Townie by Night... Jester by Day?

[Phate]

Is there ever a time when it is appropriate as a vanilla townie to try to get yourself lynched?

If so, when?

Hypothetical situation: newbie game, D1. You're under a lot of pressure from some players that you think are scum, and the town isn't opposed to your lynch. You realise that if you're not lynched, the scum would leave you alone at night and try to mislynch you ftw during the day.

You consider a possible path to take: conspicuously ignore arguments against you, instead making cases against those you think are scum which will later be interpretedi n the context of your confirmed towniness.

How many of you think this is a valid strategy?

Discuss.

[Adele]

3. Valid? Maybe? Good? Very very seldom, and only in the hands of a much more advanced player. People have a tendency to always think they are right. They aren't. You encourage, one way or another, town-damaging play in the hopes of being paid more attention to later, it's because you think your opinions are

much

better than everyone else's. They almost certainly aren't.

[Primate]

4 man endgame. SK, mafia goon, townie, townie. Some people people might argue that that's not a bad time for a vanilla townie to get lynched.

[gorckat]

I tried to make a similar argument

against

another player who I thought was the last scum in Mini 486. I argued he should be lynched so as not to distract us from less scummy seeming players the last 2 possible days. Didn't work and I got hung for it

Also, having hammered myself once (when I was convinced that a certain player was the final scum and my lynch would show it) and being wrong, I agree with Adele- leave it to the pros

[cicero]

My first game, newbie

499

436

, I argued that the town should lynch me because I'd become too distracting. They complied. Town lost. I wouldnt do it again. But really it could have been a good scum trap. The other players just needed to pick up on it and didnt. The guy that hammered me was scum. Still all in all, no, not a good idea.


(edited: thanks Andycyca)

[pablito]

Never get lynched as townie or even try, but gaining suspicion in D1 can be a valid strategy in the hands of an experienced player. But as a pro-town player, it is not good to actually get lynched. Can be a strategy to get close though so that one can evaluate voting history and get a better read on others. I love getting early attention in D1, but I don't sustain the focus for that long.

[Andycyca]

My first game, newbie 499, I argued that the town should lynch me because I'd become too distracting. They complied. Town lost. I wouldnt do it again. But really it could have been a good scum trap. The other players just needed to pick up on it and didnt. The guy that hammered me was scum. Still all in all, no, not a good idea.

Actually it was Newbie 436

Even if you're townie-lynched, that doesn't automatically make all your previous statements true, only your intentions. Your hypothetical case says it's a newbie, and a D1 mislynch in C9 almost surely ends in LYLO for town, which I don't have to say it's bretty bad (for the Town)

[BrianMcQueso]

4 man endgame. SK, mafia goon, townie, townie. Some people people might argue that that's not a bad time for a vanilla townie to get lynched.

Agreed. In fact, any other play is suboptimal for the town. Lynching one of the scummies costs the town the game, and a no lynch day decreases the odds that the baddies cross-kill, which is the only chance for the town to win.

Hypothetical situation: newbie game, D1. You're under a lot of pressure from some players that you think are scum, and the town isn't opposed to your lynch. You realise that if you're not lynched, the scum would leave you alone at night and try to mislynch you ftw during the day.

If a player ignores your behavior on the first day and then tries to punish you for it on a later Lynch-or-Lose day, they're probably doing it intentionally. Simply point this out and remind them that they are dirty scum.

Don't just give up because a few people strongly believe you're scum.

[Seol]

The old newbie games - 1 cop, 1 doc, 2 scum, 3 townies - were broken by having the cop claim day 1. At this point, if the cop could claim uncountered, it was essential the doc wasn't outed, and having a townie die actually gave the town better chances of a guaranteed win the next day (due to the mass claim catching scum in lies because of limited claim possibilities). A real corner-case, but that's another of the very, very few situations where even unpressured a townie should volunteer for the lynch.

[Yosarian2]

Is there ever a time when it is appropriate as a vanilla townie to try to get yourself lynched?

If so, when?

Hypothetical situation: newbie game, D1. You're under a lot of pressure from some players that you think are scum, and the town isn't opposed to your lynch. You realise that if you're not lynched, the scum would leave you alone at night and try to mislynch you ftw during the day.

You consider a possible path to take: conspicuously ignore arguments against you, instead making cases against those you think are scum which will later be interpretedi n the context of your confirmed towniness.

How many of you think this is a valid strategy?

Discuss.

Well, if the scum have to work harder to lynch you, that's great, that makes them more obveous.

Don't worry about the scum trying to lynch you; scum can never lynch you by themselves. If you're being bandwagoned as a townie, your job is to convince the pro-town people on your wagon that you're pro-town, and remember you don't really know which ones those are.

I can't count the number of times I've been very close to being lynched, then convinced people of my innocence to such a degree that I either lived until end-game or the scum eventually had to nightkill me.

That being said, you SHOULD keep trying to make cases against other people, just as much as you would normally. You should also respond and defend against every point raised against you.

[The Fonz]

That being said, you SHOULD keep trying to make cases against other people, just as much as you would normally. You should also respond and defend against every point raised against you.

And threaten nuclear reprisals should anyone accuse you of being 'overly defensive' for doing so.

[Yosarian2]

That being said, you SHOULD keep trying to make cases against other people, just as much as you would normally. You should also respond and defend against every point raised against you.

