But wouldn’t that ruin any information that might be gained from voting? That was a retorical question, it obviously would. So rather: wouldn’t it be preferable to have that information?
I really like your post #16, hawkeye. Those are words to live by–or at least play Mafia by.
Totalagreement, totallost. That phrase drives me batshit insane, because of course scum would do “that” if it makes them appear Townie.
I thought the target-listing was an interesting idea, but one that needs some fine-tuning before it would really be useful to Town and not betray information to scum.
I don’t see any scum motivation for Pleonast to call out pedescribe’s possible role-slip. Not that the motivation might not be there (which, of course, goes for any of us), but I don’t really see it as a scummy thing to do.
Okay, I think I’ve weighed in on everything so far, because I know y’all were just dying for me to come along and tell you what I think. 
Yes, but it is arguable how useful that information is anyway. Vote records are things that can be manipulated by scum pretty easily. I think the pure town vote might be worth the loss. Especially when the scum are close to winning.
What I meant was that the game was looking pretty cool. I hadn’t yet pointed that out yet and wanted storyteller to know that I was impressed with the color so far. :rolleyes: Not everything is a mountain, you know.
Now just wait one cottin-picking minute! You were the one who said that we shouldn’t metagame based on absences! You! Now here you are talking about how I’m “ignoring” you. For your information, I flew all day yesterday and had no computer access last night. How the hell do you think you can use that as an accusation? It seems like you’re grasping at anything available to get an early candidate. If it was any day other than day one I’d vote you, but everyone does that on day one.
Have you ever read M2? Day one, the group did this. Night one, the scum used that information to kill off the detective.
Early in the game I’m not so sure. Late in the game, a bit of leadership for Town, getting them all lined up behind one of a small number of candidates, then yes.
I’ve seen a game lost because Townies fragmented their vote (without scum help) between two leading candidates (both of whom were scum). The game was at LyLo, so the scum could collude to get behind a Townie and lynch him, thus winning.
The “It would allow the town to vote without any scum interference” seems to me to be a bit simplifyed. Even if masons did decide they would need to look at behavior from every other player - and this would make them a easy a target for scum manipulation as any other player…
I do see your point - but I’m not sure it would serve Towns best intrest in any game. Sometimes even the best role isn’t given to the best player…
I can think of a number of reasons for that behavior, among them to establish themselves firmly on the “townie” side of the ledger. WIFOM.
Scum would never do that.
Yup, don’t reveal who you think is a power role, but do reveal who you think is scum and why.
About double voting: unless you unvote, you first vote stand - see Pleonast’s votes for prescribe, Total Lost and Rapier42, but only his first is on the official list.
My vote in Night Zero for Pleonast was because he first is against revealing information, then posts in bold to reveal your last nights target. I’ll keep my vote for lack of better one and maybe JSexton has another good reason why he voted?
As an aside: Storyteller, could you add the current thread to your signature as well? Then I can use your profile as an handy game bookmark :).
I’m having a bit of a playing style conflict at the moment, to see votes flying around already based on a post or two while we haven’t even heard from a majority of the players.
I’m just trying to roll with it for now, though.
Masons can be a powerful block, but I agree with Hawkeyeop that it is best to let power roles play as they see is best.
As for mass role claims or alpha/beta claims and the “Is it ever okay to lie as a Townie?” question. I’ve stated in many past games that I believe lying is a perfectly valid strategy, even for town, so long as it is done intelligently and in a way that mitigates risk as much as possible. That is the tricky part. There are lots of seasoned players who disagree with me on that though.
An alpha/beta mass claim doesn’t make much sense to me. What exactly would we gain again?
The motivation, potentially, is to fish for information. Pedescribe may have accidentally revealed a power, or he may have been commenting on the flavor. There’s no reason for Pleo to know which.
Masons are more powerful late game than early game. That’s why you don’t want them revealed early. And having masons decide the lynch is a terrible idea, as it removes all burden from the scum to post opinions and make cases. If they aren’t taking stands, how the hell do you expect to find them?
