Yes, both assumptions are necessary to calculate odds in a simple way, but also not very realistic. The math I’ve presented should be used as a guide in assessing the relative differences in target selection success for each team with and without the information on who the Vanillas are.
Other factors that are missing are (a) the fact that even if the scum don’t NK the power roles, Town still loses more masons with a Vanilla claim than without and (b) the fact that the Cop’s true value is in his/her multi-Day survival: even if he/she doesn’t find any scum, they can confirm several Townspeople without having to reveal any role info to the scum team. Caveat to this is the presence of a Godfather, of course, but until we are down to one scum the Cop’s results will at least help flush out the others.
I’ve read through Day one several times now and the person who currently strikes me as the scummiest is glowacks. His first post seems a bit self-consciously Townie: he points out how scummy Tom’s suggestion is but then virtuously notes that he doesn’t want to risk a misvote. He gets called on it by Red Skeezix and argues why he shouldn’t place a weak vote. However, a scum player wouldn’t want to be caught waffling and would scramble to get a vote down so he can later point out what a nice active Townie he is, so shortly thereafter he decides to
come to the defense of a hapless Town semi-newbie (me) against mean old Astral Rejection.
It all smells of trying to build a defensible vote record more than anything else. Putting a second or third vote is the cliche scum maneuver, so instead you make sure you plant the first vote on someone early. Everything he has done so far feels like how I’d act if I were scum.
This makes no sense at all. Town players should do things that help the town. It doesn’t matter if it’s “mechanistic” or not–helping the the town is good for town. If scum players do the same things, things that help town, it still helps the town.
It seems like you’re saying you demand players to give scum tells when they’re scum. While it’s nice when they do, it seems silly to call out players who aren’t giving scum tells. I don’t see how that’s productive for finding scum.
I’m really baffled. You’re telling me “play worse, Pleonast”. Why would I ever do that?
What’s against the rules? The moderator has described how votes are counted or not. I’m simply following those (now clarified) rules.
vote Zeriel
For jumping on a player who suggested an idea. Scum prefer the town talk less. Discouraging players from stating their ideas prevents the town from effectively planning.
For not explaining why the idea itself is blatantly scummy. All the players commenting on Tom’s suggestion find some merit to it, but not enough to justify the risk.
For admitting to avoiding the thread. Scum don’t like to stick their necks out. An easy way to accomplish that is waiting until someone else has done so and then attack them.
For complaining that I’m not giving any tells. Okay, I’m not seeing much of a scum motivation for this, except for possibly trying to get players to play stupidly.
For attacking my play style rather than addressing the points I’m voting them for. Scum don’t want to discuss themselves or their actions, they want to turn the attention on other players.
Paraphrased: because glowacks is not voting like scum, they must be scum. :dubious:
How are we ever going to improve our play as group when players get voted for improving their play? No wonder town always seems to flounder.
Since the rules require us to break our discussion into different posts if they contain votes, here we are: vote Mahaloth
For jumping on a player who suggested an idea. Scum prefer the town talk less. Discouraging players from stating their ideas prevents the town from effectively planning.
For not explaining why the idea itself is scummy. All the players commenting on Tom’s suggestion find some merit to it, but not enough to justify the risk. Calling something “obvious” is avoiding explanation, an easy way for scum to reduce scrutiny.
Zeriel has jumped ahead in my suspicion list, so that vote gets priority, but Mahaloth’s vote with minimal explanation is still worthy of attention.
Did you read my post? I’m not voting for him because he didn’t vote like scum, I’m voting for him because his posts and votes so far have pinged me more than anyone else’s as being scum-like. Scumminess is about more than how one votes, it’s about how one argues for or against a vote and what induces one to vote.
It’s obviously not an air tight case, but in my opinion it’s the best vote I can make at this time.
Speaking of cliched scum actions, hoo boy. In my first game ever, I did a lot of “hey guys, I just want us to come together and the best possible decision as a group” speech-making and almost got lynched for it before claiming Cop. I was (of course) scum. Everyone’s antennas immediately went up, and with good reason.
It took me at least three Days to get this right in my first game (LOTR mafia), so you’re in good company!
You’re ignoring the crux of my problem with your vote. I ask you to clarify why it’s “obviously stupid” and “pro-scum.” I don’t believe his suggestion was either of those things.
It’s good that you’re acknowledging your certainty that you’d found scum or mason maybe isn’t as solid as it seemed, but you’re not addressing why you were so certain he was a scum or mason. If he’s, say, Wilykat or Wilykit, you’ve just killed not only him but his partner, too. Seems to me if you were so certain he’s a mason, the smart town move would be to stay silent on that matter. Good job fishing, buddy.
Unvote Giraffe. Vote Glowacks.
Weren’t you just scum in a game where cover roles were issued, but not mentioned in the game rules?
I’m not asking you to word everything perfectly. However, I’ve found a reliable (though by no means foolproof) indicator of scumminess is an interest in discussing game mechanics rather than other players. Last game, I prodded Guiri for doing exactly that, and Guirioverreacted, spending the rest of the game trying to get me lynched. Guiri was scum. The vote was a prod, and Guiri took the bait and ran with it.
