Werewolf/Mafia: Percy Jackson

[totadileplayz]

Another comment someone did bring up resurrecting the man who died night 0, and it's a bit more valid when you realize that you could very easily just have the doctor on him. Effectively removing all night kills from the game. As no night kills can possibly target anyone besides the person who's forcing them to target him.

[Snowblaze]

I am fully caught up (why it took me so long to post) and don't have any reads except I think we should vote for a neutral claim since they can be really annoying to deal with without the knowledge of their sidings and win conditions

Any particular reason you want to kill Emmy over our other neutral claimant Jeen, then?

[JeenLeen]

If EmmyNecromancer's win-con is to use her power, and she exits the game if she wins...
Should we get a tie and let her decide who dies, then have her exit? If she doesn't leave the game, she's a lying wolf.

That would seem to maximize info for the Town (still get a lynch) and remove a Neutral (seems valued by some townies.)
On the other hand, every player that goes away makes it one step closer to the wolves controlling the vote. For that reason, I'd think neutrals existing are good. (Also some bias in that I don't want to be killed )
Yeah, they could side with the wolves, but they also could just be an extra vote keeping control contested. When Town or Wolf, I generally think killing neutrals is a waste since the death would better go towards removing the rival faction. But since we potentially could eliminate a troublesome Neutral and get a lynch, I can see aiming for a tie this Day.

[totadileplayz]

If EmmyNecromancer's win-con is to use her power, and she exits the game if she wins...
Should we get a tie and let her decide who dies, then have her exit? If she doesn't leave the game, she's a lying wolf.

That would seem to maximize info for the Town (still get a lynch) and remove a Neutral (seems valued by some townies.)
On the other hand, every player that goes away makes it one step closer to the wolves controlling the vote. For that reason, I'd think neutrals existing are good. (Also some bias in that I don't want to be killed )
Yeah, they could side with the wolves, but they also could just be an extra vote keeping control contested. When Town or Wolf, I generally think killing neutrals is a waste since the death would better go towards removing the rival faction. But since we potentially could eliminate a troublesome Neutral and get a lynch, I can see aiming for a tie this Day.

There is a problem with this however there is someone who can get 2 votes, and will be unlikely to want to reveal themselves irregardless of their alignment.

[Apogee1]

Yeah I'm all for getting Emmy out via their wincon with a tie today if it looks feasible.

[Shal06]

so if we assume the win condition is to stay alive and use the power a certain number of times the most likely person they will need to find is the child of Appollo since their vote counts as two and can mess up their gameplan, on a side note my d1 vote was random so I'll change it to Emmynecromancer to see what her win con is.

Yeah I'm all for getting Emmy out via their wincon with a tie today if it looks feasible.

the problem will be, like I stated is finding out her wincon and making sure the child of Appolo doesn't mess the tie up

Any particular reason you want to kill Emmy over our other neutral claimant Jeen, then?

there is already one vote for Emmy with no votes for Jeen which is why it seems more plausible to get Emmy lynched and because she has a power and info ready so it will be easier to find out her wincon

[AvatarVecna]

Oh, right. Even if I somehow convince people not to lynch me there might be someone who can kill me anyway just to be sure.

Screw it. My position can't get much worse so I might as well be open and hope for the best.

I'm a town Child of Athena, with the amazing power to "Each night you pick someone to watch and learn who their parent is". Obviously I can't prove it right now, but if people are willing to hold off on killing me, I'm very willing to get tested (at least these kinds of tests don't involve poking something up my nose ). Choose someone for me to use my ability on and day two I'll report who their mommy or daddy is (publicly or privately to someone trusted, depending on what people prefer). If I fail, you can go ahead and lynch me then.

This claim is in line with your behavior so far.

I claim to not be a child of any of these major gods. I'm completely neutral! I swear!

Whyyyyyyyyyy

The fact that I suspect him doesn't mean I'm going to try and lynch the only claim we have without any actual proof.

You mean the scenarios that have been talked about already? Repeatedly?
To put it short, they could as well be two wolves. Or a Wolf and a Town, since we don't actually know what they told each other. Or even Wolf and Neutral, depending on win-con.

We don't actually know which roles are more likely to be Town/Wolf/whatever either.

I'm going to put this as bluntly as ****ing possible: there are three scenarios where it makes sense to not trust Apogee.

1) You think that the set-up for this all-PR game includes two vanilla wolves who have the joke power that they start in contact with each other.

2) You think Apogee is a wolf fakeclaiming Demeter, despite the fact that Demeter power is almost certainly in the game, and almost certainly townie. Meaning that you think Apogee thought that neither Demeter would be willing to claim to catch a wolf (and that this was apparently correct).

