Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:32 am
Maybe you should vote Uncrowned.....In post 2842, Ydrasse wrote:why is uncrowned town this game btw
That would take your vote off me (pls do it pls)
That would take your vote off me (pls do it pls)
Page 115 of 150
That would take your vote off me (pls do it pls)
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:25 am
this is very weirdly phrasedIn post 2848, Something_Smart wrote:Fire I guess? They had many ways to make their claim believable and took none of them.
wdym
i don't see how i could have done anything different than what i did
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:31 am
The ones that come to mind are softing your result (or saying anything remotely consistent with it), and not targeting the same player two nights in a row.
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:03 am
ok uh, i feel like ive covered all of these things and idk what the issue is
why would i soft? i feel like softing with this role is literally just bad play? the only benefit is making the claim more believable which would only really be something i would be thinking about as scum
what did i say that was inconsistent with my result? i think my thought process has been p clear
why is it not believable that i would target the same player twice in a row?
why would i soft? i feel like softing with this role is literally just bad play? the only benefit is making the claim more believable which would only really be something i would be thinking about as scum
what did i say that was inconsistent with my result? i think my thought process has been p clear
why is it not believable that i would target the same player twice in a row?
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:07 am
VOTE: Something_Smart
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:12 am
Why would an investigative role soft?? In case they die before they can claim? You said you assumed mastina would not act as town, but maybe act as scum. Therefore, her not acting would make her seem more town; I would have expected once you'd discovered that, you'd say something to that effect, but if anything you seemed more suspicious of her D2, and you targeted her again even though you had already gotten a +town result.In post 2853, fireisredsir wrote:ok uh, i feel like ive covered all of these things and idk what the issue is
why would i soft? i feel like softing with this role is literally just bad play? the only benefit is making the claim more believable which would only really be something i would be thinking about as scum
what did i say that was inconsistent with my result? i think my thought process has been p clear
why is it not believable that i would target the same player twice in a row?
(Plus, having targeted multiple people makes it easier for your claim to be falsified, which makes it more believable if it is not.)
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:33 am
i don't believe that you genuinely think every investigative role should be softing their results, is that really a view you hold? like if you're getting clears or guilties then yes sure, but i thought it was just as likely to be harmful for my role to do it, and also i didn't think my result was very significant
and no i did not say that i assumed she would no-act as town, i said my GUESS was that she MOST LIKELY wouldn't act as town, but i had no way of knowing what to expect or if my guess was reasonable. like i said, it also seemed possible that she was like a joat or something if town. and i didn't realize until luke's explanation that it might be unlikely for her to no-act as scum
i was more suspicious of her play on d2, and the result didn't seem meaningful enough to factor in. like, you know there's other parts of the game besides role results right
and no i did not say that i assumed she would no-act as town, i said my GUESS was that she MOST LIKELY wouldn't act as town, but i had no way of knowing what to expect or if my guess was reasonable. like i said, it also seemed possible that she was like a joat or something if town. and i didn't realize until luke's explanation that it might be unlikely for her to no-act as scum
i was more suspicious of her play on d2, and the result didn't seem meaningful enough to factor in. like, you know there's other parts of the game besides role results right
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:34 am
why did you target her then if you didn't care about the result? why not target someone you could catch in a lie?In post 2856, fireisredsir wrote:i was more suspicious of her play on d2, and the result didn't seem meaningful enough to factor in.
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:36 am
??????
is that a serious question
is that a serious question
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:36 am
In post 2853, fireisredsir wrote:why is it not believable that i would target the same player twice in a row?
In post 2487, mastina wrote:The cost is 150%. (Do the math--0% productivity on D1 + 50% productivity on D2 = 150% banked for N2.)
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:37 am
I mean no, only if they think the results matter. I was just assuming that you would only use your role on someone who'd semi-claimed if you thought the result would matter.In post 2856, fireisredsir wrote:i don't believe that you genuinely think every investigative role should be softing their results, is that really a view you hold?
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:37 am
whats the issue penguin
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:38 am
yes it's a serious question. if you don't care about the result, why target someone who'd already partially claimed? surely you're more likely to catch someone in a lie if you target someone who'd claimed nothing
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:40 am
it doesn't matter much d2 but it does matter if it doesn't match up with what she claims laterIn post 2860, Something_Smart wrote:I mean no, only if they think the results matter. I was just assuming that you would only use your role on someone who'd semi-claimed if you thought the result would matter.In post 2856, fireisredsir wrote:i don't believe that you genuinely think every investigative role should be softing their results, is that really a view you hold?
like if i die before she claims and have softed strongly enough for people to find them, then if she's scum she will just adjust her claim based on the softs. and if she's town then ive probably done nothing useful except give scum info about her role. there's no situation where it's a good idea
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:42 am
Sure, but that logic holds for everyone. If that was your intention, why did you target her specifically?
