stop fakeclaiming as town!: the case for lynch all liars

[Jake The Wolfie]

The town should not always tell the truth, or else the scum will assume that everything spoken anywhere is 100% true, which gives them even more of an edge than they already do. Now, I'm not suggesting to lie your ass off, but to be strictly truthful gives the mafia an edge.

Also, if you're ever caught in a lie, you'll always be executed under the assumption that lying = scum.

[Jake The Wolfie]

As a scum player at heart, I'll always take town shrouded in paranoia over some bits of info about who has what role or what they did during some nights

Ah, but that paranoia would also exist even with a truthful town, since the town don't know who they can trust.

[Jake The Wolfie]

I would more likely to trust someone who I know said true in past and I'm very likely to ignore everything that comes from person who likes fakeclaims and gambits

Then you're not scumreading them for lying, you're ignoring them because they are continuing a trend of lies.

[Jake The Wolfie]

I would more likely to trust someone who I know said true in past and I'm very likely to ignore everything that comes from person who likes fakeclaims and gambits

Then you're not scumreading them for lying, you're ignoring them because they are continuing a trend of lies.

You know, when you TR someone and you want execute them same time, it isn't healthy for a game, also, if I can't trust someone, I'm losing on info, if that person is being truthful. Another thing that other people will scumread them and they would clog thread with it while people who TR liar would fight first group. In the end you'll misexecute someone in the end, because you had not enough time to actually find scum due both groups bickering. I've seen that happen too many times

That's not explicitly caused by LaL vs non-LaL, though.
Firstly, you start the response by advocating against Policy execution, which I admire, but isn't really relevant.
Any town which is divided on whether someone is scummy or not will probably misexe, regardless of the reasons, because people have different evidentary standards that have to be met before they will believe.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Both hurt your credibility in future games.

Why should I care about my credibility in future games, if I should be playing to win this specific game?

[Jake The Wolfie]

If you lie about faking a guilty or being a mason, no one will believe when it’s actually true. Hrnce, The Boy Who Cried Wolf type of thing because META.

So.. I shouldn't do something... because it will damage my meta..

which will affect future games

.

Why should I care about future games?

[Jake The Wolfie]

If you lie about faking a guilty or being a mason, no one will believe when it’s actually true. Hrnce, The Boy Who Cried Wolf type of thing because META.

So.. I shouldn't do something... because it will damage my meta..

which will affect future games

.

Why should I care about future games?

That was just a point on top of the bigger point that faking guilties and Masons doesn’t help you win the current game. It hurts you in both the current and future games.

So gambits can hurt you, so what? That's the whole point of a gambit.

[Jake The Wolfie]

If you fake a cop guilty, you're taking away the part of the game where you argue about your reads (i.e. the whole fun of the game for VTs) and deciding your judgement is all that matters. If you're wrong you threw the game for your team and didn't give them the chance to try, which is terrible. But even if you win, you think you're getting all this glory from your great play but the rest of the town feels robbed of actually getting to play the game.

So you shouldn't lie.. because it will make your team feel bad?

[Jake The Wolfie]

If you lie about faking a guilty or being a mason, no one will believe when it’s actually true. Hrnce, The Boy Who Cried Wolf type of thing because META.

So.. I shouldn't do something... because it will damage my meta..

which will affect future games

.

Why should I care about future games?

That was just a point on top of the bigger point that faking guilties and Masons doesn’t help you win the current game. It hurts you in both the current and future games.

So gambits can hurt you, so what? That's the whole point of a gambit.

That's half the point. The other is that they might help.

Thank you for your correction. Yes, a gambit is meant to be a risky play, there is a lot to gain from pulling it off, and a lot to lose for failing to pull it off.

[Jake The Wolfie]

So you shouldn't lie.. because it will make your team feel bad?

Yes. Not ruining the game for a majority of the other players in a game people play for fun is a good reason to not do something.

So why should we then execute someone for lying, instead of making it an official rule to never lie as town?

[Jake The Wolfie]

But yeah, I feel like fake-claiming a guilty as town is on par with posting your scumteam as you replace out as scum.

Even if your fake guilty results in a scum getting axed?

[Jake The Wolfie]

How is faking a guilty being an asshole?

How is gambiting in general being an asshole?

[Jake The Wolfie]

So basically it is never ok to gambit ever, and you must cooperate with your teammates or else you're being an asshole?

[Jake The Wolfie]

I'm sure you could come up with tons of small lies that no one would think would ruin a game and it'd be really hard to write a rule that allowed those but banned the actual really harmful stuff.

