Print

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

[Dylan32]

Ok. So I saw faust's proposed claim plan the other day when he first posted it, held off because nobody had really responded to it yet and I wanted to get a feel for whether other people thought it was a good idea or not as a sanity check for myself. Then I lost track of time because of work, and now there has been a claim.

I am Mayor/Drunk.

Obviously one of the two possibilities would be good for town to keep around/scum to kill and the other is vice versa.

I've been trying to figure out a way to change the plan to verify that we are telling the truth without necessarily revealing which is which yet, like we coordinate to both vote at L-2 close enough together where we can't tell if the first vote was mayor and ended it or if the second was mayor and ended it, but unfortunately that only would rule out drunk+liar, not mayor+liar. However, a claimed mayor who doesn't trigger an exile at L-2 wouldn't be verified drunk until a normal voter votes and triggers the exile to prove that the drunk didn't actually put the person to L-1. So I'm not sure how to go about this besides doing one at a time.

[MiX]

Well obviously now we HAVE to test one of you. The plan is the same: put someone at 4 votes, have one of you vote, then non-mayors vote until there's an exile. Just be on different wagons.

[Dylan32]

Wait! I think I got it.

1. At X-3, Joseph and I both vote to verify that there aren't 3 votes between the two of us, because I highly doubt 2 mayors is a real possibility. No exile rules out mayor/scum, while an exile means one of the two of us lied (or the setup is whack lol).

2. One more person votes, and if an exile happens, that means we are mayor + drunk (purely from a neutral perspective, we could be the scum team in this case, but that assumes we would actually link ourselves together like this D1 when individually mayor/drunk is publicly verifiably false using faust's original idea).

3. If no exile happened at 2, it's either drunk/drunk or drunk/liar. One more vote would either be X-1 or an exile respectively.

[Dylan32]

Also that last post was ppe 1

[MiX]

I'm not a fan of making a conflict at best. I would like to confirm one of you as town. Then tomorrow we can confirm the other one.

[Dylan32]

No, what I laid out gives the result of either: both telling the truth, or at least one of us lied. It can completely verify us both at the same time or gives us a 50/50, which would be bad for scum to have after D1.

[Dylan32]

Honestly, 2 ICs or at least one scum in two would be a fantastic D1 result.

[Dylan32]

And if we end up in a scenario where Joseph lied, we can easily test us individually tomorrow, it's not like a normal 1v1 where we have to flip one to figure out the alignment of the other.

[MiX]

If we have all mayor claims, and we test both if the first one comes out drunk, then my plan is better...

...but as it stands, I guess you're right.

[Dylan32]

Like, our alignments can be determined through the course of normal scum hunting outside of our set, so there's really no reason to give scum more information than we have to here (as in which of us is which thing). If one of us lied, scum already knows whether or not Joseph and I are telling the truth, but they don't know which of the two roles the truthful claimer(s) have. Testing individually confirms that individuals claim to everyone, but also fills in the gaps for scum without actually telling town anything about the other person. Testing us both together gets us much closer to knowing everything that scum knows without giving them any info they didn't already have, thus mitigating the information advantage that is inherent to scum.

ppe 1

[Dylan32]

Like, our alignments can be determined through the course of normal scum hunting outside of our set, so there's really no reason to give scum more information than we have to here (as in which of us is which thing). If one of us lied, scum already knows whether or not Joseph and I are telling the truth, but they don't know which of the two roles the truthful claimer(s) have. Testing individually confirms that individual's claim to everyone, but also fills in the gaps for scum without actually telling town anything about the other person. Testing us both together gets us much closer to knowing everything that scum knows without giving them any info they didn't already have, thus mitigating the information advantage that is inherent to scum.

ppe 1

possibly unnecessary edit for clarity

[faust]

We shouldn't do any testing. We have two ICs now, no need to tell scum which is the useful one. Dylan and Joseph should try to only vote together as most likely they're 1 Mayor/1 Drunk.

[gkrieg13]

I like the drunk claiming.

Claiming while drunk or claiming to be drunk?

^^ This is a joke, trying to get more townpoints from MiX.

Why do you say drunk rather than mayor?

Just to make it clear that they might be a completely voteless VT.

[scolapasta]

We shouldn't do any testing. We have two ICs now, no need to tell scum which is the useful one. Dylan and Joseph should try to only vote together as most likely they're 1 Mayor/1 Drunk.

This isn't completely true though - one could still be lying scum. Though that would be risky if the real one were a drunk (not so, if the real one were Mayor).

I do agree that if they're both town, they're likely one of each (both from the obvious probability side, but also from the game design side). Though, of course, we also don't know how many scum there actually are - i.e. maybe two drunks with only 2 scum is not that crazy? I don't know for that, I defer to those who have more experience designing games.

So I was in favor of no claiming at all, but now that we've had two claims, I need to think more on whether I prefer Dylan's plan (which I give town points for being clever in its way of trying to hide some info) or faust's no test plan.

[EFHW]

I'm  suspicious of Dylan here. I think he saw all the town cred Joseph was getting and decided he wanted some, too. The flaw in my argument is that we could possibly identify him as not having either role in the course of our tests.

[scolapasta]

I also wondered of this was some kind of gambit Dylan would try to pull off. But discounted it based on his suggested plan. (I don't think he would predict that faust would suggest not doing the tests, though if he had, that would work so well for scum!Dylan).

[jotheonah]

I also wondered of this was some kind of gambit Dylan would try to pull off. But discounted it based on his suggested plan. (I don't think he would predict that faust would suggest not doing the tests, though if he had, that would work so well for scum!Dylan).

Unless of course faust is his partner and the whole interaction was scripted.

