So first thing is I do and don't believe KA. My initial thought is this claim is unlikely to from both scum and town and I need to think more about it.
Second thing is I think is that LnG is probably the correct person to condemn today.
Third thing is I really don't trust Vez in the slightest, but despite wanting to condemn him letting him live tonight and giving him a narrow pool to use his ability in makes sense (my preference would be Chris, Tom, Tubba, Vaimes).
Yeah. I didn't claim it because, given the flip, it gave exactly zero info. Did I and scum both target him? Did scum target someone else that he protected, and my shot was just a blast at a corpse? Did scum get roleblocked and it was just my shot? No idea and no way to tell.
Okay why did you shoot Wisp? Did the Rhand flip not do enough to convince you the EtR team wasn't accurate? Why not shoot tom if that was the motivation?
I think KA is pretty obviously town with the Vig claim. I kept waiting for a vig and was surprised at the lack of extra bodies N1 and a body period N2.
I think KA is pretty obviously town with the Vig claim. I kept waiting for a vig and was surprised at the lack of extra bodies N1 and a body period N2.
It's doubtful they'd have a tool that could actually block his block. Usually blocks would "fire" simultaneously and both would happen. So if A and B are roleblockers and A targets B and B targets C then B and C would be successfully blocked.
It's not universal but it's a common interpretation.
@Rod KA's big analysis post assumed you were a full JK and drew different conclusions about the setup because of it.
No. My point was KA was using the lack of a doc claim as evidence that your claim was more likely to be both true and town aligned. I don't think that's the case.
The Osie/Chris/Anak world would make sense if Anak hadn't been such a strong role. Like maybe Chris came in and decided he didn't need daychat and felt he could run things but given how he made his way to Anak it doesn't really make sense even for that. If he was going to take us off Osie he needed a scum flip uf he was going to save Osie as a buddy.
I'd readily agree with that being a reasonable rule. And that's a vast improvement in my book over issues crowding up the thread, which usually inflates arguments, as has happened in the case of DV multiple times.
The host/etc mediates and talks to the players as necessary. Just as would be the case in any other situation hampering the health of the game.
Okay let's use DBS as an example: in ZE it's debateable to whether or not she broke rules or not. My replies to her definitely did. This additional rule against annoyance voting just means I broke an additional clear rule as opposed to the multiple sportsmanship and good faith rules. Maybe because it's a clear line I'm punished, but most of votes at least had surface level in game reasoning so I probably don't get punished by this rule.
My point isn't that my behavior is okay, my point is I think the focus is better spent trying to encourage and foster positive behavior than to make rules against corner cases of unpleasant behavior that are already largely covered by the various "be good to each other" and "play to the spirit of the game rules"
It's not hard to conceptualize, IMO, there's just a lot of grey area no matter what.
As for posts about game integrity, most of the rules that we use there are strict but incredibly vague in theory and rarely enforced in practice.
I don't think most of the game integrity rules are vague, for example the rules about sharing your pm in various ways are incredibly specific. And fortunately rarely enforced as most people who sign up are agreeing to that part of the social contract. The key is that people have differing tolerance levels and don't always agree on interpretations of the finer points of that contract (see my thin skin compared and lesser tolerance to rudeness/flaming than DV or Iso).
Like it's a thing, and if true an explicitly townie thought process as scum would never think it. My paranoia is that it feels so unnaturual that I don't really believe you had it and that you were scum trying to fake a townie confused reaction.
But that is an absolutely idiotic thing to read someone over, and isn't really productive to further discuss. Anyway I'm happy to have more votes on Vez.
Second thing is I think is that LnG is probably the correct person to condemn today.
Third thing is I really don't trust Vez in the slightest, but despite wanting to condemn him letting him live tonight and giving him a narrow pool to use his ability in makes sense (my preference would be Chris, Tom, Tubba, Vaimes).
Only one I'm willing to share for now is scum!tom is back on the menu boys.
But it's badly overpriced and probably not worth testing.
Okay why did you shoot Wisp? Did the Rhand flip not do enough to convince you the EtR team wasn't accurate? Why not shoot tom if that was the motivation?
Wait what.
Actually @KA why didn't you shoot N1?
I'm going to do a quick EtR dive.
It's not universal but it's a common interpretation.
@Rod KA's big analysis post assumed you were a full JK and drew different conclusions about the setup because of it.
No. My point was KA was using the lack of a doc claim as evidence that your claim was more likely to be both true and town aligned. I don't think that's the case.
@KA A full doc and a 1 shot JK can exist. Not with a full RB as well unless the scum team is more powerful than I'd guess.
@Chris are you claiming a full permanent bullet proof? I had initially assumed the same thing that RE did.
Vez still feels wrong to me, but I may be tunneling here.
I feel much better about my Vez vote now.
Okay let's use DBS as an example: in ZE it's debateable to whether or not she broke rules or not. My replies to her definitely did. This additional rule against annoyance voting just means I broke an additional clear rule as opposed to the multiple sportsmanship and good faith rules. Maybe because it's a clear line I'm punished, but most of votes at least had surface level in game reasoning so I probably don't get punished by this rule.
My point isn't that my behavior is okay, my point is I think the focus is better spent trying to encourage and foster positive behavior than to make rules against corner cases of unpleasant behavior that are already largely covered by the various "be good to each other" and "play to the spirit of the game rules"
I don't think most of the game integrity rules are vague, for example the rules about sharing your pm in various ways are incredibly specific. And fortunately rarely enforced as most people who sign up are agreeing to that part of the social contract. The key is that people have differing tolerance levels and don't always agree on interpretations of the finer points of that contract (see my thin skin compared and lesser tolerance to rudeness/flaming than DV or Iso).
But that is an absolutely idiotic thing to read someone over, and isn't really productive to further discuss. Anyway I'm happy to have more votes on Vez.