WW40 - Game Thread

[AdrienIer]

If you have I've never witnessed it. Oh wait...

[Serdoa]

One clarification on the torturing: If someone does not vote, it counts as "against torturing".

[zakalwe]

I don't think this game mechanic was added just as a red herring that we ought to ignore. That would also be a very boring choice. So with that in mind, deciding who to torture should be the first order of business. Scum lean on Brick for jumping straight in with a lynch vote, instead. (Also hinting slightly at a policy lynch, which seems fishy.)

[zakalwe]

Long time no see Gazglum

I missed this, actually. So I guess AdrienIer is guilty of the same thing.

[BRickAstley]

I don't think this game mechanic was added just as a red herring that we ought to ignore. That would also be a very boring choice. So with that in mind, deciding who to torture should be the first order of business. Scum lean on Brick for jumping straight in with a lynch vote, instead. (Also hinting slightly at a policy lynch, which seems fishy.)

Stellar idea here.

I agree we should use it, but we need to be careful, since it could have drastic consequences. And we have no idea who is the torturer, or what their alignment is.

Standard defense of standard joke vote.

[AdrienIer]

So you believe we should spend the first 24h only voting for torture stuff and only vote for the lynch part in the last 24h ?

If I read Serdoa right there could be some unwanted consequences to torturing someone, so we should only do it under certain circumstances. I intended to play normally until we got to a point where someone was a quasi-unanimous target (and where most of the discussion is centered on whether that person is guilty or not). Then that person becomes a good torture target. But such situations don't happen all the time.

[Jabbz]

Hey everyone. I'm with AdrienIer. I read this as torture being a tool that would be useful, but only under the right circumstances. For all we know using torture could create a third party, give us false results, give us real results that then change after the torture, etc. Let us wait until we are in a situation where we can gain legitimate information out of it, before we risk whatever the action entails.

[zakalwe]

So you believe we should spend the first 24h only voting for torture stuff and only vote for the lynch part in the last 24h ?

If I read Serdoa right there could be some unwanted consequences to torturing someone, so we should only do it under certain circumstances. I intended to play normally until we got to a point where someone was a quasi-unanimous target (and where most of the discussion is centered on whether that person is guilty or not). Then that person becomes a good torture target. But such situations don't happen all the time.

I think who to torture, if anyone, is the first thing we need to decide, and that has to happen in the first 24 hours. If you want to pressure anyone with an early vote, it makes more sense to cast it in green.

The torturer is a day cop and that is pretty powerful. I think realistic side effects are stripping innocent targets of their powers or perhaps even killing them. I'm arguing that it's probably balanced in some way to be slightly beneficial for town, on average, or the mechanism would not be included in the setup.

[novice]

I can see the torturer discussion from both sides. But wouldn't the side effects from torture have to be pretty severe for us not to do it? I mean, if we were given the option of lynching twice between every night kill we'd do that, right?

So maybe we should see how stoically Marcus Aurelius deals with torture.

[novice]

One clarification on the torturing: If someone does not vote, it counts as "against torturing".

So if there are four votes for torturing player A, two votes for torturing player B, and five players not voting, what happens?