Liar Game Mafia | GAME OVER! Who won the 100 gazzillion yen?

[#HBC | J]

The bolded was just really bad wording on my part July. Apologies for that.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

If you're not going to play a team game, I'm afraid you will be my only vote regardless of the circumstances until you play ball. If I can't trust you to follow simple instructions in a game that has such precarious rules, I can't have you around.

To clarify, it is possible that if you were scum I would have been able to confirm as such had you not replied as such. Your reply and action on the contract make that impossible.


Are you going to play ball, Ryker?


If not, I am stating openly I will be willing to accept contracts with others to let them take my vote in the future should they be willing to assist me in removing you.

Please don't start a pissing contest with me because you're mad about Adventure Time. You're not the god-given clear and at any time I feel it's in town's best interest to ignore your posts, then you can suck a big one.

Your supplied reason was to stop a distraction from showing up, but the way you approached it was more of a side-show than simply outing the information that I never had any intention of sitting behind.

Go to hell with your posturing to be put at the head of this game. Give me sound reasoning and I follow that, no one signed up to play follow the Overswarm.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

All contract punishments should add "to be given/activated and taken away at the (name of person who did the contract)'s bidding with no limitation during the timeframe of the punishment".

This means you can say "Breaking the contract results in (player) being voteblocked for the following day phase, to be activated and taken away at the (name of other player)'s bidding with no limitation during the timeframe of the punishment".

In short, we can't be hamstrung into a situation where 5 people can't vote because the punishment would be able to be turned on/off like a light switch. As we are being open about our contracts and any and all contracts are two-way streets, it should be easy to catch a liar. Our biggest concern would be the Serial Killer learning the identities of Mafia and vice versa, and those two pairs working together to discredit other. This is unlikely without town also discovering their identities and is not something on my radar at the moment; merely something that needs to be considered. We should all look for clues and hints.


Can anyone find any issues with this?

THIS is sound. I would go farther and if there is no other guaranteed termination use "the start of a three man day phase" to guarantee votes aren't taken at LyLo.

 

[Circus]

I don't really see any pro-town benefit to using contracts in this game by what Gheb said in inhibiting players and helping players acquire reads on your slot/their slot by compromising to things. (Like I tried to do with Ryker for me but he shot me down as soon as he got it).

Doesn't this basically describe the contract that you signed to a T though? Why did you sign it if this is how you feel? Do you think the one who proposed it to you is less likely to be town as a result?

I'm going to be open with a contract I accepted. I accepted a contract that I would not post in emoticons/long words to explain emotion/pictures to express emotion or anything of that nature. The person who sent the contract, I understand why and I also kind of like this opportunity to be able to try and play a tad differently and help them read me better in a sense if that is what they feel hurts their ability.

The "reward" I guess for me doing that is the person will not be voting me unless they are the "hammer" of my lynch so in reality they can still vote me but they just have to be last.

The "punishment" is that if I fail to comply to the contract I have to change my posting color to black for the rest of the game. Which would make it harder for people to read what I do/say and inhibit me more than the emoticons I use. So I'm willing to give them up for that factor.

I think you signed a really ****ty contract. That punishment doesn't just punish you; it punishes everyone trying to read you. Why the contract initiator decided your punishment should be something that makes your posts a pain in the *** to read when his or her goal is apparently to be able to read you better is beyond me if they're town. Also, your reward is not a reward at all.

But the big thing that bothers me about this is that, with a contract like this, you didn't have to accept the terms in order to get the fundamental use out of it. You could have declined the contract, but simply decided to naturally cut down on the AtE in general if you thought it was a resonable request. A "soft accept" of sorts. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the punishment, but you're still helping town read you better (allegedly). This is an option that I think we should remember we have for all contracts.

I don't like that contract and I want to know who submitted it to you. If you don't feel like telling (though we are agreeing to be open about these, are we not?), then at least rethink what the intent behind it might have been. Was it to get you to stop using emoticons and explaining emotions, or was it to get you posting in black text all game because the one who submitted the contract doesn't expect you to be able to follow that commitment?

I kind of tried to use this contract in order to help benefit me in another contract with Ryker but no dice.

This leads me to assume that your "Cut The AtE" contract is with Ryker.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Circus, I was the one who submitted the contract.

You're reading way too many negatives into it. The posting restriction will most certainly not make people not read J all of a sudden anymore. On the contrary: once he starts posting in black for the rest of the game people will inevitably look closer at his posts and highlight them. I know from personal experience that it works this way because I have faked a posting restriction as mafia in Discworld where I wrapped all my posts into spoiler tags. The purpose wasn't to make myself harder to read but to make everybody try to read me.
The same thing I want to happen should J prove unable to knock the emotional aspect out of his posts, which throws me off almost every time. It's simply a way for me to get to see what he's actually saying rather than what he's posting.

 

[Overswarm]

Please don't start a pissing contest with me because you're mad about Adventure Time. You're not the god-given clear and at any time I feel it's in town's best interest to ignore your posts, then you can suck a big one.

Your supplied reason was to stop a distraction from showing up, but the way you approached it was more of a side-show than simply outing the information that I never had any intention of sitting behind.

Go to hell with your posturing to be put at the head of this game. Give me sound reasoning and I follow that, no one signed up to play follow the Overswarm.

