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.
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.
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.
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.
Let the vigilante make up their own mind on who they shoot.
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**
**
-
The scum team may attempt to awaken a sleeper on any Night, the only exception being Night 0.
-
When an awakening is attempted, the scum team will recieve a message stating whether the attempt was successful or unsuccessful.
-
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))**
Replying to posts as I read them…
Didn’t you promise us something?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
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.
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:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I agree.
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.
Nope, I do not agree. I am tired of boring, no-risk gameplay.
That is a strange answer considering the publicly revealed Jailer role PM:
Jailing is a Day action that blocks Night actions. I see no reason why the Jailer could not protect themself.
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.
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:
-
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.
-
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.
Always someone has to be that guy. :smack:
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.
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.
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.
Acting like scum is not a winning strategy for town.
Then they’ll have to choose between suspicion from you and a vote from me. 
Because it gets advanced in almost every game I play, usually by a townie who thinks they have a new angle on it. 
Mea culpa, I knew I forgot something. The hammer threshold for toDay is 13 votes.
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.
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.
I believe I already answered this here:
Scum may use the wrong power on me. Or they may avoid using a power on me when they should have.
That’s certainly your prerogative. I simply do not find that approach to be either fun or particularly effective.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Idle Thoughts didn’t claim in his first post? Kill him!
(also kidding!)
A specious assumption. You assume Pleonast values good play over fun play. (I actually don’t remember how Pleonast plays)
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.