CazAh, I tend to contradict myself anyway. Do you think that scum players contradict themselves more often than townies? If so, why is this?
Anyone can end up typing things that appear contradictory. An innocent town player acting without deliberate deception can always give an honest explanation for their words. A dissembling scumster who has been caught out in a contradiction will be forced to make excuses if the contradiction didn't flow from an honest mistake. Excuses are harder to manufacture than explanations and are more liable to multiply the player's deceptions.
I'm probably more on the side of saying things as they come to me. Sometimes I keep a little list of things that bothered me, but I don't really structure the games out. Too much work.
I think you're showing insufficient dedication. You think this is a
game? Mafia is serious business.
CheeseIf a player says that they will be absent, and continues to say so at periodic times, at what point does it become no longer acceptable?
Good question. If they do it for more than a day then they've presented themselves as a legitimate target for the lynch: for town to win LYLO, you need to have engaged players still alive; giving semi-absent players a free pass indefinitely is a recipe for loss. It's better to get rid of such players earlier on while the cost of mislynching is lower. Do you disagree?
Scientist+!!scientist!!+ — As far as you understand it, what's the point of the random vote/random question phase?
To try and get a reaction out of anyone or everyone, and use these reactions for future scum hunting. Also, while these questions and answers are not as useful as people make them out to be, looking back at who attacked whom and what the dynamics were at the beginning can be very helpful on later days.
Of course the answers are going to be useless if you ask useless questions. It's almost impossible to get a rise out of someone with some casual RVS questions. A good RVS question sets a trap: you get the player to pin themselves to a standard you can hold them to later. Of course, even a bad question (what could you gain from your question to MOWE?) starts a conversation and all games need to start with people talking before the accusations start flying.
Here's a question: say it's near the end of Day 1 and you're pretty sure the player that is about to be lynched is town. Your vote could tie the vote. What do you do?
CatBy reading through what everyone has to say, and attacking them for it. I'm not saying just pick 2 and talk. But if you don't think someone is mafia, there isn't a point to talk to them really... So There's not point to continuously have discussions with everyone.
OK. That's a legitimate position for someone to hold and I'll hold you to that.
What do you think of Dark Paladin's answers?
Dark PaladinHere's a tip: it's best to follow up answers to people's questions with questions of your own. You probably don't intend this, but wholly passive gameplay is seen as very scummy. A good question pins someone to something that they might later contradict. Questions like:
- Should we lynch lurkers just for lurking?
- Is it better to lynch someone you don't think is scum or tie the vote?
- Is it OK to keep a random vote on someone until the end of the day?
Staying hidden isn't an option. Ask some questions.
Author
Topic: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Game Over!) (Read 91721 times)