xkcd

Ah crap and I won't get a chance to get on before deadline... hrrrrm... so something interesting apparently happened to mav... Well since finding out that silknor is scum would hand us the other one, and silknor seems so obviously scum to me, I guess I'll just stick with my vote on Silknor...

if this is it for me, i guess there's always next game to make it past the first day...

Mavketl wrote:Dude, you said that ONLY SCUM WOULD OPPOSE X. Which means that all non-scum would necessarily advocate it.

Sorry I meant to address this last time you mentioned it. Your logic is incorrect. There are obviously more options than opposing or advocating. In my case, I am basically neutral - I would advocate it if I thought there was a chance that it would happen. Silknor's earlier response was also reasonably different from an opposition, IMO ("In general, I do not see the purpose a mass vanilla town claim serves.").

Silknor wrote:The benefits to scum from people claiming Vanilla town are clear.

The only benefit that I have been given is that then scum knows who is vanilla and who is power... Which is just plain WRONG. Scum does not know what role I am!

Silknor wrote:I have found Adam H to be a constantly moving target. The clear meaning of his words changes from post to post. I believe he advocated a strategy harmful to the town, despite his later protestations that "only scum wouldn't do this" actually means "I am inexperienced and have not yet thought of a reason why scum wouldn't want this, but I don't intend to put any suspicion on those who disagree."

There should be a law against misquoting. The only time i said anything like "I am inexperienced and have not yet thought of a reason..." was in the SAME POST I said "only scum would oppose mass vanilla town claim". Seriously, if you are going to accuse me of changing my arguments, then just quote two posts that contradict each other.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think it's fair for the defendant to get the closing argument.

Mavketl wrote:Adam H: I think we've been going on long enough about this. I can reply to some more stuff point-by-point if you insist, but we're going in circles and the goal posts seem to be moving all over the fucking place which makes me think that you will just move on to the next argument and say that that's what you've been saying all along. More on that below.
...
Adam H, 14 posts.
Good thing: he is active.
Unsurprisingly, I'm not impressed with some of his posts. Not only do I disagree with him on many things, the way he makes his points bothers me as well. Whenever someone calls him on an inconsistency or counters an argument, he comes up with something new and acts as if that is what he said originally. That lack of taking responsibility for one's earlier opinions/statements/etc is what I consider the most scummy thing about his posts. There's a possibility that this is his general playing style and/or inexperience is part of the cause, but I try to avoid pitfalls like "but player A is always scummy" as some sort of excuse.
Adam H is scum.

The goalposts have not moved. They are: 1) I do not think it was scummy to say "I'm vanilla town*, though... so I am more inclined to think it's 4-2-2 or 5-1-2 with strong rebel roles and weak loyalist roles." 2) I do not think it was scummy to say "from what I can tell only scum would not approve of a mass vanilla town claim. Of course, I AM new (to the pro league at least), so please correct me if I am not thinking clearly."

I have not been inconsistent, and I will take complete responsibility for everything that I've said. Just don't quote me like this: "...mass vanilla town claim..."

EBWOP:

Adam H wrote:I'm saying that no matter my role, it's NOT a bad idea.

Sorry, "bad idea" should be "bad idea for town" or "scummy"... if I were scum, I would not want to claim vanilla town.

Mavketl wrote:

Adam H wrote:You listed three options, and said they were bad

Wrong. I said that it was bad if you are actually vanilla town.

OK, but your logic is: vanilla town should not claim vanilla town because power roles and scum would not/should not claim vanilla town. Power roles and scum would not/should not claim vanilla town because vanilla town should not claim vanilla town. You are saying that no matter my role, it's a bad idea. I'm saying that no matter my role, it's NOT a bad idea.

Mavketl wrote:Also you say that only scum would disapprove of [tactic X] but at the same time you won't endorse using [tactic X]? Surely saying that only scum would disapprove of it means that you think it's good for town? Why would you not advocate something that you are saying is good for town?

And don't go "I was only asking for reasons without having an opinion", you were literally saying that people were being scummy because of this. You were not some sort of neutral observer in this issue.

Yes, my opinion was and is that scum would vehemently argue against being forced to claim vanilla town.

