UnvoteDariushOooh, let me guess how it goes. Either he answers yes and you accuse him of being an SK if there's a kill or he answers no and you accuse him of being an SK if there's no kill. If the opposite happens, you claim he's a SK intentionally doing the opposite of what he said he would. Am I right? Aw, you know I am right, don't you.
You're wrong. The question is hypothetical. Why do you have trouble separating hypothetical questions from rolefishing?
What information did you hope to extract from his answer?
It's the exact same style question I asked zombie urist, and for the exact same reason I already gave him.
The question is less about the answer, and more about seeing how he thinks about the answer. What I don't want is an automatic "Yes" or "No". I want him to give it some thought, then answer the questions with his answer, and a few lines about how he arrived at the answer.
notquitethere"Sûrement, Monsieur Fleury. I previously addressed everyone and zen you, and so was waiting for the answer from my first question before following up with a vote de pression.
Why wait for an answer before voting?
I had a further question. If you are an apprentice do you have a master here in the town?"
Yes. My master and I live here in town. At present, he is out of town making a delivery.
"Monsuiers! You must surely know by now what kind of situation we are in. Wanting to know the names and professions of our neighbours is essentiel to our investigations. Do you even want to find witches?"
You misunderstand my question. I'm not asking you why you think it's a good idea for everyone to soft-claim. I want to know why you thought it was a pro-town move to soft-claim in your first post of the game, and call out everyone else to do the same, rather than simply start the discussion on the possibility of soft-claiming, and letting us reach a consensus before doing so.
Okami No Rei: I don't see how you can call something you regard as a pro-town action scummy. It just doesn't make sense from an honest perspective, and I'm pretty sure you were just hedging your bets as to whether the town would go along with the flavour claim or not.
There are three separate threads here that you are muddling together.
First: The idea that everyone should soft-claim name and profession.
I agree with this. I believe it is a pro-town move, since, as Toaster said, we're likely to have a town flavor cop, and it forces scum to either stand out as dissenters, lie, or give up some of their information.
Second: NQT claiming, and calling out everyone to claim in his first post.
I find this to be
potentially scummy, and he still hasn't given me a satisfactory explanation for why he thinks what he did was pro-town. I would have preferred holding off on the soft-claim until the majority of the town was behind it, in order to maximize the pressure on scum to go along with it.
Third: My choice to soft-claim at the same time as I called out NQT.
This was damage control. The only way a soft-claim has power as a potential weapon against scum is through pressure from a united town. NQT hurt that potential power by claiming so early. I threw my own weight behind it in order to restore some of its strength, hopefully start a snowball effect, and to try to curtail the inevitable arguments against soft-claiming, which scum could easily hide behind if they needed to.
zombie uristONR's post was pretty scummy and I didn't notice anyone else being scummy. Also I hoped to kick the game out of RVS.
That's strange. When you voted me without explanation, I assumed it was an RVS vote. Now you say you found my post scummy. Would you please point out which parts, and explain why you found them so?
Dunno. Why didn't you choose not to answer the question when NQT asked instead of being intentionally vague?
Those were two different questions.
NQT asked how long I'd lived in town. My flavor did not specify whether the place I grew up was actually in town or not. I've clarified this with LNCP, and can now say that yes, I have lived in town all my life.
You asked me where I grew up. That information is linked to my role, and I choose not to roleclaim at this time.
First part sounds like a BS excuse. Yes.
Both your previous response and this one speak volumes about how you think about the game, and have greatly improved my mental model of you as a player.
I meant that I was being aggressive also to leave RVS. I don't think I'm tunneling.
Don't beat around the bush. You were tunneling me. You claim you did it to end RVS, but while that is an acceptable reason (I've done that myself), it is not on its own sufficient reason. What I be sufficient reason is if you believe that I am scum, but I've yet to see your case against me. Just what I thought was an RVS vote coupled with a few of what seemed like RVS questions.
So, do you have an actual case against me to justify the tunneling? If so, let's hear it.
If not, what reason do you have to justify tunneling me?
griffinpupWhether I'd NK or not would depend on multiple factors, and the alignment of D1's lynchee would be one of those variables, yes.
Out of curiosity, could you come up with a hypothetical situation, now matter how outrageous or unlikely (provided it's supported by known game mechanics), in which your decision whether or not to kill would be made prior to considering the alignment of the lynchee?