Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
Thoughts on Mattzed's and Unknown's effort posts (and a few swift ISO searches):
I'll accept the reasons given on Helz and Bakermir by Unkown.
I think deathworlds may need more looking at based on the reasons given, though idk if I should jump to the conclusion that he's possibly scummy since I wasn't paying attention to him much during that EoD.
Frinckles is one of the players I have planned on reviewing today, though I'm not completely convinced there would be intentional triad signaling this game. I think with knowing some of the players on the FM forum here, any signaling may go unnoticed or be unreliable, and at worst put someone in deep trouble.
I'll sheep the reasons on DM by both Mattzed and Unkown, though I would like to investigate him on my own initiative at some point just like on Deathworlds.
A.K.A "That One Idiot"
Skimming this on my phone, and have one important question for @Auwt : If a scientist checks someone on the night they BECOME Switcher, what feedback will they get?
Unvoting until I get an answer.
-unvote
FMPOV, when someone says "I'm a bit skeptical of all this talk" shows both a hesitancy to accept reasons but also a possibility that they may be persuaded through discussion.
If you strongly believed in X fact, and someone said "I'm a bit skeptical of X fact claims", wouldn't you feel the urge to try and persuade them that X fact is correct?
I don't see how such a statement could shut down or dissuade conversation unless it was being misinterpreted.
A.K.A "That One Idiot"
The way I read it the first time led me to believe there was a reason you didn’t want to talk about it. That being said I understand how you meant it to be taken after having pointed it out.
Hmmm. I will look into it more later but I think the first quote there is justified.
At the time of that post, recently 3 people voted Oberon within the span of 30 posts (like #559-#589)
In fact, deathworld's 6th post was in the middle of that (At #580, quoted below), 20 minutes after his first post:
I could see that impression being given to anyone that its possible someone is getting hammered regardless of what they do, with a vote every 10ish posts lol.
A.K.A "That One Idiot"
Important information for everyone.
In order not to break the game,
If a Scientist visits someone on the night they become Switcher (for the first time), the night feedback would look as the following :
"Your target has been Switcher once"
MEANING, that the action of swapping role is visible throughout the OoO, but the roles only change at the last position of it.
Therefore, every Investigative role could eventually spot a move from a Switcher.
The same goes for the Corrupted Assessor (their action is visible BEFORE they actually act).
@bakermir
@Helz
@Dark Magician
@MartinGG99
@FrostByte
@Frinckles
@deathworlds
@yzb25
@Unknown1234
@naz
@MattZed
@Renegade
DM isn't going to budge. Anyway I found out he's been the switcher one time. Which, if im reading the role correctly means that he is the Switcher, because the original Switcher starts their tally at one?
So he was triad who is now switcher
(๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶
I need to head off. Not yet sure what to think of the Frinckles-DM interaction, but I'm quite surprised no one is admitting to being the Switcher N1.
Also, @Helz , I think you're misreading how locks work.
@Auwt I dont know why it's in my head but does the original switcher start their count at 1 or 0
(๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶
tbh I'm looking at Helz vs Frostbyte on pg 16 as ????????????? (tvt?)
I'm leaning on them being town.
I do 50 posts per page view
A.K.A "That One Idiot"
thats not what I understand from the OoO.
switcher role swap happens last. switchers other actions are before invest actions so invests can still track them but scientist only knows the amount of someone being switcher, in this case DM was switcher once and that is only possible n0-d1 because scientist checked them on n1
Nor was it what I understood from the OoO, but in practice the OoO is an informal, ambiguous way of representing the grid of priorities roles take over one-another, dressed up as something more logical. For example, lookout can go in all sorts of places in the OoO, but people informally understand the lookout sees ppl who visit their target irrespective of whether they come before the lookout or after. The same is true of the detective.
But that's besides the point - The OoO is misleading in this case, hence why Auwt stepped in to clarify.