and skeez we may very well have to agree to disagree but giving up a vig a doc or an rb in exchange for a scum or sk (20 percent of our threats) seems like a good payoff. and depending where we are in game state even giving up the detec may very well be the appropriate play.
now having said all that it is ultimately up to those roles to decide their proper course of action.
right they will know that it was a doc, or a roleblocker.
If they were given the information of whether they were roleblocked or not, then the possibilities are cut in half. Thats why it’s a boon to town that they don’t know. It’s more possibilities. You were implying that it’s worse for town that they don’t know, I don’t see how that could be.
how in the world would anyone other than scum, vig or sk be able to reach that conclusion? reading from the role pms both vig and sk say “may”. maybe i am too metagamey but may means maybe not as well. so yeh, there’s six folks that will have additional information about what happened and fourteen that won’t. and i guess scum could also say what the hey let’s not kill tonight so that could complicate matters. the point i was trying to make was that was a real conclusion to stretch to.
and frack you know i play this way so the aggressive comment i will take as a “nice to see ya peek”.
Dude, YOU’RE the one who brought it up. I was just responding to you.
And WTF was up with your attack on Maha? It may seem like an obvious question to you or me, and yes, he’s an experienced player, but why be so aggressive about it? If you jump down everyone’s throat for asking a question, you’re squelching dialogue and discussion.
arrrrrrrr.
scum will know if a kill doesn’t go through assuming that they attempt a kill one of three things:
they were role blocked
they hit a self protecting doc
they hit someone that the doc was protecting
town will not know shit. that is the only point i was trying to make, for goodness sakes. all of the above scenarios give the bad guys additional information that the town does not get. my lord.
Just because you play this way doesn’t make it any less okay. I don’t know you all that well and I’m sure a lot of others don’t. We’re going by THIS game, not your past playing strategies. And what I’m coming away with is you’re very needlessly aggressive when nothing has even happened yet, and that to me seems weird.
ok, my bad. i am always in folk’s grill. it helps foster discussion and keep the game going. yaknow, if silence is what we want and desire then let’s esp our thoughts to each other. i thought maha was being very wrong and i called him on it to the point that i voted for him. i understand that this board plays a little softer and gentler than others. so to that extent i humbly apologize for questioning anyone’s statements. let’s all just kiss and make up and assume that the scum will realize that our niceness necessitates their self immolation.
It probably seems like I’m harping on this, but there isn’t much else going on discussion-wise.
Town doesn’t get shit for information in any regards. Scum will always know who they tried to kill and whether or not they are dead.
I agree with the sentiment of this, especially since someone may radically try to change they way they play the game to confuse familiar players. However, pointing out and chastising his aggressive stance, is as equally scummy as his aggressive stance. And it could be seen as an attempt by you to push for a lynch the loud, which is severely pro-scum.
It doesn’t foster discussion if what you’re saying is don’t ask stupid questions or we’ll scream at you.
Red, I agree. I’m not calling for a lynch of peeker. I’m just saying that it’s a stupid idea to yell at people for asking for clarification. Do we prefer that they continue in ignorance, or that we not bring up important? And I think voting for Mahaloth for asking a question is definitely going to squelch any kind of meaningful conversation.
I’m not voting for anyone just yet but peeker is pinging my radar for being so willing to vote for someone who seems quite innocuous to me.
and one last comment and then i let the beast lie.
there was some metagame discussion upthread. while i agree that for the most part it is only marginally helpful i still go down that path since that is my nature.
for example, i tend to give those folks that i have never played with (or infrequently) a heck of a lot more lattitude. those folks that i have played with get held to a different standard. fair - probably not but just the way i go about things (my kids get a lot of rules bending on the golf course. the scratch golfers when we are playing for some serious scratch, not any).
same here. i’ve played with a couple of you folks a bunch and i probably react differently to them than if it were the first time i ever encountered you. maha is a former game mod. he knows (or should) what roles do and how they work. one of the things that i always do as scum is try to appear helpful. his questions came across as helpful cotton candy (i.e. they took up space but didn’t provide much satiation).
i am calling him on it, is all. if that is perceived to be aggressive then i will certainly back it down a notch.
maha, what say you?
In the past, I’ve always thought Maha played well, and I’ve enjoyed the games he’s been involved with. Then again, you are right in that he probably should be a bit more aware but I don’t at all agree with the way you phrased it and the fact that your first reaction wasn’t, “Can you explain” but “LYNCH!”
I’m willing to give him a chance to explain himself since I do think he’s a really good and thoughtful player.
