Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pingpongsam]

@PPS What on earth gave me away? You were really scarily good all through that game!

I told you, I can sense you ever since I played scum with you in our first game. My big mistake this game was being clearly town. I'm still trying to find the balance. Believe me, when I started it was impossible to read me as town, ever.

I was seriously suspecting Robz but didn't want it to be true. He really played well towards me. I knew at the start of D3 though that he was scum right up until the Dylan claim because Dylan's claim was just bad in terms of what he actually did.

I spelled out my reasoning for my behaviors in the Speccy. In the end they were both bad calls but I did at least consider the correct calls and decide against them.

[pingpongsam]

Damn, Robz and Eevee both were helping me bus SA at the end of D2, that is where my town read on them both was really coming from. I fell for the oldest trick in the book. I can't believe nobody else wanted to get on SA, WTF.

[ashersky]

Oh no it's not your mistake. I'm pretty sure that is usually true of mod kills. Like I feel like we should change that as a community.

My rule has always been that a modkill should punish the offender's faction.  So, a town modkill goes to night; a scum modkill continues the day.

[Robz888]

Damn, Robz and Eevee both were helping me bus SA at the end of D2, that is where my town read on them both was really coming from. I fell for the oldest trick in the book. I can't believe nobody else wanted to get on SA, WTF.

I was pretty worried we were going to end up lynching SA with just three votes. I kept saying, "Surely someone is going to come along and derail this lynch, I'll just stay the course." And then I realized like 10 minutes before deadline that wasn't happening and I had to do it myself.

Plurality lynches are really weird and I'm not a big fan, I must say.

[gkrieg13]

Kudos to gkrieg, who had us dead to rights.

In case it wasn't clear, I was a scum Roleblocker, and the wording in my PM was indeed exactly the same as the wording in other role PMs. That's why I appealed to LL to do something (although I didn't personally recommend mod-killing), I felt like I was losing the argument with Dylan because of an advantage that he both shouldn't have, and also wasn't valid--mine DID say what his said--but I was left with no way to argue it.

I think there was a good chance town was going to correctly lynch me instead of Dylan even before that came up, but then the way he did it with the PM thing was also basically ICing him, which would have meant no one would have seriously considered the possibility of us both being scum, and that woulda been real bad.

I actually wasn't really taking into consideration the PM thing.  Honestly, it seemed like it was making EFHW less trusting of Dylan, and that she was starting to side with you, so I'm not really sure what kind of impact it really had on the game. 

I mean, I was going to lynch you regardless of what PMs said

[pingpongsam]

Lekkit is the one I wholly misread. I really thought we'd flip scum D2. That guy is hard to read.

[gkrieg13]

Oh no it's not your mistake. I'm pretty sure that is usually true of mod kills. Like I feel like we should change that as a community.

My rule has always been that a modkill should punish the offender's faction.  So, a town modkill goes to night; a scum modkill continues the day.

I almost feel like it should be the opposite.  I mean the modkill is already bad enough.  I think it would keep the game more fair because a town modkill is just treated as an extra NK for scum and a scum modkill would just be treated as a correct lynch for town.

[Eevee]

Damn, Robz and Eevee both were helping me bus SA at the end of D2, that is where my town read on them both was really coming from. I fell for the oldest trick in the book. I can't believe nobody else wanted to get on SA, WTF.

That was very, very intense. I felt it was necessary to do something you wouldn't expect, because status quo seemed to be leading to bad places for our team. It working out to you abandoning the wagon for being too scummy was a nice development, to say the least.

[Dylan32]

Well crap. I'm really sorry guys.

[LaLight]

Well crap. I'm really sorry guys.

It happens sometimes, everything is ok. Just don't do that the next time

[Robz888]

Well crap. I'm really sorry guys.

Don't feel bad. I don't blame you. It's all okay!

[Calamitas]

What the heck

[Calamitas]

Just for the record, to what extent is paraphrasing okay? (@faust, @ashersky, @othermods)

May one use technical terms to exactly describe the situation without ever using the exact wordings? May one use obvious synonyms, acronyms or anything like that to describe the situation? May one insert spelling mistakes to make it an inaccurate quote? Or is one just advised to totally keep silence about actual information/evidence one has which influence oneselfs reads (and might thereby lead to conflicts since the strength of your expressed read doesn't necessarily match the evidence you (offically) have) ?

[pingpongsam]

My policy has always been to paraphrase, disclaim that I am paraphrasing and that the paraphrase is to the best of my knowledge, and get mod confirmation on anything further needed. In gneral I avoid these types of situations because they are generally fruitless and engaging them tends to be insulting towards the mods.

[Robz888]

Before you start spouting off about your role PM, you should ask the mod if what you want to say is okay.

In practice, this problem was mostly fixed by transitioning to a model whereby Normal games were basically always running setups where the possibly PMs could be made available.

[Dylan32]

I mean, this whole problem would have been avoided if I hadn't misread and misunderstood LaLight's initial clarification.  At the time I wasn't thinking about articles and the use of the word "the" in the initial role description, at all, so I thought the clarification must have been referring to the fact I targeted a claimed treasure card instead of wording. Reading it with hindsight it is 1000% clear what was being said, but for whatever reason I just overlooked the use of "any card" in the clarification until after I had already derailed the thread.  LaLight handled everything perfectly and even tried to preempt any confusion, but I was apparently a big enough idiot to still mess it up.  All that happened before I thought the info would trap Robz, so really it shouldn't have even come up at all...