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:43 am
i did care about the result??? it just didn't mean much on d2. the usefulness of it comes laterIn post 2862, Something_Smart wrote:yes it's a serious question. if you don't care about the result, why target someone who'd already partially claimed? surely you're more likely to catch someone in a lie if you target someone who'd claimed nothing
and yea i could have tried to random guess some checks but there's no guarantee that those people are going to claim anytime soon and so it's more likely to not result in anything useful
with mastina i knew she was claiming some time soon and it literally did result in something useful so idk what the issue is here
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:47 am
ok see, this is what I was looking for. This makes sense why you'd want to catch her in a lie, knowing that you'd be able to do so within a few days.In post 2865, fireisredsir wrote:with mastina i knew she was claiming some time soon
Why didn't you say *this* back when you initially claimed? You said something about "wanting to see if she was legit" which apparently was inaccurate (or at least misleading, because to me it implies that your result was actually going to tell you whether she was legit).
And, why didn't you actually wait for her to claim? Your whole plan was ruined because you claimed before she did.
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:51 am
If you're town, what's going on is that you weren't very clear about your intentions for targeting her. And I misinterpreted those intentions, and then thought your play didn't line up with them.
If you're scum, you made some shit up and weren't self-consistent about it, and I'm calling you out on it.
This conversation has helped, however I do think both worlds are plausible. I guess I would like some outside opinions on whether what fire is saying now tracks with what they said back when they claimed.
If you're scum, you made some shit up and weren't self-consistent about it, and I'm calling you out on it.
This conversation has helped, however I do think both worlds are plausible. I guess I would like some outside opinions on whether what fire is saying now tracks with what they said back when they claimed.
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:55 am
im like 90% sure i did already say that originally but i can go look for itIn post 2866, Something_Smart wrote:ok see, this is what I was looking for. This makes sense why you'd want to catch her in a lie, knowing that you'd be able to do so within a few days.In post 2865, fireisredsir wrote:with mastina i knew she was claiming some time soon
Why didn't you say *this* back when you initially claimed? You said something about "wanting to see if she was legit" which apparently was inaccurate (or at least misleading, because to me it implies that your result was actually going to tell you whether she was legit).
And, why didn't you actually wait for her to claim? Your whole plan was ruined because you claimed before she did.
she demanded that i claim so uh i don't think i can just say "nah you go first" lol
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:59 am
Would have been worth a try.
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 7:59 am
In post 2525, fireisredsir wrote:so the n1 result checked out, but i still didn't really trust you on play, and so i decided it was worth checking again n2 due to the possibility that you would reveal d3
In post 2545, fireisredsir wrote:you made an elaborate claim that seemed to indicate you had significant power. you made it very clear that you would be revealing your role by d4. that seemed like easily the most useful place to use my role, bc then once you do reveal your role i can see if my info matches what you claimed
idk ive been saying this the whole timeIn post 2669, fireisredsir wrote:for 2, i already explained my thought process. i wanted to check you both nights bc i wanted to see if what you eventually would claim lined up with my info. it's true that i didn't think about the "no multitasking so therefore scum would need probably multiple goons for someone on the scum team to take no action multiple times" but thats just bc im stupid. i thought that it was most likely that if you were telling the truth you would no-act n1 and then act either n2 or n3 or both, but there were also other possibilities i considered. the way you described yourself turning into a scumhunting god or whatever made me expect you were probably like a joat or could make yourself bulletproof or something
idk maybe im dumb but if i had gotten a "this person took no action" result i would never just automatically think "ok this person is significantly more likely to be town". my approach to the role was instead thinking "ok this is info that i can save for later to check if people are fakeclaiming". like i assume based on the fact that my role exists and it is low cost, every scum is not expected balance-wise to take action every night, otherwise my role would be a lot more powerful than i thought
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 8:03 am
ok but think about it from my perspectiveIn post 2869, Something_Smart wrote:Would have been worth a try.
i see her say she has an investigative result on me. i know that's a lie. so fmpov she has already claimed and i have already caught her in a lie and so that's why i was happy to fullclaim immediately
so in that moment i thought my plan had 100% worked
then she walked it back and changed her claim and i thought that was definitely scum
but eventually other factors led me to think she probably was town, mostly the idea that she would likely not have no-acted as scum both nights, which i didn't fully understand the logic behind until i had it explained to me
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 8:04 am
I mean, that's true, but you were also saying the wrong thing-- e.g. "i thought that it was most likely that if you were telling the truth you would no-act n1 and then act either n2 or n3 or both", "the n1 result checked out". Those made it sound like you had some expectation for when she would/wouldn't act, and that her probably claiming was just an added bonus, rather than you actually not caring about the results at all until she claimed. And if you actually didn't care at all about the results until she claimed, I would have expected you to say something to the effect of "I was hoping mastina would claim before I did" when you claimed, or something to that effect.
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 8:05 am
I mean, if she's saying she has a result that you're scum, doesn't that already make her lying fypov regardless of her role?In post 2871, fireisredsir wrote:i see her say she has an investigative result on me. i know that's a lie. so fmpov she has already claimed and i have already caught her in a lie and so that's why i was happy to fullclaim immediately
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2022 8:06 am
on the other hand, why the hell would there be a 1-shot cop in this game