The town must trade numbers for information. Information is more valuable that the life of any individual townie (sans powers). A townie who plays to save themself rather than help the town gather information is being selfish.
Well, this is making MY first day voting easier.
Townies don’t need to stay alive? Policy votes aren’t policy votes?
From my POV you’ve essentially asserted your right to act arbitrarily in service of your definition of “fun”, which I do not have access to. In the guise of this you’ve made one potentially anti-town move (claiming vanilla in a game where one vanilla is eligible for recruitment–if truthful, a dumb play; if you’re lying, “lynch all liars” is a rule of thumb likely to get you killed) and set a policy that allows you to make votes without articulating a clear suspicion beyond a policy–and since nearly everyone will vote for self-preservation, you’ve got a great out to lay votes on townies, if you’re a scum.
Basically, there’s no aspect of your play so far that I find particularly pro-town or even neutral.
Unvote Wolverine
Vote Pleonast
NETA: if two people are close enough that a self-preservation vote is even meaningful, how do you define the relative informational content of their respective deaths in a vacuum?
Vanilla Townie (unclaimed, unproven) X (in the vote lead) votes in self-preservation for second-place contender Unknown Y. Can you define ANY scenario where the death of Y reveals less information than the death of X? Especially since any sane Y player will counter-vote X?
You say that Scum may use the wrong power on you. If you’re telling the truth with your claim, it is possible that a recruitment attempt of you would be successful, therefore it wouldn’t be wrong. If you’re not telling the truth, you made a false claim of Vanilla, which comes with its own set of problems, as I’m sure you’re well aware.
Your policy on self-preservation is similarly problematic, for reasons well-covered upthread. Were it not for the fact that I’ve been burned on the bad play =/= Scum issue one too many times (and at least once with you at the receiving end of it, I think), I’d be voting for you right now. That is to say that I disagree with what you’re doing, but I can’t see anything inherently scummy in your theories or actions so far. Anti-Town doesn’t necessarily equal Pro-Scum. Now that may change once theories become actions, but for now all it’s worth is just a little extra eye on you.
Yes it is. Both town and scum have reason to pursue self preservation. This point is pretty straightforward. If you contend that Town have no reason to try to stay alive then we’re pretty much done on this topic.
No it isn’t. It’s a policy to vote for players based on a single arbitrary action, without context or reasoning. This is not a mechanical game.
I reject the notion that a player caught lying is equivalent to a player voting in self-preservation.
But you are focusing on a single data point! Your vote should reflect your opinion of everything happening in the game thus far. To boil it all down to a policy vote based on one piece of data is terrible. Furthermore, it obscures our ability to evaluate you.
If you want to take self-preservation votes as one of many criteria you will use to evaluate players, then I’d say “I disagree with that one data point but at least you have more to your case than just that.” However, flat out policy voting for a self-preservation act while disregarding everything else going on up to and including that moment is simply wrong.
That wasn’t my point. My point was you seem far too concerned about a facet of the game that is largely unimportant. Self-preservation votes aren’t the bugaboo you seem to make them out to be.
It isn’t a matter of my “letting” players do anything. I’m not their keeper, and frankly neither are you. I’m speaking against an opaque Policy that you have proposed, and I have pointed out the weaknesses of your Policy. If a player votes in self-preservation in some egregious fashion that I don’t like, I very well may vote for that person. But it is simply impossible for me to make that judgement now. Situation and Context are paramount, and your refusal to take them into consideration is the primary reason I’m engaged in this conversation at all.
Not true. Not any information is more valuable than the life of one townie. The knowledge that a certain player asked a mod question, for example, is not worth a townie’s life. A townie is worth a certain amount of information, and no less. The value of the final vote of a townie about to die is practically worthless, especially since he can simply describe his suspicions and then vote to save himself. If a townie can save himself with a self-preservation vote, then provided he describes his suspicions, his life is more valuable than the information gained by him voting for someone else.
In fact, it may even generate information. A player who has no sense of hope is less likely to care (and, thus, help the town if they are town) than a player who has hope.
And furthermore, aren’t you being a little hypocritical? You claim vanilla because it’s fun, even though not claiming might be more helpful to the town, yet you decry a self-preservation vote, which players cast to keep playing (i.e. having fun) even if it hurts the town (which it doesn’t most of the time, anyway).
That’s pathetic. What if someone agrees with you and votes me? That will be suspicious then? I read Wolverine’s response and was not convinced(or even able to understand it), so I voted him.
Seriously, weird vote, Idle.
Red, I meant to bleach that vote. My bad.
