@Lift: When is a lie not a lie?

When it's a joke.

For me, the timing and context makes it extremely likely for Agent's claim to be a joke. Certainly likely enough to not lynch him on that basis alone.

These are the possibilities I see, let me know if you think I've omitted anything:
scum!Agent accidentally claims - Unlikely unless Agent has a very short memory
scum!Agent deliberately claims - I can't think of a motive, but if you can then please tell us
town!Agent tells a joke with the intention that it not be taken seriously
town!Agent tells a lie with intent to deceive - Why?

The last one seems to be the basis of your LAL push. What kind of motivation do you see for town!Agent to try and convince us he's mafia? If you think he's scum, which of those possibilities do you believe the most?


I trusted you to do your job correctly, shame on you for breaking my trust! :P

With the theme of the game I'd raise the likelihood slightly, but yeah it's still pretty unlikely.

I must confess I don't know enough about Harry Potter to answer that. I assume not everybody has been a student that was sorted into a House. Just a survivor that wants to fend for themselves, as was already suggested, could do -if there's a third party at all.


My thoughts as well. There's not much difference between lynching because of that and blind-lynching, which is more likely to kill a townie on Day 1.

Regarding the missing player, I'm going to wait till Monday in case it's an "away for the weekend" kind of thing. I've got a sub on standby.

Sorry for the delay, guys, but I don't want so sub anyone on a Sunday before the situation clarifies itself. If necessary, D1 will be extended.

Easily. A few plausible motives for such an opening:

1) Joking for breaking the ice and setting the gears into motion.

This has worked excellently in the service of all.

2) Creating opportunities, by triggering reactions and waiting to see if others trip themselves (a somewhat risky move for a Gryffindor, and even more for a Slytherin).

Both 1) and 2) are enough.

Also more or less within the reasonably plausible:

3) Protection against Gryffindor: A little inverse psychology might favour considering them as non-Slytherin. A bold but potentially beneficial move for a Slytherin. Useful also for any neutral or even Gryffindor that does not want to be voted for (but risky nonetheless).

4) Protection against Slytherin: Since lying is considered by some a sub-par strategy, and a liability to Gryffindor et alter, maybe another motive would be hoping to increase survivability against the special casting phase? (the 'night', in Mugglespeak). Most interesting for a third party.

However, the more complex the approach, the most difficult might be getting away with it, and it is easier to consider the simpler reasons.


*****

Also, a reflection on the power of names, for the rank and file Gryffindor: they provide a way to make claims falsifiable. That is, if X says his name is Y, then Y will see the lie.

Incidentally, if someone is going to lie about his name, then choosing an exotic one is a must. Also, we do know that all of us presently here are, according to Headmaster Dumbledore, prominently mentioned in 'the books' (whatever that is).

Yet no-one does??...


---


Unvotus Lifthrasil

I'm satisfied. I reckon he's probably not scum.


I reckon Trent isn't knowingly on a team with Yogsloth what with posts 54, 55, and 56 goingthe way they did.


I've skimmed what's happened since yesterday but don't really have a chance to catch up properly

But you don't seem to have tied the suggested motives to any of the four possibilities I mentioned but I'll try and infer which you meant.


Enough for what? To lynch him? Or are you saying it's a town motive to lie?


3) I'm guessing this is a motivation for scum!Agent deliberately claiming. Yes, this does seem like a slim possibility. It's things like that that made me reluctant to simply forget about this as Trent apparently thinks we should.

4) Certainly being *slightly* suspicious can be a useful way to avoid being nightkilled or to get a cop to investigate you (or be shot by a vig). I think Carr's action wasn't subtle enough to be an attempt at that. Seems unlikely.


Yeah, names are likely of reasonable importance. Joe ran a game like that a while back and the scum had a name cop which they successfully used to learn my name, claim it and claim that my name was theirs. We (the town) lost. :(

I don't know GameRager or Carradice, but I'm feeling pretty comfortable with both of them... always great to see newer people (at least new to me) active and engaged! Giving a town-lean to both at this point.

Pooka and lift are not scum together.

Caesar and Schnee are both right in the pocket of "could be scum, could be low impact" so both of these folks that I don't know I'd like a lot more from please.

SPF I'm struggling to get a read on because I keep getting confused by his posts. Probably a "me" problem. Need more time here.

RWarehall still utterly disappointing in his try-hardiness town-leading scum catchmaboberr thingamajigity. Vote stays.

Wrong. A town PR that false claims will usually not be believed when they true claim. It makes sense to withhold information, yes. Like a role or number of shots. But an outright false-claim should be a death warrant. Because otherwise you open the doors to all kinds of abuse. As Town, I like a black-and-white world. As scum, I like shades of grey because I can play them. But as Town it is within our power to create a black-and-white scenario. As long as everyone agrees to never, ever lie. No exceptions. Then every lie is a scum-tell, because scum HAS TO lie. That's the ONE difference between Town and Scum. But as soon as we get wishi-washi-wibbely-wobbely and say: oh THIS lie wasn't really a lie ... and that one was a lie, but not really a bad one - then we relinquish our 'black-and-white' advantage and let scum muddy the waters to their benefit.

@agent: yes, yogs deserves to be voted for as well for jumping in on your vote. But if you bother to check the rules, one can only vote for one player at a time. I can't vote for both of you, so I have to make a decision and you started it, so you get the first vote.

