xkcd

by **Silknor** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:11 am UTC

Mav, I of course agree that it's best if the scum (and everyone) are forced to use their truthifies. I see this even though I don't believe there is currently any worthy use for the lie detector. But using up all our lie detectors in order to force the use of scum truthifies is obviously suboptimal. Which means in practice, it only works if some town have secret extra truthifies, they lie to the town about using their lie detector, or after the plan is started, they announce they won't participate in the lie detecting part (which of course puts suspicion on them).

Yes it's a gain to make the scum waste truthifies, though I think it's a very small one. But if the plan short-circuits that goal anyway, it's not exactly progress.

I admit Mav, you may have thought of some use for the lie detector that is valid, that I don't see, and that would be ruined if revealed now. But I think it's more likely you have an idea which probably won't work, though you believe it will. I can't take that leap of faith here.

Boom's reply does nothing to convince me of the plan's utility. I consider it too big a risk, with a only a small chance of an upside. I refuse to participate in it. If this is all you need to lynch me, and the only way to stop that is to give in to the plan, I will still not be going along with it. Besides that I think it's a bad idea (though obviously from my perspective, it's better than being lynched), I figure if you're going to lynch me over this you won't abandon that if I give in. So I ask that if my fate is sealed, that I not be brought to Lynch-1 (thus allowing an "accidental" scum hammer or simply a careless townie to kill me) before I have a chance to pick a statement to lie detect and report the results (note the same logic dictates that no one should vote on day 3 until their target has affirmed they have used their lie detector).

Now hopefully, you won't lynch me over my refusal to participate in plan which I honestly believe is harmful to the town. In which case, we can either put this flawed plan behind us and move on to scum hunting*, or the rest of you can execute the parts of the plan you can without me (to the best of my knowledge, I've only contributed one statement, the I am town, that fits into the plan, though checking that would be useless as Mav already claimed she did).

I normally refrain from posting in the discussion thread when I'm not modding, but I feel this warrants an exception.

*While the discussion thus far in this thread would imply otherwise by the relatively minor presence of scumhunting analysis, I believe it is possible, even reasonable, for the town to win without the use of the lie detectors!

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:15 am UTC

Well, if we are not claiming then I'd vote for Silknor today anyway. So how about we just go ahead and skip Silknor and finish claiming, Silknor can use his detector as he sees fit and we will see where we stand from there.

Does that work for you everyone else besides Silknor?

by **Angua** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:33 am UTC

I don't really mind if we skip Silknor, though I think we should move boomfrog further up the list.

by **weiyaoli** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:19 pm UTC

Deadline is probably Tuesday next week to give you the weekend and some for those who don't post on weekends. Most likely the same time.

by **Mavketl** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:48 pm UTC

Definitely finish claiming. Give Silknor ample time to use his detector. I think I would like his choice of target if he is town.

My vote will depend on today's claims. I'm seriously confused by Silknor: he's actually been acting townie recently, but I can't believe he wouldn't see the really obvious thing I have tried so hard to subtly point out.

Angua wrote:I don't really mind if we skip Silknor, though I think we should move boomfrog further up the list.

Would you mind going first, BoomFrog? I randomly put you in that list, if anyone (like Angua) has another preference that works fine for me.

by **Angua** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:05 pm UTC

I think BF going first would be good. I'll let you two decide when you want me to claim.

by **Silknor** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:47 pm UTC

I just had an idea.

I recommend everyone post the following statement:
As of the time of this post, I have not used an ability, including but not limited to the truthify each player begins with and the truthify that the mod granted to a scum due to the modkill, that alters or reverses the truth value of any statement, or set of statements, or ensures it will be considered true or false, be it mine or another's.

After much thought, I decided not to include "nor, to the best of my knowledge, has anyone used such an ability on any statement of mine." This would trigger if the scum anticipated this strategy and so truthified the other's "I am town" claim. However, it may run afoul of the golding rule, potentially ruining the whole exercise, and in any case, it seems unlikely that the dead scum would have truthified their allies claim and the living scum did not do the same (if they did, the omitted part is not necessary due to the "or another's" part. Thus I do not consider it much of a loss.

