S-FM 335: Bisected Souls - Page 2
Register

User Tag List

Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 892
  1. ISO #51

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinGG99 View Post
    Me and SB joined together simply because neither of us could be in the game as much as we would like every phase.

    I'll see what we can do to ensure what we say before-night is what we do as what we claim may end up being reconsidered simply because the other perspective hadnt been informed enough or been voiced yet.
    Changing what action you do from the action you claim in the thread is just anti-town since it defeats the whole purpose of the claims - to rob the corrupted side of their base 3 token income from trading tokens with each other.

    I don't like that you're trying to set cover for this anti-town action one bit!

  2. ISO #52

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Lag View Post
    Changing what action you do from the action you claim in the thread is just anti-town since it defeats the whole purpose of the claims - to rob the corrupted side of their base 3 token income from trading tokens with each other.

    I don't like that you're trying to set cover for this anti-town action one bit!
    I dont like that you're not allowing for other perspectives on it

    I mean I especially see a token switch as being potentially very important for everyone to consider when it comes down to the wire on # of town/evils and who will be doing the night-kills (if any)

    If we cant trust a person to not be a wolf (that we're giving tokens to) then I dont see why we should still give them tokens anways

    Your idea of accountability falls apart if it means winning the game in the end
    A.K.A "That One Idiot"

  3. ISO #53

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Lag View Post
    Changing what action you do from the action you claim in the thread is just anti-town since it defeats the whole purpose of the claims - to rob the corrupted side of their base 3 token income from trading tokens with each other.

    I don't like that you're trying to set cover for this anti-town action one bit!
    Disagreed

    Sometimes the decision at the spur of the moment is the wrong one and needs reconsidering.

    While you are correct in some circumstances, depending what the action is changed to it is not necessarily anti town (keep in mind we likely won't see any problems with this till at least D3)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16
    I feel like I'm watching a horror movie and the protag. group is exploring an old house or something and everything is super quiet, but you know something bad is about to happen. Mafia man is about to come out from behind the basement furnace and gun down varcron right in front of me. And there will be nothing I can do.

  4. ISO #54

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinGG99 View Post
    I dont like that you're not allowing for other perspectives on it

    I mean I especially see a token switch as being potentially very important for everyone to consider when it comes down to the wire on # of town/evils and who will be doing the night-kills (if any)

    If we cant trust a person to not be a wolf (that we're giving tokens to) then I dont see why we should still give them tokens anways

    Your idea of accountability falls apart if it means winning the game in the end
    So why are you not able to figure that out during the 48 hour day phase when you have the rest of the town to consult with? Why do you need to be able to change your mind during the night phase which is half as long? You're not getting any new information during the night, unless you're a wolf, is that what you're claiming here?

    Are you worried about wanting to change who you give tokens to based off of flips? No worries then, just claim one target for a town flip and another target for a wolf flip.

    Your excuse of needing to "consult with your other half during the night because you're so busy" just feels like a flimsy excuse to carry out anti-town plays.

    Depriving the wolves of a significant portion of their income is huge and I'm going to heavily scumread anyone that attempts to discredit this plan without very solid reasoning for doing so

  5. ISO #55

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Varcron View Post
    Disagreed

    Sometimes the decision at the spur of the moment is the wrong one and needs reconsidering.

    While you are correct in some circumstances, depending what the action is changed to it is not necessarily anti town (keep in mind we likely won't see any problems with this till at least D3)
    Then adjust your opinion during the day phase. There are 48 hours of day phase for you to do so. Same response to you as I said to Martin.

    "Needing to adjust your day claim" might be valid if there were no tangible upside to hard claiming who you give tokens to.

    But there is a tangible upside, and that tangible upside is huge here, choosing to pass up on it is just anti-town play.

  6. ISO #56

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Besides, I've hosted games on this site, I know that 90% of you just lock in your action immediately after the flip if you're town and online, and immediately after you come online if you're not online at the time of the flip.

    Wolves are the only ones that take a long time to long in their actions because they need to discuss and coordinate with their team.

    This whole business about "needing to reconsider during the night" is just anti-town nonsense

  7. ISO #57

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    Lol
    -vote MartinGG99


    You need to improve your acting skills.
    I think you're town, don't ask me why :], and I don't see why Martin would be acting.

    Also Lag, I'm voting Light because it's fun to do and because he already had votes on him. RVS power!