Mavketl wrote:

Adam H wrote:I did not say and I do not think that we should mass vanilla town claim...

Adam H wrote:from what I can tell only scum would not approve of a mass vanilla town claim.

FTFY. Don't misquote me please. Notice that I was not advocating a mass vanilla town claim, only asking for reasons why we should not. Which I got, kind of...

Mavketl wrote:Scum want to kill the powerful townies. If they know who is vanilla town, that narrows down their "possible power roles" list, which makes them more likely to kill powerful townies.

Scum has not gotten any information. All they know is that A) I claimed vanilla town, and B) I claimed that if I were power role I would have claimed vanilla town.

You said:

Let's just say that if you're actually vanilla town it's a bad idea to try to convince people you are vanilla. The other options are power role lying to protect themselves, or scum falseclaiming something that's pretty uncheckable (it's much more dangerous to claim cop or doc).

You listed three options, and said they were bad:

a) "if you're actually vanilla town it's a bad idea to try to convince people you are vanilla"
b) "power role lying to protect themselves"
c) "scum falseclaiming something that's pretty uncheckable (it's much more dangerous to claim cop or doc)"

I listed the same three options and say that they are good:
a) vanilla town convinces the other town of their innocence
b) scum thinks power role is vanilla town
c) scum can't claim cop or doc.

Apologies for seeming flippant. I do not think my posts are unreasonable though - I simply do not completely understand where you are all coming from. I did not say and I do not think that we should mass vanilla town claim, only that I do not see why we (collectively or individually) should not claim vanilla town. You have given some decent arguments, and now please allow me to counter those with my point of view. Let me know if I misunderstand something.

1) In a normal game, if every player claims vanilla town it is meaningless.
My response: I agree, but meaningless is not necessarily bad. I only made the claim in the context of a larger discussion, which I did not think was meaningless.

2) Power roles cannot or should not claim vanilla town in a normal game.
My response: I disagree. But I'm not imposing any weird meta on you, I'm just saying that I said what I said because based on my past play, I saw no reason not to. But anyways, this is not a normal game.

3) Power roles cannot or should not claim vanilla town in this particular game.
My response: I disagree. I cannot think of anything else a power role would truthify, so there is no harm and probably a benefit (if scum thinks they are vanilla) in stating this and then truthifying it. If the power town wants to claim later, a statement of what they've done (i.e. healed so-and-so, copped so-and-so) should come back true. Silknor, you summed up my argument, but then went back and said "still it's a bad idea" - I'm not sure why. I have not thought this all the way through, however, and perhaps there are ways for scum to trick us up... but if so, I think scum would most likely just make a mistake doing something convoluted.

4) Scum would want to claim vanilla town early because truthifying "i am town" would not truthify "I am vanilla town".
My response: This is a valid concern and I did not think of this. I am unsure about the whole "golded statements" thing... however, I think that if a vanilla scum truthified "I am town" and then stated "I am vanilla town", it would come back true. This more or less nullifies the point, i think.

If a vanilla scum truthified "I am town" and then stated "I am vanilla town", would it would come back true?

To summarize our opposing views, you say:

Mavketl wrote: Let's just say that if you're actually vanilla town it's a bad idea to try to convince people you are vanilla. The other options are power role lying to protect themselves, or scum falseclaiming something that's pretty uncheckable (it's much more dangerous to claim cop or doc).

While I say: a) vanilla town convinces the other town of their innocence b) scum thinks power role is vanilla town c) scum can't claim cop or doc.

That is clearly not what you meant, but that's what I'm hearing. You'll have to tell me why "if you're actually vanilla town it's a bad idea to try to convince people you are vanilla," because I don't see it.


Lame and possibly useless list of statements:Maybe mods could just tell us not to be lame. That might fix the brokenness.

Silknor wrote:reason for this is that townies should always tell the truth

OK well that's not how I have ever played. Why should town always tell the truth? Shouldn't we say whatever we need to say to win? I figure(d) it's assumed that everyone claims vanilla town (which therefore doesn't really mean anything). If I were scum (I am not) or a power town (I am not), I would truthify the vanilla town statement, therefore if I were scum I cannot now claim power role. So... yeah it wasn't scummy. Honestly, I disagree so completely that I'm going to push Mav, Webby, and BF (and silknor) into my scummy list - not for FoSing me, but because from what I can tell only scum would not approve of a mass vanilla town claim.