I can, and will, aid anyone of any alignment to kill you if it improves on town's chances. If I don't think you can follow simple instructions then I'm crossing my fingers every time any sort of plan or even aggressive questioning is set in motion. If that is the case, you are the weakest player in this game. This is not a game filled with easily led sheep, and everyone in here has proved themselves on more than one occasion. You must be able to trust other player's judgement and respond accordingly rather than try to be a one man show. If you don't, you're a drag on town. Given that it is just as likely that you are an SK or mafia at this time than anyone else and that if I have a large number of players able to affect my vote for the rest of the game they can't possibly all be anti-town, I have no issue using contracts that affect my choices to remove you and allow town to act as a cohesive unit.

I care very little about your excuses. Whether or not you believe that the way I approached it was more of a distraction than not is irrelevant; my approach may have actually been important regardless of how you viewed it. You can't possibly know, only guess. Within 2 minutes you did the exact opposite of what I requested for no reason other than I requested you not to do it. This is not town play, nor is it good team play.

Are you going to be a thorn Ryker? This is the situation I'm giving you. If you truly believe it is in town's best interest to have my vote and anyone else's vote I could get on you for the rest of the game until your death, then feel free to follow that path, but you know it isn't the best use of town's resources.

Play a team game, and follow instructions. From anyone that has any sort of request. There's a time and place to not follow a plan or follow instructions, but when you don't know the reasoning and it doesn't hurt to follow them and you break them anyway you're just being a child.

It was the equivalent of telling a child "Don't touch this button" and then watching them immediately touch it while staring you in the face.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Ryker has requested replacement, I will be trying to contact SangfroidWarrior to take his slot.

 

[#HBC | J]

Doesn't this basically describe the contract that you signed to a T though? Why did you sign it if this is how you feel? Do you think the one who proposed it to you is less likely to be town as a result?

It was really bad wording because I meant to say I do NOT find the anti-town thing of what Gheb is doing and which is why I did the exact thing and agreed to sign it. I just really messed up that wording there.

I signed it beacuse it is a challenge and it also provides me to not back out of it because usually when I go in saying, "Let's do this goal and see how it works." I usually fail. This time it's like when people do those silly new years resolutions by themselves, this time I have that huge *** trainer not letting me slack off.

Gheb wanted me to try something different so that I may help him out and I really don't see the negatives.

I really do not like your reaction to Gheb's contract on me and is extremely just negative towards it. I think you are over-reacting just a tad there Circus with what just happened.

And as much as it sucks to lose Ryker, good for Sang to get in. I'm a bit disappointed though to be honest.

 

[Circus]

Circus, I was the one who submitted the contract.

You're reading way too many negatives into it. The posting restriction will most certainly not make people not read J all of a sudden anymore. On the contrary: once he starts posting in black for the rest of the game people will inevitably look closer at his posts and highlight them. I know from personal experience that it works this way because I have faked a posting restriction as mafia in Discworld where I wrapped all my posts into spoiler tags. The purpose wasn't to make myself harder to read but to make everybody try to read me.
The same thing I want to happen should J prove unable to knock the emotional aspect out of his posts, which throws me off almost every time. It's simply a way for me to get to see what he's actually saying rather than what he's posting.

I might be able to buy that you legitimately think this way, but I still think the punishment is dumb. Even if I were to accept your premise that posting in harder to read text forces people to study you harder (I don't), how pervasive a problem do you expect skimming to be in a game with only 8 players? Especially when considering who those 8 players are?

Your wording also reaffirms what I was suspecting—that the point, ultimately, is to get J to post in black text.

The posting restriction will most certainly not make people not read J all of a sudden anymore. On the contrary: once he starts posting in black for the rest of the game people will inevitably look closer at his posts and highlight them.

Rather than calling it a punishment, you call it a posting restriction. You say "once he starts posting in black" as if it is a foregone conclusion. Why didn't you just make the contract "post in black text for the rest of the game" if you really think it will be so helpful, and since it is apparently the ultimate point of the contract?

I signed it beacuse it is a challenge and it also provides me to not back out of it because usually when I go in saying, "Let's do this goal and see how it works." I usually fail. This time it's like when people do those silly new years resolutions by themselves, this time I have that huge *** trainer not letting me slack off.

Hiring a personal trainer to keep your *** on a treadmill is one thing. Hiring someone to hook your nipple up to a car battery every time you reach for a glazed doughnut is another (colorful and extreme metaphor, but I'm sure you get what I mean). It is strange for me to think that you looked at that offer and really didn't decide to negotiate for something better. Even keeping the punishment, I would think you would at least want to negotiate for a more legitimate incentive for yourself. This is where I reiterate the fact that you really get nothing out of this "exchange."

I really do not like your reaction to Gheb's contract on me and is extremely just negative towards it. I think you are over-reacting just a tad there Circus with what just happened.

Are we going to make this a repeat of Majora's Mask mafia? That didn't work out well for your slot, if you recall. You know how I operate at this point, J. I don't believe you sincerely think there's a problem with how I reacted to you.

Wish OS and Ryker could learn to play nice.

