I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone, almost. This Day ends tomorrow and yet there seems to be a bunch of side conversations, fluff-like posts, and talk of the good-ol’ days (other games) in the last 50 replies or so.
We already know scum won’t want any actual, you know, strategy talk…so is it possible to not give them what they want?
Bringing back up something I said earlier: What does everyone think about being honest with, at least, anything that happens TO them or any info/message they may get by way of Night actions taken on them (if noticeable)? The opposite, thereof, of saying who you’re going to be targeting. : p
Also, I know we’re not allowed to edit our own posts, but what about me “cleaning up” any tags that make posts more confusing to read (like Episkey’s above, number 248) since I’m able to do so (as a mod)?
Your image will be presented before a panel of shrewd and merciless photoshop judges to verify its authenticity. Then, and only then, will your rand be dubbed geniune.
I think that it’s ok (and possibly better than ok) to let people know if your role has been revealed to you. Last game, there was a role revealer, and whoever they targeted would learn their exact role. This would enable the role revealer to figure out who they were and start targeting people who they think are town.
I don’t see that as a good idea at this time. If a Town player 'knows what they can do" Scum/Wolves will simply kill them off instead of shooting at someone who has not gained control of their powers
Peeker’s usual style is to post excessively using a style that is difficult to understand. (others can corroborate this.) He uses strange analogies and made-up words. In one game, he was coherent and helpful. I led a push to lynch him. He was Scum.
So, him not being antagonistic has been a successful Scum tell for him in the past.
I’m not suggesting that the targeted player reveal their actual role, but saying “my role was revealed to me last night” is probably ok. Just because they know what they can do, doesn’t mean it’s necessarily valuable or powerful. Obviously, the targeted player would have to exercise their best judgment in this situation and it would be entirely up to them.
LightFoot’s point is that even just knowing what you are makes you a more powerful player. Thus Scum would favor (and benefit) from killing players who know what they can do (i.e., optimize their power).
Any Town player that knows what they can do is a larger threat to Scum that the shot in the dark roles.
If 3 people targeted that player none of the 3 will know if they “did it”
It can only help Scum the way I see it.
agreed. i don’t see how this would be helpful in the least. i mean folks won’t know that they were investigated or protected. and if you end up dead pretty much everyone will be able to deduce that somhow you got killed (except for ed and giraffe, apparantly). other scenarios also can be constructed for just about any imagineable role. i mean i guess a scum member could announce that the person they targeted for a NK is still alive so something went awry. now that would be helpful.
I don’t agree with this. We run the risk of scum just killing those of us who know their role, not only getting rid of us that can use their powers optimally, but also making one of our most powerful roles - the revealer - useless.
This is good to know too. He tries so hard to be normal as scum that it’s abnormal for him.
NETA I thought he was playing different from the legend before **Ed ** said something but then I though “maybe it’s because he hasn’t been ingame for a while?”
I remember reading a lament that he was jonesin’ for a game?
I think I agree with this view of it, as much as it would/will suck if a player with that power hits any scum unknowing. It’s the only power I’ve yet heard or thought of where it is clearly and always worse to target a scum than a townie.
One thought – if a player who gets hit by this doesn’t mind being a target (low-value role, bulletproof, etc (or even wants to pose as such)) then they could consider the situation on those grounds.
