Toaster:
Shakerag: Did you submit a role that is going to fundamentally alter the game for everyone, much like you always try to do? (You don't have to actually answer that.)
This seems to be a bit of an unusual question. Would you explain why you asked with that disclaimer, was it intended to warn the rest of us or did you have another purpose?
It's more of a joke question. Let me reference some past BYORs:
...
See what I mean?
Yes. Thank you, I do feel warned.
Birdy:
To the first, I tried to look for something on the Mafia Scum wiki, but I have ultimately failed. I've read it some where on that sight where it actually recommended considering lynching the Towniest player at LYLO. But instead of flashing that particular page heroically I shall have to make due with not being able to find it.
I got curious and tried to search that up, I couldn't find it either through Mafia Scum wiki's search or Google. Thought I found a reference to it with a Google of "lynching towniest player lylo", but that was actually a
game thread for a "Weird Voting Mafia", and yeah, it had weird voting.
Checked it because Google quoted "So even if they weren't the towniest player during the day, the fact that the .... you want to see lynched), the towniest at the top (the person you want to have...", that quote seemed pretty garbled but I thought it might relate to what you found; nope, they had a crazy vote system and were trying to teach each other (even at lylo!) how to avoid accidentally lynching people that were seen as Town picks (the voting system required every player to vote for every player, order mattered). Glad that's not our game.
I did want to find the page you were talking about if I could, it sounds interesting, but even more I'd like to know how you'd use it. What advantage do you see in "flashing that particular page heroically" if you could?
What do you think of that voting strategy as you described it? Have you used it in play or do you plan to try it, at lylo or at any other point in play?
Birdy:
Cheeetar - Are you satisfied with your role?
I love the smell of rolefishing in the morning. Why did you ask this?
To the second, why are you so concerned about that question in particular? Are you really worried that I might be role fishing, or are you simply looking for a prospective target?
Mostly the latter, actually. I prefer pressuring people on valid points to randomly voting and asking hypotheticals. Why am I suspicious for voting you on a scumtell instead of random-voting?
Now, as for you and why I dislike your vote.
How serious do you perceive TheWetSheep's 'case' against you? How serious do you perceive his vote to be?
Nerjin:
So Nerjin, what precisely have you learned from everyone's responses. You planning on following any of them up?
I've learned that you didn't read my whole post.
What? I did read the whole post, you answered my prior question in your reply to Imp, that's fine.
notquitethere assumes that you meant 'You didn't see my answer to your question' when you say "I've learned that you didn't read my whole post.". Is that what you meant?
What is more important to you: 'To play in a way that satisfies you, regardless of if it satisfies your wincon', or 'To play in a way that satisfies your wincon, regardless of if it satisfies you'?
If you recieved a wincon you found disinteresting or distasteful, do you think you'd ignore it and just play the game towards some other goal that did motivate you?
notquitethere:
How do you intend to distinguish when a player who cannot (or will not) follow up on their questions is currently aligned as Town or Scum? Do you see such players becoming something of a policy lynch for you?
Cheeetar:
I wouldn't be able to link you to a specific play, no- I'd probably have trouble linking you to an aggressive play that helped town win as well, without going back and reading through games I've played. I'd say, yes, reactive play does help avoid lynching the wrong people. The good guys tend to be reactive- police wait for people to commit crimes before arresting them, and so on. Aggressively questioning people can make them implicate themselves, but so can analysing the posts they make, and even townies can say stupid things that seems suspicious if they feel under pressure.
Have you had much trouble in games, with a more 'reactive' style of play being taken as a more 'passive' one, and thus being seen as Scummy? If this was to happen in the future, how would you prefer to resolve the concern?
The_Iqovian:
Well with a ventriloquist in forum mafia, it might work as an ability, maybe something like
(?-Use/Day) Ventriloquist's Doll [target]: Speak through the target. Target must copy you directly and cannot recant for [arbitrary time period].
I'm sure I've left that wide open for exploits, but you get the gist. If someone who knew how to balance a game worked on it, I'm sure something vaguely tolerable could work.
Aha! That works well for me, thanks.
Assuming we're not absolutely reliant on Imp for our wincon, and it's Imp's fault (the claim isn't based on something Birdy or I provably did), join the masses trying to lynch him, and furiously work in scum chat to get them out of it.
Assuming I wasn't vital for our wincon, what would you do differently if you felt the claim was Birdy's fault? What would you do differently if you felt that it was your fault?
TheWetSheep:
When you find Scummy play, how concerned are you usually with trying to distinguish Scummy from Scum?