It was top of mind because in the just ended game where I was scum with Robz and SA, we had the "so who has a power role" hunt based on the theory talk of day 1. I don't know, I felt it was worth it to float the idea of avoiding that, especially now that more people are likely to have roles. It's not like I tried to ban theory talk, just thought to remind people that if you feel you don't want to massclaim or anyone to claim, probably the best course of action is not to talk about claiming.
But this current game is very different from LL's game, so why is that worrying for you? In terms of expectations, actually fewer townies are likely to have roles here than in LL's game: I make it that three players on average should have roles here, with a variance close to one. (LL's game turned out to have four town PRs, though with a mechanism that limited their efficacy). The big difference between that setup and this one is that there it was a completely closed invented setup, whereas here we know the distribution from which our roles have been chosen, and what all the roles are, so naturally any theory talk will be quite different.
Sure, you are right (again!) with the setup stuff. I think this has happened to me previously, I just offhandedly get a thought and since its RVS, I go post it. You know, totally not convinced it couldn't be a good idea to theory talk in this setup. Just popped into my mind what the downside could be, so I posted about it. I didn't really do any math or even much thinking about the setup when posting that.
So in terms of immediate reaction to WW's post, you've said:
To further explain myself, I outright believed it after considering if I thought it was likely WW would do that as scum (decided no, posted about it in the thread).
But then in retrospect you say this:
3. I don't think that's ambiguous - looks clear as day to me that he wouldn't say that unless he had meant it as a joke.
... which seems to be a u-turn on the outright belief front.[/quote]
The two posts are referring to different things - the first is a reaction to WW's claim, and the second a reaction to his next post where he said it was a joke.
Not sure what's happening here, but others seem to agree with me.
I'm unconvinced by this statement, though it does illustrate mcmc's point about how you've been saying things and then "passing it off like it's just what everyone thinks" (from post #248).
PPE 4
[/quote]
Hmm, upon checking back, you are right about that, it was just teamlyle who thought the explanation was obvious.
Wait I really don't understand why this isn't clearly a joke.