3) You think this is another bastard-narrator move like what I pulled in Spongebob, where there's a townie and a wolf as mason buddies, but the townie doesn't know their mason buddy is a wolf.

I want to hear your logic for why you believe any of these stupid absurd scenarios have any merit to them. I don't wanna hear hand-wringing and "CoNcErNs HaVe BeEn RaIsEd" about the handful of people who have made weak counterarguments that they fully admit were ridiculous. I want to hear your argument for why you don't trust Apogee and why we shouldn't either. Anything besides that, and all this talk just looks like tossing shade on an uncounterclaimed mason for apparently no real reason.

At first I read this as "Slightly Sisyphus" and for a second I started wondering if that was some role I'd missed.



Question for the more experienced players among us (and gac can answer for this game specifically, if he doesn't mind revealing it)... are neutral win-conditions always at the expense of everyone else or can they be like "you win if town/wolves win and X happens"?

It varies, honestly. Sometimes you get a Survivor, who just needs to make it to the end of the game alive and can survive a single kill. Sometimes you get a serial killer who is essentially a one-man scum faction separate from the wolves. Sometimes you get a vendetta, who wants to hunt down and kill a specific other role, or at least live longer than their target does. Sometimes you get somebody who can sell info to other players and wins when they collect enough money. Particularly with how wide "champion or child of some random god" is, it could be basically anything here.

This makes 2 neutral claims back-to-back. We are going to start having to ask what is the likely breakdown. Someone earlier said likely 15 town/5 scum, but they didn't consider neutrals that are neither.

Also Jeen's claim is the first we have heard of champion versus child of. I don't even know what the difference would be. Does this mean she isn't related to gods at all, just highly reveres one above all else?

I think we would have about 11-13 Town / 4-6 Scum/ 3-4 Neutrals for it all to be even. Neutrals could swing either way, but usually don't have super strong powers. I tend to lean toward 12 Town/ 5 Scum/ 4 Neutrals, as that would make for an interesting game and it wouldn't be over until the very end (with neutrals needing time to achieve their win-cons and being swing votes). This means that even if it comes down to 5 town vs 5 scum, with 4 neutrals still out there scum wouldn't win easily. Now it also depends on how many NK powers are out there as to how fast our numbers will dwindle. We know there is the scum faction kill. There is likely a vig, but how many? I think a town vig and neutral vig would be viable. This means that potentially we lose 1 person to Lynch and 3 people to NK. Now likely the vigs will hit either wolf or each other pretty quickly and start reducing the number of NKs, but still, this game has a LOT of unknowns.

I said 15 town/1/neutral/5 scum. It's a 21 player game, so yes, I was considering neutrals. And I'm not particularly inclined to just trust self-professed neutrals at their word for no good reason; heck, I've already pointed out today that it's the safer fakeclaim for wolves.

Pretty sure AV is voting fo Valmark now

It's possible I didn't cross out my old vote? I'll go check.

[Grand Arbiter]

Urgh. Low activity, but that's Libro for you. Null in the way I don't particularly like, slight wolf lean I guess but it's probably just my bias against low-activity playstyles.

I’m quiet until/unless I have something to say. I’m uncomfortable writing for the sake of volume; it feels like adding more noise to an already loud room. Then there’s the excessive self-editing...

Moving on it turns out I have something to say now that I’ve caught up, and sufficient motivation to write a little RP to boot.

I'm a town Child of Athena, with the amazing power to "Each night you pick someone to watch and learn who their parent is". Obviously I can't prove it right now, but if people are willing to hold off on killing me, I'm very willing to get tested (at least these kinds of tests don't involve poking something up my nose ). Choose someone for me to use my ability on and day two I'll report who their mommy or daddy is (publicly or privately to someone trusted, depending on what people prefer). If I fail, you can go ahead and lynch me then.

If you are a child of Athena, you have nought of her wisdom. I bear her gift of deduction. While I would’ve preferred to remain as an observer I refuse to let such a bold-faced lie stand. What say ye?

Now that you've claimed, mind clarifying who might want to kill you for it?

Them wolves.

Or, perhaps, the person you are impersonating will want your head.


RP done, let’s get to business. I’m certain that Batcathat is lying because my role PM was the Divine Deduction child of Athena and it seems like gac didn’t repeat any roles. I’m town-aligned and wanted to lay low and gather information (first time being a seer/fool woohoo!), but I refuse to let someone wave around my role as theirs without my knowledge/consent.