 

[Circus]

Also, J, you seem to have a pretty good handle on what it is Gheb wants from you. Am I correct in assuming that you are not suspicious of his motives? You apparently didn't question them at all when you signed the contract, and when I asked you to think about it, it seems like you didn't even bother entertaining the thought.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

J and I had a lot of conversations about the issue in the past - how the emotional aspect of his play hinders his progress and how it hurts those that try to get a read on them. My intent with his contract between us is so blatantly clear that I never had any doubts that J would accept it or assumed that he'd be surprised by it.

I might be able to buy that you legitimately think this way, but I still think the punishment is dumb. Even if I were to accept your premise that posting in harder to read text forces people to study you harder (I don't), how pervasive a problem do you expect skimming to be in a game with only 8 players? Especially when considering who those 8 players are?

Your wording also reaffirms what I was suspecting—that the point, ultimately, is to get J to post in black text.

Rather than calling it a punishment, you call it a posting restriction. You say "once he starts posting in black" as if it is a foregone conclusion. Why didn't you just make the contract "post in black text for the rest of the game" if you really think it will be so helpful, and since it is apparently the ultimate point of the contract?

@first paragraph

I never outright mentioned skimming to be a problem in this game. In fact, I highly doubt that any of the players except Ryker is really prone to skimming [and Ryker has requested replacement anyway].
Read the contract this way:

"If J is so unwilling to remove the emotional veil from his posts that he'd go as far as to break the contract then he likely feels the need to hide something. In that case his play warrants some more attention, which will be achieved by a restriction that cannot be possibly missed by the others."

@second paragraph

And where is the problem with that? Think about how the restriction triggers and what it means for J to break the contract. By doing so he's openly refusing to give us a better glimpse at his true intents. What "punishment" would be better than to draw more attention to this fact? If you look at it more closely you'll see that the deal of the contract and the punishment serve exactly the same purpose. No matter what J chooses to do in regards to our contract the result is always him being easier to read in some way - whether he breaks the contract or not.

@third paragraph

You're being silly if you think the "ultimate purpose" of the contract is to get J to post in black. Not only is there no reason to doubt J's ability to abide to the contract so far but you also read way too many bad intentions into it still. Even if the "ultimate purpose" of the contract was to get J to post in black there's still not much harm to it. If there's a problem with J posting in black - other than you apparently considering it superfluous - then you should point out how it could possibly be harmful in any way. Otherwise you're not doing anything ... you're accusing me for the sake of accusing me.

 

[July]

All contract punishments should add "to be given/activated and taken away at the (name of person who did the contract)'s bidding with no limitation during the timeframe of the punishment".

This means you can say "Breaking the contract results in (player) being voteblocked for the following day phase, to be activated and taken away at the (name of other player)'s bidding with no limitation during the timeframe of the punishment".

In short, we can't be hamstrung into a situation where 5 people can't vote because the punishment would be able to be turned on/off like a light switch. As we are being open about our contracts and any and all contracts are two-way streets, it should be easy to catch a liar. Our biggest concern would be the Serial Killer learning the identities of Mafia and vice versa, and those two pairs working together to discredit other. This is unlikely without town also discovering their identities and is not something on my radar at the moment; merely something that needs to be considered. We should all look for clues and hints.


Can anyone find any issues with this?

And to the contracts that have been proposed, I'm waiting on Ryker's response.

I definitely agree with this.

@Circus: I can definitely understand J's reasoning in accepting the contract.

Gheb sent me a contract as well and now that it's official and approved I'll give details: I have to vote 3 different people and make cases on them D1, and I cannot have the lowest number of posts toDay from post #150 onward. As a reward he won't vote or FoS me toDay (but can still voice suspicions of me) and as a punishment for breaking it I would be voteblocked toMorrow.

I accepted the contract knowing that Gheb has had trouble reading me in the past, especially because I write walls. After amending the contract and heading to class, I considered that the difficult part will probably be making 3 cases for the Day, because if I can't do it, I can't do it; I don't want to or feel good about forcing a case on someone. Hence why I started considering punishments, and the possibility of being screwed over by people being voteblocked and simply the possibility of people breaking their contracts in general.

Despite the concerns you raise Circus, I do see town intent by the restrictions Gheb has proposed for J and for myself, and if either of us got ourselves into bad contracts that's our own fault. I'm not suspicious of Gheb for the contracts, especially since he was on of the first to support having contracts out in the open; I'll base my read on Gheb on his play.

 

[Raziek]

Ryker has requested replacement, I will be trying to contact SangfroidWarrior to take his slot.

[yt]Hb4VR1AfhAc[/yt]

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

I have contacted Sangfroidwarrior for replacement, but due to circumstances she would not be able to consistently keep up with the game. I will ask Sworddancer as soon as possible, but he is temporarily not on the internet for midterms purposes. Any suggestions are welcome.

 

[Circus]

Hm. I'll be going out for the night in a minute; I'll mull over a couple of things in that time.

Gheb, you're mafia for a moment; how do you approach contract usage?

July, when did Gheb propose his contract to you?

@Circus: I can definitely understand J's reasoning in accepting the contract.

This doesn't tell me anything. Let J talk to me, please.

Gheb sent me a contract as well and now that it's official and approved I'll give details: I have to vote 3 different people and make cases on them D1, and I cannot have the lowest number of posts toDay from post #150 onward. As a reward he won't vote or FoS me toDay (but can still voice suspicions of me) and as a punishment for breaking it I would be voteblocked toMorrow.