And threaten nuclear reprisals should anyone accuse you of being 'overly defensive' for doing so.

Heh...agreed.

I stopped trusting the "overly defensive" scumtell once I noticed that the easiest scum-trick to get someone lynched was to attack them, then when they defend themselves, accuse them of being "defensive".

[Kelly Chen]

When you're about to be lynched it's probably different, but in general I do think it is fishy to diligently defend against every point or theory someone makes against you. If you can't actually refute it, and no one else has taken to it, why draw more attention to it?

I don't really understand Fonz' sig. If I make some convoluted theory that Fonz is scum and he calls it the most ridiculous case ever, regardless of whether I think he's overdefensive (which is how I would interpret some kind of hyperbolic reaction to my theory), I don't see what I get out of trying to convince

him

that it's not ridiculous. If other players don't find it ridiculous then I'm good to go...

[Yosarian2]

When you're about to be lynched it's probably different, but in general I do think it is fishy to diligently defend against every point or theory someone makes against you. If you can't actually refute it, and no one else has taken to it, why draw more attention to it?

Because ignoring a logical attack someone made on you, in the hopes that other people won't notice, IS scummy, IMHO. I tend to think that a townie is more likely to be able to confidently and honestly respond to whatever arguments are made against him, while a scum who'e been attacked with a logical and correct argument is more likely to just be quiet about it and hope it goes away.

Again, this generally applies to logical arguemtns, points, and theories, and ignoring minor points isn't necessarally terrible, but for the most part if I attack someone, and they don't respond, I grow more suspicious of them, and I tend to think a good guy should always try to respond to attacks rather then ignore them.

[Kelly Chen]

I'm not sure how a good guy should respond to attacks that he can't refute. I think what I find suspicious is the appearance that the suspected person overestimates how well they're arguing against some point.

What if I just say "I think Yos may be scum with Fonz" with no explanation? Is it your job to pull an explanation out of me so that you can argue against it? I think I would find it suspicious if you put more energy into it than I did to say it. If I were Yos/Fonz I don't think I would respond to that comment unless I was totally baffled by it.

[Yosarian2]

I'm not sure how a good guy should respond to attacks that he can't refute. I think what I find suspicious is the appearance that the suspected person overestimates how well they're arguing against some point.

What if I just say "I think Yos may be scum with Fonz" with no explanation? Is it your job to pull an explanation out of me so that you can argue against it? I think I would find it suspicious if you put more energy into it than I did to say it. If I were Yos/Fonz I don't think I would respond to that comment unless I was totally baffled by it.

Well, you notice that I specifically mentioned "logical" arguments. If someone says "Yos is scum" and dosn't give a reason, I might just ignore them.

But yeah, if you said that, I very likely would ask for an explination so that I could argue against it. Not only because I want to defend myself, but in order to get a better idea of your thought processes.

Basically, I tend to think that any un-responded to argument against you is a time bomb. Even if no one mentiones it right away, everyone reads it, and it sits in the back of their minds, waiting for some more supporting evidence. If you say day 1 "Yos and Fonz are scum together", I'll respond and defend myself, sure; because if I don't, and Fonz dies day 3, it's quite likely that a lot of people will then suspect there was a link between him me,

even if they don't remember exactally why they suspect that

, just because the idea was planted in their heads and I never bothered to refute it.

[Xect]

Well, you notice that I specifically mentioned "logical" arguments. If someone says "Yos is scum" and dosn't give a reason, I might just ignore them.

It's my impression that actual valid logical arguments are a very rare occurrence in mafia. It's part of the premise of the game that you're denied a solid basis for arguments.

So how do you distinguish a logical argument that needs refuting from a baseless shot in the dark that no one cares about? I think it's a fine line between refuting arguments and not being so defensive as to hamper the towns efforts to get a productive discussion going.

[Kelly Chen]

It's my impression that actual valid logical arguments are a very rare occurrence in mafia. It's part of the premise of the game that you're denied a solid basis for arguments.

There aren't that many decisive arguments (except perhaps as regards night abilities) but that doesn't mean you don't have logical ones.

[Ythill]

It's my impression that actual valid logical arguments are a very rare occurrence in mafia. It's part of the premise of the game that you're denied a solid basis for arguments.

There aren't that many decisive arguments (except perhaps as regards night abilities) but that doesn't mean you don't have logical ones.

I think there are a fair number of opportunities for fact-based arguments. Voting patterns, number of posts, sig:noise ratio, meta-habits, etc, can all be quantified thoroughly enough. Pointing out misinformation is almost always fact-based and logical.

Back on topic though... here's a scenario that would even apply to D1: The town has an unrevokable deadline, you believe there is scum on your wagon, and it has come down to lynching you or settling for no lynch. Also might be applicable if the realistic lynch choices are you or someone you are absolutely convinced is a townie power-role, or is that still based too much on speculation?

[Sarcastro]

Now that it's over, I can mention Mini 463, which I modded. The four living players were Glork, Pooky, MoS and Alko. Glork was Mafia, Alko was SK, Pooky was a Mason, and MoS was a Townie. Pooky was basically confirmed, and Glork and MoS both correctly thought that Alko was the SK, but Alko didn't know who the remaining mafioso was. MoS correctly tried to get himself lynched to force a prisoner's dilemma. Unfortunately for the town, Glork was deadline-lynched instead and Alko won.

I win the thread.