As for function, I’m certain my role is a spin on the fool. A scryer with useful information but not 100% reliable at finding wolves; instead of opposite or random results for alignment I find out their parents. Combined with the role-analysis earlier in the thread I can provide advisement for who we shoot. I was particularly hoping to find Ares’ kid(s), as a Beast role floating about concerns me.

[AvatarVecna]

I wasn't imagining being given much reason to move my vote off of Valmark, but a D1 counterclaim ain't exactly common. Batcathat.

[Batcathat]

If you are a child of Athena, you have nought of her wisdom. I bear her gift of deduction. While I would’ve preferred to remain as an observer I refuse to let such a bold-faced lie stand. What say ye?

I'm at the very least wise enough to know that counter-claiming someone who's already suspected by people is a pretty good wolf-play.

I'm not quite as sure as you claim to be that there couldn't be multiple people with the same role, though I agree that it's probably not likely.

But I stand by my suggestion. Test me. Test both of us. It's a classic doppleganger situation, so ask us something only the truth Child of Athena would know, which in this case is who someone's parent is.

[Valmark]

Okay, the fact that you unvoted makes me a touch less suspicious, but I still don't like the continued throwing of shade on Apogee.

As has been (also repeatedly) mentioned, Apogee's partner was told that Apogee was town. So they can't be town and wolf, unless gac is lying, which seems quite unlikely.
Do you really think two wolf masons is plausible? Wolf+neutral masons would also be really weird, and my impression from the role list is that neutral roles are seperate from the above list (which fits with the two neutral claims we've seen).
Moving my vote back to Valmark.

Throwing shade on Apogee can help wolves even if it doesn't result in a lynch though. It could make people more reluctant to claim to Apogee if they don't 100% trust him, which makes it harder for Apogee to figure stuff out. It can also provide an excuse for wolves to not claim.

Or unless the partner is playing along for X reason.

I did ask gac3 to confirm that neutrals wouldn't have any of the listed roles.

It's not entirely true on the throwing shade part- or rather, while true, it seems clear that it isn't happening. I did explicitely move my vote away because I didn't want it to be an excuse for people to not claim.

Can we not kill Valmark, please? I think he’s town. Okay, I’m not incredibly confident, but I’m confident enough not to want him to die day one. (I stated my reason earlier: his response to the claim reminds me of HP when he was town). And I was getting good at reading him before I left last year.

Also I might be misinterpreting Emmy’s post but I thought her wincon was just “successfully breaking a tie”.

Agreed :p although I do remember that when you red me as wolf it was because what I said made too much sense, so it's a bit funny too xD

Did I miss Emmy posting her win-con?

Another comment someone did bring up resurrecting the man who died night 0, and it's a bit more valid when you realize that you could very easily just have the doctor on him. Effectively removing all night kills from the game. As no night kills can possibly target anyone besides the person who's forcing them to target him.

...you mean gac3? I'm fairly sure we can't bring the narrator into play.

If EmmyNecromancer's win-con is to use her power, and she exits the game if she wins...
Should we get a tie and let her decide who dies, then have her exit? If she doesn't leave the game, she's a lying wolf.

That would seem to maximize info for the Town (still get a lynch) and remove a Neutral (seems valued by some townies.)
On the other hand, every player that goes away makes it one step closer to the wolves controlling the vote. For that reason, I'd think neutrals existing are good. (Also some bias in that I don't want to be killed )
Yeah, they could side with the wolves, but they also could just be an extra vote keeping control contested. When Town or Wolf, I generally think killing neutrals is a waste since the death would better go towards removing the rival faction. But since we potentially could eliminate a troublesome Neutral and get a lynch, I can see aiming for a tie this Day.

No we shouldn't, because less neutrals means a faster wolf win. We should help her when we get closer to winning (or you, though I don't think I saw your win-con either? Could've missed it).

Unless Emmy doesn't leave the game upon winning (assuming what was said was the truth).

JeenLeenIt's not particularly suspicious but Apogee1 suggests the same- it could be a connection. And I'd rather test a claimed Neutral then a Claimed Town Mason.

Also I don't have any better suspicion.

Yeah I'm all for getting Emmy out via their wincon with a tie today if it looks feasible.

See JeenLeen.

I'm going to put this as bluntly as ****ing possible: there are three scenarios where it makes sense to not trust Apogee.

1) You think that the set-up for this all-PR game includes two vanilla wolves who have the joke power that they start in contact with each other.

2) You think Apogee is a wolf fakeclaiming Demeter, despite the fact that Demeter power is almost certainly in the game, and almost certainly townie. Meaning that you think Apogee thought that neither Demeter would be willing to claim to catch a wolf (and that this was apparently correct).