I'm failing to see the town intent in forcing a player that Gheb has no reason to believe is scum yet to loser their vote if they can't make three separate cases on people in an 8-player game on D1. What a ****ty position that could already put us in on D2.

I accepted the contract knowing that Gheb has had trouble reading me in the past, especially because I write walls. After amending the contract and heading to class, I considered that the difficult part will probably be making 3 cases for the Day, because if I can't do it, I can't do it; I don't want to or feel good about forcing a case on someone. Hence why I started considering punishments, and the possibility of being screwed over by people being voteblocked and simply the possibility of people breaking their contracts in general.

But apparently you aren't bothered by the fact that we could be brought down to 3 townies by D2 very, very easily. If you're alive and voteless on that Day, we could be ****ed. You better flatout make up reasons to make cases on people if you have to in order to keep your vote if you're town.

Despite the concerns you raise Circus, I do see town intent by the restrictions Gheb has proposed for J and for myself, and if either of us got ourselves into bad contracts that's our own fault.

But you aren't necessarily the only ones feeling the consequences of your decisions. If you make bad ones, and you're town, then town as a whole suffers.

I'm not suspicious of Gheb for the contracts, especially since he was on of the first to support having contracts out in the open; I'll base my read on Gheb on his play.

If you're going to give Gheb brownie points for supporting the openness of contracts early, then I think you're naive. And do you not consider the choices Gheb makes in regards to how he builds his contracts and to whom he sends them part of his play?

Attention townies: Keep a ****ing lookout. This is a pretty good playerlist. Scum is probably not going to be terrible at acting townie. And in terms of raw numbers, about half the people you talk to in this game are not on your side. Keep one eye over your shoulder at all times this game, seriously.

I'll probably be back on much later tonight. I don't feel like I should have to say this, but in order to avoid that nonsense I had to defend myself against regarding John in Majora's Mask mafia, I will: I'm not accusing anyone of anything yet. I may dig, I may be aggressive on certain leans for a while to see where they may go, but I'm not laying out cases on anyone based on a quarter of a dozen posts. If I come home to see posts telling me I'm going against someone too hard, too early, I'm not going to be happy about it.

One last thing: I want everyone to tell me what they think of Raziek in their next post.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Sworddancer. replaces Ryker!

Thanks a billion, Sword!

I gave Sworddancer. the opportunity to ask Ryker questions.

 

[Overswarm]

One last thing: I want everyone to tell me what they think of Raziek in their next post.

Noncommittal.

 

[Overswarm]

Hmph. Broke the game again.

Add this wording to rule 20, Xonar:

#) A contract may not directly or indirectly force a player to reveal any information in their role PM

20.) No contract may DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY refer to role PM information or other contracts; i.e., you cannot force someone to post in their alignment color nor can you force them to link you to their other quick topics or do an specific action based off of information a player could only know from their role PM

Otherwise contracts could be worded as such so that on the death of someone who you could communicate with outside the thread, be it via NKill, modkill, or lynch, you must vote yourself. As originally stated, this doesn't refer to the role PM in question.

Ta da, we now only have to find one mafia.

 

[#HBC | Dancer]

I can, and will, aid anyone of any alignment to kill you if it improves on town's chances. If I don't think you can follow simple instructions then I'm crossing my fingers every time any sort of plan or even aggressive questioning is set in motion. If that is the case, you are the weakest player in this game. This is not a game filled with easily led sheep, and everyone in here has proved themselves on more than one occasion. You must be able to trust other player's judgement and respond accordingly rather than try to be a one man show. If you don't, you're a drag on town. Given that it is just as likely that you are an SK or mafia at this time than anyone else and that if I have a large number of players able to affect my vote for the rest of the game they can't possibly all be anti-town, I have no issue using contracts that affect my choices to remove you and allow town to act as a cohesive unit.

I care very little about your excuses. Whether or not you believe that the way I approached it was more of a distraction than not is irrelevant; my approach may have actually been important regardless of how you viewed it. You can't possibly know, only guess. Within 2 minutes you did the exact opposite of what I requested for no reason other than I requested you not to do it. This is not town play, nor is it good team play.

Are you going to be a thorn Ryker? This is the situation I'm giving you. If you truly believe it is in town's best interest to have my vote and anyone else's vote I could get on you for the rest of the game until your death, then feel free to follow that path, but you know it isn't the best use of town's resources.

Play a team game, and follow instructions. From anyone that has any sort of request. There's a time and place to not follow a plan or follow instructions, but when you don't know the reasoning and it doesn't hurt to follow them and you break them anyway you're just being a child.

It was the equivalent of telling a child "Don't touch this button" and then watching them immediately touch it while staring you in the face.

OS, you're being a silly. Are you honestly suggesting that you would of tried to have my slot lynched because Ryker didn't follow an arbitrary standard? Also in an 8 man game where town could go from 5 to 3 in on phase? If so, then you're being foolish.

Here, let me tell you my plan. I will try to be a "team player," but as I see fit. If that means following your directions, then I'll do it, but obviously I'm not going to conform to them if I don't see the benefit in it.

---

J, I'm confused, what was it about Ryker's "mean-spited" play that hindered you from getting a read on him?

