# Glasnost Mafia **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [February 17, 2011, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757 "2011-02-17T23:58:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/838e76/32.png) [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/One_And_Only_Wanderers)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/141 "2011-02-22T14:55:45Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > :dubious: Yeah. But we have to talk about something, and the most logical choice is the set-up. Are you trying to keep us from talking? Not much, but worth an early Day 1 vote: > > \*\* Vote OAOW [/b I pick up this same vote veeeery often. I am not trying to stifle discussion, I am just concerned about the danger of setting up pre determined chains of actions. ---
**Author:** ![Wolverine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ba9def/32.png) [@Wolverine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wolverine)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/142 "2011-02-22T14:59:16Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > It seems to me that in the discussion that y’all were having while I was repairing my home computer (the dreaded double RAID drive failure!) that **Wolverine** ) was excessively confident in the idea that a claim of receiving the chicken message would confirm the recipient as non-scum. In light of the fact that’d just been discussed (skimmer!), I think that’s as good a place to focus early suspicions as any. I thought my mistake would come to bite me on the ass. I was answering the one question and didn’t think about the other possibilities enough in the related field of “what has to happen that scum would feel safe with a false-claim.” I was using the assumption from the question that a non-scum (any flavor) received a sleeper message. Then it would be stupid for scum to false-claim. Oh well. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/143 "2011-02-22T15:02:39Z")
I concur with **OAOW** : Ultimately, we as town need to trust our fellow townies to make good decisions, especially because A) our only mechanism to enforce compliance is with the vig (which is stupid, as it amounts to "kill townies who don’t like our plans) and B) we don’t have any mechanism to force them in this case since how the heck do we know. I also concur with the rest of the consensus, though–announcing that an attempt was made to wake you as a sleeper is a GOOD idea, since it forces the scum to seriously consider not-recruiting to hide one or more members in a pool that just by human nature we’re likely going to regard as slightly more trustworthy. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/144 "2011-02-22T15:04:06Z")
> [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](#): > > I pick up this same vote veeeery often. I am not trying to stifle discussion, I am just concerned about the danger of setting up pre determined chains of actions. But have we even a chain? So farr, all that’s been established is: people who are attempted to be recruited should claim, and the town sleeper, once he becomes town, should also probably claim (although maybe not). That’s barely a link, and hardly worth warning. ---
**Author:** ![One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/838e76/32.png) [@One\_And\_Only\_Wanderers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/One_And_Only_Wanderers)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/145 "2011-02-22T15:08:59Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > But have we even a chain? So farr, all that’s been established is: people who are attempted to be recruited should claim, and the town sleeper, once he becomes town, should also probably claim (although maybe not). That’s barely a link, and hardly worth warning. It removes thought and accountability though. If and when we have the situation I would want the town sleeper to think about the current situation and react accordingly, rather than just doing what had been decided all the way back early on day one and absolving themselves of any responsibility for the results of tehir action. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/146 "2011-02-22T16:22:13Z")
> [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > I’d like to discuss this. Do we as a town try to suggest targets for the vig? Let him or her use their own judgement? > . Let the vigilante make up their own mind on who they shoot. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/147 "2011-02-22T16:25:17Z")
> [@Wolverine](#): > > I thought my mistake would come to bite me on the ass. I was answering the one question and didn’t think about the other possibilities enough in the related field of “what has to happen that scum would feel safe with a false-claim.” I was using the assumption from the question that a non-scum (any flavor) received a sleeper message. Then it would be stupid for scum to false-claim. What? I have no idea what your explanation means and I agree with Zeriel that you seem to assume that anyone who claims to get the chicken message would be non-scum. Maybe if I carefully re-read your response, I’ll get it. No, it does not make sense to me. \*\* Vote Wolverine\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/148 "2011-02-22T16:25:55Z")
\*\* 1. The scum team may attempt to awaken a sleeper on any Night, the only exception being Night 0. 2. When an awakening is attempted, the scum team will recieve a message stating whether the attempt was successful or unsuccessful. 3. Vote counts will be posted at 7pm ET on days that do not end a Day. On days that end a Day (eg February 24) the vote count will be posted at 7am and between 5-6pm (depending on if I can get home in time))\*\* ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/149 "2011-02-22T16:46:30Z")