    And I 100 % agree with stating who we give our tokens to AND LYNCHING LIARS. In this setup, townhunting will be important, and gambits are horrible because they can and will mess with town's choices when it comes to token-giving. Lynch All Liars shall be our motto this game.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  8. ISO #58

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinGG99 View Post
    I dont like that you're not allowing for other perspectives on it

    I mean I especially see a token switch as being potentially very important for everyone to consider when it comes down to the wire on # of town/evils and who will be doing the night-kills (if any)

    If we cant trust a person to not be a wolf (that we're giving tokens to) then I dont see why we should still give them tokens anways

    Your idea of accountability falls apart if it means winning the game in the end
    You two are building scumreads out of theory disagreements, which is probably not scummy but also probably wrong. Also Martin, he's not "not allowing for other perspectives", he's stating his point, which is a good one imo. I just can't see how not saying who you're giving a token to is pro-town in any way. What we shouldn't state is our glue/health actions for obvious reasons, and probably all of the actions to avoid getting glued by scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  9. ISO #59

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    I think you're town, don't ask me why :], and I don't see why Martin would be acting.

    Also Lag, I'm voting Light because it's fun to do and because he already had votes on him. RVS power!

    And I 100 % agree with stating who we give our tokens to AND LYNCHING LIARS. In this setup, townhunting will be important, and gambits are horrible because they can and will mess with town's choices when it comes to token-giving. Lynch All Liars shall be our motto this game.
    Your vote definitely felt much less of a serious vote than Martin's vote did - and that's been confirmed by Martin's cagey answer about how he apparently has a legitimate reason for voting Light which he will reveal later.

    Also 100% yes, lynch liars. Because the only people that have incentives to lie about who they send tokens to are wolves.

    Also gambits are bad in this kind of setup as well, yes. We're all vanilla town here - there's no mech to save you, there are no power roles to protect, there's no factional kills to eat. Just solid townhunting and wolfhunting is most important in this kind of setup.

    And in fact, because of the tokens mechanic, it is that much more important for town to actually be towny, since if town isn't projecting as town and getting the tokens, then that means the wolves are.

  10. ISO #60

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    You two are building scumreads out of theory disagreements, which is probably not scummy but also probably wrong. Also Martin, he's not "not allowing for other perspectives", he's stating his point, which is a good one imo. I just can't see how not saying who you're giving a token to is pro-town in any way. What we shouldn't state is our glue/health actions for obvious reasons, and probably all of the actions to avoid getting glued by scum.
    This ^

    Don't go claiming

    "I'm going to use health tonight, lol"

    Unless you're trying to WIFOM bait or something, which is fine tbh

    But people definitely should claim in advance who they will send tokens to that night.

    If their token recipient is polarized based on the flip, then it's best to specify that in your post where you're declaring who you're sending tokens to, something as simple as
    "If X flips town, then I"m sending my token to Y"
    "If X flips wolf, then I'm sending my token to Z"

  11. ISO #61

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Although also, I think it's valid to wolf-read people that refuse to claim after having the importance of claiming their tokens in advance explained to them.

    Wolves have a vested interest in that plan not happening, if it means being obtuse or stubborn or contrarian to achieve that ends - then it's definitely in their interest to do so.
    Maybe Martin hasn't exhibited that level of stubbornness yet to warrant a full on wolf-read, but if there's anyone by the end of the day who is still refusing to claim who they're sending tokens to, they're just >rand wolf

  12. ISO #62

  13. ISO #63

  14. ISO #64

  15. ISO #65

  16. ISO #66

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Lag View Post
    So why are you not able to figure that out during the 48 hour day phase when you have the rest of the town to consult with? Why do you need to be able to change your mind during the night phase which is half as long? You're not getting any new information during the night, unless you're a wolf, is that what you're claiming here?

    Are you worried about wanting to change who you give tokens to based off of flips? No worries then, just claim one target for a town flip and another target for a wolf flip.

    Your excuse of needing to "consult with your other half during the night because you're so busy" just feels like a flimsy excuse to carry out anti-town plays.

    Depriving the wolves of a significant portion of their income is huge and I'm going to heavily scumread anyone that attempts to discredit this plan without very solid reasoning for doing so
    Two town heads are theoretically better than one. I don't have any confirmation that anyone here but my buddy and myself here is town, and I don't see why I shouldn't consult them from time to time. It would be especially of interest if I thought X was town and was going to give them a token but SB disagreed and saw them as a wolf (potentially). Given that we both cannot guarantee being active aside from our day phases, its quite possible we won't be able to hear each-other out until the night phase (where there's no new posts to catch-up on).