3) You think this is another bastard-narrator move like what I pulled in Spongebob, where there's a townie and a wolf as mason buddies, but the townie doesn't know their mason buddy is a wolf.

I want to hear your logic for why you believe any of these stupid absurd scenarios have any merit to them. I don't wanna hear hand-wringing and "CoNcErNs HaVe BeEn RaIsEd" about the handful of people who have made weak counterarguments that they fully admit were ridiculous. I want to hear your argument for why you don't trust Apogee and why we shouldn't either. Anything besides that, and all this talk just looks like tossing shade on an uncounterclaimed mason for apparently no real reason.

1) Call it a joke power but if it was true right now a wolf would have basically convinced almost all players (who spoke about it) of their towniness, so it doesn't look like a joke.

2) Where are you getting 'almost certainly townie'? As far as we know "more likely to be town" could mean a 75% chance against a 25%, neutrality notwithstanding. Or a 60%, or a 90%, etc.

3) Yeah I doubt that's the case with gac3. I'm not saying it's impossible but I really don't think it happened.

I think you're reading too deeply into it. All I've said is that it would be really bad if Apogee1 (or their buddy etc.) was a wolf and an umprompted claim without actual proof is fishy. And we've had more of those, but none is quite as dangerous as Apogee1's is for Town.

At least I don't recall saying more when Apogee1 claimed and afterwards (well, aside from what I wrote as a reply to quotes in this post).

- - - Updated - - -

I’m quiet until/unless I have something to say. I’m uncomfortable writing for the sake of volume; it feels like adding more noise to an already loud room. Then there’s the excessive self-editing...

Moving on it turns out I have something to say now that I’ve caught up, and sufficient motivation to write a little RP to boot.



If you are a child of Athena, you have nought of her wisdom. I bear her gift of deduction. While I would’ve preferred to remain as an observer I refuse to let such a bold-faced lie stand. What say ye?



Or, perhaps, the person you are impersonating will want your head.


RP done, let’s get to business. I’m certain that Batcathat is lying because my role PM was the Divine Deduction child of Athena and it seems like gac didn’t repeat any roles. I’m town-aligned and wanted to lay low and gather information (first time being a seer/fool woohoo!), but I refuse to let someone wave around my role as theirs without my knowledge/consent.

As for function, I’m certain my role is a spin on the fool. A scryer with useful information but not 100% reliable at finding wolves; instead of opposite or random results for alignment I find out their parents. Combined with the role-analysis earlier in the thread I can provide advisement for who we shoot. I was particularly hoping to find Ares’ kid(s), as a Beast role floating about concerns me.

Oh. Well, this changes things. BatCatHat.

[Shal06]

It's a classic doppelganger situation, so ask us something only the truth Child of Athena would know, which in this case is who someone's parent is.

There is a problem with that confirmation system since you don't know whether the person you check is a wolf or not, you also cant check confirmed townsfolk since they will usually reveal their parent so you need either to check a townie who hasn't revealed or accidentally check a wolf and then both would know the parent, I don't see a way to confirm it unless you use qts with Apogee and either their mason or someone they believe is a townie, ofc the wolfs can always just kill that townie and destroy the evidence we had.

[Valmark]

I'm at the very least wise enough to know that counter-claiming someone who's already suspected by people is a pretty good wolf-play.

I'm not quite as sure as you claim to be that there couldn't be multiple people with the same role, though I agree that it's probably not likely.

But I stand by my suggestion. Test me. Test both of us. It's a classic doppleganger situation, so ask us something only the truth Child of Athena would know, which in this case is who someone's parent is.

gac3 said so in the recruitment- there won't be two children of the same god with the same power.

And... It's a pretty bad exchange to lose a wolf for a townie unless that power is awesome as hell, so counterclaiming is tipically awful for a wolf. That is why the counterclaimed is usually more believed then the claimer.

- - - Updated - - -

Note: I meant "counter-claimer", not "counter-claimed". Otherwise that post makes no sense.

[gac3]

...@gac3, are all the listed roles also all the roles Town/Wolves get?

If Yes then Emmy, would that mean you're a Neutral? What's your win-con?

My intent was for listed roles to be the Town/Wolf roles and the neutral(s) to be made up of unlisted roles.

Question for the more experienced players among us (and gac can answer for this game specifically, if he doesn't mind revealing it)... are neutral win-conditions always at the expense of everyone else or can they be like "you win if town/wolves win and X happens"?