Circus are you getting anything out of this? Like, are you say the things you're saying because you have gotten a read out of the players you're responding to? It kinda seems like you're implying it but you have stated it explicitly and I think that you should be clear on that.

Also I actually agree that Gheb's contract to July is a bit funky. I understand that there are three scum in the game, so that number makes sense, but making July vote for them or lose or vote seems too extreme. Why not simply do something like make July post a read list by the Day's end?

Also Circus, I agree with OS. Currently I think that Raz should talk more about relevant stuff, like the debates between me OS or Ciurcus and others, or just the contracts in general.

Btw OS contract coming your way, asking you to have a read list by Day 1's end with no nulls, or else you have to post in pink. Your reward is that I can't hammer you.

 

[Raziek]

D1 hasn't even started yet, and I've been busy with other things. This is a private, thus the priority is low.

 

[July]

July, when did Gheb propose his contract to you?

He proposed it right after D0 started, I got the pm about it at around 1:30 pm.

This doesn't tell me anything. Let J talk to me, please.

I was just giving my opinion on it, not trying to interfere with your conversation with J but since I was n a similar position I feel like I understand J's train of thought.

I'm failing to see the town intent in forcing a player that Gheb has no reason to believe is scum yet to loser their vote if they can't make three separate cases on people in an 8-player game on D1. What a ****ty position that could already put us in on D2.

I understand that concern, and that's something Gheb will have to address his reasoning for because I don't know why he chose voteblocked and 3 cases.

But apparently you aren't bothered by the fact that we could be brought down to 3 townies by D2 very, very easily. If you're alive and voteless on that Day, we could be ****ed. You better flatout make up reasons to make cases on people if you have to in order to keep your vote if you're town.

Tbh I didn't realize that, my focus was on other games/midterms and that situation never occurred to me ;-; but I think that being open about contracts and having talked about not having modkills as punishments/how to deal with voteblocks as punishments reduces a lot of those concerns. And I'll be fine with fulfilling my contract, I just wanted to be honest and not make any promises of making mind-blowing cases or having great activity over Spring Break, but I'll make sure to dedicate time to here and complete my contract.

But you aren't necessarily the only ones feeling the consequences of your decisions. If you make bad ones, and you're town, then town as a whole suffers.

I realize that it affects the whole town if we break the contracts, I agree to that. But we accepted the contracts so even if it sounds hard or there are ****ty conditions to it, we just have to suck it up and fulfill our contracts.

If you're going to give Gheb brownie points for supporting the openness of contracts early, then I think you're naive. And do you not consider the choices Gheb makes in regards to how he builds his contracts and to whom he sends them part of his play?

I'm not giving him brownie points, I just don't want to blow the things out of proportion and i want to consider what aspects of his play make sense with his contracts and which don't. You've raised points about possible scum intent behind the contracts that I didn't think of, so those are things I want to consider now in the context of the rest of his play as well. And wrt contracts as a part of his play, I just want to keep things in perspective; while they are a part of his play, I think that seeing how he plays and what his reads are will be more important. Idk how scum would want to use contracts and I think that makes analyzing contracts harder than analyzing play. Especially because on a shallow level, I realize that playing with contracts is a fun concept that I didn't really consider all the consequences of before I agreed to my contract, even though I should have, and I feel like people's play wrt to contracts could be erratic, especially on D1.

One last thing: I want everyone to tell me what they think of Raziek in their next post.

Raziek just seems uninterested right now.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Circus, if I were mafia I'd either leave contracts alone for the time being or I wouldn't go any further with them than I did just now. And regarding July's contract with me I again feel that there's not that much harm involved ... after all, what reason do you have to question July' ability to be a bit more active and be more vocal about her suspects? If she loses her votes because she can't find 3 suspicious people on Day 1 in a game with 3 confirmed scumbags then I'd rather have her stay out of the voting process anyway. I'd say the general town mindset would be to look for scum from all sides because there's 2 factions and 3 / 8 players from the anti-town side. I think it should work fine for a townie to point out 3 of these cases.

It's true though, that I shouldn't get any pro-town cred for these contracts. I'm doing them for my own, personal benefit, which may or may not help town in the long run ... but I wanna try it out anyway. It's a complete null-tell unless the contract is just completely anti-town right away.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Oh Overswarm, if it wasn't for you.

Mod Note:

Rule #20 has been altered!

This:

20.) A contract may not directly or indirectly force a player to reveal any information in their role PM

Changes into:

20.) No contract may DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY refer to role PM information or other contracts; i.e., you cannot force someone to post in their alignment color nor can you force them to link you to their other quick topics or do an specific action based off of information a player could only know from their role PM

Otherwise contracts could be worded as such so that on the death of someone who you could communicate with outside the thread, be it via NKill, modkill, or lynch, you must vote yourself. As originally stated, this doesn't refer to the role PM in question.

 

[Overswarm]

@mod please update the player list.

Overswarm	10
Xonar	        10
J	                  9
Raziek	          9
Ryker	          8
Gheb_01	  7
Circus	          5
July	                  4
Sworddancer	1

Sworddancer has started strong. Everyone else has been fairly upfront and, while our interactions have been fairly limited in scope (I've only really talked with Ryker, for example) our exchanges haven't been very shallow at this point.

With the exception of Raziek.