You can claim that you were just “thinking aloud,” and accusing me of trying to stifle you, but what exactly are you saying in your first post? You hate day 1, it sucks, it’s hard, we never know what to do, and your vote will suck. It struck me as hedging your vote before you’ve even made one. It earned a silly day 1 vote that likely wasn’t even going to stay around (note how I’ve already unvoted you and moved on to glowacks?), but you overreacted. And that’s put you firmly on my radar.
You miss the point again. I agree with your case, I just disagree with your conclusion. The math, when I read it, seemed right. I know you’ve corrected a flaw that changes the numbers somewhat, but 40% on a sound plan didn’t seem half bad. My suggestion, above the part where I’m talking about you, suggests we do exactly what you say, except on Day 2 instead of now (depending, of course, on the game state toMorrow).
Making the argument was fine. The maths were fine. I even liked the idea. I had an issue with his conclusion. 40% is so fantastically amazing for a Day 1 chance that it’s absolutely worth discussing further. I’d expect to see a town player say something like “Given this, is this something we might want to pursue? What have I missed? Can we leverage anything else to give us a stronger chance at finding scum?” I’d expect positivity, because 40% is good odds.
Instead, I got this:
Negativity. It’s phrased in an unconsciously negative way. It’s not without benefits =/= It has benefits.
There’s never a smoking gun in this game. Especially on Day 1, I’m looking for tiny clues. You’re telling me you don’t find it a tiny bit suspicious that someone posits a plan with a supposed 40% chance of success, where not following the plan offers at best a 28% chance of success, and then summarily dismisses said plan?
Believe what you want, but what is the town benefit to assuming a smaller pool of scum?
Your words, not mine. I built my own case on how it might help us. I supported Zeriel’s vote on him, because it was reasonable. Disliking Mahaloth’s vote =/= supporting Tom Scud’s idea. You’re misrepresenting me.
Zeriel has said exactly what I would have said. Thanks for doing my work for me, Zeriel!
Sorry my posts are so enormous all the time. I have to play this game in chunks because of my schedule.
Your play is not universally understood to be an improvement. Several aspects of your play (mechanistic votes, deliberately ignoring voting conventions and rules in service of your idiosyncratic ideas about accountability) are distracting and (in the former case) actively anti-town.
Yes, but your issue “trying to build a defensible vote record more than anything else” does not support glowacks being scum. We want players to have a defensible vote record. Doing so forces scum to vote like town, rather than like scum.
Your brush is too broad: anything in this thread that is not a valid vote is game-mechanically invalid.
Well, everything is up for debate and we obviously disagree. At least I am discussing the issues, unlike you who has still not addressed any of the points I’m voting you for.
I thought you might have a catch, but if you read the context:
Their statement is following the hypothetical “if there are 3”, so I don’t see anything unusual in the part you quoted.
Pleonast, as a newer player I’d like to make a personal request that you don’t purposely cast multiple votes. I understand the reasoning behind your desire to do so, and that it’s technically within the rules, etc. but if you could find it in your heart to stop, I would greatly appreciate it.
Go back and reread the first paragraph you wrote about my first post – you may not have intended it as such, but it seemed like a pretty big smudge for an unremarkable fluff post. It was the strength of your language (“instantly jumped out at me” and “all kinds of scummy”) that made me describe your comment as stifling, not the fact that you were probing my posts or putting a vote on me.
If you agree with the case, it’s helpful to note that somewhere. Again, reread your post – to me, it looked like you jumped on the 40% number to the exclusion of everything else I posted, and then wagged a finger at me for arguing against such a patently wonderful case before dropping a vote on me. That’s not a pro-Town style of arguing, in my opinion.
The 40% number was not given in isolation – the 40% number was given in comparison to the no-claim 30% number. So it’s not like I discovered a plan with a 40% success rate and then poo-pooed it, I asked if an increase in our Day 1 success rate was worth the corresponding increase in scum power-killing success rate. Your language suggested that the increase from 30% to 40% was such an obvious win for Town that it was unusual for me not to immediately point it out, but it didn’t/doesn’t seem obvious to me, especially when you consider cumulative effects. Which is why I suggested you should make the case I was missing.
Yes, which is why I’ve in no way suggested that players not place defensible votes.
Analogy time: if I’m the Highway Patrol trying to catch a fleeing bank robber, should I ignore the guy driving below the speed limit with their hands at 10 and 2? Obviously, I don’t want to discourage regular civilians from driving safely…
So, Tom comes in early to suggest a vanilla claim, assuming certain responses to his moderator query, then backs off the idea when he (a) doesn’t get the expected response and (b) gets attacked for his “stupid and/or scummy” idea.
Either Tom’s scum, trying to lead town towards a pro-scum idea, or he’s a town with an idea that wasn’t fully fleshed out. If the former, it seems a bit of a risky move for any scum with a power role, so he’s vanilla scum at worst.
I was initially suspicious of glowack’s support of Tom’s plan, if indeed Tom’s plan turns out to be anti-town (I haven’t wrapped my head around the number debate going on downthread enough to make that decision).
But I think, ultimately, I’m the most bothered at this point by Mahaloth’s vote on Tom.
I’m on my way out the door, and will make an effort to check in several times each day, but for the time being:
hmm, now I’ve read Pleonast’s clarification of glowack’s post.
However, that said, my vote will stand for an equally weak reason.
It seems possible that a Scum player might attempr to get us to think there are only 3 Scum.
To be honest, 4 Scum seems more likely to me, especially since they will be primarily Vanilla, and it’s quite possible that Town has some power on its side
