Khan's Unnamed 3p Mafia II (Micro 175) {Game Over}

[saulres]

Not much. Just speculating that KK has a weird sense of humor. Time will tell.

[saulres]

What makes you say that? (

Actually having the same thought.

)

Are you pondering what I'm pondering?



You first.

[saulres]

I'm pondering that after he saw this:

Tierce and I can call each other scum while zach-scum goes on to win

he couldn't resist setting it up that way. There's a 50-50 chance of that from where I'm sitting.

---

I'm also wondering about this:

The game is in LYLO and will continue as long as necessary.

Theoretically we could all just not vote forever until he breaks down and tells us who the scum is just to end it.

Let's try something.

VOTE: Kublai Khan

[saulres]

Preliminary thought is that Tierce is scum here. ^.^

Why Tierce and not me?

Also, c'mon, vote KK.

Then I can satisfy my lyncher wincon.

[saulres]

Posting as town.

[saulres]

???

Okay, I'm not a troll and neither is Tierce. So explain to me how you're not scum, Zach?*

*Offer only applies if the setup isn't all town. And if it is, why isn't anyone else voting the mod now?

[saulres]

Hm. Given what I know, your claim is very plausible.

Very

plausible. Given my role PM, the way the town win condition is worded, and the fact that I can't see scum making that claim risking that the setup could involve a town PR...

Now the only question is,

Tierce, why

aren't

you the scum?

pedit: Whoa, get called away to work in the middle of the post. No, Tierce, lynching Zach is

not

the way to go if you're town. Town would look at the things at their VT role (as I did), the wording of the town win condition ("dead", not "lynched"), and come to my conclusion that he's telling the truth.

VOTE: Tierce

[saulres]

Yes! I figured it out. We're playing SS3.

I was so bummed when I got a VT role, having seen KK's first 3-player Micro. When you made your claim I had to wiki it, because even though I've heard the term before I didn't really know the role. Then I got confused because from what I read, if you were telling the truth, you'd have to die, meaning there'd be a period of time, short though it was, that there'd be just me and scum, and that would satisfy the scum wincon. So I checked their wincon and that's when I realized the wording of my wincon was off -- it says "dead", not "lynched". Meaning there's another way to kill the scum, meaning your claim, along with the SS3 link, and my VT role PM, works. That meant Tierce was the scum.

And was I shocked to see her vote you right off the bat like that, instead of taking time to think it through. If she's "inclined to think that saul is scum" then she should have voted for me, not for you.

[saulres]

Pshaw I read the other game, but not the ruleset. So yeah. And

I

'm town, but I didn't feel voting zach off the bat was a good idea until I did more research into the role.

But his not hammering me tells me I'm right.

Now either go to sleep or come up with a good reason that I'm scum.

Zach, here's some more: Look at -- oh hell I'm not going to link it it's on the previous page. I was speculating Tierce and I were both town from my first post, while she was asking you and me to crossvote.

pedit: LOL playing a real-time game when I can't play real-time.

[saulres]

If you're Town, you get the 3pp LyLo confTown role.

He's already conftown. He didn't hammer you when he had the chance, and

you

haven't claimed a role which would make that a bad move for scum.

[saulres]

You are a free hammer. I'm not.

I don't understand "free hammer", but please don't explain until after you've slept. I don't want a game to interfere with your life; I've had enough of that on my own side in the past I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Zach, please ask me whatever you need that'll help you make a decision.

[saulres]

she's claiming supersaint as well

She is? Where?

[saulres]

Meh. Convenient of her to softclaim that after you outright claimed it. I don't buy it.

My vote is not moving off of her.

[saulres]

Incidentally, you shouldn't have claimed, Zach. I think. But that cow's been milked.

This statement is not said from town to someone they think is scum.

[saulres]

Tierce, do you counterclaim (or co-claim) Zach? Are you also claiming supersaint?

[saulres]

She sleeps a lot, doesn't she?

<3

[saulres]

I'll respond to everything else through the day, because I have a busy one and there's a lot. But I do want to respond to this:

saulres is scum and believes both of us are super saints, so his only solutions, in his PoV, are to have Zach/I hammer each other--he has to vote first, or the first vote has to be a self-vote with him not voting.