It's extremely subjective on what is really harmful.

Some players play laid back, letting their team do more of the heavy lifting. Are they being an asshole, or harming their team?

[Jake The Wolfie]

But it's much harder for one player lurking to do anywhere near the harm of one player trying to pull potentially game-throwing gambits. (Which are bad whether they work out or not.)

How are they bad when a fake guilty works out? Your team feels like shit because they weren't involved in the decision making? Guess what: They still wouldn't be involved in the decision making even if the guilty was legitimate. Do you advocate for no player to ever give out legitimate guilties, for fear that their team will feel like shit, or you realize that teamwork was never in the process of a cop getting a guilty?

[Jake The Wolfie]

The difference is the TRUE guilty is based off of facts, not some player’s potentially wrong hunch.

Could a player's facts not be altered by the unforseen, such as a miller?

[Jake The Wolfie]

There's a lot of things you could call it: culture, a standard, site meta, an unspoken agreement. Whatever you call it, faking a guilty is going against it, and almost universally gets people mad. You're prioritizing your own beliefs over everyone else's, bypassing the normal process of discussion, and taking advantage of people's trust on a level higher than in-game alignments. And that's all before considering whether you were even right or wrong.

People are by no means obligated to follow the guilty result, whether real or false.

[Jake The Wolfie]

You're gambling the entire game with no consent from the other players. Whether it pays off or not is irrelevant.

Then why isn't there some big argument whenever a gambit is thrown out about whether gambits should be used or not?
And most gambits cannot have the consent of other players without giving the game away that something is up.

If gambits were not good, then we would not have wiki pages describing the gambits, especially if those pages don't have disclaimers stating that "This should not be used in actual gameplay"

[Jake The Wolfie]

There's a lot of things you could call it: culture, a standard, site meta, an unspoken agreement. Whatever you call it, faking a guilty is going against it, and almost universally gets people mad. You're prioritizing your own beliefs over everyone else's, bypassing the normal process of discussion, and taking advantage of people's trust on a level higher than in-game alignments. And that's all before considering whether you were even right or wrong.

People are by no means obligated to follow the guilty result, whether real or false.

to be honest, i don't think that what you just said responds to anything that i said in what you quoted. it seems like a bit of a non-sequitur.

I was responding to how you were applying the fake guilty, as if it was a false commandment given from on high that "This person shall die today, and any deviation must be eliminated."
That's false. You aren't obligated to execute a guilty result, whether truthful or not. People can lie, be corrupt, be mistaken, or be all three at once.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Well yes, that’s why a miller unless they are extremely confident that they will never be cop checked ought to claim.

A miller claim makes them more suspicious, no? That would seem to hinder your objective, not help it.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Is every role and setup on the wiki good?

That depends very much on the scenario.

Every role is good, and every role is bad.

[Jake The Wolfie]

And as I keep saying, there's a huge difference between gambling the game on something and, for example, a reaction test.

A Reaction test is a gambit. You are gambitting that the person you are talking to won't catch on to the test, and therefore make the entire test pointless, which can lead to a false trust, which leads to a lost game.

[Jake The Wolfie]

You also have to take the gamestate into account, of course but If I say tracked player X to player Y who ate the previous night’s NK and I’m the next and I never reveal my result, I’d essentially be gamethrowing hiding important information from town. As long as you are 100% honest about the specific nature of your “gulity”, then it’s up to town to make that ultimate judgment call.

How would it be any different with a false "guilty"? All that would really change is that you have nothing to back you up, but the town would not know this, as there is no difference between a false and true "guilty".

[Jake The Wolfie]

Can you explain where in my post that I do this? I don't think it's apparent in any of my arguments, much less the one that you quoted.

It's true that nobody has to follow through on someone claiming a guilty. That doesn't change anything I said there.

culture, a standard, site meta, an unspoken agreement.

The assumption you were making is that people would always follow the culture, when in reality no one is bound by a standard, instead free to follow site meta or forgo with the unspoken agreement entirely.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Well yes, that’s why a miller unless they are extremely confident that they will never be cop checked ought to claim.

A miller claim makes them more suspicious, no? That would seem to hinder your objective, not help it.

There’s different schools of thought about that. You need to asses the gamestate/your play etc. as best you can before you claim. If you think you have a decent chance of being cop checked, maybe a good idea but especially in a mass claim. I got yelled at after a game for not doing that eventhough I was never checked, so it’s a gamble. It also heavily depends on the setup as well.