Neutrals often have win cons that can be achieved in addition to town/wolf wins. Any non faction based win condition is almost always decided independently of the town/wolf win. Of course a role like a serial killer is completely dependent on being the only victor. But there are often neutral roles that can win along side either faction.

Another comment someone did bring up resurrecting the man who died night 0, and it's a bit more valid when you realize that you could very easily just have the doctor on him. Effectively removing all night kills from the game. As no night kills can possibly target anyone besides the person who's forcing them to target him.

Okay. My joke power for gac3 might not have been the clearest. I did indeed intend for it to be a power that theoretically could be raised or used by either child of Hades. But it wasn't meant to be "all night kills are targeted towards them" as much as "instantly die". It was my way of throwing a power up into that post to give an idea about how a death reveal would look without actually giving a way to resurrect me.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, did I miss any other questions for me?

[AvatarVecna]

1) Call it a joke power but if it was true right now a wolf would have basically convinced almost all players (who spoke about it) of their towniness, so it doesn't look like a joke.

Trust but verify. In the same breath that I've discussed how Apogee is 100% town, I've also discussed how we should kill him to be absolutely sure. An alignment scry would also be an acceptable test, although that's less likely to be public anytime soon.

2) Where are you getting 'almost certainly townie'? As far as we know "more likely to be town" could mean a 75% chance against a 25%, neutrality notwithstanding. Or a 60%, or a 90%, etc.

I want to see if I'm understanding your argument correctly. Your argument is that Apogee is not a wolf!Demeter, but that there is a wolf!Demeter and they had Apogee fakeclaim it?

In any case, it's irrelevant how likely we think it is or isn't. Apparently I didn't quite state it as bluntly as I could, allow me to rectify that.

Given the size of the game, it's extremely unlikely there isn't a Demeter in the game. This leaves us three options:

1) The Demeters are both wolves

2) The Demeters are both town

3) The Demeters are town/wolf

Can you at least agree on that?

Presuming that you don't say "no" just to be a contrarian, let's go over why I think Apogee is town.

"1) The Demeters are both wolves"

If this is the truth, the narrator shafted wolves on power roles, and also the alignment seer will know immediately.

"2) The Demeters are both town"

If this is the truth, either Apogee is town, or a wolf fakeclaiming...in which case not only can literally any info role in the game potentially catch him lying tonight, but both town Demeters already know he's lying and can counterclaim right this second, and yet they have not done so yet, even though literally every player is active, and there's no reason not to counterclaim.

"3) The Demeters are town/wolf"

If this is the truth, we should probably lynch gac3 just to be sure.

Now, me personally: I think scenario 1 and 3 are extremely unlikely. For the first, I don't think the narrator would do that to the wolves, especially after we saw how all-PR games are stacked against wolves last game, and I don't think wolves would just toss a wolf to the wind when they're already at a disadvantage. For the third, this doesn't generally feel like a bastard narrator game so far. This leaves scenario 2 as the most likely, where (in your mind, apparently) the wolves fakeclaim knowing that they could get counterclaimed but betting that they won't, and then it turns out the wolves were correct? This scenario requires both wolves and the real Demeters to make really dumb decisions for no good reason that anybody can think of.

It's occam's razor. Every explanation other than "Apogee is telling the truth" requires you to build a conspiracy pretzel of bad decisions for it to make sense. And this one just requires that masons saw the obvious strength of having the mason pair be the center of the network and taking a direct action to make themselves that center as soon as possible for the sake of town's victory.

I think you're reading too deeply into it. All I've said is that it would be really bad if Apogee1 (or their buddy etc.) was a wolf and an umprompted claim without actual proof is fishy. And we've had more of those, but none is quite as dangerous as Apogee1's is for Town.

At least I don't recall saying more when Apogee1 claimed and afterwards (well, aside from what I wrote as a reply to quotes in this post).

I think you're reading into it too little. I don't think I'm reading too deeply into "man proudly refuses to think through the possibilities or give an actual reason to distrust the uncounterclaimed mason".

"It would suck for town if Apogee was a wolf" isn't an actual reason to vote him, it's needless paranoia making you want to off the person who can hand town the win on a silver platter. It also really doesn't help that despite how insistent you are about not trusting Apogee, you stopped voting for them. It really looks like you were trying to cast shade without actually taking responsibility for that shade.

[Elenna]

I'm at the very least wise enough to know that counter-claiming someone who's already suspected by people is a pretty good wolf-play.

I'm not quite as sure as you claim to be that there couldn't be multiple people with the same role, though I agree that it's probably not likely.

But I stand by my suggestion. Test me. Test both of us. It's a classic doppleganger situation, so ask us something only the truth Child of Athena would know, which in this case is who someone's parent is.