Given that I'm a VT, yes, the idea crossed my mind that if we're not playing that setup above then the next most likely case is me vs a town supersaint and a scum supersaint. That would be an interesting setup. That's why I asked if you were a supersaint; if you said you were, I would unvote and ask you both to vote each other, and then convince me why the other one is the scum.

And if you remember Animal Rescue, you'll remember that if I had stuck to my "guess the KK setup" instead of letting the SK sway me from that, we town would have won. So I

will

stick to trying to figure out the setup in a 3-person game with one VT and one claimed supersaint, thank you very much.

[saulres]

I said nothing about "figuring out the setup"

I know you go on wild speculation as Town, but why would you suggest KK is doing something like that?

---

You don't see the fun in a setup of a town supersaint, a scum supersaint, and a third person trying to figure out which one's telling the truth?

I'm not ruling Zach out as scum. I'd like to see him do some scumhunting or pushing of issues. He has a fear of hammering you because of your softclaim, that I can buy, but he had the opportunity to quickhammer in 32,

before you made it

, and didn't do so. So yes, I could see him being a scum supersaint.

pedit: No meanness read into it, so no worries. Especially as I'm not "styling" my play after anybody.

ppedit: I was kind of wondering that too. Which is why I was hoping Tierce

would

claim supersaint, that makes it easy.

[saulres]

The problem with this plan is, from my POV it guarantees a town win for Tierce to be your hammerer. Which is what she was arguing for me to be the hammerer. And since I'm leaning towards her being the scum, I'm unlikely to agree to vote you. And I'm sure she'll say the same thing.

This is why I think it's so important for Tierce to claim

whatever

she is, and I'll unvote her if that's what it takes. I just don't accept that Tierce is a VT also.

pedit: Exactly.

ppedit: He hasn't done any scumhunting. He's just riding the claim. That's not solid enough to be conftown.

pppedit: Then town loses.

[saulres]

By the way, scum supersaint and Town supersaint don't work because one would just hammer each other for a Town autowin.

Nope. It does work, because the town one still needs to convince the other townie which one to vote for. That's what LyLo's all about.

pedit: Awesome. So do it. Otherwise it's just lip service. Scum could easily conceive a plan like that hoping it makes them look townie enough to have the supersaint pick the other person.

[saulres]

Numbering these so I can get to them in some sort of organized fashion. I apologize for splitting it up over multiple posts but today I just can't do it all at once.

Behold! She lives!

One

I'm pondering that after he saw this:

Tierce and I can call each other scum while zach-scum goes on to win

he couldn't resist setting it up that way. There's a 50-50 chance of that from where I'm sitting.

Setting the game up like this on purpose would be immoral; you're a mod, you know this. I know you go on wild speculation as Town, but why would you suggest KK is doing something like that? I think this is null, because I can't find

any

game-relevant motivation to say this (other than "let's make up random stuff to cover up the Zach rolefishing", but that's seems too far-fetched). But, by the way, this is kind of offensive to suggest regardless of whether you believe it or not (if you're scum, it's obvious pretense). Mods are not supposed to set up things like this on purpose. Don't suggest they do, that's gaming the mod and questioning their moral code.

Two

I'm also wondering about this:

The game is in LYLO and will continue as long as necessary.

Theoretically we could all just not vote forever until he breaks down and tells us who the scum is just to end it.

Let's try something.

VOTE: Kublai Khan

This is scummy. It's much the same as NS's mod-vote in Vi's Mafia in Triplicate; it's a joke, and it

was

funny when I read it, but--you read the previous 3p game. Like with the wincon bit, it was in the rules in that game as well. You said you didn't read the rules in the previous game, but it's a

3p

game and you know there is a scum player due to said wincon and the fact that we are in LyLo, so we can't be "all Town", as you say you wondered. I know you're a rational person--speculation is not discordance, but in this game you have rather dissonant frames of mind. Did you or did you not know this was in LyLo/there is a scum player? Did you or did you not know that the wincon is the same as the previous game, so super saints are irrelevant to it because that's how KK writes things? The lack of knowledge makes no sense from a Town player who read the 3p Daycop game and who wants to verify things before making assumptions on roles. You're pretending not to know things to try and fish information out of Zach. However, I will grant you that I don't think you were familiar with super saints before this game, though you are familiar with vengekill roles.
Ramble ramble ramble etc. My point when I started this paragraph was that voting the mod is a cheap Towntell. My main point of contention here is: you were in Maf.Triplicate, you know I don't go on those things as evidences of Townieness, so it kind of doubles around and I go back to not thinking there's a lot of scum intent there. But it still looks fake, like you have nothing better to do yet are afraid to admit it, and chose to make that post out of a feeling of awkwardness.

