boo wrote:You had either a fifty-fifty chance or a one in three chance of being the nightkill depending on whether you believed I was actually BP. Why not just say what you thought?
how do you not get it?
i was never going to be night killed
but even if i was going to be night killed, that would put skull in the awkward position of having to either push you or push a vengeful, and in either case that puts him in a bad spot on top of the fact that he's still alive in 3p.
i really should not have to fucking explain this. the fact that you still don't understand this is, again, why you're a VI
like there are so many reasons no lynching with minimal discussion was the correct play in this 4p but you still don't get it
also, really, in the event i was night killed, if you were unable to look at the gameplay kill and the kill on me and think, HMM, maybe something doesn't make sense here, then you really are a complete VI
Then why did you cast doubt on Saki's vengeful the instant he claimed it? That doesn't make sense with what you're saying now.
If I doubt Skullduggery, he can't nightkill me anyway. That leaves you or Saki, whom you doubted yourself was really a vengeful. If we no lynch, he kills Saki and then you come out with all your reasoning that you wouldn't give at 4-person MYLO. At that point it really looks self-serving.
If you knew Saki was the only possible nightkill, what difference does it make if you put your argument out there? You can't be killed anyway by your argument.
No-lynching was probably the right play. Not with minimal discussion, though. If there's only one possible nightkill, then the time to make your case is before that happens.
Yeah, I fucked up in this game. But your aggressive and nasty play didn't help town either. You could have made your argument and the only deviation that could have happened was 1) Skull shot me, as he said he would or 2) Skull shot nobody, which is good for town. If you'd actually MADE an argument instead of refusing to, I would have listened. But you didn't choose to, and now you're whining because I didn't stick around to be abused repeatedly while you said nothing at all that could have made your case.
The game is supposed to be fun. If all you care about is winning and trying to make others feel bad because they make mistakes, then you're not someone I want to play with anyway.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
boo wrote:Then why did you cast doubt on Saki's vengeful the instant he claimed it?
what doubt? i asked him to verify he was seriously claiming it this time because he's fake-claimed it before. asking for verification is not casting doubt.
boo wrote:If you knew Saki was the only possible nightkill, what difference does it make if you put your argument out there? You can't be killed anyway by your argument.
right, which is why it shouldn't matter that the explanation is delayed a day
plus looking at the night kills (especially the order of them) becomes more significant if skull killed saki - the more discussion that happened about who was scum and whatever, the less awkward a position the night kill puts him in because WIFOMz
boo wrote:The game is supposed to be fun
it is not fun playing with someone who has already made up their mind and is so obviously incorrect it's painful
i do not care if i sucked the fun out of the game for you. you did it for me when you refused to no lynch after saying there was no way you were ever voting skull
i wrote:what doubt? i asked him to verify he was seriously claiming it this time because he's fake-claimed it before. asking for verification is not casting doubt.
also this is just standard play. again, good theory.
if someone claims a cop guilty, i ask the same question: "verify this isn't a gambit"
i wrote:what doubt? i asked him to verify he was seriously claiming it this time because he's fake-claimed it before. asking for verification is not casting doubt.
also this is just standard play. again, good theory.
if someone claims a cop guilty, i ask the same question: "verify this isn't a gambit"
I'm not doubting you do this, but I think the game must have changed DRASTICALLY since I last played.
You didn't ask Sala: "Verify that this isn't a gambit", though, on his JOAT claim.
What do you derive if they say, "No, it's not a gambit"? Does anyone ever say, "Yes, this is a gambit"?
I'm genuinely curious.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
boo wrote:You didn't ask Sala: "Verify that this isn't a gambit", though, on his JOAT claim.
he wasn't claiming a gambit role, nor was he claiming a condemning action. there is no "gambit" that makes sense there*. i also didn't ask whether your role was a "gambit" or any other role was a "gambit" because that's not how it works
*of course, i neglect to take into account people who think fake-claiming is _smart_ play
boo wrote:What do you derive if they say, "No, it's not a gambit"? Does anyone ever say, "Yes, this is a gambit"?
and by accountability, in the case of someone claiming a cop guilty, i make it pretty clear that i'm not lettting them get out of it with "lolgambit" if the lynch goes through
asking that for every role claim though is just redundant - i expect a level of play where people know that fake-claiming JOAT like salamence did is just bad play - it fucks with people who actually have a good idea of what to look for in a setup, and it's too easy for scum to do and get away with
Sometimes gambits go well, sometimes not. The claim would have worked if it wasnt for vengeful/bulletproof/vig.
Maybe Boo is a VI, maybe I am a VI, maybe Gameplay is a master at mafia. There is just one thing I know for sure:
Youre an asshole.
Also, setup-spec and flavor spec is not helpful in most cases (only exception was apparently this game). You should be well expierenced to know that flavor/setup spec are not helpful.
Ive done good/bad gambits at town/scum that people like/hate.
Stop doing gambits. You are not a good enough player to know how to gambit well. All you are doing is lying as town. That should never fucking happen. I've lost a game to VIs claiming innocents as cops on scums. Just cause they could.
Windows hasn't detected any keyboard. Press Enter.