Raziek, it is a given that some people will post more or less than others and we can't naturally fault them for that... but we CAN fault them for how they post. Please don't make it easy to make you a fallback lynch if you are town; this is a pretty high profile game, so it's gonna have some heavy handed play here. Easy choices will be hard to come by, and if you present one it'll be eaten up fast.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Request prod for Kuz

He's been updating his mafia game but hasn't posted in here yet.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

Already sent a prod out to Kuzinator.

 

[Overswarm]

OS, you're being a silly. Are you honestly suggesting that you would of tried to have my slot lynched because Ryker didn't follow an arbitrary standard? Also in an 8 man game where town could go from 5 to 3 in on phase? If so, then you're being foolish.

In a heartbeat. You're assuming your slot is town; I have no reason to believe you are town more than anyone else.

Here, let me tell you my plan. I will try to be a "team player," but as I see fit. If that means following your directions, then I'll do it, but obviously I'm not going to conform to them if I don't see the benefit in it.

Here's the thing: you don't get to decide if you should or shouldn't be a team player when you aren't in on a plan. When someone says "shh, be quiet", your immediate response can't be "I CAN BE AS LOUD AS I WANT".

If you have a problem with something when you know what it is, that's great. Articulate it. If you have a problem with something because of its known actual impact (such as "No Lynch today guys, trust me!"), that's cool too. Those are logical standpoints.

Ryker's standpoint was "Overswarm said not to do something that doesn't affect me at all. It was just a warning to not do something that I don't have to do and might not have been even considering. I better do the exact opposite just to be a punk".

That is not logical and is anti-town.

You do that, I'll kill you. It is inherently anti-town by its very definition and goes against any sort of cohesive stance against scum. We're all good players here, definitely all good enough to stand our own ground and make our own decisions. It would be very easy for that to work against us, and I am willing to take whatever steps necessary to remove obstacles that would cause us to splinter unnecessarily.

I think that's a better day one strategy in such a small game, personally. Helps us establish rules for the rest of the game that people know not to break and doesn't give scum much wiggle room.

It's much harder for scum to hide in a cohesive group that is open with one another than it is for scum to hide in a group where people can get away with doing whatever they want "just because".

We will inevitably have rules and plans that need to be followed.

Not having "will be modkilled" as a punishment is one that is pretty likely to be agreed upon by everyone. Someone deciding on their own "you know what? **** that, I want modkills" is unacceptable.

If you want to go into details on something or learn the whys and whats, you ask and hold people accountable for when they have a request or a plan. You don't decide for yourself what you want to do and potentially destroy a setup, get yourself into the hot seat or, even worse, give mafia wiggle room on things they shouldn't have room to manuever on.

 

[Overswarm]

@Gheb:

How do you think we should approach determining a lynch for tomorrow?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Did you mean to post this question exactly the way you did?

 

[Overswarm]

Did you mean to post this question exactly the way you did?

I wouldn't be me if I didn't. :B

 

[Overswarm]

@ Kuz or Kuz's replacement

I have a task for you to do while you read through the thread, if you wouldn't mind. Would you be willing to keep track of all the "rules" we've discussed and that town seems to agree on and post a list for us? Gheb already confirmed we're in a majority in terms of keeping things open, so that's a start.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I was a little unsure about the term "determining a lynch". It has the slight implication of finalizing a lynch choice already and together with the word "tomorrow" it feels like an ambiguous question. The answer to what I think you're asking me is that I'd approach it very traditionally. Since we didn't seem to make a lot of use of contracts and the contracts I've made are out in the open now we can hunt scum like we do in any other game.

 

[Overswarm]

I was a little unsure about the term "determining a lynch". It has the slight implication of finalizing a lynch choice already and together with the word "tomorrow" it feels like an ambiguous question. The answer to what I think you're asking me is that I'd approach it very traditionally. Since we didn't seem to make a lot of use of contracts and the contracts I've made are out in the open now we can hunt scum like we do in any other game.

You don't think this game calls for any special consideration?

 

[#HBC | Dancer]

Circus, if I were mafia I'd either leave contracts alone for the time being or I wouldn't go any further with them than I did just now. And regarding July's contract with me I again feel that there's not that much harm involved ... after all, what reason do you have to question July' ability to be a bit more active and be more vocal about her suspects? If she loses her votes because she can't find 3 suspicious people on Day 1 in a game with 3 confirmed scumbags then I'd rather have her stay out of the voting process anyway. I'd say the general town mindset would be to look for scum from all sides because there's 2 factions and 3 / 8 players from the anti-town side. I think it should work fine for a townie to point out 3 of these cases.

It's true though, that I shouldn't get any pro-town cred for these contracts. I'm doing them for my own, personal benefit, which may or may not help town in the long run ... but I wanna try it out anyway. It's a complete null-tell unless the contract is just completely anti-town right away.

Wow ok no.

FoS: Gheb

@Bolded:

1. Really? Why wouldn't scum use contracts at this point? I can definitely think of some reasons why any one scum would use a contract.

2. That's a very weird justification for wanting someone to lose their vote. You do realize the huge possible negative ramifications a townie not having a vote on Day 2 can have, right? Like Circus pointed out, we could go from 5 townies to 3 in one phase, and now, if July is town, she could lose her vote, basically making so that the town has to relay on the mafia and the sk taking out each other that Day.

