Anyhoo, IMO it’s to town’s advantage if theories of game based on public information are freely shared and discussed. Scum begins with an advantage in that their information is held in common, while town’s information is either held by individuals or available to both town and scum. Increasing the amount of public information helps town catch up with scum.
Of course, power players must be very circumspect as to choosing when to claim so as to maximize the information that they collect and the amount of informed play they can make.
A random vote now implies a random vote at end of Day and sets up a ‘that’s my arbitrary rule & I’m sticking to it’ vote which expressly avoids accountability.
I don’t believe I ever said I was sticking to my rule. If someone does something that’s remotely suspicious, gameplan changes, to be sure. But right now, this early in the day, the only suspicious move is not to play!
On that note, pedescribe, you haven’t actually said much of anything game related. Speak up, man!
In any case, the last not-yet-active player seems to be Storyteller. Vote Storyteller
I’ve been thinking some more of Rysto’s original point. In his example, a character saved by the doctor shared the fluff text. In that example, the scum knew who was targetted, and that the nightkill failed, but nothing else. So THOSE are the info points that the townie should share without even thinking about. The fluff text, however, may or may not have been something the scum saw. On the chance that it wasn’t, a scum false-claiming to be a doctor wouldn’t know what kind of fluff would be sent. By revealing the fluff, the townie gave up a possible shibboleth.
As townies, we don’t get a whole lot of opportunities to trip up scum like that. Just be careful you don’t waste them, that’s all. If you come across something that scum might not know, think about how you can use it!
I don’t think that’s really what Rysto’s example was. The doctor was, in fact, scum. No scum nightkill had been prevented. The fluff text was more or less bullshit designed to trick the town, and sharing it or not sharing it couldn’t actually be used to trip up scum at all. What it could have done was trip up the town; it was a big red herring, after all. Rysto knew damn well which players were being protected, despite the fact that he was scum. If anything, revealing the fluff under those circumstances frustrated Rysto’s ability to use the privileged information to hurt the town, since it became public information.
Which is actually a really good demonstration of why general, abstracted rules about how to play are very difficult to use to any effectiveness. Except for the critical fact that it was a scum doctor and not a town doctor that was giving the protection, X Y and Z could have been important. But you know, that wasn’t the case. Sometimes information, by design, is a misdirection. I’m not sure there’s a pre-game speech that can protect against that.
Even using the same example with the scum doctor. If you keep the fluff secret, and scum doctor reveals as a doctor, then the townies aren’t actually any worse off! The scum doctor (That’s kind of fun to say. It’s my new band name) couldn’t have actually used the privileged information to hurt the town, since knowing that information just lets him do what the town allowed him to do anyway by sharing the info. Hiding the fluff wouldn’t have payed off in that example, but it wouldn’t actually have hurt the townies as far as I can see, and it COULD have helped.
I guess I forgot to say earlier, since I had it in mind. These hidden bits of info can be used to trip up a scum, but they can’t be used to exonerate a townie. In a doctor example, if you hide the fluff and someone reveals as doctor and gives the CORRECT shibboleth, that’s not enough to exonerate them. As you say, it could have been a scum doctor, or a lucky guess, or leaked info. It’s when scum gives an INCORRECT code that hiding the info pays off, and if you give away the info too cheaply you lose even that chance.
Yeah, you did mention it, but you did it as part of a larger argument, which I think slightly misrepresented **Chipacabra’s **reasoning for the vote. The original post was, in its entirety:
I’ve bolded the most relevant part (IMO). There are clearly two reasons stated for the vote:
Having something in place in case he (?) does not return before end of day.
Prodding non-participators
YOUR response post and vote clips the second reason and mostly ignores it in your analysis. As I acknowledged above, you include it in your list, but as part of a larger criticism that focuses on #1. If someone wasn’t reading carefully, they would have thought that **Chipacabra **only had one reason for the vote instead of two. This is compounded by your use of the singular “justification” in your vote post.
The fact is that prodding people is a pretty good reason to vote for someone (particularly on day one). It has already produced results in this very game. It pinged me the way you seemed to ignore/downplay that aspect of his vote. Since this is the only (minutely, I admit) suspicious thing I’ve seen, I’ll put my money where my mouth is:
Hey ShadowFacts and those sympathetic to the cause: do you really think that was a material misrepresentation by Skeezix? It said right there in point #1 that the vote was intended to prod a non-participant, and nothing in the post served to dismiss the point or suggest that it wasn’t a reason for the vote, so I don’t understand the objection.
I’m more inclined to say that ShadowFacts’ saying that the post was snipped to take out the second reason is a misrepresentation of Skeezix than to say that Skeezix misrepresented Chip. And since that’s kind of the only thing going, let’s have it out.
Chip said, in the entirety:
Skeezix snipped everything but the voting sentence; before and after. And characterized the reasons for Chip’s vote as:
Then ShadowFacts says that this “snip(ped) the second reason stated for the vote,” and then later says it “mostly ignores it in your analysis.” It seems to me that this just isn’t what happened at all, and I can’t figure why it seems suspicious. It’s right there, number one!
Chip said something, and voted. Skeezix quoted the vote, and responded to the thing Chip said while paraphrasing it accurately. Why is it in town’s interest to attack that behavior? If everybody quoted the entirety of everybody’s post, every post would look like this one, and nobody wants that.
If someone does something that’s remotely suspicious, gameplan changes, to be sure. But right now, this early in the day, the only suspicious move is not to play!