Then the game is over if you're villa, because I'm a villager and I'm almost certainly going to vote you, as things stand.

So why antagonize me and call me a coward when I'm trying to assess the merits of your godkata vote independently of my lean on you? It seems really, really anti-villa.

it presupposes that godkata will always vote pavel and that everyone else either picks between those two, and that the case when they are both villagers is irrelevant for obvious reasons.

I presuppose that because that's how must lynch works.

From there I'm talking about what happens if some villager puts a vote on someone else

anyway just wait a few minutes and I'll try to explain this

Like, if you're a villager and you know that a single villa vote on you loses us the game, why antagonize me and basically push me towards voting for you? It doesn't make sense.

This can't be true, though.

I'm SHC. Are you saying that if I had been the first person to cast a vote (let's say on Pavel), then the wagons would have to be Pavel and me? That's silly.

yes. thats how mustlynch works. this is why I told you to not vote early in the day. you have to vote whoever votes you or you lose.

I'd really like someone other than Pavel to comment on this, because it confuses me mightily.

Why wouldn't Pavel-as-villa want me to be open to voting for godkata here? Why is he calling me a coward for suggesting that I'd like to hear his case for his vote?

Let's say I was one of the seer's clear villa peeks. If I cast the first vote at must-lynch, people would still have to make me one of the two wagons, despite KNOWING that I'm a villager?

That seems absurd.

quoth, please do me a favor and reread mary sue. its better than going in circles here with me.

Answer my question, please. It has nothing to do with Mary Sue.

yes, because if you cast your vote on a villager you have already lost the game for the village so the villagers only play is to vote you in response in hopes that the seer was somehow wrong.

OK, so the whole point of must lynch is that there's one more villager then there are wolves

What this means is that if wolves just vote together, that's guaranteed three votes on a player. We assume the wolves will desire to put those 3 votes on a villager

The only way for the village to create a wagon that has more than 3 votes is for them all to vote together, 4 votes. If the villagers do not all vote together, then there is no way for them to decide the lynch

In the case where a villager puts vote 1 on a villager first, you recognize that the game is already over because the 3 wolves can vote that villager and force majority. That's your case 1

Every other case involves one of them being a wolf, by definition, right? because if one of them isn't a wolf it's jsut back to case 1

Because of that, if godkata is a villager, he can assume that either the game is already over, in which his vote doesn't count (if pavel is a villager), or that pavel is a wolf. Therefore he should vote pavel, because it is the highest EV play. If godkata is a wolf, he votes pavel because it's what he would do as a villager. Other scenarios where godkata is a wolf but votes someone else are more complicated, but let's ignore them since it seems extremely clear why wolf-godkata would want to vote villager-pavel

Once godkata has voted pavel, everyone else also may assume that one of them is a wolf (or else see case 1!) and they also know that because they must exceed 3 votes to force a lynch, everyone needs to vote for one or the other of them, because you assume that the wolves will all vote for the villager out of the pair, putting them at 3 votes. If any of the villagers vote someone else, then it's impossible to get more then 3 votes on the wolf.

loooooooooooooooooooool

there is no way that's right

ascetic posts "My peek is Quoth. He is a villager."

it gets to must-lynch and I'm still alive

I cast the first vote at must-lynch. PEOPLE NOW HAVE TO VOTE FOR ME?

There is no way that's the case.

I'm not accounting for cleared players in the analysis

to be technical SHC isn't the same as clear, but yes it does mean that if you vote someone first villagers should almost always follow you. It doesn't change the fundamental mechanics that you are SHC, it's just that by the must lynch logic I just laid out, the person who you voted should vote you back, at which point villagers would follow you because you are almost certainly less likely to be a wolf then the person you vote

it is. it is perfectly basic game theory optimal strategy. not just a balanced nash equilibrium but OPTIMAL.

Thanks for answering my question. That makes sense in all cases but where a seer-cleared villager casts the first vote, but I can drop that because it's obv not the case here.

Can you respond to my post about why Pavel would antagonize me here if he's villa?

I agree. Tell this to Pavel, who is insisting that actually cleared players -- not SHC, but actually cleared players -- have to be the second wagon at must-lynch if they cast the first vote.

lol

obviously in that case you dont end up being lynched you just end up being the other wagon and the wolves win by lynching the person you voted. if the person you voted is a wolf then the other wolves vote for them too since they dont want to out themselves. it doesnt end up 4-3 but rather 4-1 with 2 people not yet casting votes at eod.

this only applies to the person the seer peeked villager voted.

If they know they are a villager then that's worth more then a seer peek. You can't be wrong about your own role

but for everyone else they should vote the person the peeked villager voted

you are free to continue this argument in a strategy thread after the game but you will 100% be told the same thing as it is a fact.

if a wolf votes another wolf then the other wolf can vote off wagon, but thats the only exception and it should not influence your vote as a villager (which should go on the first voter or the person he voted) as they are always either a wolf or the game is already lost.

pavel: you really should be doing less of what you're doing and more demonstrating that godkata is a wolf

and godkata needs to get back in here

Pavel:

(1) You and godkata are now the wagons.
(2) If you are a villager and a villager votes for you, the game is over.
(3) You call me a coward when I express an openness and willingness to consider your case on godkata before voting.
(4) You are therefore antagonizing me into voting for you (or at the very least not doing anything to persuade me to vote for godkata).
(5) You know I am SHC.
(6) If I vote you and you are a villager, the village loses this game.
(7) Can you explain why you're taking this line with me?

yes so the wagon ends up 4-1 but there is NEVER an extra wagon that can be correctly created out of thin air.

tilt?

I mean strategically he shouldn't antagonize you here as a wolf either

people can tilt in both roles too of course

i dont understand htis post. i just know that pavel is right.

I called you a coward because I was tired of going in circles with you. I have posted more than anyone in this thread and have been very very clear and demonstrative about EVERY single read I have had all game. They are abundantly clear. I have been wrong in the past, but there is nothing I can do to convince you I am not a peek. My main support was mary sue who is now dead. shiitake has been my other support and you arent heeding his advice either. There is no more I can do to convince you that I am right. You have made up your mind so its already done.