Here’s the thing. If you’re looking at two potential actions, where one has a clear townie motivation and one has a clear scum motivation, then it makes no sense to claim “well, he did the townie thing, and scum woud never do that.” Because, of course, doing the townie-er thing is reason enough. We’re in agreement up to here.
So where does it make sense to say “scum would never do that”? When the decision is between inaction, and taking an action that draws attention. If a suspect takes an action that doesn’t benefit scum, and had the option to simply doing nothing (and no one would be the wiser), then I tend to consider that a strong indicator of townieness.
Could scum manipulate that to try and clear themselves? Potentially, but it’s an incredibly risky play. Most people don’t view that the way I do, so it’s not going to clear them in very many eyes. It runs the very large risk of going the way my gambit in the last game did, and simply getting them lynched. IOW, such a play has medium reward, but very high risk. And, of course, even getting to that point requires perfect play. Any slip at all in the sequence of events, or tipping your hand that you wanted people to see the event, totally nullifies it. And given that you’d be under scrutiny, it’s tough to actually play that perfectly.
It gives someone information. It could potentially help town power roles or scum. If we went ahead with we would be guessing that it helped town power roles more than scum. I don’t see how we can make that hypothesis. Again I’m going back to looking at what type of information is gained. This would give scum information on powers, while not giving town any information on who is scum. I’m against such a reveal and will Not reveal mine even if the town decides otherwise, absent a really good a reason to.
Hey guys, I keep trying to put a co-herant thought together, and then work gets in my way. My office closes for a week on Wednesday so things are a bit hectic right now.
I will chime in when I get a chance (hopefully later this afternoon).
Well, empirically speaking at least one player (Roosh if I recall it corrrectly) made a very effective half-true claim during one game (Firefly?) The problem is that if it ever is proven to be a lie most other players will almost automatically lynch that player.
You misunderstand me. I wasn’t saying you were ignoring me at that time, I was saying your reaction, including a reaction of ignoring me, could be use to gauge you. And by ignoring, I mean not responding to me, while otherwise participating in the game. Simply not posting is not ignoring, it’s not playing.
That said, I’m currently satisfied with your reaction.
unvote pedescribe
Kind of quiet in here…every time I check in the forbidden thread seems to be higher on the page than this one.
Thanks to **Diggit **and JSexton for pointing out some plausible answers to my question, but I’m still not seeing this as a case of scum motivation being more likely than town motivation. JSexton, your post 31 above lists lots of interesting thoughts about theory, but doesn’t respond to the couple of people who had already asked you why you voted for Pleonast. Is this slip what you were thinking of, or for his supporting the “everyone claim a Night target” idea", or something else?
Speaking of which, I don’t like the idea of voting for people because they have bad ideas, but I do think that night-target thing was a bad enough idea that I can kind of sympathize.
Sorry, that was meant to be clearer. Yes, the vote was based on Pleo essentially asking Pedescribe to claim.
There’s bad, and there’s anti-town.
They are great late, but I’m not sure having one of their number claim early would hinder town. The bigger problem to me is that masons generally insist on confirming each other, which is almost always unnecessary. Also, the rest of the players would be free to present opinions and argue cases. The confirmed townie would just get the final decision. The fact is we aren’t that good at finding scum early in the game here. Townie vote are spread out, and it easy for scum to get townies lynched, even if the town is on the right track. I think a vote that is guaranteed to be chosen by a town has a better chance of catching scum, even if it based on slightly less information. Hell, it might even be better if fully random. Regardless, I’m willing to forgo arguing my idea until one of them is otherwisely outed.
Lately town has had even worse logic, thinking the person who chose the pro-scum action couldn’t be scum, which allows the scum to act in there self interest without fear of retribution. I think, all else being equal, we should vote for the person who’s action was more pro-scum. If nothing else it will force to the scum to play less in their self interest to survive.
And yet, you ignore me. Whatsamatta? Are you…chicken?
Huh, you didn’t notice my response to you way back on Night Zero?
But maybe you are having trouble remembering what I said originally about ped.
Because this comment
is a mischaracterization of what I said.