Now it's obvious for this to have any benefit, it must be done before Boomfrog's plan. As of now, no townie should have used truthify. If you've used truthify so far, you better post that reason, clearly marked, in your next post. I strongly recommend all players cease any posting of the statements related to Boomfrog's plan until all players have posted my statement (and of course, not lie detect yet). As a side benefit, doing this plan will actually make Boomfrog's plan better, as long as everyone posts my statement before proceeding with his plan, because it can deprive the scum of one of their truthifies, thus meaning if they are vanilla, they will still not be able to truthify all their statements (unless for some reason their ally truthified their town claim and they didn't return the favor). Of course, if they aren't vanilla, it might not help much, but I don't see how it will hurt (unless we suboptimally allocate lie detectors between the two plans, though this seems unlikely because in the worst case you all can use your detectors on his plan and I can use mine on mine, since I wasn't likely to use mine on his plan anyway).

If you don't, in your next post, claim that you've used your truthify (or another ability that would run afoul of my statement) and why, or provide a really good reason why you shouldn't say this, then don't expect to claim, as an excuse to coming up false on a lie detector of my statement, that you've already used such an ability.

I do understand that the tone of this post may have come across a little insistent. I'm open to the possibility that my plan is flawed in some way, even to the possibility that posting my statement is a bad idea. If you have a reason why, I'm open to being convinced. But if not, I ask that you not continue with Boomfrog's plan until we've either all posted my statement (and any claims that truthify has already been used), or until we determine my plan is a bad idea.

by **Mavketl** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:43 pm UTC

I have not used my truthify.

Or,

As of the time of this post, I have not used an ability, including but not limited to the truthify each player begins with and the truthify that the mod granted to a scum due to the modkill, that alters or reverses the truth value of any statement, or set of statements, or ensures it will be considered true or false, be it mine or another's.

by **BoomFrog** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:43 am UTC

Nice. I'm starting to feel better about Silknor, although that leaves me wondering who the heck is the scum. Np claiming next but I'll hold off making my truthified nonsense statement until we get a mod confirmation that this works the way we think it does.

I am a tracker.

I followed Mav last night and she targeted me.

If a scum player has truthified "I am town" and then later makes the below statement, will the below statement detect as false?

As of the time of this post, I have not used an ability, including but not limited to the truthify each player begins with and the truthify that the mod granted to a scum due to the modkill, that alters or reverses the truth value of any statement, or set of statements, or ensures it will be considered true or false, be it mine or another's.

by **Angua** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:15 am UTC

I have not used my truthify.

Or,

As of the time of this post, I have not used an ability, including but not limited to the truthify each player begins with and the truthify that the mod granted to a scum due to the modkill, that alters or reverses the truth value of any statement, or set of statements, or ensures it will be considered true or false, be it mine or another's.

Should I go next, or Mav? I don't mind either way.

by **BoomFrog** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:44 pm UTC

Yeah go ahead. I think we've got this in the bag so lets finish the formalities.

by **Angua** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:51 pm UTC

Ok.

I am a cop

I copped Silknor last night, and he came up town.

All manatees are rainbow coloured.

I'll truthify that when we get a response from the mod, so don't lie detect it until I've said I've done that.

by **Mavketl** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 6:48 pm UTC

wtf boomfrog.

i am vanilla. i tried my best to get killed n1, as angua said (by the way why onearth would you point that out?), which is also why i used my detector on d1.

i did not target boomfrog in any way shape or form.

clouds are made of lead. (didnt truthify yet as per request)

I will be back onlinne sunday evening. dont fuckin finish this before the deadline. oh and dont lynch silknor after what angua gave us obviously.

crappy post because from ereader.

by **Silknor** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:58 am UTC

Still waiting to hear something from slbub regarding my previous post.

by **BoomFrog** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:39 am UTC

Wtf indeed.