I know I’m coming in a little late on the discussion, but this is the first opportunity I’ve had to sink my teeth into this game.
On announcing if you are targeted for recruitment:
I think this is a good idea, not because it will confirm anyone, but because it is a pretty good indicator that recruitment has not taken place.
If anyone receives a recruitment attempt and is not a Sleeper, then obviously no recruitment took place that Night. And if the Scum choose not to recruit so that one of them can fake receiving a recruitment attempt, then no recruitment took place. So if anyone claims to have received such an attempt, we can be pretty cure that no recruitment actually took place the previous Night. It’s possible that someone else would false claim, but in that case there would always be at least one person who would know they were lying. That may or may not draw an immediate counter-claim, depending on a number of factors, but I think the risk involved will probably preclude anyone from trying it, at least for the first few Days.
So I think the existence of such a claim in the Morning is a pretty good sign that no recruitment actually took place the preceding Night, but it gives us no useful information about the alignment of the claimant.
On directing the Viginalte’s target:
I think this is almost always a bad idea, especially in the early game.
On Pleonast:
I disagree with his early claiming play, and his anti self-preservation policy, but those subjects have all been covered both here and in previous games, and I’ve reluctantly come to the conclusion that Pleonast is going to play this way no matter how anyone else feels, and there’s no way to judge his alignment based on these points alone. there was one other thing he said, though:
I need to think some more about this, but my first instinct is to disagree with this as well. This would seem to give the Scum free rein to place votes without needing to be accountable (it gives Town the same freedom, for that matter), just because theirs would be the “hammer vote”. Like in the case of voting someone because of self-preservation, it’s a “policy-based vote” instead of a “gameplay-based vote”. I think that in general it is best to vote for the player you find most suspicious, and I see no reason to make a blanket change to this rule here. the hammer is one more factor to consider in the decision-making process, but I don’t think it should necessarily weigh more than all other factors put together.
I don’t parse your sense of risk analysis, Pleo.
Do you deny that a self-preservation vote by a Town player could indeed land on a Scum or Third Party? But you’d apparently lynch that Town player, every time. It is boggling.
No, they don’t. I suggest you review the town win condition. We need to lynch scum. Players voting for someone they do not feel is scummy does not advance that.
Describing what I feel is suspicious behavior and stating I will act on it is not a “policy vote”.
Yes, you do, and it’s not arbitrary. Why do you think I’ve been describing my thoughts?
Please read the rules more carefully. And I am perfectly aware of the risks I took when I made my claim. I’m sorry you feel the need to play cautiously, but I think it is a poor choice.
Since when is explaining oneself “without articulation”?
It wouldn’t be a problem if players always voted for whoever they thought was suspicious.
That’s reasonable reason to vote, but you’re accusations against me are poorly thought-out.
I think you are completely missing what I am saying. I am not comparing the information from X vs Y being lynched. I am comparing the information from X and Y voting for who they find suspicious versus X and Y voting for each other.
Do you not see the difference? In the first case, the town will have data about who X and Y actually thought were suspicious, based on their final votes. In the second case, we gain nothing because they voted for each other.
Yes, I know the risks. I weigh the potential risks to be less than the potential rewards.
Well, at least you’re playing a level above Zeriel, who conflates a difference of strategy with a difference of alignment.
Can you also consider the reasons for not pursuing self preservation?
Umm, you might disagree with my reasoning, but please don’t outright fib about me not having any.
Then we’ll have to disagree.
How scummy does a single action have to be before you’ll switch your vote? I’ve transparently told my answer to that question. I’m not sure how describing my thoughts obscures anyone’s ability to evaluate me.
Then we’ll have to disagree. I feel how players vote is an important facet of the game.
Again, what’s with the “opaque”? I’ve described exactly what I’ll do and why–pretty much the opposite of opaque. Feel free to disagree, but why spin it to be “opaque”?
Can you answer what the town gains from players voting purely for self preservation?
I made a claim because I think it more pro-town than not. Yes, it has risks, but they are worth it.
I am taking a stance against self-preservation votes because they gain us nothing and are something that scum do.
I agree with this, but unfortunately this game has an anti-town hammer mechanism. If one’s vote for the most scummy player also hammers them, it prevents other players from placing their votes (unless you happen to be the final player to vote). Stopping other players from voting hurts the town more than placing your vote on the second-most suspicious player does.
If town players only put their votes on who they find suspicious, then only scum will vote for self preservation. Thus giving us a way to distinguish town from scum.
So as long as some seemingly heart-felt reasoning and analysis comes with the vote it is no longer considered a self-preservation vote?
What if X actually wants to vote for Y? You are artificially preventing that from happening, which is also bad.