    Any implication that I shouldn't consult with them on this I see as also being suggest of a belief that I would be less-off if I do consult them. Which is just fundamentally wrong unless SB likes trolling their town teammates.

    Ultimately, what this means is that the longer this game goes on without catching wolves the less likely I am to guarantee where our token goes to unless its some player that both SB and I have town-read in the past. Additionally, if we have not caught any wolves at later point which puts town at near-loss, such a game state would inherently suggest that our past reads are wrong (and gives even more reason to largely only trust the only person confirmed town to me).
    A.K.A "That One Idiot"

  17. ISO #67

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    You two are building scumreads out of theory disagreements, which is probably not scummy but also probably wrong. Also Martin, he's not "not allowing for other perspectives", he's stating his point, which is a good one imo. I just can't see how not saying who you're giving a token to is pro-town in any way. What we shouldn't state is our glue/health actions for obvious reasons, and probably all of the actions to avoid getting glued by scum.
    Idk about you but calling me, a confirmed town to myself, as being anti-town and furthermore having a vote on me the whole time

    feels fairly square in "not allowing for other perspectives" territory
    A.K.A "That One Idiot"

  18. ISO #68

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Gikkle View Post
    I can get behind Lag's proposal. Don't really see any downside.
    I agree with it as well, to be clear.

    Just with the asterisk that if things get concerning and close to losing then our word may not be reliable on what we claim we'll eventually do.
    A.K.A "That One Idiot"

  19. ISO #69

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Okay how about this, as I just thought of it:

    I will claim what I want to give my token during the day. Maybe add town/wolf flip consideration if at EoD.

    I will also claim who I will give my token to in the event SB disagrees or something else comes up to make me not what to give the token to who I said I would.

    There would never ever be a token given outside of those. And if somehow SB finds both possibilities as wolfs (lol us for not communicating) we'll just pick the less-wolfy one.
    A.K.A "That One Idiot"

  20. ISO #70

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinGG99 View Post
    Okay how about this, as I just thought of it:

    I will claim what I want to give my token during the day. Maybe add town/wolf flip consideration if at EoD.

    I will also claim who I will give my token to in the event SB disagrees or something else comes up to make me not what to give the token to who I said I would.

    There would never ever be a token given outside of those. And if somehow SB finds both possibilities as wolfs (lol us for not communicating) we'll just pick the less-wolfy one.
    In theory I think this still works with the plan preety well?

    While also being accomodating for ever-changing situations or discussion with my partner.
    A.K.A "That One Idiot"

  21. ISO #71

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    I'll do it right now even:

    I currently plan to give my token to Marshmallow Marshall's slot.

    In the event that is somehow a no-go, I will give it to Varcron's slot.

    For all intents and purposes, since this is early-game, I will be giving it to Marshmallow 99.99% of the time.
    A.K.A "That One Idiot"

  22. ISO #72

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinGG99 View Post
    I'll do it right now even:

    I currently plan to give my token to Marshmallow Marshall's slot.

    In the event that is somehow a no-go, I will give it to Varcron's slot.

    For all intents and purposes, since this is early-game, I will be giving it to Marshmallow 99.99% of the time.
    What Is Your Reason For Picking Mr. Squishy AKA Marshmallow Marshall?

    His SC2 ID Is I Cant Fucking Remember.. Been Awhile.. I Think Its Zeratul.... Correct Me If Im Wrong @MarshmallowMarshall

  23. ISO #73

  24. ISO #74

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    I think you're town, don't ask me why :], and I don't see why Martin would be acting.

    Also Lag, I'm voting Light because it's fun to do and because he already had votes on him. RVS power!

    And I 100 % agree with stating who we give our tokens to AND LYNCHING LIARS. In this setup, townhunting will be important, and gambits are horrible because they can and will mess with town's choices when it comes to token-giving. Lynch All Liars shall be our motto this game.
    The unfortunate part about it is that some big brain is going to decide to gamble even though it's an awful idea.

    Pretty sure something similar happened in the 6 person game we played a few months ago (but that led to town victory due to scum blunder). For those of you that didn't play that 3 people decided to gamble a TP role and nearly caused a loss.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16
    I feel like I'm watching a horror movie and the protag. group is exploring an old house or something and everything is super quiet, but you know something bad is about to happen. Mafia man is about to come out from behind the basement furnace and gun down varcron right in front of me. And there will be nothing I can do.

  25. ISO #75

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Lag View Post
    Although also, I think it's valid to wolf-read people that refuse to claim after having the importance of claiming their tokens in advance explained to them.