I can't see Scum Mav lying about that unless there are two scum or at least another indie left. I doubt both of those possibilities. Town Mav has no reason to lie either.

The other possibility is a scum power. Hologramer seems unlikely. Maybe a redirection? If I was redirected onto Webby and Webby targeted me. It seems unlikely but still more likely then Scum Mav drawing attention to herself.

by **Angua** » Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:48 pm UTC

I want to hear from slbub before we start trying to figure out what is going on with Mav and BF. That way we'll have as much information as possible. Boomfrog making up the fact that they are a tracker and that they targeted Mav last night seems odd - I can see making up that you're a tracker, but why choose Mav - slbub saying that they are vanilla would seem to be a better target as you could just say that you didn't get anything when you tracked them.

by **BoomFrog** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:03 am UTC

weiyaoli wrote:Deadline is probably Tuesday next week to give you the weekend and some for those who don't post on weekends. Most likely the same time.

We don't really have a lot of time.

Modprod on slbub? And an extension perhaps?

by **weiyaoli** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:05 pm UTC

Prodded. No extension planned at this stage, although if slbub comes in with huge amounts of stuff then maybe this will be revised.

by **Angua** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:27 pm UTC

I know slbub mentioned in another thread that they had a lot of work, however we really need them to chip in here before we do anything. Personally, I still think slbub is the scummiest of us, however the BF/Mav thing is extremely confusing. Assuming they are both town, then a redirect on boomfrog seems to be the most likely explanation.

by **Silknor** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:52 pm UTC

Mod: Reposting question from earlier.

BoomFrog wrote:If a scum player has truthified "I am town" and then later makes the below statement, will the below statement detect as false?

As of the time of this post, I have not used an ability, including but not limited to the truthify each player begins with and the truthify that the mod granted to a scum due to the modkill, that alters or reverses the truth value of any statement, or set of statements, or ensures it will be considered true or false, be it mine or another's.

Mod: Also, what will happen if slbub does not respond to prod before deadline? Replace/kill/nothing?

The answer to this question is very important to our strategy.

If slbub is going to be replaced we can proceed normally.

If they're going to be killed at the end of the day/end of the night, then it is highly likely the correct answer is no lynch. This is a standard tactic when you have 3 town and 1 scum. If we have 2 scum, then if slbub is scum, this strategy is the same as 3 town and 1 scum. If slbub is not scum, then presumably we lose if the mod kills them, no matter who we lynch (since there are 2 scum and 2 town after their death). If there is 1 scum, then a lynch of a townie puts us in the position of 1 town 1 scum making it to day 3, so we lose (assuming NK goes through). No lynch puts us at 2 town, 1 scum.

If nothing is going to happen if they stay inactive, then I think we have to lynch them. If they're town and remain inactive on D3, when it'll probably be 1 scum 2 town, that would most likely lead us to a no lynch at lylo, which results in scum winning by endgame.

by **weiyaoli** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:59 pm UTC

Truthifying "I am town" will have no effect on that statement.

If slbub does not post before deadline, they will be modkilled, unless there is someone willing to replace him at this point in time.

by **Mavketl** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:18 pm UTC

Cue slbub posting some useless crap in order to stay alive. >.>

Anyhow, about today's lynch.

I trust Angua about being a cop and the cop result. A copclaiming scum would not go for "Silknor is town" as they were considered a likely lynch target earlier today. That means I also trust Silknor is town. So I guess it's between BF and slbub for me.

I've given BoomFrog's claim some thought, and I think he is likely scum.
1) If you're looking for someone to claim to have "tracked", you pick the person who has been hinting at having a power all game long.
2) If you're town in the scenario he describes, and your target replies with a denial and "I'm vanilla" - you don't back off. Claiming vanilla is such an easy way out for scum, how can you possibly think that there is some weird thing with double redirections rather than "Mav is probably scum" if you actually have those results and I have no plausible explanation for how that happened? That's right, because you know I'm telling the truth. But you wouldn't know that if you were town.