For what it’s worth, peeker is playing no differently than he did in Screamers, and he was a Doc in that game. I’m generally not a huge fan of metagaming, but I fall victim to lynch-the-loud all the time (as Town and Scum, I should add), and so does peeker. I hate that as much as I hate lynch-the-lurker this early in the game. People who talk more help Town eventually, either by coming up with good ideas if Town, or talking themselves into a corner if they’re Scum, and lynching someone who doesn’t participate Day One tells us absolutely nothing. So while we shouldn’t give the loud a pass, we shouldn’t get on people just for playing aggressively.
I asked because in my Wild West game, JoeyP’s kill could not be blocked. The only way to stop him was to kill him, so I want to make sure kills can be stopped in this game.
I’m taking it that they can. I guess that’s it really.
NETA:
JoeyP was a scum godfather in my game; I figure this is useful info to understand my reference to him in that game.
well i kind of agree drain except. i am notorious for not lynching the loud unless they are ed, story or sach. here for a while scum folks just skated along being in the middle of the pack or not at all. ltl was developed. then scum started talking incessantly. i have said before, all things being semi equal i will try to take out a non or low participant.
and freud or anyone else if encouraging disucssion and calling folks on what someone believes to be bullshit is to be characterized agressive then i just don’t know what we should be doing. however, i certainly don’t want to fall into the realm of dickishness or assholishness.
and i’ll continue to step back. in screamers i was absolutely without any doubt convinced that tom was scum. the freaking opie in happy days bit just pushed me over the edge. and i was dead wrong. but having said that, it still was a hoot and if freaking np hadn’t had the game of her life i’d still have been on the winning team.
that’s the other thing that goes a little understated. remember, except for third parties, this is a team game. if you have to lay your life down so that your team wins then who cares. so if you have to shuck and jive to create an opening for your mates then go for it. i know a lot of folks look at longevity as a benchmark for measuring success. not so. did you win or lose, not if you are standing is the yardstick.
onward to esp.
Yes, but (and this was my point in the first place), they won’t know which is which, which is an important distinction (If they knew that their target was protected, they might conclude that he was the doctor. If they knew that they were blocked, they could start preparing for the town blocker to claim. etc.). Normally, if they were told they were blocked, they would know. But in this game, they don’t.
You were the one who brought it up in the first place!
That is completely ridiculous. Why would either of those groups hinder their own win condition just to deprive us of information we don’t have anyway?
That’s the point I was trying to make! Except your conclusion is ridiculous. You are saying that because the scum can narrow down the information less, they have more information. Which is ridiculous.
You completely missed my (And Red’s, who thinks eerily similarly to me, apparently) point, repeatedly. FOS.
I agree with this fully. This is a team game. That said, I think a lot of people expected this game to start on Monday. We still have players who haven’t confirmed their roles yet. And two players who we don’t even know are in the game because of their mailbox issues.
That said, I think this talking is a perfectly good idea. Even if i think it’s a bit silly at this stage asking for all these rules and variations when the Moderator has been pretty clear that this is a very standard and vanilla game.
Though I suppose we should all be so paranoid of the Mods.
ok, let’s try this real slow and see if anyone other than me gets what i was trying to say.
if a killing faction or person attempts to kill someone and that person does not end up dead that person or faction would likely know this come the morning.
do we even agree on that?
if we do, wouldn’t it be natural to assume that the person or group would then have information that someone not involved in said action would not possess?
theoretical.
you are vanilla and someone else is a killer or part of a killing faction. the person or group targets a person for Night kill. the next Day that person is still alive. it seems to me that the person or group that attempted to kill the still living person would have more information than the vanilla that had no clue what in the world was going on or if in fact anything had been attempted.
maybe i just use old math or something because that seems to be self evident. apparently i have missed something because i just don’t see how the person that has no clue has the same amount of information as the person or persons that attempted to do something and potentially failed in their attempt.
c’mon, pede help an old man out and tell me where i have disconnected on the above?
I get your first part, peeker, but what do you mean by:
“if we do, wouldn’t it be natural to assume that the person or group would then have information that someone not involved in said action would not possess?”
Truly you have a dizzying intellect. 
But hey, that’s what I like about peeker.
Yes.
Yes, they would have more information. However! In a typical game, the scum could also be expected to be told that they were blocked if they were blocked. Thus, even more information. However in this game, they would not be told.
Typical game:
Town: 0 info, Scum: 2 info
This game:
Town: 0 info, Scum: 1 info
Thus, in this game (unlike typically), the scum get less information than we do. Thus, a boon.