Three

But his not hammering me tells me I'm right.

I expect you mean hammering

me

, not

you

, but:
Claiming supersaint is suboptimal (Zach appears to have wondered if it was an iffy claim to make, if you look at Post 12) and you're trying to paint me as scummy for a theory point that is on the Super Saint wiki page, which you probably read if you were going through SS3. It doesn't matter if you "knew" the role or not, you're calling me scum for making a decision...

too quickly?

You do know I read a lot of games, right? Let's add that one of my first IRC mafia games was SS3 and I was the super saint. Also Open 390, with the Brass and Shrapnel setup. I don't have to wait on you to know things I've known for a year and a half about the SS/vengeful role.

I know it's not optimal to claim vengeful, and therefore have no interest in claiming or counterclaiming or co-claiming or

anything

in these circumstances. Consider the hypothetical scenario in which I'm a super saint, Zach is scum and knows there is a super saint in the game. He can self-vote on page 1 without worry, because neither of us is the kind to trollhammer as Town. He claims super saint, and if he's lucky, you either blurt out you are a VT, or I counterclaim. Then he knows you have to be the lynch, therefore won't hammer the real super saint (me). (Hypothetical scenario 2 is Zach is a Jester, and wants to be lynched (SS would be an AWESOME claim in that case), but regardless of my role, he can't be a Jester because it's not a Mafia-aligned role and it's not present in the win conditions.)
Outside any hypothetical scenario, I'm not going to be lynched in this game (you are NOT going to add to my two mislynches), and neither are you. Zach is the lynch, and he gets to pick who hammers him after self-voting. And I promise I won't laugh at you for self-voting even if you're scum, Zach~

Four

No, Tierce, lynching Zach is

not

the way to go if you're town. Town would look at the things at their VT role (as I did), the wording of the town win condition ("dead", not "lynched"), and come to my conclusion that he's telling the truth.

...And? If he's telling the truth, he is still the lynch. Choosing to lynch a claimed super saint is not scummy, but you're trying to say it is:

And was I shocked to see her vote you right off the bat like that, instead of taking time to think it through. If she's "inclined to think that saul is scum" then she should have voted for me, not for you.

Bonus points for the posturing in the first sentence.

Incidentally, you shouldn't have claimed, Zach. I think. But that cow's been milked.

This statement is not said from town to someone they think is scum.

See above, under the LOLNOPE NOT CLAIMING section. It wouldn't be optimal for me to counterclaim as a supersaint, and I am not clarifying things on that end. It doesn't matter, because

I'm not the lynch

.

I think saul is scum, but it's up to Zach. #YOLetc.

pedit: Man I'm tired of typing "pedit" LOL.

But if one supersaint self-votes, and if it's the town one, the scum doesn't hammer. And if it's the scum one, then -- but if the scum doesn't self-vote then -- oh. I see. Bad me

So we're back to the setup I first speculated (not the KK one, the other one -- SS3 I think).

[saulres]

ou convinced me to play this... imagine how I feel!

She told me when Jake dropped out too

I only die if I'm wrong, no pressure right?

No. Because if you're wrong, that means you picked me, and I won't vote you unless I think you're scum. Tierce doesn't have credibility in my eyes to call your claim a false one; she has given

no

evidence to the contrary.

[saulres]

Responding to Tierce point

One

You say you see no game-relevant information for that? That's correct, there wasn't. That's 9 posts into a game where we can't RVS, and you had only sent out one throwaway line. Until you were also talking there wasn't much I felt I could do as a VT, so I was having conversation for conversation's sake. Much like Zach's first post (3) and your first post (5). Nothing game-relevant there either.

Suggesting that I was offensive to KK for suggesting it? Let's see, post-game, if he felt that way. I think he saw where I was coming from and it wasn't an issue for him. But nice of you to try to paint me as "immoral" and "offensive" -- that's a form of AtE.

[saulres]

I didn't call you "immoral", I called

deciding the setup without randomness

immoral.

