Omnibus post. I probably won’t post more than once or twice per calendar day. Sorry if I didn’t reply to you.
I agree that players attempting to secretly communicate via post editing is nearly cheating. I’d prefer that the moderators simply ban post-editing. But since they’ve explicitly allowed it, feel that it’s up to the players to voice our disapproval and possibly more severe reactions to it.
In a game all about reading the posts of other players, the editing of posts is anti-game as far as I’m concerned. If a post ends up formatted poorly or a player mistypes badly, the in-game solution is to write a new post. Not change the historical record.
Ultimately, I feel a player who edits a post is trying to the ruin the fun of the rest of us with their own personal selfishness.
This post raises my hackles. It looks like trying to excuse another player’s behavior, maybe in an attempt to mollify that other player.
(A mechanical note: please use a proper quote so that it’s easier for others to see where you’re quoting from. Or at least manually include a link or Day.Number so we can easily find it. We have no easy way to find the context of your snip.)
You’ve outlined the reasons why it can be helpful to discuss town roles.
But do not forget the costs. Go read the scum boards of previous games. They carefully read through all the posts, looking for “power role” tells. It’s surprisingly easy for players to give small indications that they have a non-vanilla role.
Think of it this way. Many players have been discussing the Patsy role. That forces a choice on the player with that role. Do they participate in the discussion or not? If they participate, they risk saying something that flags themselves. If they’re against claiming early (or not), do they say so publicly? If after several Days no one has claimed Patsy, every player who advocated the Patsy early claiming has effectively told Scum they’re not the Patsy.
Of course, maybe the Patsy isn’t the most valuable* role. But do we really want to put other town roles in the same predicament?
Better to talk about Scum roles. And put Scum in that predicament. And in this game it’s even more helpful because the other Scum team will help us find Scum slips.
*The most valuable thing Town can get is confirmed Town. And any singular role like Patsy where a false claim can be counter-claimed is valuable.
I wouldn’t have voted for simply editing (because blind policy votes aren’t helpful), but calling out players to vote for you for anti-town behavior strikes me the type of sly mocking Scum sometimes do.
For me, a post-numbers list is not useful unless it includes the players who didn’t post at all.
Also, we want players to be helpful to Townies, regardless of their alignment. And it’s not helpful to Town to scold players for being helpful.
My post was me trying to be normal. It’s a good thing I didn’t introduce my “all town role claim on Day 1 to give us a pool of confirmed Town so big that Scum can’t kill us all fast enough to win” plan*.
*I haven’t run the numbers, but it’s in the realm of possibility, since Scum might kill off some of the false claims for us. Better to wait until mid-game.
Because I’m concerned about what Scum might do. Each Scum team is figuring out how to counter town roles on their own boards. Why should we help them by discussing what we might do?
Instead, let’s talk about what they might do, so that each town role can better decide for themself (without possibly accidently revealing their tactics here) what to do about it.
(An aside: have so many of us forgotten how scum play the game?)
This is exactly the kind of discussion we need to be having.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Since the rules explicitly allow multiple votes (while only counting the first), here are my votes, with the most suspicious first and the rest unordered: vote Normal Phase for daring us to vote for them in D1.27. vote Chronos for snuggling up to Meeko in D0.442. vote Scathach for scolding a player for being a “helpful townie” in D1.35.