[Dylan32]

The problem with me or Joseph fake claiming this is that we can be proven liars without the opportunity cost of scumhunting elsewhere. Normally with a claim that can't be proven in thread, town has to decide if they will wait for night actions to verify the claim to some degree, like a cop or whatever, or else they have to either just decide to ride or die and trust the claim through the end of the game, or they have to exile and flip the claimant to check their claims, at which point not only did they potentially exile a truthful claim, they also miss out on scumhunting and flipping someone else outside the claim.

In this scenario though, we can keep looking for scum outside of Joseph and I WITHOUT giving up the ability to demonstrably prove whether or not we told the truth. I could see this being a potential fakeclaim later in the day when choices have to be made, since in a lot of the scenarios, the exile goes through on the 3rd party if the drunkmayor is lying, but D1 where we can create 2 ICs (or 50/50 a scum), and still have time to individually test both of us on future wagons without sacrificing other scumhunting makes this a terrible fakeclaim. We should 100% do the (or some other plan if there is one better) test us both plan today, because if we both IC ourselves then we take tomorrow from an assumed 2/7 to 2/5 odds of randomly hitting scum, which is a better than 10% increase. If one of us lied, D2 we most likely have a 1/5 scum to look for while verifying with certainty which one of the 2 drunk mayors is scum.

I also wondered of this was some kind of gambit Dylan would try to pull off. But discounted it based on his suggested plan. (I don't think he would predict that faust would suggest not doing the tests, though if he had, that would work so well for scum!Dylan).

Unless of course faust is his partner and the whole interaction was scripted.

The simple fact is, whether or not faust and I had anything planned out here, the simple fact is we just wouldn't make it to the end of the game without verifying a mayor claim, even if town does decide to not do anything with it today. I'm flattered that it was even suggested that faust and I could/would have been capable of doing something like this, but if you really think about it, it's just not something that I can convince myself would work as scum (when thinking about potential for Joseph planning out a play like this for me).

[mathdude]

vote count please I know we don't get actual numbers, but it seems important to know whether Joseph's "voote" is being registered or not.

I am counting it, recognizing that it may have been intentional or accidental, but in a quick skim for bold "votes", it looks like a vote, so it counts.

Reminder: Day 1 ends at 3:00pm EST on Tuesday, December 7th

Vote "count" 1.1:
Votes for faust: MiX
votes for jotheonah: Dylan32
votes for MiX: infangthief, Joseph2302, faust
votes for WestCoastDidds: gkrieg13

not voting: Swowl, WestCoastDidds, scolapasta, EFHW, jotheonah
(with 11 alive, it takes 6 votes to exile)
[/b]

[MiX]

Cool VC. Let me just structure it as standard:

Vote Count 1.1:

faust (1): MiX
jotheonah (1): Dylan32
MiX (3): infangthief, Joseph2302, faust
WestCoastDidds (1): gkrieg13

Day 1 ends at 3:00pm EST on Tuesday, December 7th


I reread Dylan and I think he's town. I see very little reason for scum!Joseph to claim when he did. So I'm okay with calling them ICs.

Vote: EFHW, let's move on with the day.

[scolapasta]

I also wondered of this was some kind of gambit Dylan would try to pull off. But discounted it based on his suggested plan. (I don't think he would predict that faust would suggest not doing the tests, though if he had, that would work so well for scum!Dylan).

Unless of course faust is his partner and the whole interaction was scripted.

I guess?? Seems like a big thing to plan on N0. How would that work exactly?

Dylan: "If someone claims DrunkMayor, then I'll claim it too, suggest a plan to try to prove it, and then you quickly nix that plan"

Seems too... I don't know the right word, precise.

[scolapasta]

Wow, how does MiX already have 3 (well, 2-4) votes on him already? Interestingly, again both fang and faust are on that.

[Dylan32]

Oh, forgot I had been voting from RVS.

Unvote

pending confirmation on if we are following through on any sort of plan, which I strongly support. Mix is currently at X-3, which is the point Joseph and I should vote if we want to do that, but I'm not sure if MiX is the person to use for this. I'll reread and see who I think is a good bet in a while.

[faust]

In this scenario though, we can keep looking for scum outside of Joseph and I WITHOUT giving up the ability to demonstrably prove whether or not we told the truth. I could see this being a potential fakeclaim later in the day when choices have to be made, since in a lot of the scenarios, the exile goes through on the 3rd party if the drunkmayor is lying, but D1 where we can create 2 ICs (or 50/50 a scum), and still have time to individually test both of us on future wagons without sacrificing other scumhunting makes this a terrible fakeclaim. We should 100% do the (or some other plan if there is one better) test us both plan today, because if we both IC ourselves then we take tomorrow from an assumed 2/7 to 2/5 odds of randomly hitting scum, which is a better than 10% increase. If one of us lied, D2 we most likely have a 1/5 scum to look for while verifying with certainty which one of the 2 drunk mayors is scum.

The fact that all of this is this case is proof enough that you're not scum, really. That is just not a position scum wants to put themselves into.

The fact of the matter is though, we will probably still want both of you on the exile wagon if we don't decide to go for some elaborate test, because it's going to be hard to get a town-controlled wagon otherwise. Thus we will most likely gather some information by the end of the Day even if we don't actively work towards it.

[jotheonah]

I also wondered of this was some kind of gambit Dylan would try to pull off. But discounted it based on his suggested plan. (I don't think he would predict that faust would suggest not doing the tests, though if he had, that would work so well for scum!Dylan).

Unless of course faust is his partner and the whole interaction was scripted.

I guess?? Seems like a big thing to plan on N0. How would that work exactly?

Dylan: "If someone claims DrunkMayor, then I'll claim it too, suggest a plan to try to prove it, and then you quickly nix that plan"

Seems too... I don't know the right word, precise.

it seems exceedingly unlikely, but I felt compelled to mention it