    Wolves have a vested interest in that plan not happening, if it means being obtuse or stubborn or contrarian to achieve that ends - then it's definitely in their interest to do so.
    Maybe Martin hasn't exhibited that level of stubbornness yet to warrant a full on wolf-read, but if there's anyone by the end of the day who is still refusing to claim who they're sending tokens to, they're just >rand wolf
    Claiming who you give your tokens to before the last 4 hours of D1 is dumb if that's what your implying here.

    Personally I will not be revealing who I will send my tokens to until I have developed better reads.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16
    I feel like I'm watching a horror movie and the protag. group is exploring an old house or something and everything is super quiet, but you know something bad is about to happen. Mafia man is about to come out from behind the basement furnace and gun down varcron right in front of me. And there will be nothing I can do.

  26. ISO #76

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinGG99 View Post
    I'll do it right now even:

    I currently plan to give my token to Marshmallow Marshall's slot.

    In the event that is somehow a no-go, I will give it to Varcron's slot.

    For all intents and purposes, since this is early-game, I will be giving it to Marshmallow 99.99% of the time.
    The fact that you rolled over as soon as lag mentioned that he may scumread you isn't a good look in my eyes. Then again, early D1 so this is just everyone talking out of their ass at this point
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16
    I feel like I'm watching a horror movie and the protag. group is exploring an old house or something and everything is super quiet, but you know something bad is about to happen. Mafia man is about to come out from behind the basement furnace and gun down varcron right in front of me. And there will be nothing I can do.

  27. ISO #77

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Light_Yagami View Post
    What Is Your Reason For Picking Mr. Squishy AKA Marshmallow Marshall?

    His SC2 ID Is I Cant Fucking Remember.. Been Awhile.. I Think Its Zeratul.... Correct Me If Im Wrong @MarshmallowMarshall
    I think MM's earlier wording when quoting me has implied that they believed both my and lag's beliefs were genuine.

    If that's so, then I'm inclined that they see both of us potentially town

    In which case I really don't see a wolf doing that in a scenario where the wolves might not ever control a night-kill as giving 2 potential town-reads early on may very quickly cage in the wolves. Especially in a 10-player game. Only exception is if both MM and Lag are wolves, but such fear would be ridiculous at this point imo.
    A.K.A "That One Idiot"

  28. ISO #78

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Varcron View Post
    The fact that you rolled over as soon as lag mentioned that he may scumread you isn't a good look in my eyes. Then again, early D1 so this is just everyone talking out of their ass at this point
    Rolled over?

    Do you not see the fundamental difference of what I did compared to what Lag said we should do? Or at least understood where and how I was disagreeing with Lag?

    If I were objecting to even claiming, then I could see this as rolling over. But I wasn't. I was objecting to the presumption that we should follow-through with what we claimed we would do (Ex: "I will give token to X"). But that leaves no room for adjustment and is a fair bit unaccommodating to the fact that SB and I may not be able to watch thread like usual and have to wait till later for discussion with our confirmed-town-partner. Which in turn could put us in a bad spot in some circumstances.

    This addition of "If X disagrees" or whatever allows for working within the plan, building accountability, but also allowing for ever-changing opinions in case our partner brings up a valid or interesting point or perspective. I just hadn't thought until recently we could just add this after any adjustments we may give based upon flip.

    Example:

    I will give our token to W, unless X flips wolf in which case I will give it to Y.

    If SB disagrees with what I said (or something else comes up) which changes my mind then our token will go to Z.
    A.K.A "That One Idiot"

  29. ISO #79

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinGG99 View Post
    I think MM's earlier wording when quoting me has implied that they believed both my and lag's beliefs were genuine.

    If that's so, then I'm inclined that they see both of us potentially town

    In which case I really don't see a wolf doing that in a scenario where the wolves might not ever control a night-kill as giving 2 potential town-reads early on may very quickly cage in the wolves. Especially in a 10-player game. Only exception is if both MM and Lag are wolves, but such fear would be ridiculous at this point imo.
    I Think Lag Is Scum.. For Declaring A Hard Veto On Sending A Token To This Slot....

    Seems Like Lag Knows Something.. TMI? In My Opinion.. Meaning I Think Lag Knows Im Town... And Wont Grant This Slot.. A Token... Because Lag Knows Who Their Scum Buddies Are...

    Another Argument Could Be Martian.. He Would Give His To Marshmallow Marshall.. Because He Knows MMs Slot Is Scum With Him..

