Mahaloth is exactly right.
The eyeroll was just commentary on what seems to be a very arbitrary and subjective policy of yours.
I also don’t think everyone is participating in this debate with the same parameters, but maybe I’m wrong and/or being influenced by language being used on other games that are currently afoot.
First we need a common definition of what a self-preservation vote actually is. We seem to have established that, according to Pleo, it is not necessarily any vote made by someone tied for the lead, but rather a vote made by someone tied for the lead with no justification other than “I don’t want to die”. I think some people may have other opinions of what a self-preservation vote actually is, but debating and more specifically suspecting each other over it doesn’t really serve a purpose if there aren’t at least some common definitions to start with.
I would argue that’s the scummiest bit of Pleo’s plan–lacking a usable definition, he can easily manipulate his own policy by declaring explanations sufficient or not.
I keep trying to wrap my head around this and I just can’t. If I’m in a tie with someone else, and I am not currently voting for them, you’d best bet I’d switch my vote. Voting for them has a chance of lynching non-Town, while my being lynched is 100% chance of lynching Town. Even if I don’t find them the most suspicious person, it’s better than ensuring that Town is lynched by NOT voting for them.
I can understand the desire to play risky. What I can’t understand is the desire to force everyone else to play your way.
<snipped>
actually it’s merely a suggestion for sub-optimal play on town’s part. i don’t think pleo can “force” any town to behave in a manner that does not maximize town’s chances for victory.
Force, no. But if he says that he’s going to automatically switch his vote to vote for someone who is making a self-preservation vote, then it makes the self-preservation votes pointless. It therefore has the potential of keeping others from voting the way they want to, which obscures the voting record even worse than the self-preservation votes might have.
At least with a self-preservation vote, we get both data points–we’ll know the person they were voting for before the switch and the person they were voting for after, and eventually when we have the alignment of both (or of the voter) we’ll know a little more. Saying you’ll vote for someone for switching to a self-preservation vote has a chilling effect that ends up suppressing data points rather than giving the Town more information.
I fail to see what advantage you think the town might gain by having you claim vanilla town at this stage.
No it is not. You know what is a winning strategy for town. Lynching scum and not lynching town players. The one sure piece of information a player has is their alignment (well, usually). Using that information to prevent a mislynch is part of a winning strategy.
You say information is more valuable than the life of any individual townie, but that depends on the information. If the detective can tell us someone is scum or verify that some players are town, then it is likely worth having the detective die to let the town know that. Sacrificing yourself just so the voting record of one soon-to-be-deceased player (if they die because they didn’t make the self-preservation vote) will be “pure” for a single day when it would otherwise not be is not worth the trade off in my opinion.
I was having a similar conversation with myself as I read the thread. Pleo has stated this policy in other games, both when he has been town and scum, so it is a null tell, but that along with his unforced claim has me feeling that his play may just be anti-town enough to vote for him anyway.
And until something better comes along, I think I will.
Vote Pleonast
As far as the power roles, especially the vigilante, I don’t really have a problem with players making suggestions to them, but I do think the decision ultimately rests with them. I do agree that the vig should not just shoot blindly into the crowd, though.
I suggest you review it. Here, let me quote it for you.
Suppose I find A very suspicious, B slightly suspicious and C not suspicious at all. If the Lynch vote is very close between B and C, with A not in contention, should I not move my vote from A to B to make it more likely that scum is lynched? How am I robbing Town of information if I explain, when I vote, why I vote and how suspicious I find these players?
The only relevant information I can see that might be lost is C’s alignment. But exactly one alignment will be revealed in either case.
Does it affect the argument if I am C? (Yes, if one assumes that self-preservation is a scum trait, but that becomes a circular argument.)
Despite that Pleonast’s argument seems wrong to me, I’m not ready to vote for him. @ Other players: Has he made a similar argument in previous games where he was Town?
I’m only two away from lynch lead myself, but not yet ready to cast a self-preservation vote ( 
) …
For what it’s worth, I made the same mistake for the same reason (if I understand Wolverine correctly). I was thinking about whether we should claim if we get a chicken sleeper message. I wondered whether scum could safely make a fake claim in that case, but I forget that was not the only case and that scum don’t have to send a message, or that one of the other things listed here by GuiriEnEspaña could happen. Yeah, it was dumb, but I just had the idea of a town player getting a message stuck in my head and reasoned from there.
As for Pleonast, I can’t understand how an extra live town player is worsth less than a small amount of fuzzy information. I am not even sure what information is lost, if the player who makes the self-preservation vote explains what they are thinking. But I am worried about town players getting lynched over disagreements about strategy because that seemed to kill a few players in the last mafia game here (and that’s the only game I have followed.)