My point is you can’t know now that a vote in the future is scummy. Similarly, I would posit, even though I reject your voting is equivalent to lying scenario, that you can’t judge right now a lie that might happen in the future. I have lied as town in the past. And given the correct circumstances I might lie as Town again the in the future. When the lie is discovered is it up to each and every person to evaluate that lie and determine whether or not the reasons for the lie make sense or not. To say right now, I’ll vote for anyone who lies is short sighted and yes opaque. While you want to label your policy as “transparent,” it isn’t in the way that matters. Your Policy is transparent in that you outright state it, but it is opaque in that it hides your motivations. That is, your Policy prevents us from seeing your alignment. Hence “OPAQUE.”
This is the problem. You aren’t describing your thoughts. You are describing a Policy established a priori to anyone getting lynched or in danger of being lynched. We need to evaluate you in the context of the situation. By bringing up the Policy now, you insulate yourself from such criticisms and evaluations. When you mechanically follow through with your Policy we can’t judge your vote at all – thus OPAQUE. I want to give you a wide berth for your unconventional ideas, but this one is terrible.
I do too. What you fail to see is that your Policy Vote is far more detrimental to Town than two players “self-presevation” voting for each other. By the very definition of “self-preservtion” these two players are set to DIE; even the one who lives is in a precarious situation longevity-wise. At that point, I don’t really care that they voted for each other. There is much more meat to evaluate than that.
On you, we have a Policy, that hides your intentions regarding the players involved. That is much more detrimental to US. I realize you don’t care. But WE DO. If we can’t evaluate your alignment based on your votes, what do you expect us to do?
I’ve addressed this. A transparent policy is opaque to alignment. I don’t care that your policy is transparent. That doesn’t make YOU transparent. Quite the opposite actually.
A town player voting to save himself is voting to save a Town Player from death. Town must avoid lynching Town to win the game.
I agree with this, but unfortunately this game has an anti-town hammer mechanism. If one’s vote for the most scummy player also hammers them, it prevents other players from placing their votes (unless you happen to be the final player to vote). Stopping other players from voting hurts the town more than placing your vote on the second-most suspicious player does.
Incorrect. Even if in some bizarro universe we decided to adopt your wacky Policy, all that would happen is the top two vote getters would stick their votes on some one-off with a small reason or two. How is this helpful? Don’t you realize that avoiding the fray is scummy in and of itself? Someone who avoids the X v. Y of the Day and one-off votes instead is much more scummy than voting in self-preservation? Why would you encourage players to avoid the fray and one-off vote? Your policy doesn’t give more meaning to their vote. It is equally unenlightening.
The more I think about it the more I hate Pleonast’s Policy.
“Ha! X was scum, why did you vote for W?”
“Well I would have voted for X, but the Pleonast Policy made me vote for W instead.”
:smack:
He’s wrong, but that doesn’t necessarily make him scummy.
However, I’ve convinced myself that Pleonast’s Policy is sufficiently anti-Town that I would be comfortable voting for him in an effort to make it go away, but I don’t think that will work. The conversation in my head kind of goes like this:
“He’s just wrong, that doesn’t make him scum.”
“But he keeps doing this.”
“Yes and sometimes he is town.”
“And sometimes he is scum.”
“But he’s statistically more likely to be Town than scum based on null information.”
“But he keeps doing this. He should stop.”
“He thinks he is right.”
“But he’s not!”
“What do you expect him to do?”
“Stop. Stop assuming that in a game of 21 players he is the sole possessor of correct play and everyone else is wrong. Or at least recognize that this is a Team game and the Team needs a game plan. If his Team rejects a strategy then he should go with his Team and not execute a second strategy that is orthogonal to the Team Strategy.”
“How are you going to make him?”
“Lynch him. His Policy is anti-Town”
“But no one supports his policy.”
“He will mess up the vote. And he will still be hiding behind his Policy.”
“But that hasn’t actually happened yet.”
“He has claimed Vanilla for no good reason. Again.”
“He always does that.”
Make him stop!
I will re-evaluate Pleonast if and when he actually does something.
As a side exercise:
Pleonast, I believe that claiming Vanilla for no reason at the top of the game is strongly anti-Town. Only scum should do anti-Town things. Therefore I should Policy vote for anyone who claims vanilla for no reason at the top of the game. By instituting such a policy only scum would claim Vanilla at the top of the game for no reason. Perfect Yes?
Yep. I want players to vote for who they find suspicious. If they do so and explain why so, then they are being pro-town.
Maybe you misunderstood what I said. Let me quote myself:
If a player has an actual case against another lynch contender, then their vote is not one purely for self survival.
