a thought

For the sake of impartial discussion, I think it's best we keep this topic only for those who aren't actually playing the current game. That can include those who were playing, but have died or whatever and aren't anymore. If you were a former player, please remember not to discuss anything that might influence the current game directly. This is just a generalized discussion of GTW strategy, not a discussion of the current game.

All the jumping on bandwagoners the last few games is kind of strange to me. If you think about it, what's the point in even giving arguments to explain your votes, if you're just going to suspect anybody who is convinced by them? While true, it's possible somebody might be a terrorist and vote on the safest choice, picking some arbitrary number of what constitutes suspicion based on what order they voted in is a little odd. Is it the third person to vote for an individual evil? The fourth? Fifth? Maybe they just heard the last four people's arguments for voting for the individual and thought it made logical sense. Certainly somebody who brings nothing else to the game besides a "me too" vote in every round isn't helping things all that much, but accusing people of bandwagoning in any of the first few rounds is a silly way to figure out who the terrorists are. Perhaps if there is a pattern, that might generate suspicion, especially if there are other factors, but doing it once or twice doesn't constitute a pattern, and without some other kind of evidence, I don't think it's very helpful. Somebody did say that in the last game that I "created" a bandwagonable target and thus determined who was guilty from that. It ended up that who ended up voting with me were terrorists, but it was really the fact that I was targeted for death that was the determining factor, combined with voting patterns in the round in which a terrorist was voted out. There was also Manta's gambit, which frankly was random coincidence. It was far more complex than simply who it was that was considered bandwagoning. Looking at it as "bandwagons = guilty" is incorrect.

Frankly I haven't even been paying attention to who votes for who or when, so this shouldn't be taken as a hint or anything of the sort for the current game. I don't even read most of your posts. Maybe the terrorists have been bandwagoning, maybe they're the ones avoiding it or arguing against it. All I know is that the term has come up far more than usual lately, so this is just a thought on what I see as a logical fallacy many players seem to have (or maybe just pretending to have). Maybe next time I am a player in one of these games, something other than perceived bandwagoning can be used to determine guilt. Voting safely, while not particularly helpful, is a valid survival strategy. Agreement with logical arguments shouldn't be grounds for getting voted off, nor should a player who is trying to stay alive be necessarily evil.

I actually have some thoughts on this topic, but will wait until the game is over before posting. Suffice to say, there are times when bandwagoning can be indicative of special roles.

xander

I'm a fan of bandwagoning, for as you say, whats the point of arguing if you can't convince people or are suspicious of the ones you do? Although I like evidence, sometimes people can make exceptionally good points. Look at xander in game 22. He conned lots of people into voting for me with a reasoned argument.

Although it gets extreme on the first day.

Okay, on bandwagons.

In a standard game of TWG, the wolves want to blend in, and take as few risks as possible. As such, if it looks like someone is going to get lynched, it is in their best interests to try and blend in with the crowd. The fact is that, especially on the first day, once someone gets two or three votes, the likelihood of them getting lynched goes way up. Thus, if a wolf can be the second or third vote for someone who looks like they are going to die, then they can blend in pretty well. It is hard to predict if a person with one vote is going to die, so the second vote for a particular candidate is hard to be suspicious about. The third or fourth vote, however, is a bit more suspicious.

However, we have now played enough games that this logic no longer holds true. The wolves have figured out that this line of thinking is common, and have adjusted. Thus, logic based on bandwagoning is not as useful as it once was.

xander

As far as I can tell bandwaggoning is a terrible reason to vote for someone cause now in the game it may mean nothing. Also Xander, Thank you for finally dying! Gah!

@ekhawkman, on May 26 2008, 04:55 PM, said in Bandwagons:

As far as I can tell bandwaggoning is a terrible reason to vote for someone cause now in the game it may mean nothing. Also Xander, Thank you for finally dying! Gah!

You do realize that I was innocent, right?

xander

Heh, if I was a player, I'd probably have voted for you, darwinian. I probably would have assumed you were innocent when I did it too. Sometimes people cause so much of a distraction, as you did, that it's impossible to get much figured out while they're alive.

@mrxak, on May 26 2008, 08:05 PM, said in Bandwagons:

Heh, if I was a player, I'd probably have voted for you, darwinian. I probably would have assumed you were innocent when I did it too. Sometimes people cause so much of a distraction, as you did, that it's impossible to get much figured out while they're alive.

Yeah, even I made that argument. Though, point of fact, I was only one wolf short of figuring it out. Why do you think I changed my vote to Templar98921, and was ignoring

Spoiler

that other wolf

? Though I must admit that there is something about your game that threw me, which I will get back to when it is over.

xander

Yes I know you were innocent but GAH you aggravated me so much! But thats all water under the bridge, At least you did a good job making the terrorists lose a kill.

I still can't believe I'm dead. It was so quick... xander, you realize that if you had died a round earlier we would have made it?

I like the way mrxak has run this game. It's been relatively imaginative, while still conforming to his rules.

On to the subject at hand:
Because it is such a wolfie strategy to bandwagon, it makes is a prime target for reverse psychology. It's not, however, something to be frowned on. That shows it's wolf behavior, and innocents get lynched.

Bandwagons made it pitifully easy for me to manipulate the council into killing several innocents this past game. Darwinian, you sunnovabitch, you are uncannily effective at finding the terrorists-- in fact, you had us the first round! Without you we likely would have survived. The same could of course be said for Mispeled and probably a few others, but you weren't the intelligence agent.
In my opinion, Templar made some bad decisions, especially earlier. I was slightly confused by his random assertions and behavior that associated him with me obviously from the point of view of someone who knew the association existed-- me-- but apparently nobody else noticed them, and lynched me for my own reasons.
The Templar bandwagon was... surprising... to say the least. I suspect some PM's snuck in there, or it may have just been utter chaos happening to come down on the head of a terrorist.

I have to admit, I got you right away, and Templar98921 followed quickly. However, I was shocked when kickme turned out to be a terrorist. That really confused the hell out of me. When prophile killed me off, he told me, over IRC, that the wolves were in two groups, and weren't communicating with each other. It made it very hard to track you guys. I didn't pick up on prophile until well after kickme died, and even then, I wasn't really sure until he told me he was killing me.

mrxak, it was a well run game, thank you. Wolves, nicely done. You got hosed by Mispeled, who did exactly the right thing, and stayed under the radar very well. By the way, the right thing to do would have been to kill Mispeled as soon as he came forward. When he came forward, he was basically a confirmed human -- everyone believed him. The goal would have been to keep the confirmed human population from growing. After killing Mispeled (assuming that he wasn't protected), your only shot would have been to then take out the other confirmed humans at night. You still probably would have lost, but it might have been closer.

xander

Eh? What bad decisions? And I did try to stay seperate, but trying to get the council to kill more innocents without referencing you would have made them even more suspicious, or would have at least made me more if is was innocent.

I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling Mispeled.

@jrsh92, on May 30 2008, 10:23 PM, said in Bandwagons:

The Templar bandwagon was... surprising... to say the least. I suspect some PM's snuck in there, or it may have just been utter chaos happening to come down on the head of a terrorist.

I did not send out any PMs, nor did I recieve any. I was using a theory that I call the Mad Man theory; I was voting whichever way I could to create a tie until I was positive that one of my votes could be used to send the tide toppling onto another person. In other words, I was toying with darwinian, and I loved every second of it.

It only works in certain situations, though, but it saved my hide.