Hm, okay. You were criticizing me for suggesting he would do something immoral, and linked it to me modding, and I took that as tying me to immortality. You did call me "offensive" though.

And I know you won't claim. That's fine. But could you please do something for me, which I do for you? Could you try to see how it looks, with me town, from

my

POV? Why should

I

do what you suggest? You're more persuasive than I am; as a scum tactic you could suggest what you did if you thought you'd be more likely to convince Zach that I'm scum than I would be to convince him you are.

pedit: zach: Why?

Tierce likes to pull up history all over the site. I don't have that kind of memory. Tierce makes very convincing (not necessarily good) arguments for me being scum

all the time

, and I don't recall

ever

flipping scum when she's done so.

We're back to exactly what I predicted

[saulres]

Tierce point

Two

If I distilled this correctly, your claim here is that my voting for the mod is scummy because it looks fake and I had nothing better to do. Mea cupla to the latter, as expressed earlier.

As to the digression of reading KK's other game, yes I read it (but not the rules). It had three players with the same ability, even though there was

no point

in giving the scum a cop role. So I expected something funny in this one too. And I got VT. Big disappointment, but there has to be funniness

somewhere

in it, and there wasn't enough to go on then. So why

not

vote the mod? Or did you want me to come out and say "Hey, um, can everybody claim or something? Because I got a lame role and I want to see what you got."

pedit: (

Really

getting tired of "pedit"): LOL on my typo. As to your final statement, yes, yes, you could be right, and if we're both town then Zach is really enjoying watching this. But the key thing is, the decision to vote for Zach

is

in my hands. I can't stop you both from voting me (giving scum the win) but I

can

stop

myself

from guaranteeing a loss if I don't think he's scum.

p. p. e. dit. What about the possibility she's not claiming in order to get you to think she's a supersaint and you'd lose by hammering? Seems solid scum strategy to me. And of course she'd have to come up with a believable reason for it.

[saulres]

My point is, if she's scum, then her goal is to get you to pick me to hammer you, and to convince you to vote me when I don't. If she claims anything, she's reducing the chances of that happening, because what claim could she make that you'd believe, or that wouldn't add confusion? (Don't answer that, just think about it.) Better to stay mum and just try to argue more effectively than I.

pedit: I think she's sleeping now, yah? She was yesterday...

[saulres]

Tierce point

Three

I was calling you scum for voting zach right off the bat and setting me up to be the one to hammer. Reason: I know I'm town. If you're scum, you know that too, so you placed the first vote on him and began building up a case that I should be the one to hammer. If you're town, you would have tried to convince me to go along with the plan. You didn't do that, you're just trying to shove it down our throats. Still haven't done it.

WHY SHOULD TOWN-ME FOLLOW YOUR PLAN?

pedit: Yes I'm afraid to lynch Zach because he's a claimed supersaint and I could lose if I do so.

You could be the scum

. Why would I just throw the game away if I don't think Zach is the scum?

peepee edit: I've given you the option of me unvoting if you agree to claim afterwards. You keep rejecting it. ScumZach couldn't quickhammer you if there aren't any votes on you.

[saulres]

No no no. Stop dodging my main point.

My main point is this: I am town. I have Person A trying to push through a lynch of either me, or a lynch of Person B, based

only

on a claim that Person A is town. Why should

any

town in my position believe Person A's claim?

That is what you're asking me to do. And when I say that, you say "No, it doesn't matter, because that's what's going to happen." Meaning you're trying to shove this down Zach's throat.

Your plan will bring you victory no matter

what

your alignment. It's not a town plan. It's not a scum plan. It's an

anybody

plan. So it holds no credibility.

pedit (yes it's a pedit, work called. Sheesh):

Zach plays the role of confTown and gets to pick who hammers him, he either dies as scum or takes down one person with him, making this a 50% LyLo over a 33% one

This explains where you're coming from very well. But it's just reducing the game to a numbers game, and I'm not willing to go along with it if he picks me. If you really want to go that route, then you should just hammer him and get your 50%.

[saulres]

Tierce point

four

Near as I can tell, this is a rehash of point three. So nothing to add there.

If either of you feel I missed something, let me know.

[saulres]

if you remember Animal Rescue, you'll remember that if I had stuck to my "guess the KK setup"

Whoops. In the interest of accuracy I just remembered this game was run by zoraster. KK was the SK

[saulres]

Zach,

Thinking this over more, this why I currently think Tierce is scum: your posts read genuine to me coming from a townie with that role. I don't feel they're scum-motivated.

