Open 89 - Assassin in the Palace (Over) before 656

[armlx]

Vote Wolf

Just so everyone knows how this works:

No discussion is optimal. Discussion strongly favors the uninformed group in a game, in this case the assassin.

If someone votes the king, do not vote that player automatically in response. Doing so is the best way to lose the game.

If at any point someone has more then 1 vote, they are to be policy lynched as they more or less can NOT be the king.

If no one has more then 1 vote, vote anyone you want, and I mean anyone. That includes the king.

Also, don't be an idiot. Remember the following rule.

2) NO OUTRIGHT CLAIMS ABOUT THE KING. This includes, “NameofPlayer is the king!” or “Everyone claim who they think is king.” There are still grey areas, but not as many as if there were no rule in place. Instant modkill, end of conversation. Mod discretion here, so please don’t push it. I really don’t want this to be an issue, so please don’t make the focus of the game WIFOM relating to the identity of the king.

[armlx]

Eh, I don't see why the king can't ever have two votes.

You make a point. 3 is a better cut off to allow townspeople to vote the king without real fear of having to back out of a policy lynch.

[armlx]

Pff, let's not tell the assassin how we're going to WIFOM them.

Vote: armlx

By admitting that we could WIFOM them, it makes them much more paranoid then if we didn't admit it.

[armlx]

EBWODP: Just to clarify, theory questions/discussion are ok as long as it does not cross into discussion of anyone in the game.

[armlx]

I actually just mean in context of optimal play, not rules, but that is true as well.

[armlx]

Crazy, look at the large AITP game for the counter example. People were idiots and lost the game. If we start talking, someone is going to be an idiot.

What your are asking is to give the uninformed group more info, which is bad. Rolling the dice is a much more favored way to win, though there is not mathematic way to prove that scum hunting is less helpful then people being dumb is detrimental.

[armlx]

Armlx, making a no discussion policy won't make idiots stop being idiots. In the game you mentioned, the town was still able to spill out who the Kings were even though JDodge had that strict lynch-lynch-lynch policy set in place.

One of the slips occurred early before anything was done, and the other I have accounted for in my rule set.

And how do we scum hunt without explaining suspicions?

[armlx]

Vote without explaining your reasoning? Unless it's, like, actually a case like you might build in any other game and not based on interactions.

But almost all cases are founded in interactions.

[armlx]

Just say "Vote: so-and-so" and tell everyone to read their posts. It worked in the last Open Setup of this.

How is this different then with no talk just voting them at the start of the day?

Also note that the mini AITP is different than the large AITP. Speedlynching there had a higher chance of hitting scum, and more players that they had to read/could slip up.

Only slightly (1/8 vs 1/6), and not at all having to do with game balance issues. As for more people being dumb, I estimate the same ratio of dumb has been in every AITP game.

[armlx]

A note that I didn't realize until now (not major): Assassin wins when king is dead. If the king is lynched, the assassin wins immediately. I assume this was obvious, but better to eliminate any possible confusion, right?

That would make things all too easy.

"Ok, everyone, lynch king D1, assassin cant win".

[armlx]

I don't know, but I've read both of Rishi's AITP games and I know that they managed to make the game work without killing all discussion. I agree with a lot of the theory that PokerFace and Korlash said during those games.

I don't see that big of a difference between my suggestion and their actions.

[armlx]

EBWODP: By that I mean the same voting pattern stuff they went off of in those games will still be there, but we minimize the needless discussion to prevent anyone from doing anything extremely dumb.

[armlx]

I don't get what your post was supposed to prove Mirth.

The explanations given in the last game were effectively nill. Read posts is more or less the same as nothing.

[armlx]

If posts are more or less the same as nothing, then why not just pick a target and say "hey, guys, lets all lynch this person right now"?

Thats the point on D1. Then on later days you can look at vote patterns etc.

Also, see sig, leaving tomorrow, back Sunday.

[armlx]

Eh, that was me just asking you why you haven't picked a target and done that yet then. Since you are advocating it, why not start us off by purposing a lynch?

I did in my first post. Wolf seems like the one most likely to cause an error if he is town (no offense), as he is a newish player who is going to try and contribute to the game.

[armlx]

Sigh, and error 1 goes to armlx. Why didn't I just listen to my own advice of STFU everyone and vote.

We are now obligated to lynch Wolf or myself today, as either I have essentially admitted I know he isn't king, or I am an assassin lying and randomly choosing someone.

[armlx]

EBWOTP: This is a prime example of why talking at all is a BAD idea.

[armlx]

No more talking at this point. Just votes. Next suspect after the 2 required lynches (as I have 3 votes now and must be lynched by policy, and if I don't flip assassin see above post) should be obvious to everyone though.

[armlx]

How is contributing a bad thing???

Read the past pages.

And my lynch first is optimal. I am assured not king by VC, so if Wolf is scum he already knows not to shoot me and its the same as lynching him tomorrow and he gains no info if everyone just shuts the fuck up. If I am scum, I am still unsure if Wolf is king or not as he is not uncleared by Vote count.

Unvote, Vote armlx

This is scenario number 3-4 where this is the correct play.

[armlx]

Yay, I sarnath'ed the vote count.

[armlx]

Yeah. We should have just shut the fuck up and did that. Actually talking did more harm then anything, as I proved.

[armlx]

Mirth should have been considered scum for trying to prompt me to do what I did D1.