So your claim is that the wolves decided to sacrifice a wolf (since if you die and are revealed to be telling the truth, Libro will definitely be lynched next) just in order to get rid of an alignment seer who can't even reliably identify wolves? That seems... unlikely, to say the least, Batcathat.

[Valmark]

My intent was for listed roles to be the Town/Wolf roles and the neutral(s) to be made up of unlisted roles.

Also, did I miss any other questions for me?

Don't think so. Also, I know I'm being pedantic but... When you said that your intent was to do that, does it mean a neutral could have actually gotten a named role in the end?

Basically I'd rather have an explicit "No neutrals have listed roles" sentence if possible.

[rogue_alchemist]

I'm at the very least wise enough to know that counter-claiming someone who's already suspected by people is a pretty good wolf-play.

I'm not quite as sure as you claim to be that there couldn't be multiple people with the same role, though I agree that it's probably not likely.

But I stand by my suggestion. Test me. Test both of us. It's a classic doppleganger situation, so ask us something only the truth Child of Athena would know, which in this case is who someone's parent is.

RP done, let’s get to business. I’m certain that Batcathat is lying because my role PM was the Divine Deduction child of Athena and it seems like gac didn’t repeat any roles. I’m town-aligned and wanted to lay low and gather information (first time being a seer/fool woohoo!), but I refuse to let someone wave around my role as theirs without my knowledge/consent.

As for function, I’m certain my role is a spin on the fool. A scryer with useful information but not 100% reliable at finding wolves; instead of opposite or random results for alignment I find out their parents. Combined with the role-analysis earlier in the thread I can provide advisement for who we shoot. I was particularly hoping to find Ares’ kid(s), as a Beast role floating about concerns me.

This argument back and forth seems so strange to me. They have both claimed a role that was verbatim in the role guide. I tend to agree that Gac3 wouldn't give two people the EXACT SAME role, though we might have 2 children of Athena, I think 1 would have the Divine Deduction and the other would have the Lookout role. Though I guess if he randomized the roles it is possible we only ended up with a few repeats (or even only 1). This definitely warrants further explanation and defense than BatCatHat has given, but just because Libro counter-claimed doesn't automatically make them the right one.

I seem to remember a game recently where AV or Val counterclaimed someone just for the lols and then didn't get lynched and came clean later with some neutral role or something. Not that I see BatCatHat being bored enough or experienced enough to try it, Libro might be. Now the aforementioned move is much more in line with AV or Val's personality than Libro's, but still, this needs more information.

It is also weird to me that so many people are claiming D1 when there are such small wagons and votes are moving around so quickly. It is not like large blocks are building against people pressuring them to claim and then moving on. I guess having so many players has made people bold, assuming their 1 role is not too important to sacrifice to a possible NK?

I am going to move my vote to Libro for now, just to keep pressure on both sides of this for more information. Nothing about this feels right.

[JeenLeen]

I wasn't imagining being given much reason to move my vote off of Valmark, but a D1 counterclaim ain't exactly common. Batcathat.

I'm at the very least wise enough to know that counter-claiming someone who's already suspected by people is a pretty good wolf-play.

I'm not quite as sure as you claim to be that there couldn't be multiple people with the same role, though I agree that it's probably not likely.

But I stand by my suggestion. Test me. Test both of us. It's a classic doppleganger situation, so ask us something only the truth Child of Athena would know, which in this case is who someone's parent is.

So your claim is that the wolves decided to sacrifice a wolf (since if you die and are revealed to be telling the truth, Libro will definitely be lynched next) just in order to get rid of an alignment seer who can't even reliably identify wolves? That seems... unlikely, to say the least, Batcathat.

Yeah, seems fastest and best to confirm via killing.
Though I'm gonna leave my vote on our other neutral in case folk want to try for a tie. As others noted, Apollo could mess it up, yeah... so I understand nobody wanting to take that risk today. Maybe D2 we can get rid of her without using a kill (assuming she can exit when she wins--she hasn't confirmed or denied this yet, and assuming the Town still wants to. I'm neutral on the subject (pun intended)).

Don't think so. Also, I know I'm being pedantic but... When you said that your intent was to do that, does it mean a neutral could have actually gotten a named role in the end?

Basically I'd rather have an explicit "No neutrals have listed roles" sentence if possible.

This could be a technicality in that the Neutrals are, in a sense, unlisted, but the sample ones are in play. So this is a way to sorta say what is meant, but not explicitly confirm or deny that the named Neutrals are active.
gac3, care to confirm?
Also, can we get confirmation that no named Roles are duplicated? E.g., it's impossible that Batcathat and Libro are both telling the truth?