Replying to posts as I read them… > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Oh, it’s time! > > Day 1 begins now and ends 7pm ET on Febuary 24. > > [Time since Feb 24, 2011 7:00 pm started in New York](http://timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?month=02&day=24&year=2011&hour=19&min=00&sec=00&p0=179) > > Let the game begin! Didn’t you promise us something? > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > # If at any time a player has received 50% of the living players worth of votes + 2, the day ends. The value required for this hammer will announced at the beginning of every day. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I refuse to confirm that I received a role PM. It’s a silly custom. However, I will state that I am vanilla town this game. And just to preemptively answer a few questions. I like to play with some risk, in the hopes of gaining an advantage. I am giving scum a tidbit of information (or misinformation). They can act as if I am truthful (or not), or minimize their risk by ignoring me. And since in this game some apparently vanilla townies are valuable to scum, their choice will have a little more weight this game. > [@Mahaloth](#): > > I don’t think this counts as strategy, so I’ll post it. I have made a blank spreadsheet over on Google Docs that contains the setup roles. I guess we can fill it in, add any claims that happen, and so forth. > > Feel free to check it and see if it is right. We can discuss it more when Day One actually starts. > > Uh, first Google doc I’ve ever made. Please let me know if you can see it. > > [Blank Glasnost Spreadsheet](https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Auyat3JjOMq7dFJEUzRTbnFQWUx3SzNjc0F6ZHF2Snc&hl=en#gid=0) I hate to discourage you from keeping notes or doing analysis, but you may want to confirm with the moderator that this is within the rules. See rule: > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > # No communication about this game in any manner that has not been previously mod-sanctioned. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > Ok. First off, let me repeat what I said during the night: anyone who is targeted for recruitment will be told that they were per the setup post; they should post in the thread that they were targeted. This will give Town some useful information that otherwise only the Scum would have. I agree. > [@pedescribe](#): > > Secondly: the hammer. How are we going to deal with that? Whoever hammers ends the Day. Clearly, we’ll need to be careful about the number one less than hammer, since if we are at such a number a scum (or townie who isn’t paying attention) can slam the buzzer on a hapless townie. My impulse is to lynch whoever hammers. Ending the time the town has to communicate is not helpful. The lynch will happen with or without a hammer; there’s no need to end discussion early. If the player you find most suspicious (that is, the player you should be voting for) would be hammered by your vote, say so and then vote whoever you find next most suspicious. On the topic of votes, I will vote for any player who places their vote purely for self survival. That is, if you are a likely lynch candidate, voting for another lynch candidate simply to prevent your own lynch instead of whoever you find suspicious. Scum have a strong incentive to do this, town should not behave like scum. > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > I agree that in this game, unprovoked claims are all sorts of bad. Can we all agree to no claims unless we’re on the block? Nope, I do not agree. I am tired of boring, no-risk gameplay. > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > **Since the town jailer prevents their target from performing any actions, the town jailer would of course prevent him or herself from protecting him or herself from being the target of any other actions.** That is a strange answer considering the publicly revealed Jailer role PM: > [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > **Town Jailer** : > You are the Town Jailer. Before the end of each day you may pm me the name of the person you’d like to jail the following night. That player will be unable to take any actions, or be the target of any actions while jailed. The jailed player will be released at dawn. Jailing is a Day action that blocks Night actions. I see no reason why the Jailer could not protect themself. > [@Mahaloth](#): > > Let the vigilante make up their own mind on who they shoot. Absolutely correct. Power roles must be decide for themselves how to use their powers. They should be especially careful about using input from unconfirmed players. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/150 "2011-02-22T16:47:00Z")
> [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > I’d like to discuss this. \*\* Do we as a town try to suggest targets for the vig? Let him or her use their own judgement?\*\* > > My personal belief is… I’m going to use you as an example even though this is a very mild case of town-style foolishness (I’ve seen SO much worse), but I’m going to make what I consider to be a good general bit of advice: 1. There is no reason to assume the town power roles are LESS smart than you–and they can make up their own minds because by definition they know at least one piece of info that you don’t until they’re revealed. 2. There is also no reason to have town try to make plans for people whose behavior cannot be enforced. As town, we can only collectively punish dissenters by voting for them to be lynched. If we don’t know who the vig is, we cannot punish them by voting for them (aside from the fact that’s a really stupid idea unless the vig is really acting crazy with who s/he shoots), so it’s silly of us to think that our suggestions could even possibly be anything more than that. