with everyone saying "kill off inactives", won't that make wolves become active?

Yup, I certainly would. The thinking is it doesn't really matter if inactive players get lynched (Although some aren't so sure, including myself as shown above) because they're not contributing anyway.

But if the wolves stop lurking it makes them easier to identify.

I think that's the theory anyway.

Edited 2014-10-29 15:12:20

I feel like a multi-lynch has as much a chance of hitting us as the wolves. Worse yet, what if we accidentally hit an angel just because we got hasty early on? It's only day 2 after all, we can start getting frisky on day 3-4.

Aiming at lurkers and inactive players is distracting us from our main purpose (i.e. taking out the wolves)

Can someone tally the votes anew? I'm confused who I have to vote for to aid in the multi-lynch.

I agree with the risk. What you are failing to see is that I am not intending to lynch every one of these suspects. As I said before, I will hammer later. I expect 1-3 kills today; 3 is pretty unlikely though. Please, keep the players balenced (although it is fine to abandon the Green and Landalf votes; avoid them).

I won't cast my vote without discussion. Opinions will be discussed here and I will talk to each potential lynchee in private. However for now we should just get the votes even.

Dom, what's the deadline?

I only voted Silver cuz that was the only name on the list i can think of

Votes so far according to my spreadsheet:

Player		Votes
Alias09		3
Green		3
Eliza		2
Silver		2
Ehrmantraut	2
Dr. Stupid	1
Landalf		1
Kasparov	0

I think the deadline's 22:00 GMT on Thursday (tomorrow).

Edited 2014-10-29 16:13:22

the list

Dr.Stupid - no summary
A Talking Taco - the guy who made this list
Arun - no summary
his Balls - no summary
Landalf -wonders if Arun is dead
Green - Posted the votes on the post above
Genral Gror - wants to know why people voted people
Coaleyes - voted Green

Edited 2014-10-29 16:19:53

Guys, vote to:

ALIAS, ELIZA, SILVER, ERHMENTRAUT. Make these have equal number of votes. People voting within 5 hours of the deadline smell scummy.

Honestly, I don't see how we even hope for a multi-lynch with the ability to change votes.

VOTE: GREEN

Nice summary taco.

I have both green and taco as villagers at the moment.

Dr. Stupid is a viable target. Time to vote him. People, if you've voted Green, change. Vote Dr. Stupid preferably, but Eliza is good too.

Edited 2014-10-29 18:41:54

He's not a viable target for me yet, explain please.

I got something for you to be entertained while waiting for posts :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsIbnoVUcdU

I don't trust G. @run at all...

He's confirmed villager, please read the thread. Immediate scumread on DD.

Okay, but that doesn't make him right.

Your use of the word trust is the problem.

Talking taco summary pretty good.

Now.. The villagers' chances aren't that good, especially if they are decimated by death (lynching, wolves, etc).. The following is a mathematical explanation of the chances of the "wolf" winning the game:

In 2006, the computer scientists Braverman, Etesami and Mossel proved that without detectives and with perfect players the randomized strategy is optimal for both citizens and mafia. They showed that when there are a large number of players to give both groups similar probability of winning, the initial number of mafiosi m need to be proportional to the square root of the total number of players P, that is {\textstyle m \propto \sqrt{P}}.[43] With a simulation, they confirmed that 50 mafiosi would have almost a 50% chance to win among 10,000. The Mafia's chance of victory is

W(m, P) \approx \frac{m}{\sqrt{P}},

which is a good approximation when the right hand side is below 40%. If any detectives are added to the game, Braverman et al. proved that the number of mafiosi must remain at a fixed proportion of the total number of players for their chance of winning to remain constant.[Note 20].