[Calamitas]

I don't think there are an even number of each type of card, so it really isn't 2/3. Also, for full disclosure, my QT doesn't say I can't target "cards" that share a type, it says "the card" that you share a type with.  Robz simply said he shared a type with McEFHW without saying specifically what it was, which would be the case if he didn't want to go back and check what it was, so really you didn't even fully claim.

My pm also says the card, but it feels like an effect of English not being Lalight's first language (though he writes it very well in general).

To underline my train of thought here are two alternative posts that cover the same information but stay (at least to my understanding) well withing the rules:

I don't think there are an even number of each type of card, so it really isn't 2/3.  Also, for full disclosure I can refer to information I have gathered from an analysis of my qt. The remarkable thing is that LaLight used a definite article to describe the types of cards I cannot target. Robz simply said he shared a type with McEFHW without saying specifically what it was, which would be the case if he didn't want to go back and check what it was, so really you didn't even fully claim.

My pm also uses a definite article in the same regard, but it feels like an effect of English not being Lalight's first language (though he writes it very well in general).

Obviously, this writing style doesn't help the game in any regard. It enables to write about otherwise forbidden things but hurts the flow of the game. Banning those methods would basically muzzle the players in regard to information they "legally" (in contrast to face reads in RL for example) acquired and might lead to the conflicts I outlined before. I don't think such a policy would be in favor of the playing community and the fun of the people involved.

[Robz888]

Calamitas, I don't think those re-writings are okay, because they are still too specific. They still attempt to wring an advantage from knowing that the PM used a definitive article (a false advantage in the case we actually had, becuase all PMs used the same article). This is too close to to a hypothetical problem scenario: imagine we have a claimed Tracker we know is truthful, and two players who have also claimed to be Trackers, one is a liar and the other is not. The confirmed Tracker could say, for instance "how many times does the letter R appear in your role PM?" He wouldn't be quoting anything or asking for quotes, but could use the PM information to confirm town.

The point is that we don't ever want PM wording info to be the basis of deciding whether someone is town or not.

[Robz888]

I mean, this whole problem would have been avoided if I hadn't misread and misunderstood LaLight's initial clarification.  At the time I wasn't thinking about articles and the use of the word "the" in the initial role description, at all, so I thought the clarification must have been referring to the fact I targeted a claimed treasure card instead of wording. Reading it with hindsight it is 1000% clear what was being said, but for whatever reason I just overlooked the use of "any card" in the clarification until after I had already derailed the thread.  LaLight handled everything perfectly and even tried to preempt any confusion, but I was apparently a big enough idiot to still mess it up.  All that happened before I thought the info would trap Robz, so really it shouldn't have even come up at all...

Don't feel bad! It's really okay. It's understandable on your part, and understandable on LL's part. You were playing a really impressive game for a relative newbie and I hope you stick with us.

[gkrieg13]

Yes, I think the rule just has to be that using your PM for anything should just be against the rules.  Anything where you can use the secret information you gain by knowing exactly what your PM looks like is just wrong.

[gkrieg13]

Also I would like to propose that the game either be called a tie, or that it just be called off.  I would argue that Robz should have been modkilled as well, resulting in a pretty easy (from my point of view) LYLO.

I guess it depends on whether we would've gone into night after the modkill or stayed in that day phase too.

[Roadrunner7671]

In my official stats I'm counting this as a draw.

I'm not mad at anyone, we made some mistakes and people died. RIP

[Calamitas]

Calamitas, I don't think those re-writings are okay, because they are still too specific. They still attempt to wring an advantage from knowing that the PM used a definitive article (a false advantage in the case we actually had, becuase all PMs used the same article). This is too close to to a hypothetical problem scenario: imagine we have a claimed Tracker we know is truthful, and two players who have also claimed to be Trackers, one is a liar and the other is not. The confirmed Tracker could say, for instance "how many times does the letter R appear in your role PM?" He wouldn't be quoting anything or asking for quotes, but could use the PM information to confirm town.

The point is that we don't ever want PM wording info to be the basis of deciding whether someone is town or not.

But it neither quoting nor verbatim and therefore not covered by the rule. It is paraphrasing after all (paraphrasing of words and not meanings but still paraphrasing )

[Dylan32]

I mean, this whole problem would have been avoided if I hadn't misread and misunderstood LaLight's initial clarification.  At the time I wasn't thinking about articles and the use of the word "the" in the initial role description, at all, so I thought the clarification must have been referring to the fact I targeted a claimed treasure card instead of wording. Reading it with hindsight it is 1000% clear what was being said, but for whatever reason I just overlooked the use of "any card" in the clarification until after I had already derailed the thread.  LaLight handled everything perfectly and even tried to preempt any confusion, but I was apparently a big enough idiot to still mess it up.  All that happened before I thought the info would trap Robz, so really it shouldn't have even come up at all...

Don't feel bad! It's really okay. It's understandable on your part, and understandable on LL's part. You were playing a really impressive game for a relative newbie and I hope you stick with us.

Thanks for that.  My initial thought really was, "boy I don't want to show my username in that forum again" but that would be a bit melodramatic, so I think I'll stick around haha.  But for learning purposes, other than the obvious "Don't break the rules," how should I have handled the counterclaim since I was the one telling the truth?  I obviously had a few typos and shaky posts that I could have prevented had I just reread it before I hit post, but I got in a hurry.  Like should I have waited until my turn at the end of the claim, or is immediate actually better?

[pingpongsam]

Curious about thoughts on my not claiming that I knew Robz had targeted Dylan?

Not knowing if he were town or not I was trying to not out a town PR. He leveraged this expertly, BTW.