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/151 "2011-02-22T16:53:09Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > I refuse to confirm that I received a role PM. It’s a silly custom. However, I will state that I am vanilla town this game. Always someone has to be that guy. :smack: > [@](#): > > On the topic of votes, I will vote for any player who places their vote purely for self survival. That is, if you are a likely lynch candidate, voting for another lynch candidate simply to prevent your own lynch instead of whoever you find suspicious. Scum have a strong incentive to do this, town should not behave like scum. Foolish, at best. Suppose the unrevealed doctor/cop is a likely lynch candidate, but the vote is nearly tied between themselves and another player. Saving themselves without revealing/claiming themselves is the absolute best play possible. Furthermore, supposing someone is a townie in general, they KNOW they are a townie, so saving themselves is better than saving an unconfirmed. Essentially, voting for self-preservation is such a neutral-to-good strategy that trying to punish it is ridiculous. I’m far, far more likely to suspect a person who DOESN’T vote to self-preserve on the grounds they have some trick up their sleeve. ---
**Author:** ![Astral\_Rejection](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@Astral\_Rejection](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astral_Rejection)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/152 "2011-02-22T16:57:40Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I’m going to use you as an example even though this is a very mild case of town-style foolishness (I’ve seen SO much worse), but I’m going to make what I consider to be a good general bit of advice: Your point is well-taken. But my question to you is, how are you so sure this is “town-style” foolishness? At this point in the game, you have no idea who or what I am. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/153 "2011-02-22T17:03:06Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Foolish, at best. Suppose the unrevealed doctor/cop is a likely lynch candidate, but the vote is nearly tied between themselves and another player. Saving themselves without revealing/claiming themselves is the absolute best play possible. A power role who expects to avoid the lynch should have claimed long before they are feel like they need to vote to protect themself. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, supposing someone is a townie in general, they KNOW they are a townie, so saving themselves is better than saving an unconfirmed. Acting like scum is not a winning strategy for town. > [@](#): > > Essentially, voting for self-preservation is such a neutral-to-good strategy that trying to punish it is ridiculous. I’m far, far more likely to suspect a person who DOESN’T vote to self-preserve on the grounds they have some trick up their sleeve. Then they’ll have to choose between suspicion from you and a vote from me. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/154 "2011-02-22T17:05:57Z")
> [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > Your point is well-taken. But my question to you is, how are you so sure this is “town-style” foolishness? At this point in the game, you have no idea who or what I am. Because it gets advanced in almost every game I play, usually by a townie who thinks they have a new angle on it. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/155 "2011-02-22T17:15:43Z")
**Mea culpa, I knew I forgot something. The hammer threshold for toDay is 13 votes.** ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/156 "2011-02-22T19:02:38Z")
**Pleonast** , you mention you’re tired of no-risk gameplay. I’m sure you’re aware of the clear anti-Town risks to your actions, given that they’ve been discussed upthread. So what are the rewards or benefits of you claiming VT early? Clearly there was a good reason you did it, otherwise you wouldn’t have. There’s no point in taking a risk unless there’s a clear reward for doing so–to do otherwise is dangerous and foolhardy. I’m not seeing the positives here; can you please explain them for me? I know it’s just a game, but I’d much rather do things the expected way and win than mix things up and lose. ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/157 "2011-02-22T19:29:21Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > On the topic of votes, I will vote for any player who places their vote purely for self survival. That is, if you are a likely lynch candidate, voting for another lynch candidate simply to prevent your own lynch instead of whoever you find suspicious. Scum have a strong incentive to do this, town should not behave like scum. I have several points of criticism on this point: (1) Self preservation is a trait shared by both town and scum. To tell everyone else that self preservation is a scum behavior is inaccurate. Pointing at one thing that scum will do while ignoring the fact that Town will do the exact same thing is wrong-headed. (2) By instituting a ‘will vote for anyone who votes out of self-preservation’ Pleonast establishes a policy by which he can vote and avoid accountability for that vote. It’s no longer “I’m voting for X because I think X is scum.” His vote is “I’m voting for X because X acted in self defense.” If X turns up Town, then Pleonast can just shrug and point to Policy as opposed to defending an actual accusation. (3) Self-preservation votes are balanced by symmetry. One player voting for self-preservation will and should be reciprocated by the other player also voting for self-preservation. These two votes cancel each other out. Pleonast sticking is nose in the matter only mucks things up. