that situation is still the same as ever: don't get lynched.

what rules do you want in place? You are allowed to clear players or find them villagery for whatever reason you like.

lol u?

So when they are w/v, they are going at each other? I don't think I've been in many games where they were w/v.

If so, I don't get what the big deal is.