Of course, I AM new (to the pro league at least), so please correct me if I am not thinking clearly. Rather than waste 50 posts arguing the merits of vanilla town claim, if you could link to a game where vanilla town claiming was "problematic", that would be greatly appreciated.

Anywho, Silknor, that's fine... don't use your lie detect... you damn rebel!!!

Vote: Silknor

Silknor wrote:This would quickly reduce the game to a simple logic puzzle, and thus lose any challenge or elegance present in the original design.

Apparently, the original design was neither challenging nor elegant, but broken...

Honestly, after a couple pms with the mods, I have barely any idea what "identical statements" are. I completely fail to see how "I am town" and "I am not scum" are identical, let alone "I do not know any members of my faction" (I guess we're assuming there are no masons or neutrals of any kind?). But whatever. I will play along. Scum will truthify "I am town" and now the lie detector is completely useless. But it did give us silknor, so that's good.

I'm interested as to how my vanilla town claim is scummy? Isn't everyone else scummy for not claiming it?

Consider me on the Silknor bandwagon. I agree that he should lie detect someone and then we'll have a proper discussion, and I think he should choose someone without our input. We'll get more information that way - both the results of his detection and his choice of target.

Hopefully the deadline isn't today still...

FoS on me for saying rebel instead of revolutionary! My head is like a friggin thesaurus!

Mavketl wrote:i dont think you can justify those damn lists.

Well, if a scum checks one of my statements, they'll waste a lie detection... so... I didn't see any harm from it. Justification - COMPLETE.

Mavketl wrote:And then another FoS at Adam for claiming vanilla town and sort of asking/daring people to check it? Not sure what's up with that. Awkward.

My vanilla townness is the reason that I believe there probably isn't 3 rebels... how was it awkward?

I am a sane cop.
I am an insane cop.
I am a mason.
I am a tracker.
I can write anonymous flavour.
I have a one-shot vig kill.
I am your worst nightmare.
I know who the rebels are.
My faction has a kill.
I have a kill.
My faction can talk at night.
I am a rebel.
I am a serial killer.
I am not a loyalist

I feel like we just broke the game...

5-3 seems like an auto-victory for spies... unless you all have some serious firepower roles. I'm vanilla town*, though... so I am more inclined to think it's 4-2-2 or 5-1-2 with strong rebel roles and weak loyalist roles.

*lie detection needed


Silknor, you there?

Yeah, I am town.

Mavketl wrote:Lastly, I tend to think that if you lie detect something, you should publically announce your detection and result, maybe with some rare exceptions. Everyone knows that everyone has a detection power, so it's not like being a cop where you have to 'play it safe' all the time. Opinions?

Agreed... The lie detection does no good unless we get something useful out of it. However, off the top of my head, an exception would be if everyone but a few people have announced their lie detection, it might be advantageous to pretend that you have not used your detection.

Adam H wrote:Perhaps an improved plan would be to say multiple statements that are all true for town, so not every statement can be truthified. For example, "I am a Loyalist" and "I am not a damn rebel" are different, and if you truthify one you can't truthify the other. The damn rebels wouldn't know which one to truthify, and probably would NOT bother truthifying either of them.

fixed...

I'm not sure that the damn rebels vouching for each other is a downside, since we'd have a nice tidy connection between 2 people (or 3? I assume there's only 2 damn rebels...). And anyways could we just arrange it so that no one lie detects their lie detector?

Perhaps an improved plan would be to say multiple statements that are all true for town, so not every statement can be truthified. For example, "I am a Loyalist" and "I am not a damn rebel" are different, and if you truthify one you can't truthify the other. The damn rebels wouldn't know which one to truthify, and probably would bother truthifying either of them.

Unless the point was to sucker the damn rebels into truthifying their original statement just so they can't power role claim.

***find 'scum' replace all 'damn rebel'

Confirm