[rogue_alchemist]

gac3 said so in the recruitment- there won't be two children of the same god with the same power.

And... It's a pretty bad exchange to lose a wolf for a townie unless that power is awesome as hell, so counterclaiming is tipically awful for a wolf. That is why the counterclaimed is usually more believed then the claimer.

- - - Updated - - -

Note: I meant "counter-claimer", not "counter-claimed". Otherwise that post makes no sense.

This makes a lot of sense, I didn't think it through enough I guess. I am voting BatCatHat

[Xihirli]

But I stand by my suggestion. Test me. Test both of us. It's a classic doppleganger situation, so ask us something only the truth Child of Athena would know, which in this case is who someone's parent is.

...Who is my parent?

@Libro, same question.

[AvatarVecna]

I'm at the very least wise enough to know that counter-claiming someone who's already suspected by people is a pretty good wolf-play.

I'm not quite as sure as you claim to be that there couldn't be multiple people with the same role, though I agree that it's probably not likely.

But I stand by my suggestion. Test me. Test both of us. It's a classic doppleganger situation, so ask us something only the truth Child of Athena would know, which in this case is who someone's parent is.

...it's really not a good wolf play at all. Like...

Suspicious player: "Don't lynch me, I'm a seer."

Quiet player: "Actually, I'm the real seer!"

Town: [lynches suspicious player]

Suspicious player: [is real seer]

Town: [squints at quiet player]

Especially in a game with this many power roles, losing one wolf in exchange for killing one townie, even a townie with a fairly useful power, is a net loss for wolves. It would be better for wolves to accept that they're not getting the seer lynched today, get some other townie mislynched under the guise of protecting the seer (they've certainly got a lot of options to choose from), and then NK the seer. Boom, they get a townie dead from the lynch without throwing suspicion on a wolf for no good reason.

[Valmark]

Trust but verify. In the same breath that I've discussed how Apogee is 100% town, I've also discussed how we should kill him to be absolutely sure. An alignment scry would also be an acceptable test, although that's less likely to be public anytime soon.

I want to see if I'm understanding your argument correctly. Your argument is that Apogee is not a wolf!Demeter, but that there is a wolf!Demeter and they had Apogee fakeclaim it?

In any case, it's irrelevant how likely we think it is or isn't. Apparently I didn't quite state it as bluntly as I could, allow me to rectify that.

Given the size of the game, it's extremely unlikely there isn't a Demeter in the game. This leaves us three options:

1) The Demeters are both wolves

2) The Demeters are both town

3) The Demeters are town/wolf

Can you at least agree on that?

Presuming that you don't say "no" just to be a contrarian, let's go over why I think Apogee is town.

"1) The Demeters are both wolves"

If this is the truth, the narrator shafted wolves on power roles, and also the alignment seer will know immediately.

"2) The Demeters are both town"

If this is the truth, either Apogee is town, or a wolf fakeclaiming. In which case both town Demeters already know he's lying and can counterclaim right this second, and yet they have not done so yet, even though literally every player is active.

"3) The Demeters are town/wolf"

If this is the truth, we should probably lynch gac3 just to be sure.

I don't think I'm reading too deeply into "man proudly refuses to think through the possibilities and give an actual reason to distrust the uncounterclaimed mason".

I missed that and it weirds me out a bit (the kill part). I didn't see you wanting to lynch Apogee1 even though you call it the best move.
That said yeah, they should be verified- and it should work unless Apogee1 has ways to escape detection (either personally or thanks to allies).

Not necessarily. There could be a non-Apogee1 Wolf!Demeter, but it could also be Apogee1. Both possibilities were mentioned.

Agreed, gac3 seems to have confirmed the neutral part not being an issue, though I'd rather see the explicit statement.

1) see the first paragraph. Basically not if the Seer can be misled.

2) Yeah I find it impossible if the Demeters are both Town for Apogee1 to be a wolf. I don't think I ever stated that as a possible situation for Wolf!Apogee1 though.

3) unless Apogee1 managed to convince the other mason to play along (or viceversa if Apogee1 is indeed Town).

I have mentioned all the possibilities, otherwise I would probably not be suspicious. And those possibilities are the reasons.
Also advocating to remove Neutrals from the game this early, effectively helping the wolves win faster (that is, unless Neutrals aren't counted).

That's actually a good question. @gac3, do neutrals count for winning regarding wolves reaching the maiority? (Sorry if this was already said).

[rogue_alchemist]

...Who is my parent?

@Libro, same question.

