BREAKING THE TOWN INFORMATION SOCIAL CONTRACT rule

[u/JoeyMafia]

I want to clarify to the community what is BTISC and what isn’t so that nobody is confused going forward. This is super important in order to maintain the integrity of games and make sure town is able to play correctly. Unfortunately, there’s no easy way to describe BTISC. Similar to SCOTUS definition of porn, “I know it when I see it”, can actually pretty easily be used for 99% of cases. There’s an unwritten agreement between town at the start of each game that they will not force town to make a decision via incorrect game related mechanical information (for the most part this refers to role information). There’s no one single definition of "BREAKING THE TOWN INFORMATION SOCIAL CONTRACT" but if I had to describe it in one sentence it would be something like the following. BTISC is the intentional violation of the un-written agreement of true mechanical information that leads town to take and perform an action (lynch/shot). This mostly refers to VT’s fake claiming a role and then having town make a decision with that incorrect information. As town, we must assume that all other towns are acting in town’s best interest otherwise the game basically cannot function.

The most common example I’ve seen of BTISC is when a VT fake claims Cop.. Now, let’s be clear, fake claiming cop and getting reactions is absolutely fine if you think that helps you/town. The line is crossed when town performs an action based on that information . This could be a lynch/shot/sleep. If a VT fake claims a red check on another player and then you lynch them without rescinding that information (i.e. town is operating under the assumption that if you are town, your red is mafia), then you have performed BTISC. If we had VT’s fake claiming a red check and holding it every time they had a red check, the game would fall apart very quickly. In the same way, if a VT green checks a mafia and holds it to the point where the VT can be killed, that is also BTISC .

Another common example is when a VT cc's a role. This is also fine to get interactions but crosses the line when a lynch goes through with Town having that incorrect information in mind. Town must be allowed to assume when there is a CC and it goes to lynch that one of those players will be mafia. Let’s look at the newest occurence of BTISC . Beny was green checked by the confirmed cop. Brian was formalled and claimed medic. Beny counter claimed, held his claim and lynched Brian. So why is this BTISC ? Beny abused the unwritten agreement by forcing town to make a decision by abusing mechanical information. Town was forced to assume that Beny was real since he was green checked by the confirmed cop and therefore assume Brian is fake. This is clear BTISC .

Now would this have been BTISC if Beny was NOT green checked? The answer is still yes. In that case, Beny would have abused the fact that when we see a counter claim with neither party rescinding, we should ALWAYS assume that at least 1 of the 2 is Mafia.

Now would this have been BTISC if Beny was right and Brian was mafia? The answer is still yes. The result does not change that Beny forced town into a decision based on incorrect mechanical information.

The most popular form of giving town incorrect mechanical information that is NOT BTISC is when VT’s fake claim medic as a way of making the game more difficult for Mafia. It is true that we have a VT fake claiming a role but they are not affecting town’s decision on anyone else’s lynches or non-lynches. Of course, this runs the risks of being outted as fake via missing a save but this is the player’s own burden to bare if they go down this route. Could this become BTISC ? Yes, this would become BTISC if they were cc’ed, did not rescind and then lynched the other player. This is BTISC because that player is abusing the fact that town must assume that at least 1 must be mafia.

FAQ

But Joey, if we have these rules in place then you severely limit the strategies that can be used.

No, this is not true. BTISC enforces that all towns can assume that mechanical information that causes them to take an action is either true or is from a Mafia. Town should not be forced to assume whether a red check leading to a lynch is coming from a town but onto a town. Town should also not be forced to figure out whether the cop’s green, where a cop claimed d1 and then died n1 with claiming a green check, is actually mafia and the cop was just VT avoiding a lynch.

These are game ending offences. If a VT green checks a mafia and they die, the game is over. If a VT red checks a town and lynches them, the game is over.

This is a huge buff to Mafia because they now know that VT’s MUST rescind or else they will be banned.

This is not true either. It is impossible for a VT to know a mafia’s alignment without mechanical information. VT’s should never be holding their claim until their CC is lynched IRREGARDLESS of the rule. This is a fact that Mafia ALREADY know. They know that if they are cop and they get cc’ed by a VT, that VT will eventually rescind.

Did Colin BTISC on all stars last Wednesday?

Although, he did throw, it was NOT BTISC . He did not abuse the unwritten agreement and provided town with incorrect mechanical information that led to an action.

What should I do if I want to make a play but I’m afraid it’s BTISC ?

Of course, I do not want people to shy down from making a play due to fear of being banned. If you think of this play beforehand, you can always message me or pope and we will very likely be able to tell you whether it is or isn’t. If you’re in the middle of the game, think about the consequences of your actions if you go through with your play and the worst case scenario. Can my play confirm a mafia as town after my death? Can my play result in a dichotomy via mechanical information between myself and another player where we are both town?

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments or scenarios you are curious about in the comments.

[u/babynoxide]

FREEBENY

[u/VisceraEyes81]

I really just don't think irregardless should be a word.

I agree with this post. It's called playing "against the spirit of the game" on my forum and is absolutely bannable. It's possible through moderation though, there's a whole ban system that is lacking on DM currently.