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/158 "2011-02-22T19:47:27Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > **Pleonast** , you mention you’re tired of no-risk gameplay. I’m sure you’re aware of the clear anti-Town risks to your actions, given that they’ve been discussed upthread. So what are the rewards or benefits of you claiming VT early? Clearly there was a good reason you did it, otherwise you wouldn’t have. There’s no point in taking a risk unless there’s a clear reward for doing so–to do otherwise is dangerous and foolhardy. I’m not seeing the positives here; can you please explain them for me? I believe I already answered this here: > [@Pleonast](#): > > And just to preemptively answer a few questions. I like to play with some risk, in the hopes of gaining an advantage. I am giving scum a tidbit of information (or misinformation). They can act as if I am truthful (or not), or minimize their risk by ignoring me. And since in this game some apparently vanilla townies are valuable to scum, their choice will have a little more weight this game. Scum may use the wrong power on me. Or they may avoid using a power on me when they should have. > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > I know it’s just a game, but I’d much rather do things the expected way and win than mix things up and lose. That’s certainly your prerogative. I simply do not find that approach to be either fun or particularly effective. > [@sachertorte](#): > > (1) Self preservation is a trait shared by both town and scum. To tell everyone else that self preservation is a scum behavior is inaccurate. Pointing at one thing that scum will do while ignoring the fact that Town will do the exact same thing is wrong-headed. Self preservation is not a townie trait. Townies do not need to survive to win. They do need the town to gain useful information from lynches. Voting for someone you do not find suspicious removes information from the vote count. Self preservation is a scum trait. Just as town should not lie, in order that we make it harder for scum to lie, town should not vote purely for their own self-preservation. To make it harder for scum to do so. Some players value continuing to play the game as more important than winning. They then look to find a reason to justify voting for self preservation. This is not helpful to the rest of town, who need to distinguish players by how they act. If we give players free pass to vote as scum will, then we lose that bit of advantage over them. > [@](#): > > (2) By instituting a ‘will vote for anyone who votes out of self-preservation’ Pleonast establishes a policy by which he can vote and avoid accountability for that vote. It’s no longer “I’m voting for X because I think X is scum.” His vote is “I’m voting for X because X acted in self defense.” If X turns up Town, then Pleonast can just shrug and point to Policy as opposed to defending an actual accusation. My policy is voting for players who I think are scum. Just like I will vote for a player caught in a lie, I will vote a player who voted to preserve themself. I’m not voting simply because they lied or voted, but because their lie or self-serving vote means I think they are acting like scum. > [@](#): > > (3) Self-preservation votes are balanced by symmetry. One player voting for self-preservation will and should be reciprocated by the other player also voting for self-preservation. These two votes cancel each other out. Pleonast sticking is nose in the matter only mucks things up. And not letting players vote for self-preservation is also balanced by symmetry. Except in the case I’m advocating, we’re gaining more information from the vote count and we’re preventing scum from saving themselves. As you point out, there is no net benefit from players voting to save themselves. Why do you think we should let players do so? ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/159 "2011-02-22T19:56:13Z")
Pleonast is already claiming Vanilla Town? That’s a pretty anti-town move. (kidding, kidding!) **Vote Mahaloth** …for voting **Wolverine**. Yes, I know **Zeriel** voted **Wolverine** also, but a second vote reeks (to me) of trying to start an early bandwagon. Plus it’s been my experience that–more often than not–mistakes like that are often Townspeople who simply make some little mistake or slip and yet pay dearly for it the rest of the game. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757/160 "2011-02-22T20:08:33Z")
Idle Thoughts didn’t claim in his first post? Kill him! (also kidding!) > [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > **Pleonast** , you mention you’re tired of no-risk gameplay. I’m sure you’re aware of the clear anti-Town risks to your actions, given that they’ve been discussed upthread. So what are the rewards or benefits of you claiming VT early? Clearly there was a good reason you did it, otherwise you wouldn’t have. A specious assumption. You assume Pleonast values good play over fun play. (I actually don’t remember how Pleonast plays) > [@Pleonast](#): > > Self preservation is not a townie trait. Townies do not need to survive to win. This is simply untrue. Townies need to survive to win; if our numbers get too low the scum control the vote, and win. If a townie is on the chopping block it should be his priority to not die, since him dying would hurt the town. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/glasnost-mafia/571757.md?page=9)