You need to explain your vote in the context of the players involved. If you are scum, the identities of the players involved will put pressure on you to act certain ways. Do you bus your buddy? Do you push for a mislynch? This is important information. Your Policy is cold and unfeeling. It doesn’t have shades of gray or hints of subjectivity by which we will evaluate your whether you are acting in a way that is believable or in a way that reveals you to be scum. Because your vote is mechanical we can’t evaluate you.
Exactly. And by voting based on a Policy spelled out on Day One without context of who is involved or the circumstances of the situation you remove information from your vote – making your vote less meaningful. When you vote based on Policy, the reasoning is POLICY not “Pleonast is backing his scumbuddy.” That’s the big deal.
I’m more railing against your Policy Vote than players voting for each other or whatever. I frankly care less about the theoretical self-preservationists because
(A) Both have a pile of votes which in and of itself generates significant and concrete data and
(B) One of them is going to die.
[/QUOTE]
If they place their votes with poor reasons, then that’s more information than we’ll get if they’re voting for each other.
[QUOTE]
But we get less information about you.
No. My stance is that this is a Team Game. We play best when we coordinate. By running off the rails you hurt your team. Perhaps your strategy is fine, however, your strategy is incompatible with the strategy and custom of the rest of the players. This is a problem. Employing a separate strategy when everyone else is absolutely fine with self-preservation votes is counterproductive.
As if everyone else here hasn’t figured that out :rolleyes:
Starting in late as usual… will read this morning, post this afternoon.
With regards to Mahaloth’s spreadsheet: I’m gonna have to rule no shared spreadsheets for this game. Not that I believe that it will be a tool for cheating or unauthorized communication, but from a standpoint that if players refer to the spreadsheet it will be a piece of the game that is disconnected and may be lost from the main game threads.
i guess to encapsulate what i have gleaned thus far.
pleo will vote for folks who vote to save themselves and he has claimed vanilla town.
last one first. meh, who the fark cares. he is or he isn’t. claiming vanilla gives no indication of alignment and or presence or absence of any type of power. i am spartacus, btw. the only problem that i see is that there is a group that takes my stance and just flat out ignores him. however, there is a certain subset where this action creates a certain level of vexation. now to the extent that it gets folks talking that’s good. but to the extent that it has been so rehashed it does become a little tiresome.
policy votes are typically bad if held in a vacuum. like sach (and if i do not paraphrase this correctly please feel free to correct) implies actions need to be taken in context. lynch all liars is a good example. town lying is not good the vast majority of the time. however, are there instances where it might be the correct play. maybe so - maybe no. kind of depends on the situation.
now here pleo suggests that he will vote for anyone who votes to save themselves. so if someone votes to save themselves and at the same time another person votes someone because they don’t like their name, because they had a vision in their sleep that the person was scum, because last game they voted for me and it still chaps my ass, because i am scum and i need to get the claimed detective lynched, etc. pleo would by policy be voting for the person who voted to save themselves over the second person. although, i think in any of the previous scenarios the second person would be more deserving a vote. it’s kind of a shitty policy. and while shitty policies do not equate to scumitude they certainly equate to anti town.
K. I’ll remove the spreadsheet when I get a chance.
Red, if you want to check, I have changed the spreadsheet to private and it should not be available now. Feel free to double check, though.
Can you expand on this, please? Because it seems to me to absolve players of responsibility for the truthfulness of their statements - which is not a direction I’d care to go.
Actually, I’ll go further:
There are instances where Town lying might be the correct play. However, it’s the correct play if and only if the Town player doing the lying is including the risk of getting caught, and the likelihood of being lynched if (s)he is, into the calculus in the first place. Accepting that it is sometimes good play for Town to lie (which I have reluctantly done over the course of fifteen billion or so games) is not the same as blithely accepting that lying in general gives no indication of alignment.
What if they have?
In our last game, I was a Town power role. On - some Day, I don’t remember anymore - it was down to either me or ushimi, a claimed Vanilla. I had already role claimed. ushimi was voting for me. I knew the following things:
- I was a Town power role.
- Ushimi was definitely not.
- I was definitely not Scum.
- Ushimi was probably not Scum, but might have been.
The vote was close; there were multiple votes for each of us. By voting for ushimi, even though I thought him very likely to be Town, I helped ensure that he would be lynched in my place.
So here are my questions:
- Was my decision to vote ushimi anti-Town?
- Were you (as Scum) happy that ushimi was lynched on that Day and not me?
- If your answer to #2 is “no” - if you’d have preferred it, as Scum, that I be lynched - how then can you characterize my vote as a pro-Scum thing to do?
I agree. The early vanilla claims are completely meaningless, and should be treated that way.
On the other hand, a player who insists on posting completely meaningless comments with the intent of getting everyone to talk about something that is completely meaningless is not completely meaningless.
So, while the claim is meaningless, the act of claiming is not meaningless.