This is bullshit. Read before you reply. I didn't say that they would only joje if they are scum. I'll explain it again. Try to follow the reasoning this time.
- their 'joke' can only be true, if they are scum. Because being scum was part of their 'joke' claim. ... With me so far? So, if they didn't lie, they are scum
- However, if they did lie about anything (name or anything else), they are liars. ... You know, the term 'liar' refers to someone who lies.

Which leads to the easy conclusion: if they didn't lie, they are scum, because they said so. But if they aren't scum, then they lied and are therefore liars. There is no other possibility. It's simple logic.

But fine, the LAL tenet only works if all townies are following the code. I won't be able to uphold it on my own. So let's let those filthy liars live for now.

unvotus

At least it got us talking.

If we have a cop/other similar role I hope they "investigatus" one of the following: Lift(due to his insistence on the LAL thing), Rwarehall(for doing the same, albeit to a lesser extent), or one of the two who claimed to be slytherins(to see if they are silly town or clever scum).

All of those four seem equally valid targets for such at this point, imo......to either find scum, or clear a town.

That sucks.....hopefully the cop will be on our side this time. :) ===================================================================

Yeah i'm mostly newish to the game(not havign played as many games as some others).....that plus my play style and bad memory make it hard to play and do well, yet I keep trying. :)

So then you suspect one of them? Just curious(if so) which it might be, and why.

Seeing as how we must wait for "day one" to end until we see how the situation with sanscript works out, we have more than enough time for people to get a feel on everyone else, I think.

Lol at the way you wrote this line.

No, I'm just saying that *if* one of them is scum, I doubt very much the other one is as well, due to the way they've interacted. It's not necessary for one of them to be scum - they could both be town as well.

Just throwing out random associative reads.

Fair enough, but I don't think that's good enough reason for them to possibly not do such or not make any advantage for their fellow town that they can. I'd rather such town players lie and help us win by lying(albeit sparingly and only when needed to help us win) than be 100% truthful and lose us that edge.

Dunno if that makes sense or not(sometimes I find it hard to articulate some ideas well)

Yes, but in order to hide that role is scum or even fellow town ask if one is vanilla or not they need to lie if need be when asked.

Your post bit here makes you sound like a certain player with a certain playstyle from the SH game....also remember how his sticking to that play style(in part) lost the liberals the game?

Yet you seem to want to stick to that play style and seemingly want to see/paint anyone who lies as a likely scum regardless, just as that player in the SH game thought anyone not following their style of play/stances was suspect...and we all know how well that went.

In short: To me your strict LAL stance seems to be a bit anti-town from my pov....though knowing how good I am at such games I could be a bit wrong....still, it feels a bit right to me, for some reason.

Question: As they seem to be both equally likely to be town or scum as much as the other, if one did get lynched and showed up town would you then go after the other & try to get them lynched as well? What would your next move be if the first pick of yours got lynched and shown to be town?

If you're truly town and just pulling a scene style play here(uplholding your own way of play) that is fine, but it could harm us more than help us in the long run.....just my two cents.

That it did.....so if I may ask: Besides yourself, who of the ones I suspect(Rwarehall, Yogsloth, Agent) do you also suspect and why? Or who else do you suspect and why? And who do you think is more likely to be town and why?

Thanks in advance for your input on this.

I figured as much...that or you were trying to start the GOG Joe Joestar fan club perhaps.
============================================================

Sounds good and thanks for the clarification.

So, you berate me for a play style that I just agreed to drop. Even quoting the sentence, where I dropped it. ... Aren't you a bit late with that critique?

Lift: "OK. I'll stop."
GR: "Lift! You really should stop! If you continue this might harm us!"

Admit it, you had that sentence all thought out beforehand and just wanted to post it. Even though it had become redundant by the time. :-)


Actually I do suspect you a bit. Not for the quoted sentence above, but for keeping your vote on me even though the reason you put it there was wrong. Which you were shown and agreed that it was wrong. But still you kept your vote there 'until someone better comes along'. This might be laziness, or it might be convenience of a scum who really doesn't care on which Townie he places his vote.

Similar, but in a stronger flavour, is Pooka. He just let his RVS vote sit and later tried to fit a narrative to justify his vote. He even accused me of saying something which I didn't say. So, I am tempted to vote Pooka, but I'll wait for his reply first.

The third one who sticks out, even if merely by absence, is sanscript.

Accio sanscipt

sancript, come and play with us. Or, if you realized that you can't play after all, please ask the mod for a replacement so that the game doesn't get held up by your absence.

This be my answer!

OK. So it's either they're scum, or they're liars. However, isn't that iffy? You're proposing that if they not lying, then they're scum, so LYNCH THEM! And you're also proposing that if they are lying, then there is this thing called the Lynch All Liars tenet...so LYNCH THEM! Ultimately, no matter which way you swing, you want to LYNCH THEM. That's what I saw at first, and that's what I saw up until you went back on your idea a sentence later. We ideally want to lynch only scum, not scum and "liars" who "lied" on their joke claims. You make the distinction between scum and liars as if they're super important, yet you give both words the same final treatment, ultimately making the distinction look like a bunch of silly semantics.

You haven't convinced me enough to take my vote off you. Unless you do better, my vote stays where it is. I'm calling this a case of "backtracking" because this avenue didn't work out well for you, and you only retreated when all eyes were on you.

Classic GameRager *rolls eyes*