Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[silverspawn]

By that logic the fake Mason play would have been great play, which a lot of people disagreed with.

Yes, with that I completely agree. I don't think the plan is good because it worked.

Here is why I decided to do it:

Mason has a very simple motivation for looking scummy: avoiding the NK.
Scum has no motivation for looking scummy. Scum wants to look towny.

And historically, scum!me did not look scummy to most people since I think Dune 2 where I had this horrible scumslip.

So I don't understand why it's crazy to expect town to believe the mason narrative.

[chairs]

Masons are not ICs. They're just not.

Well, everyone treated Masons as ICs before the ash game. I assumed the same standards would apply here.

To be fair, I don't think I've ever been in a game with Masons. And yeah I would treat them as ICs more or less, in the sense that they wouldn't be in my lynch pool, but that's mostly because it puts scum in a position where they have to kill them. If the masons keep not dying, they're not ICs anymore.

The key difference is : you can't just claim in the most scummy way possible and expect people to believe everything you're doing, because you're not an IC. It's a very risky play, one that can work, but can very easily end in you getting lynched.

Voting for you mason partner is wayyyyy overkill too. Scum isn't looking that closely, all it does is make your eventual claim way less believable.

So I just want to note that I TOTALLY FORGOT SS WAS MY PARTNER at the time I voted him (D1).

[Witherweaver]

I mean the logic is unsound.  The thing that creates an IC is a Mason getting NKd or lynched, or being town enough on their own right to be believed.  The plan just... debases its own support by construction.

[Witherweaver]

I mean the logic is unsound.  The thing that creates an IC is a Mason getting NKd or lynched, or being town enough on their own right to be believed.  The plan just... debases its own support by construction.

Well maybe I shouldn't say the logic is unsound; I suppose it's the premise that is.

[silverspawn]

I mean the logic is unsound.  The thing that creates an IC is a Mason getting NKd or lynched, or being town enough on their own right to be believed.  The plan just... debases its own support by construction.

I just don't think that's remotely true. I think the bulk of the thing that makes masons towny is that two people are vouching for each other. That alone is enough to make them very likely town - maybe 90% or something - because it is so ultra risky for scum to bind two players together-- AND it's even more risky in asher9++ because you're mathematically out if there are too many PR's flying around.

It does depend on the number of players. Had we lynched town day 1, I'd have claimed day 2, because then, if you do it day 3 after four town are dead, suddenly it's a plausible strategy. But with scum being lynched day 1, it's bad again.

[silverspawn]

plausible or bad for scum, I mean. I had to claim while the scum narrative isn't likely.

[Witherweaver]

I mean the logic is unsound.  The thing that creates an IC is a Mason getting NKd or lynched, or being town enough on their own right to be believed.  The plan just... debases its own support by construction.

I just don't think that's remotely true. I think the bulk of the thing that makes masons towny is that two people are vouching for each other. That alone is enough to make them very likely town - maybe 90% or something - because it is so ultra risky for scum to bind two players together-- AND it's even more risky in asher9++ because you're mathematically out if there are too many PR's flying around.

It does depend on the number of players. Had we lynched town day 1, I'd have claimed day 2, because then, if you do it day 3 after four town are dead, suddenly it's a plausible strategy. But with scum being lynched day 1, it's bad again.

As scum you know whether a claim is safe or not.  If we had solved the setup to the extent where we could show claiming Masons would not be safe for scum, then they'd be much more likely believed.

All these points can be used to support fake claiming Masons.  If you and Chairs were scum here, RR and Awaclus were perfect mislynch candidates for the gambit to pay off.

A lot of it would have been avoided if the scummy Gkrieg hammer didn't happen.

[Witherweaver]

The big thing that helped in this game was Axxle being an IC and supporting the claim.  (I guess he saw something I and Yuma did not)  That and RR being scum and doing that UB claim.  (No offense to RR, but I think that was a big mistake.)

[Roadrunner7671]

The big thing that helped in this game was Axxle being an IC and supporting the claim.  (I guess he saw something I and Yuma did not)  That and RR being scum and doing that UB claim.  (No offense to RR, but I think that was a big mistake.)

So do I.

[Witherweaver]

Actually I think without Axxle this whole thing could have gone differently.

[silverspawn]

I mean the logic is unsound.  The thing that creates an IC is a Mason getting NKd or lynched, or being town enough on their own right to be believed.  The plan just... debases its own support by construction.

I just don't think that's remotely true. I think the bulk of the thing that makes masons towny is that two people are vouching for each other. That alone is enough to make them very likely town - maybe 90% or something - because it is so ultra risky for scum to bind two players together-- AND it's even more risky in asher9++ because you're mathematically out if there are too many PR's flying around.

It does depend on the number of players. Had we lynched town day 1, I'd have claimed day 2, because then, if you do it day 3 after four town are dead, suddenly it's a plausible strategy. But with scum being lynched day 1, it's bad again.

As scum you know whether a claim is safe or not.