This is not a good test, as we have no public confirmation from some town-verified source on who your parents are.

EDIT:This looks really wolfish to me again, as the wolves could have Xi say this, Xi be 'tested' by the fake-wolf-claim seer, who then verifies that it was 'correct' (regardless of validity) and then town trusts them. Not that I think town is so stupid as to fall for this, but thought it worth stating for later analysis.

[Shal06]

Child of Nemesis, Tie Breaker, break a tie with my tie breaker ability
Tie breaker ability: I get to secretly vote someone. That secret vote only works in an event of a time.

I am suspicious of this claim for another reason, lets say we get a tie (without Appolo in it so it is really a tie) how would we know if the reason one person was lynched was because of Emmy or because of the coinflip gec3 said he will use?

[AvatarVecna]

I missed that and it weirds me out a bit (the kill part). I didn't see you wanting to lynch Apogee1 even though you call it the best move.
That said yeah, they should be verified- and it should work unless Apogee1 has ways to escape detection (either personally or thanks to allies).

Not necessarily. There could be a non-Apogee1 Wolf!Demeter, but it could also be Apogee1. Both possibilities were mentioned.

Agreed, gac3 seems to have confirmed the neutral part not being an issue, though I'd rather see the explicit statement.

1) see the first paragraph. Basically not if the Seer can be misled.

2) Yeah I find it impossible if the Demeters are both Town for Apogee1 to be a wolf. I don't think I ever stated that as a possible situation for Wolf!Apogee1 though.

3) unless Apogee1 managed to convince the other mason to play along (or viceversa if Apogee1 is indeed Town).

I have mentioned all the possibilities, otherwise I would probably not be suspicious. And those possibilities are the reasons.
Also advocating to remove Neutrals from the game this early, effectively helping the wolves win faster (that is, unless Neutrals aren't counted).

That's actually a good question. @gac3, do neutrals count for winning regarding wolves reaching the maiority? (Sorry if this was already said).

I think I'm just going to stop discussing things with you. It feels like arguing with somebody who's concerned the sun isn't going to rise tomorrow. Let it suffice to say that scenario 2 requires Apogee to have played awfully, that scenario 3 requires gac to have set up the game awfully, and that scenario 1 requires both. And I think those things are extremely unlikely.

[rogue_alchemist]

I am suspicious of this claim for another reason, lets say we get a tie (without Appolo in it so it is really a tie) how would we know if the reason one person was lynched was because of Emmy or because of the coinflip gec3 said he will use?

supposedly Emmy would exit the game immediately after meeting her win-con as she no longer has a dog in this fight and it would be unfair to have her continue to play and potentially upset the balance with no clear goal or allegiances. Our only recourse would be to waste a lynch if she was acting anti-town or a NK if she was acting anti-wolf and so it could hurt either side. Usually with a win-con like this whenever it is achieved the person exits and this is confirmation of their truth, which is then a moot point.

[Valmark]

I seem to remember a game recently where AV or Val counterclaimed someone just for the lols and then didn't get lynched and came clean later with some neutral role or something. Not that I see BatCatHat being bored enough or experienced enough to try it, Libro might be. Now the aforementioned move is much more in line with AV or Val's personality than Libro's, but still, this needs more information.

I don't think I ever did that- probably would though I my goal was dying.

I did fake-claim in an obvious way once, but it was because we (wolves) had obviously lost and that fake-claim led to the narrator killing me (reason for me doing it, going out with a bang).

- - - Updated - - -

This is not a good test, as we have no public confirmation from some town-verified source on who your parents are.

EDIT:This looks really wolfish to me again, as the wolves could have Xi say this, Xi be 'tested' by the fake-wolf-claim seer, who then verifies that it was 'correct' (regardless of validity) and then town trusts them. Not that I think town is so stupid as to fall for this, but thought it worth stating for later analysis.

I think she was joking by asking it right now, but if not agreed.

[gac3]

Don't think so. Also, I know I'm being pedantic but... When you said that your intent was to do that, does it mean a neutral could have actually gotten a named role in the end?

Basically I'd rather have an explicit "No neutrals have listed roles" sentence if possible.

I was worried that wording would come across as me being cagey or something. But the neutral(s) in the game will have roles not detailed in the OP.

[Valmark]

I was worried that wording would come across as me being cagey or something. But the neutral(s) in the game will have roles not detailed in the OP.

Gotcha, thanks ^^ what about neutrals regarding wolf win?

Meaning if there are 5 Town, 3 Neutrals and 6 Wolves (completely made-up numbers, 7 wolves sound way too many) would the wolves win or would the game keep going?