When a player votes another in order to prevent their own lynch, I will know at point that their vote is scummy. Because they said so when they have no other reason for their vote than self preservation.
Why do you say my motivations are hidden? I’ve explicitly said why I think self-preservation votes are scummy. What more motivation do you want than that?
There’s a huge disconnect here. I’m not sure why my explanations about why I think self-preservation votes are anti-town are being ignored. Please read what I write.
I do care. Final votes by players are meaningful. Final votes by players who are later confirmed are more meaningful. Players denying that information to us are not helping us.
I’m going to vote for actions I think indicate scum. I am going to describe why I think the actions are indicative of scum. I have already started doing that. Either you read what I write or you don’t. :shrug:
And you’ve already described how those votes are worthless because the players will vote for each other. Why are you encouraging players to make votes that neither save themselves from lynching nor give any information to us?
If they place their votes with poor reasons, then that’s more information than we’ll get if they’re voting for each other.
This is rather annoying. I’m stating what I think is scummy and not. I am going to vote for players I think are scummy. I am not forcing anyone to agree with me. I am not voting anyone for disagreeing with me. I am careful to avoid insults or spinning what others say. Yet because I’m bold enough to state what I think, some players attack me or misrepresent what I say or even vote for me.
Take the above quoted statement. Nowhere do I come close to stating this. It’s pure spin generated by sach. Arguing against my points is not enough, they try to discredit me by distorting my stance.
Vote who you think is most likely to be scum. That’s what I’ve been harping about for quite a while.
Well that’s easy then. We just all have to agree on what counts as heart-felt reasoning and analysis, and then everyone can toe the line in an informed manner. :rolleyes:
Why roll your eyes? Trying to determine what is heart-felt reasoning and analysis is the whole point of playing Mafia! Why circumvent that with simple self-preservation votes?
Seriously, why are some of you so much in favor of players mechanically placing their votes on the player rivalling them for the lynch? We gain nothing from such votes! They cancel each other out. They tell us nothing about who those players truly think are suspicious. They give an easy out for the players to avoid giving any analysis.
On an out-of-game note, I’ll be out for most if not all of tomorrow (Wednesday).
Listen, we’ve been through all of this with Pleo before. He likes to claim early to mess with scum. I will point out that he did NOT claim early in Hotel of Heroes and he was scum, but that just leads towards WIFOM territory.
He has previously stated that he disagrees with survival votes. I disagree with him for one point:
- Any chance to save me makes sense because of this: I know I’m town and I don’t know about anyone else, so lynching them makes more sense to me than allowing myself to die. This, of course, assumes I do not know their alignment either, which I wouldn’t unless I was scum or the investigator. And if I’m the investigator, I’m definitely worth saving anyway.
Annnnnnnnyway, it’s Pleo’s belief and I don’t see scum motivations behind his belief. I do think it is terribly lame that he would move his vote immediately over to anyone that “self-defend votes”, though. That’s just dumb.
<snipped>
so if i find it suspicous merely because someone votes for me then that is sufficient reason for me to vote for them, right? because obviously only those souls up to no good would ever do something like that.
hey i made a peek policy.
This in fact summarizes why I voted for him. That and my “vote early and often, so my suspicions are on the record in a concrete way” philosophy.
Honestly, Pleonast, I’m not voting you simply because I disagree with your strategy (hell, I used to be the poster boy for “strategic disagreement is not scummy” even if I’ve been absent for a while), I’m voting you because your strategy is anti-town and because you’re either deluding yourself or trying to snow us by claiming your votes are not “policy”.
And as pointed out by others: you have no workable heuristic for telling the difference between a self-preservation vote defended with a sincere suspicion and a self-preservation vote defended with a contrived load of hooey to avoid tripping the Pleo-o-Meter.
Sorry about the delay folks, there was a taco emergency.
Day 1 Vote Tally
Wolverine(1) :[del]Zeriel[137-162][/del], Mahaloth[147]
One and Only Wanderers(1) : pedescribe[138]
Mahaloth(1) :Idle Thoughts[159]
Pleonast(1) :Zeriel[162]
Not Voting:Gadarene,Mental Guy,Suburban Plankton,Wolverine,Drain Bead,Manwich,Astral Rejection,storyteller0910,Tom Scud,Pleonast,One and Only Wanderers,ComeToTheDarksideWeHaveCookies,peekercpa,septimus,special ed,guiri,sachertorte
There is a 4 way tie between the following players: Wolverine, One and Only Wanderers, Mahaloth, Pleonast.
There is less than 48 hrs left in the day.