That is not true. As scum, you know exactly one of the below:

- There are 5 or 6 Ts
- There are 3 or 4 Ts
- There are 2 or 1 or 0 Ts

In this case they knew the second point: There are either 3 or 4 T's.

Fakeclaiming 'subtracts' from the amount of Ts there are after a massclaim. If there is

- No Universal Backup: it subtracts by 1
- A universal Backup, it subtracts by 3.

Subtracting by 3 is deadly, because that presents town with either a 0 T or a 1 T setup. Both are unlikely enough that town should probably not consider the possibility that they happened and rather lynch one of the PRs. If the other PR's are confirmed, the masons are dead.

If there is no universal backup and there are 4 real T's, then scum is fine. If there is no universal backup and there are 3 T's, then it's a stretch; 2 T's are unlikely but not monumentally unlikely compared to 3 or 4.

[silverspawn]

The other important point is that there is no reason to lynch one of the masons before at LyLo. Literally zero- I said this a million times in the game thread, and it's 100% true. So even if town assumes masons are lying, you still have a shot at lynching one player, and if he flips scum, you're fine.

[Witherweaver]

So, as scum you know...

[yuma]

Scum isn't looking that closely

Really? I think they would. Yuma even did it as town.

I did it after the fact when assessing your claim. And I think the proble wasn't so much that you voted for each other but that you refused to reveal your partner in conjunction with voting for each other. If you had come forward right out of the gate with chairs stating why he voted for you and showing your breadcrumbs instead of trying to be tricky about it, it would have been a lot more believable and once I saw that chairs was your partner and connected dots I did in fact back off and more or less hesitantly believed you. After all I wanted to lynch RR/awaclus... Not you as the day progressed.

[Axxle]

The other important point is that there is no reason to lynch one of the masons before at LyLo. Literally zero- I said this a million times in the game thread, and it's 100% true. So even if town assumes masons are lying, you still have a shot at lynching one player, and if he flips scum, you're fine.

There is one reason: you don't trust the rest of the town to lynch masons in lylo if youre not around to advocate it and expect to die that night.

[Axxle]

So, as scum you know...

I don't see how scum can know it's safe to claim masons

[yuma]

The big thing that helped in this game was Axxle being an IC and supporting the claim.  (I guess he saw something I and Yuma did not)  That and RR being scum and doing that UB claim.  (No offense to RR, but I think that was a big mistake.)

Axxle came in after SS had claimed to be with chairs. We fought SS before he claimed his partner but backed off once that was revealed... At least I did... I think you did to an extent to...

[Witherweaver]

So, as scum you know...

I don't see how scum can know it's safe to claim masons

By "safe" I mean, "can't be counterclaimed". 

[Axxle]

So, as scum you know...

I don't see how scum can know it's safe to claim masons

Oh, I guess after the vig and roleblocker kill they would have a good guess that it was safe.

[Witherweaver]

The big thing that helped in this game was Axxle being an IC and supporting the claim.  (I guess he saw something I and Yuma did not)  That and RR being scum and doing that UB claim.  (No offense to RR, but I think that was a big mistake.)

Axxle came in after SS had claimed to be with chairs. We fought SS before he claimed his partner but backed off once that was revealed... At least I did... I think you did to an extent to...

I had ended up finding RR scummier for the interactions with SS.  The partner reveal didn't do a lot for me, since I had no real read on Chairs.

[Witherweaver]

So, as scum you know...

I don't see how scum can know it's safe to claim masons

Oh, I guess after the vig and roleblocker kill they would have a good guess that it was safe.

The scum roles give scum the number of PRs to within 1 in a fixed direction, or in the special case of 0T's I guess they know exactly that.

[silverspawn]

Well if you include human fallacy then nothing is ever 100%. But even if you do that I don't think it matters as the reason is never strong enough to actually do it. Even with Awaclus arguing so strongly against it, town didn't do it.

Let me put it like this: if I opened a threat saying:

You have 7 players alive, 2 claimed masons, 5 wildcards. 2 goons are hiding among them, no other PRs. What is the optimal strategy for town?

I cannot imagine that the consensus is not 'lynch one of the 5 wildcards first, then decide if you want to lynch a mason tomorrow'

[silverspawn]

So, as scum you know...

I don't see how scum can know it's safe to claim masons

Oh, I guess after the vig and roleblocker kill they would have a good guess that it was safe.

What? No! Look at my analysis. Scum at that point did not know whether or not an UB exists. If so, they are effectively counter claimed by pretending to have a setup with 0 or 1 Ts. It is objectively not safe to claim.

[Axxle]

So, as scum you know...

I don't see how scum can know it's safe to claim masons

Oh, I guess after the vig and roleblocker kill they would have a good guess that it was safe.

What? No! Look at my analysis. Scum at that point did not know whether or not an UB exists. If so, they are effectively counter claimed by pretending to have a setup with 0 or 1 Ts. It is objectively not safe to claim.

There is a *huge* difference between unlikely and impossible. As long as you fakeclaim right, a certain town can and will believe you.

[silverspawn]

well given that many people here reject maths to different degrees I can't claim that you're right. Still, it is clearly not 'safe'.