Equally, if I have to choose between "BoomFrog is lying" and "scum has some really weird powers that give BF a result that someone with no powers whatsoever has used a power on someone", I'm going to go for "BF is lying".

Can I truthify my nonsense statement yet so people can target my other stuff if they want to? We're getting awfully close to the deadline here.

by **Mavketl** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:19 pm UTC

Oh and yeah, if we're sure of a modkill, we should no-lynch of course... but we can't know if slbub is going to post today until the day is over. Which kind of sucks.

[b]I guess we can't do conditional votes?[b/]

(example:

If slbub does not post, vote: no-lynch

If slbub does post, vote: [person]
)

by **Angua** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:28 pm UTC

I think truthifying stuff now should be ok, as we got the answer we wanted. I've pm'ed weiyaoli the truthify request - I'll say here when I get a response (assuming I'm online at the time).

Reposted from Mav in case tag fail causes problems:
I guess we can't do conditional votes?

(example:

If slbub does not post, vote: no-lynch

If slbub does post, vote: [person]
)

by **Silknor** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:34 pm UTC

If slbub posts "some useless crap", and by that I mean they don't post at least one of:
1. My statement to verify they haven't used their truthify
2. A disclaimer saying they have used their truthify and why
3. A good reason why my plan is a bad idea

Then I think we should lynch them, unless people want to use their lie detectors on various person's postings of my statement and look for scum that way, lynching slbub if no results come up true.

Slbub having nothing to contribute is one thing, something understandable. But not posting as the game nears the end is very dangerous to the town. And if he doesn't post at least one of the three things I mentioned above (but does make some useless post to avoid modkill), it's hard to escape the conclusion that he's probably scared of that statement. Though I'm not sure why, presumably the scum has another truthify. My statement was never intended to actually find the scum, I always expected the best it could do was force them to use their modkill-granted truthify on it, thus making Boom's plan viable (and possibly Mav's, if they do have a plan distinct from mine). But it is of course possible the scum had something else they wanted to truthify, meaning they would be caught by my statement.

Mav, I see no reason you couldn't truthify the nonsense now (same for everyone but slbub, who would need to finish their useful post first). But without slbub being active, I don't think his plan is going to do much. We know we have 3-4 lie detectors (you used yours, and the scum can't be trusted, of course if you are the scum, we have 4). Slbub being inactive means that becomes 2-3, and if he's the scum, we can't find that out through Boom's plan, which means either we'll have all true results, and not know if we choose the wrong statements or the scum has the power to mess with them, some false statements, which will be due to scum interference and (if slbub is scum) lead us wrong.

by **Mavketl** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:39 pm UTC

Truthified. (the nonsense statement about clouds)

Silknor: the reason why I was so eager to "go on" with BoomFrog's plan was exactly because I wanted everyone to use their truthifies. I would've called a stop to it before it came to using actual lie detectors. Hence my appeal to you to "postpone your arguments".

@slbub, I hate this situation. I think he is being a really bad townie, but the problem is that we have no way of telling. I suspect BoomFrog more than him because of what I explained above, but it sucks that he is lurking the whole game.

by **Angua** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:35 pm UTC

My statement has been truthified now.

by **BoomFrog** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:51 am UTC

All Elephants are green.

^-truthified.

Mavketl wrote:2) If you're town in the scenario he describes, and your target replies with a denial and "I'm vanilla" - you don't back off. Claiming vanilla is such an easy way out for scum, how can you possibly think that there is some weird thing with double redirections rather than "Mav is probably scum" if you actually have those results and I have no plausible explanation for how that happened? That's right, because you know I'm telling the truth. But you wouldn't know that if you were town.

