In post 118, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:You also have to take the gamestate into account, of course but If I say tracked player X to player Y who ate the previous night’s NK and I’m the next and I never reveal my result, I’d essentially be gamethrowing hiding important information from town. As long as you are 100% honest about the specific nature of your “gulity”, then it’s up to town to make that ultimate judgment call.
How would it be any different with a false "guilty"? All that would really change is that you have nothing to back you up, but the town would not know this, as there is no difference between a false and true "guilty".
In post 123, northsidegal wrote:Can you explain where in my post that I do this? I don't think it's apparent in any of my arguments, much less the one that you quoted.
It's true that nobody has to follow through on someone claiming a guilty. That doesn't change anything I said there.
The assumption you were making is that people would always follow the culture, when in reality no one is bound by a standard, instead free to follow site meta or forgo with the unspoken agreement entirely.
In post 118, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:Well yes, that’s why a miller unless they are extremely confident that they will never be cop checked ought to claim.
A miller claim makes them more suspicious, no? That would seem to hinder your objective, not help it.
There’s different schools of thought about that. You need to asses the gamestate/your play etc. as best you can before you claim. If you think you have a decent chance of being cop checked, maybe a good idea but especially in a mass claim. I got yelled at after a game for not doing that eventhough I was never checked, so it’s a gamble. It also heavily depends on the setup as well.
***
We just need to tread carefully because if you slip up around her as scum she notices and will tear your spine out and slap you to death with it. (I'm slightly scared of Nancy)
~the worst
*******
Nancy is pretty heavenly ngl
~CheekyTeeky
*******
Nancy-scum feels like a hot knife slicing through butter. Nancy-town feels like a magnifying glass in the sun glaring down at an insect.
In post 118, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:Well yes, that’s why a miller unless they are extremely confident that they will never be cop checked ought to claim.
A miller claim makes them more suspicious, no? That would seem to hinder your objective, not help it.
There’s different schools of thought about that. You need to asses the gamestate/your play etc. as best you can before you claim. If you think you have a decent chance of being cop checked, maybe a good idea but especially in a mass claim. I got yelled at after a game for not doing that eventhough I was never checked, so it’s a gamble. It also heavily depends on the setup as well.
But there is still inherent risk in claiming to be a miller, even if you properly assess the gamestate/your play etc. as you can be wrong, or mistaken, or ignorant, or all three at once.
In post 123, northsidegal wrote:Can you explain where in my post that I do this? I don't think it's apparent in any of my arguments, much less the one that you quoted.
It's true that nobody has to follow through on someone claiming a guilty. That doesn't change anything I said there.
The assumption you were making is that people would always follow the culture, when in reality no one is bound by a standard, instead free to follow site meta or forgo with the unspoken agreement entirely.
So when I said that I was responding to the question "How is faking a guilty being an asshole?", explaining
why
(in my view) people get angry when you fake a guilty. I wasn't saying that people always follow this culture or that they
have to
follow this culture, and—at least in that section—I wasn't even saying that they
should
follow that unspoken agreement. I was just explaining why they get mad when you
don't
follow it.
It's true that nobody is
bounded
by unspoken agreements or by site culture, but that has nothing to do with whether or not people will get angry at you if you go against it.
In post 129, northsidegal wrote:It's true that nobody is bounded by unspoken agreements or by site culture, but that has nothing to do with whether or not people will get angry at you if you go against it.
If no one is bounded to it, then when you break it, the only people they should be angry at is themselves for not making the unspoken guidelines into something players are bound to.
In post 129, northsidegal wrote:It's true that nobody is bounded by unspoken agreements or by site culture, but that has nothing to do with whether or not people will get angry at you if you go against it.
If no one is bounded to it, then when you break it, the only people they should be angry at is themselves for not making the unspoken guidelines into something players are bound to.
Who should I ask to get my permission to rewrite site rules and outlaw fakeclaiming?
In post 129, northsidegal wrote:It's true that nobody is bounded by unspoken agreements or by site culture, but that has nothing to do with whether or not people will get angry at you if you go against it.
If no one is bounded to it, then when you break it, the only people they should be angry at is themselves for not making the unspoken guidelines into something players are bound to.
Who should I ask to get my permission to rewrite site rules and outlaw fakeclaiming?
In post 129, northsidegal wrote:It's true that nobody is bounded by unspoken agreements or by site culture, but that has nothing to do with whether or not people will get angry at you if you go against it.
If no one is bounded to it, then when you break it, the only people they should be angry at is themselves for not making the unspoken guidelines into something players are bound to.
Who should I ask to get my permission to rewrite site rules and outlaw fakeclaiming?
The men, the miths, the legends, or the admins
I guess you know them better, so can you get those permissions for me? Cause they said "No!", when I asked. I mean, you speak like it's really easy to get rules changed and it's our fault for not doing it
In post 136, Gamma Emerald wrote:Like Ram you really seem to have your head up your ass here, I have to say.
I mean, simply idea of actually outlawing fakeclaiming is ridiculous, that should be hint that I wasn't being serious. But neither was Jake serious, when he suggested that we should blame ourselves instead of being angry on people, who are borderline gamethrowing
if lying as town were banned we'd be telling players how to play well and we can't have that.
Of all tyrannies,a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Some town lie. Some scum don’t lie. I mean, mastina is on record as having never lied about her role as scum (at least in a way that matters I think), so that should tell you how powerful a properly expressed truth can be. So why can’t a properly timed lie do the same?
<Embrace The Void>
“A flipped coin doesn't always land heads or tails. Sometimes it may never land at all...”
In post 145, zMuffinMan wrote:i don't think that's true (maybe for some people it is) but even if it were true, you asked why it's
generally
a bad idea and i told you
I simply stated the fact that people lie for an assortment of reasons, which means that it could not be a major part of your winning condition. Even if catching liars was a part of your winning condition, lying can be a method to reach that point.