Tierce, on the other hand... You self-voted and I didn't hammer, then it was her turn to post. She's told us she's familiar with SS3 so that setup must have crossed her mind. So...

If she's scum, she realized she couldn't hammer for the win and so had to come up with something that would give her a chance to get you or me lynched. She came up with a plan to give her a 50% chance of winning, especially if she could make me look scummy. She's done the latter before (when we were both town) and if you want I'll find the games and link you to them.

If she's town, the proper play would be to convince everyone that she's town and

then

suggest what she did. But instead, she's trying to shove it through.

At this point you're leaning scum on me because you can see a town motivation behind Tierce's refusal to claim. Can you see no scum motivation for it?

[saulres]

I hear you, I really do. The reason I say it gives you a win is because of the way you're pushing me as scum. If I lynch him, you win no matter what your alignment.

And I've said that I won't lynch him if I think you're the scum. Because that would be playing against my wincon: If you're scum, then my hammering him causes town to lose. So if I don't, then you and he are going to vote me, and town loses. This is why it's not a good plan. I'd rather forget about the super-saint claim and win this by scumhunting, not by randomly rolling dice on a player whose alignment isn't known to me. There's a lot of discussion and things to question and challenge. So I hope Zach starts doing that.

That

would be playing LyLo like I'm used to.

In case it's still not clear: The difference between your plan and regular LyLo is you're saying "Whoever Zach picks is dying" when Zach is

not

confirmed town. In normal LyLo there's crossvoting which either results in a scum win or a conftown. That's not the situation we have if he picks me and I don't vote him.

[saulres]

Why are you trying to associate scummy intent with an action that you know is null?

Two reasons.

1) As you said, I win if he picks you. It's in my best interest, if he's town, to make every argument I can that you are the scum.

2) I feel the way you presented the plan, not the plan itself, was not a town way of doing so. If I had thought of that plan first, I would have suggested it differently than you did. And since I'm town, I think my way is "the" town way and your way is not.

Having said that, the more this discussion goes on, and Zach just sits back, the more I'm starting to think we're doing our usual dance and he's the scum laughing. But I'm not sold on that yet. We (town we, not you-and-me-we) need him to start participating more though.

(Oh, and yes, I've seen you play this way, or similarly at least (in my poor memory) back in PARANOIA Mafia. You were presenting plans and all there IIRC, and you were scum.)

pedit (you're kidding, even now too?): Oh hi Zach. Yes, that's corerct, but I really hope you're looking at my reasons for saying that. It's

not

a scumclaim, as Tierce is trying to present it as. It's a disagreement on the strategical value of doing so.

[saulres]

How would you have presented the plan then?

If I came up with it? By playing long enough to hopefully establish myself as town, or to get a scumread on you. Then presenting it.

So you're going to try to pressure me to act fast, rather than taking my time to make the most informed decision possible?

That's not what I'm doing there.

How is me picking which one of you hammers me any different than me choosing which one of you to hammer if you guys were in fact cross voting?

Because I'm being asked to vote someone I may not have a scumread on. That's under

my

control. Being mislynched because I

don't

do that isn't under my control.

How are things scum-motivated

if you were me?

Because I don't see the town motivation in presenting it the way you did. I can see town presenting the argument, I don't see it being presented that way, no matter who you are. It's taking a mafia theory question and basing the play of this game on one viewpoint in that discussion. If we were having this discussion in GD I'd be presenting the same viewpoint, but there's no risk of losing there. There is here.

Please tell me how this plan has any hidden parts

??? I don't believe I said that.

And to that PEdit: No, I am not trying to present it as a scumclaim.

Um, yes you are? Saying "If he picks you and you don't vote him then I'm voting you" is equivalent to saying "If he picks you and you don't vote him then you're scum." Because

one doesn't vote people they don't think are scum in LyLo

. Unless, of course, that one is scum. Or they have some weird ability/wincon.

[saulres]

Sigh.

Why would I want, as Town, to try and build Towncred before I present a plan that I know is optimal? So that I have a better chance of convincing people to follow me? I don't need it, because I know that the numbers show that this is optimal, and more importantly, I don't need to build up Towncred.