If you are scum you would be playing a very dangerous game by lying and claiming vanilla even though it contridicts a townie. You claimed last so you could make up any story that you want to. If you are scum you had two choices:

1) Claim vanilla and call me out for lying. I get lynched and you are very likely lynched D3.
2) Claim Watcher or some other power, confirm me and yourself as likely town leaving slbub to get lynched and a good shot at winning D3.

My best theory is a single redirection. Either I ended up tracking webby who did target me or I ended up tracking myself and saw that I targeted me.

I really don't see scum Mav going for option 1 when we are at 5 people. Now that we are at possibly 4 though things get trickier. By elimination I still think slbub is the most likely scum. Assuming he is going to get modkilled we should use our detects now on other people.

by **Silknor** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:28 am UTC

Mod: Can we have a precise deadline? Thanks.

In anticipation that slbub will be modkilled without replacement:
Vote: No lynch

If he posts or the mod announces he'll be replaced, I'll unvote.

by **weiyaoli** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:13 am UTC

Slbub is modkilled as he has PMed me that he cannot play. His role will be revealed tomorrow.

Deadline is 8PM GMT+1 today.

by **Mavketl** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:15 am UTC

Vote: no-lynch

Don't hammer before the deadline in my opinion, if anyone does want to use their truthify (I don't think we should prescribe anything though) they have the time to do it and report back.

by **Silknor** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 6:53 am UTC

Agree, we probably need all the time we can get, so no one should hammer no-lynch, we'll just run the clock out.

I'm leaning towards people using their lie detectors today.

As soon as I submit this post, I'm going to PM the mod to truthify the following statement:

The sum of all prime numbers is 42.

by **Mavketl** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:44 am UTC

I think the townie who is not Angua should consider saving their lie detector for tomorrow, for the "If you lynch me, town will lose" kind of thing. Not sure though, figure it out for yourself

I think Angua should definitely use her lie detector today, because it seems unlikely that she will be alive tomorrow.

by **Angua** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:52 am UTC

Guys - no one else no-lynch until I have a chance to get my results back. Lie detector has been used and I'm waiting with baited breath. Hopefully you'll think that I made the right decision what what to lie detect.

by **Angua** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:17 pm UTC

BoomFrog wrote:Nice. I'm starting to feel better about Silknor, although that leaves me wondering who the heck is the scum. Np claiming next but I'll hold off making my truthified nonsense statement until we get a mod confirmation that this works the way we think it does.

I am a tracker.

I followed Mav last night and she targeted me.

As of the time of this post, I have not used an ability, including but not limited to the truthify each player begins with and the truthify that the mod granted to a scum due to the modkill, that alters or reverses the truth value of any statement, or set of statements, or ensures it will be considered true or false, be it mine or another's.

I lie detected the bolded part, and it came back false. (I did say that I was wanting to know if bf truly thought that they were targeted - hopefully it's not the mod messing with us in that there is some sort of redirect power and the lie detector gives absolute truth, not relative (from the perspective of the speaker truth). So, bf was lying about being targeted by Mav.

Vote Boomfrog

by **Silknor** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:41 pm UTC

Please unvote. If you're wrong, and Mav or I were scum, we could vote Boom at the last minute. While it wouldn't be a hammer, it would most likely lose twenty dollars and my self respect for the town (after lynch and NK, we'd have 1 scum 1 town, scum wins by endgame).

by **Silknor** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:42 pm UTC

EBWOP: In case the word filters made that unclear, it should read that a second vote on Boom from one of the people now voting no lynch would cause the town to lose if Boom is not scum because he'd be lynched at deadline and scum would win by endgame in all likelihood.

by **Angua** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:44 pm UTC

ok
unvote

by **Angua** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:47 pm UTC

As slbub has been modkilled - does his vote still count?

Not that it matters as two people have voted no-lynch - however worried that BF could use that to their advantage if hte vote now and it ends up with Silknor being lynched. I don't want ot hammer without they getting a chance to talk though.

by **weiyaoli** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:57 pm UTC

Votals:
No Lynch (2): Silknor, Mavketl

4 alive, 3 to lynch.

Who is online