At best in this situation to you (assuming town) it is a 50/50 shot between rather or not July is town. Why would you be willing to take this chance so soon?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

You guys really make this a lot more complicated than it has to be. All contracts are rooted in mutual agreement. If July agrees to abide to the contact then she's obviously willing to follow it - and it's really not hard to abide to at all. You guys only look at the punishment but you don't consider how easily the contract can be followed [or that it's still up to me to report it if she breaks it].

You don't think this game calls for any special consideration?

No.

 

[Overswarm]

If that is the case Gheb, would you be willing to publicly state that you are not willing to give that punishment unless town agrees with a majority equal to what is required to lynch?

 

[#HBC | Dancer]

OS, go into detail for me just how we're going to "play as a team," and why that way is going to hurt scum.

@Gheb: Why though make it such a harsh punishment then? Why should the contract give you such power, regardless of how easy it is to follow?

Also you didn't really go over what was my main concern, which is the fact that I think your justification for such a harsh punishment is weak ("I don't want a player to be able to vote if they don't give scum reads despite the fact that that could be very costly considering the set up").

 

[~ Gheb ~]

If that is the case Gheb, would you be willing to publicly state that you are not willing to give that punishment unless town agrees with a majority equal to what is required to lynch?

Since she agreed to the contract so quickly I'm most likely willing to do that, unless I have reasons to believe she's actually scum. One of the things that make contracts really interesting in regards to reads is the fact that the mere choice of agreement [or not] by your counterpart can already tell you things. I'm not even gonna lie, the punishment in my contract is rather harsh and the fact that she was willing to risk her vote toMorrow to cooperate is a positive sign to me.

@Gheb: Why though make it such a harsh punishment then? Why should the contract give you such power, regardless of how easy it is to follow?

1.) It gives me a good feeling on how much she's willing to cooperate considering she accepted it right away with minimal changes to it.
2.) Because it's convenient to have in the event that I'm convinced she's scum.
3.) In the end, it was her choice to agree with the contract so she must've known what she was agreeing to. More likely than not, I wouldn't have held it against her had she not accepted it anyway.

Also you didn't really go over what was my main concern, which is the fact that I think your justification for such a harsh punishment is weak ("I don't want a player to be able to vote if they don't give scum reads despite the fact that that could be very costly considering the set up").

You can consider it weak if you think it's weak. I don't think it is.

 

[Overswarm]

OS, go into detail for me just how we're going to "play as a team," and why that way is going to hurt scum.

That's better. Logical!

"Playing as a team" means not doing something just because you think it's right. Have you looked at the numbers this game? 8, 6, 4, game over. We don't have room for mistakes, and this game isn't going to be a game of "we caught your mistake". This will be a game of "we read your intentions".

What Gheb is doing? Not playing as a team. Already made a contract, has a vote blocking punishment, tries to leave a backdoor to it (see below)? Not a team player. Not playing for town's best interest. Playing for Gheb's best interests.

That won't fly this game. We don't have room for those mistakes and not a single person here can put themselves above the collective input of town. If you want to do something this game, you're gonna have to bend to town's wishes and you're going to have to argue your way for or against something, whether you or someone else is doing it.

You see the convos we're having with Gheb now? It's because he is asking forgiveness rather than asking permission and that is an inferior way to play with this lineup and these numbers.

We've all been that rambo player once before that was able to aggressively pursue reads and kill a townie right off the bat... but then shrug it off because we got scum D2 based off D1 play, and we end up winning. Town win is a town win, amirite?

That won't work this game. We have one day, ONE, where town has the majority. That's it. We have 5/8 players today. D2 we will have 3/6, and 4 to lynch. Then even if we only lose one townie, we have 2/4 and need 3 to lynch. At that point if we don't lynch the SK and leave it as 2 town to 1 mafia, we lose. Even if we get the SK, we then have a 3 man lylo standoff.

We can't afford people going off on their own and taking someone's crucial vote away or other such crazy things.

Teamwork, cohesion, and open planning. If the plan is good then it will work and if it won't we 'll at least be able to read intention.

Since she agreed to the contract so quickly I'm most likely willing to do that, unless I have reasons to believe she's actually scum. One of the things that make contracts really interesting in regards to reads is the fact that the mere choice of agreement [or not] by your counterpart can already tell you things. I'm not even gonna lie, the punishment in my contract is rather harsh and the fact that she was willing to risk her vote toMorrow to cooperate is a positive sign to me.

No.

You get no backdoors. If you don't agree to not do this punishment unless town as a majority decides to do it, you're volatile and the most efficient lynch. Taking away someone's vote simply because you feel a certain way is anti-town, and we can't have that.

I mean really, you think taking away someone's vote is negative if they're scum?

"Oh, she's willing to lose her vote, PLUS TOWN POINTS"?

Let's imagine she's a serial killer. She needs to survive D3, and needs her vote only on D3. Maybe. There's no need for a vote for the SK except to blend in.

Let's imagine she's mafia. Mafia will never, under any circumstances, have enough to lynch. If the did, they'd win the game. That means that for every single lynch in the game, they need to convince town to do the lynch for them. Do you really think that someone is going to be L-1 this game and only not dying because you took away someone's vote?

Do you honestly think that would happen?

