What I’m thinking is that it’s an open game, so the player in question would be able to look around at the roles still in the game and then plan accordingly.
OK. What about a player getting the “Arise, chicken, arise!” message but not being the sleeper, so not being activated. Any reason not to reveal in that case?
I’m having trouble thinking of any. Anyone posting the message should be confirmation that they’re not scum, which would be vanilla town, power town, survivor, or deranged bomber. And no one would counter-claim without taking a major risk. A false claimer would only be able to survive a single-day (if they’re lucky) if they counter-claim.
not that I can think of. Of course we have to be aware of the possible scum strategy of not trying to ‘awake’ anyone that night, and then having a scum claim receipt of that message.
- Scum choose not to target anyone and are safe to false claim
- Scum choose to target a scum and are safe to false claim
- The target is vigged, scum are safe to false claim
- The target is killed by the bomber, scum are safe to false claim
- The target is jailed and it is somehow confirmed, scum are safe to false claim
I snipped the wrong part of the post, I was responding to this:
I don’t see any reason why the target player shouldn’t claim but it doesn’t confirm the claimant as non-scum.
You’re right that somebody that posts the message is confirmed. I was wrong about that. But the question wasn’t what could scum do to make a false claim. Instead it was asking if someone who wasn’t scum received the message, what would be the problem of them claiming. If somebody not scum received the message, then by all means they should post it. It helps prevent scum from false claiming.
Aren’t those just reasons why we can’t believe claims? Claims are still a good idea because they provide *some *information though, right?
ETA: What Wolverine said.
Wow that’s a lot of simul-posts. 
I think we all pretty much agree though, now. We should claim, but there are a lot of ways scum could muddy the waters.
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 that the vigilante shouldn’t do anything tonight, because we really have no information whatsoever. Future nights will of course depend on the situation at hand.
I haven’t played in a game with a town vig yet, though, so I’m not sure what the optimal play is.
By day end there may be a strong lead for the vig to go with. I agree they shouldn’t shoot blind however.
Yeah, you never know when you’re going to hit a mason which then causes the other mason to kill someone else. 
And that was killing the runner up too. So you could be doomed either way.
I’d say that it’s a pretty safe bet in this game that’s not going to happen, Cookies. 
agreed. firing wildly into the crowd is sub optimal. and yes, i do speak from experience. :smack:
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.
vote Wolverine
: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
Just checking in very briefly…this is the first time I’ve actually had time to open the thread since the Day began; yesterday was ‘one of those days’. I won’t have time to do a reread until after I get to work, but I hope to have something to contribute by lunchtime.
I’m not worried about the hammer. We rarely get a 25% consensus early in the game. If we somehow manage 50%+2, then that’s pretty strong consensus right there. With 21 players we would need 12 or 13 to hammer (depending on how rounding works for that). I’ll be shocked if we manage to get 12 votes on one player short of a major slip-up where the hammer wouldn’t matter anyway.
On Sleepiness:
I agree that anyone and everyone should announce if they are targeted for recruitment. I realize there is some push for ‘circumstances,’ but this is an OPEN game. I see no circumstances where hiding such information is beneficial to town. But I DO see several instances where strict claiming is beneficial:
(1) We’ve already touched on mild confirmation of townness (or at least not-scumness) based on recruitment claims. We’ve also identified the possibility of scum not targeting and false claiming recruitment attempts. While true, I don’t think this is a reason to dissuade recruitment attempt claims. We WANT to force scum into feeling the need to not-recruit. Turning the sleepers into non-win stealing survivors is best for Town. By keeping recruitment attempts public, this puts pressure on scum to include scum in the list of attempted recruitees. Thus mitigating the recruitment power.
(2) Based on recruitment claims (or lack thereof) we have the potential to piece together what the scum are thinking. This could be a powerful tool. At the very least, knowing that we will be inspecting their actions will have an effect on the scum choices. They might try to ‘distract’ us in some way, but if they intentionally try something like that then they will be playing for effect and not based on optimal choices. I also think this is good for Town.
(3) Based on (1) should the town sleeper become aware of what’s what, there will be ample evidence of whether or not claiming is beneficial. This will of course be very situational, but with all the information of (1) the town sleeper will know the benefits (if any) of claiming immediately.
(4) Each time there is a claim of recruitment, we know* that no recruitment has yet occurred. Knowing when recruitment happens is important, especially for post analysis of recruitment suspects.
- It is possible that scum could recruit someone then have a scum buddy false claim recruit attempt, but doing so would be suicide since the town sleeper would know this is a lie.
(5) Full disclosure eliminates uncertainty. Scum know everything about recruitment attempts. If a townie dies having been recruit-attempted, then scum can leverage that situation since no one else knew that townie had been recruit-attempted.
Anyway, I strongly favor public disclosure of recruitment attempts. If you are town and you don’t you’re going to need a very good reason for doing so, and based on the OPEN ruleset, I frankly don’t see one. Non-disclosures generally occur to keep information from scum. Scum already have recruitment attempt information!