But there is still inherent risk in claiming to be a miller, even if you properly assess the gamestate/your play etc. as you can be wrong, or mistaken, or ignorant, or all three at once.

[Jake The Wolfie]

It's true that nobody is bounded by unspoken agreements or by site culture, but that has nothing to do with whether or not people will get angry at you if you go against it.

If no one is bounded to it, then when you break it, the only people they should be angry at is themselves for not making the unspoken guidelines into something players are bound to.

[Jake The Wolfie]

It's true that nobody is bounded by unspoken agreements or by site culture, but that has nothing to do with whether or not people will get angry at you if you go against it.

If no one is bounded to it, then when you break it, the only people they should be angry at is themselves for not making the unspoken guidelines into something players are bound to.

Who should I ask to get my permission to rewrite site rules and outlaw fakeclaiming?

The men, the miths, the legends, or the admins

[Jake The Wolfie]

Why is lying as town, in general, a bad idea?

[Jake The Wolfie]

maybe because your win con literally involves catching people who are lying?

People lie for an assortment of reasons, as any alignment.

[Jake The Wolfie]

i don't think that's true (maybe for some people it is) but even if it were true, you asked why it's

generally

a bad idea and i told you

I simply stated the fact that people lie for an assortment of reasons, which means that it could not be a major part of your winning condition. Even if catching liars was a part of your winning condition, lying can be a method to reach that point.

[Jake The Wolfie]

yeah and you could also read tea leaves to determine the scum team, doesn't make it a good idea

I'm not defending the stance that lying is a good tactic, I'm attacking the stance that it's a bad one.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Because disinformation leads to wrong conclusions, I dunno why do I need explain this. Well timed lie is grasping at straws, you know that in most cases you can get away without a lie and using once in a blue moon scenario to prove your point and give people permission to fakeclaim is bad

If you believe everything you read as a townie, then you need to stop it. The ability to divine lies, and the ability to craft lies are both skills that every player in a game of mafia should have, regardless of alignment or goal.

[Jake The Wolfie]

How to find scum, if I can't trust anything other players say without any hard proof?

Look beyond whether or not they're lying, and ask why they did what they did. Is it to further a pro-town agenda, or does it further a pro-scum agenda?

[Jake The Wolfie]

How to find scum, if I can't trust anything other players say without any hard proof?

Look beyond whether or not they're lying, and ask why they did what they did. Is it to further a pro-town agenda, or does it further a pro-scum agenda?

Know an easy way to determine when it's pro-town and when it's pro-scum? Because people use "town has no reason to lie" approach for a reason - determining motivation is hard, especially when dealing with edgelords who think they are smartest cookie in the room and try to lie just because they can

Determining motivation is hard, even if the town are 100% truthful and the scum truthful about everything that isn't explicitly anti-town. This is not a problem with lying, it's a problem of determining motivation.
I repeat: Determining Motivation has nothing to do with Lying.

Enforcing a "Do not lie as town" policy does little to help the town, but helps the scum a lot, because they now know that

EVERY DAMN THING POSTED BY NON-SCUM EVER

is 100% reliable, which is a bad thing. The scum

DO NOT

need more information than they already have, so offering up true information 100% of the times helps the scum, which hinders the town.

[Jake The Wolfie]

knowing that everything claimed is truthful doesn't mean you can't misdirect, plant suggestions, use word play etc to mislead scum as town... or simply not talking about role-related stuff unless it's actusllyt important is another super-obvious way to keep scum in the dark

not sure what you're saying is the downside to truthfulness when it comes to role-related stuff

you just state it's a "bad thing" like that should be self-evident. i could just as easily reverse what you said and say that offering up true information all the time helps town, which hinders scum

I agree that more true information helps town, however the town would have to go through the extra layer of divining the truth from the lies (something they would have to do irregardless of a truthful/untruthful town), while the scum would not have this issue. Why not impose the same challenge for the scum to gain information when you're already at a disadvantage of not knowing between fact and fiction?

[Jake The Wolfie]

if you don't want scum to gain information then don't claim anything

cough

guilty

cough

generally if you're being asked to claim in thread it's because town wants information to make a judgment - lying doesn't help that

What? Does it somehow impair the town from making a judgement?

lying unprompted can be useful in certain circumstances but barring a few exceptions, pretty much anything a lie could achieve could also be achieved by just... not lying and using writing techniques that don't have the potential to harm town

Every action has the potential to harm town in the wrong circumstances.

[Jake The Wolfie]

Egosearch actually, can't help you.

Just delete account 4head

[Jake The Wolfie]

Being variable is a better strategy than being prefectly predicable.