What is infinitely more likely is that she is a town role and you've just managed to potentially give scum a better ratio during the day phase, thus giving a greater advantage to scum.

It's simple ratios, Gheb. If scum loses a vote but not their voice, they can still voice support. If there are 5 voices of support for a lynch, there is a large chance for there to be a 6th townie voice willing to help. Scum having or not having a vote does absolutely nothing to change this. The only thing it does do is potentially force us to follow an anti-town direction.



So I'm going to ask you again.

Would you be willing to publicly state that you are not willing to give that punishment unless town agrees with a majority equal to what is required to lynch?


@Town

No one else gives a contract with a voting restriction of any sort without publicly announcing it beforehand and getting everyone's input. If she suddenly loses her vote, we know Gheb is scum and can lynch him; if he flips town, we know we can kill July. Or maybe the SK can do it for us.




@mod

Can punishments be given in a fashion that wouldn't normally be under the player's control?





Oh, and for those playing the home game and have caught on to why I'm asking certain questions and giving certain orders, yes, I have a plan and yes it involves open contracts. Town will have the possibility of being in a stark majority on D2, depending on how things work out. You'll hear more from me after D1 has gone by as long as no one hammers super early.

 

[Circus]

Circus are you getting anything out of this? Like, are you say the things you're saying because you have gotten a read out of the players you're responding to? It kinda seems like you're implying it but you have stated it explicitly and I think that you should be clear on that.

I do what I do for a reason, yes. Hopefully you'll have a better idea of what my reasoning might be by the end of this post. Welcome to the game, by the way.

Circus, if I were mafia I'd either leave contracts alone for the time being or I wouldn't go any further with them than I did just now. And regarding July's contract with me I again feel that there's not that much harm involved ... after all, what reason do you have to question July' ability to be a bit more active and be more vocal about her suspects?

I don't doubt her ability to do that. Nor do I doubt J's ability to post straight. What is confusing to me is the intent behind making these arrangements in the first place. One of July's best traits, from my point of view, is how open and communicative she is. She doesn't always commit to strong stances right away, but I don't think that's a problem for her because she always gives reasons for reads, even when they're null. She's the last person on this playerlist that I would expect would need to be provoked into posting and sharing reads. From here, it looks like you just attached a potential voteblock to the way that she already tends to play. Basically, it's totally useless in the best case scenario, and it's actually really hurtful in the worst case scenario.

And I don't care that there are 3 confirmed scum. We're still probably not going to find all the baddies in one Day. Why force someone to make cases on 3 people based on no concrete information? You realize they're all going to be educated hunches, right? What do you expect to learn from that? This is the kind of contract that could make sense to pose to someone who has proven to be difficult to penetrate, a Day or two in. Not on a player with basically no history of offense before the game even starts.

The contract you sent to J is more understandable to me; what bothers me about it is why J agreed to it in its current form. I'm expected to believe the following scenario occurred:

Know-nothing townie J receives contract from Gheb (who he has absolutely no reason to trust) proposing that he fundamentally change the way he posts in order to allegedly be easier to read. The agreed upon punishment, should he fail to do this in some way, is that his posts get eaten by black text. His incentive for agreeing to this posting style change and the accompanying consequences for failing to abide to it is...essentially nothing. Why would J agree to this? It doesn't help him. It doesn't help town. And again, this is being submitted by a player that town J wouldn't know anything about. Nothing about that makes sense to me.

J's response to me initially bringing this up is also bothersome. Contrast it to the way July responded to me. July says she didn't fully think through the consequences of the contract and recognizes the problems with it now. There's nothing left to do but follow through with the commitment now. This is fair. J, instead, immediately started defending the stipulations of the contract sent to him and expressed dislike for me because I dared to take issue with it. His response wasn't "oh, I didn't really think about it." His response was "I'm sure Gheb means well. Why are you questioning it?" He doesn't question his decision to trust Gheb for a second, but he "really [does] not like [my] reaction to Gheb's contract" because of how negative it is. Why does he have such a strong allegiance to Gheb already?

It also bothers me that when I expressed distaste for Gheb's choice of punishment, he didn't just defend it, he actually tried to spin it into a positive. Overcompensating much?

Thinking out loud: I'm also confused about how text color changes even qualify as punishments since the mod can't enforce them. A modkill or mod vote would at least be distributed by the mod. And if someone's voteblocked, then the mod can account for that in the votecounts even if the voteblocked player tries to vote. What happens if J breaks contract and just doesn't start posting in black text? Is there a punishment for not following the punishment?

If she loses her votes because she can't find 3 suspicious people on Day 1 in a game with 3 confirmed scumbags then I'd rather have her stay out of the voting process anyway.

I find this extremely unsettling. If she's town, we really, really need her to be able to vote. Otherwise, our only advantage—lynching power—falls out of our hands. I don't care how unlikely you think it is that the punishment won't be necessary (if you really feel that way, then why did you make it so harsh to begin with?). What you're telling me here is that you really have no concern for townies losing their votes. You know who's never concerned with townies losing their ability to vote? Scum.

I'd say the general town mindset would be to look for scum from all sides because there's 2 factions and 3 / 8 players from the anti-town side. I think it should work fine for a townie to point out 3 of these cases.

Then I expect 3 separate cases from you by the end of the Day as well.