You're asking me to hammer him if he picks me. The only reason I would have to do so is if I think he is scum, because as town, it is not in my best interest to hammer him yet since

you

could be the scum. If you convinced me you were town, though, then I

would

hammer him, because he'd be the scum. That's why it's important to have towncred before asking the other person to agree to the plan.

You've asked me to hammer Zach twice now.

That's not what I was doing there. Here, let me bring the whole thing in:

Having said that, the more this discussion goes on, and Zach just sits back, the more I'm starting to think we're doing our usual dance and he's the scum

So you're going to try to pressure me to act fast, rather than taking my time to make the most informed decision possible? (Regardless of how long it takes, I'm going to have to make one eventually.)

I wasn't pressuring him to act fast in the part he was responding to, and I wasn't pressuring you to do anything there either.

how is my plan-crafting similar to Paranoia in particular

Because I've seen you do it as scum, so I can't assume you're town just because you're doing it again.

None of this is really scumhunting.

The back-and-forth with you? It's really not, no, it's defending my decision because the last I heard Zach was thinking I'm more likely to be scum and I'm not ready to vote him.

you are still the lynch.

And then Zach flips scum and me and I weep over my carefully nurtured "Town LyLos won: 0" in the post-game.

I'm trying not to have to weep. But if he's town and he picks you, you will be weeping.

[saulres]

Zach, is there any point in me responding to Tierce, or if I don't vote you are you going to vote me?

Two quick things:

pppedit: Then town loses.

There's a lot of other points I can make, but when it comes right down to it this is what bothers me the most.

The implication of the statement seems to betray that he knows my alignment to me, despite all of his claims in further posts that he hasn't ruled me out.

No? He was saying that Town would lose in reply to my #75, which was "we'll lynch you if you don't hammer Zach". That is not a perspective slip.

^This.

And, this, which I just don't get:

I have to see whether I would be comfortable about lynching saul if he doesn't hammer you

Up until just now it's been "If you don't hammer you're the lynch". What changed?

pedit: Seriously? I didn't sign up for a Marathon...

I have a meeting now, will get back to this later.

[saulres]

Saul hammers me, or he dies.

Well. Okay then.

So Zach's not going to change his mind. Tierce isn't going to self-vote, so I'm not going to get her lynched, and if Zach's the scum I'm going to have to vote for him anyway.

Really hoping the latter...

VOTE: Zachrulez

[saulres]

Well-played, whichever of you's the scum.

[saulres]

I'll wait for KK at this point I think.

If you ever see me sign up for a game again, though -- remind me not to. Two days ago I remembered why I stopped playing

[saulres]

I. KNEW. IT.

My problem is, I'm not convincing enough. I said as much in-game. I don't know how to improve that skill.

Looking forward to Tierce's honest opinions about my arguments now

pedit (post-game too? Argh!): That's very nice of you. If you want to, that's fine, I wouldn't mind reading it. I just don't know that I'll use it, playing is so bad for me...

[saulres]

Zach, I couldn't have convinced you not to vote for me, could I have? Did I give up too easily?

[saulres]

The pro-town thing is to be willing to hammer me because you can't be sure I'm town.

This is the part I still don't understand. I know I can't be sure, but when I'm leaning so heavily one way, how is it pro-town to say "Well I think you're town but since the scum suggested this plan I'll go ahead and slit our throats just because"?

I was quite honest in my assessment of how I think that plan should have been played as town.

p. f***king. edit.: Tierce, you didn't convince me you were town. Zach did a couple of scummier things towards the end there which made it more likely to me that he was the scum.

More later, got work to do.

[saulres]

Giddy?

I had considered unvoting Tierce a few times, but rejected it each time for -- I don't know what. It just didn't feel right.

Also I took you at your word, Zach, after confirming that you would've voted for me if didn't vote for you. In hindsight I absolutely should have taken my own advice: "You don't vote for someone you don't think is scum in LyLo" but I was also looking at the flipside of your comment: I couldn't be sure you weren't scum.

I gave up too quickly. I'm sorry.

[saulres]

mudslinging/hypocrisy never ever helps you as Town, because it's not honest or transparent.

If you don't mind some elaboration on this? I didn't feel I was mudslinging, and all my arguments were honest.

I do agree optimal play for town is to have the claimed SS self-vote and the other player hammer. But I couldn't figure out how to get you to do that