  30. ISO #80

  31. ISO #81

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Light_Yagami View Post
    I Think Lag Is Scum.. For Declaring A Hard Veto On Sending A Token To This Slot....

    Seems Like Lag Knows Something.. TMI? In My Opinion.. Meaning I Think Lag Knows Im Town... And Wont Grant This Slot.. A Token... Because Lag Knows Who Their Scum Buddies Are...

    Another Argument Could Be Martian.. He Would Give His To Marshmallow Marshall.. Because He Knows MMs Slot Is Scum With Him..
    Either Way MM Is Still Scum Here..

  32. ISO #82

  33. ISO #83

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Gikkle View Post
    You know, there is actually a pretty good reason not to say the tokens now or ever, but I can't exactly explain it
    Lag kind of messed it up anyway, not sure if on purpose or a genuine oversight, but *shrug*
    Probably wouldn't have even thought about it if Lag hadn't done her proposal wrt to the tokens, so doesn't really matter too much I guess.

  34. ISO #84

  35. ISO #85

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinGG99 View Post
    Rolled over?

    Do you not see the fundamental difference of what I did compared to what Lag said we should do? Or at least understood where and how I was disagreeing with Lag?

    If I were objecting to even claiming, then I could see this as rolling over. But I wasn't. I was objecting to the presumption that we should follow-through with what we claimed we would do (Ex: "I will give token to X"). But that leaves no room for adjustment and is a fair bit unaccommodating to the fact that SB and I may not be able to watch thread like usual and have to wait till later for discussion with our confirmed-town-partner. Which in turn could put us in a bad spot in some circumstances.

    This addition of "If X disagrees" or whatever allows for working within the plan, building accountability, but also allowing for ever-changing opinions in case our partner brings up a valid or interesting point or perspective. I just hadn't thought until recently we could just add this after any adjustments we may give based upon flip.

    Example:

    I will give our token to W, unless X flips wolf in which case I will give it to Y.

    If SB disagrees with what I said (or something else comes up) which changes my mind then our token will go to Z.
    Yes, Rolled over

    Quote Originally Posted by Lag
    Although also, I think it's valid to wolf-read people that refuse to claim after having the importance of claiming their tokens in advance explained to them.

    Wolves have a vested interest in that plan not happening, if it means being obtuse or stubborn or contrarian to achieve that ends - then it's definitely in their interest to do so.
    Maybe Martin hasn't exhibited that level of stubbornness yet to warrant a full on wolf-read, but if there's anyone by the end of the day who is still refusing to claim who they're sending tokens to, they're just >rand wolf
    Nearly immediately after that post was sent, you said this:

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinGG99
    I'll do it right now even:

    I currently plan to give my token to Marshmallow Marshall's slot.

    In the event that is somehow a no-go, I will give it to Varcron's slot.

    For all intents and purposes, since this is early-game, I will be giving it to Marshmallow 99.99% of the time.
    I know you're a great player, but please tell me how that isn't backtracking from ~4 posts before to then.

    That's not what you said, what you said was that you may go back on what you said EOD which lag called you out on. Right after he called you out you agreed with him and posted who you would sauce your token to. Call it a concession instead of rolling over, the principle is the same..
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16
    I feel like I'm watching a horror movie and the protag. group is exploring an old house or something and everything is super quiet, but you know something bad is about to happen. Mafia man is about to come out from behind the basement furnace and gun down varcron right in front of me. And there will be nothing I can do.

  36. ISO #86

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Gikkle View Post
    I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter at all if Martin says who he gave a token to today or tomorrow. Either way, we get the information about who has the tokens.
    The whole entire point of controlling who gets the tokens, as far as I understand it, is to prevent scum from just giving it to each other without being held accountable. However, this does not require someone to say THIS day phase who they are giving it to; they could say it NEXT day phase and it would still achieve our goals. That is, if scum are giving it to their partners, we'll know about it. It doesn't matter if they let us know before the fact or after the fact. As long as we know who has tokens and how many, our goal of making sure scum can't just give to each other succeeds, and they can't kill without us knowing about it.

  37. ISO #87

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Lag View Post
    Although also, I think it's valid to wolf-read people that refuse to claim after having the importance of claiming their tokens in advance explained to them.

    Wolves have a vested interest in that plan not happening, if it means being obtuse or stubborn or contrarian to achieve that ends - then it's definitely in their interest to do so.
    Maybe Martin hasn't exhibited that level of stubbornness yet to warrant a full on wolf-read, but if there's anyone by the end of the day who is still refusing to claim who they're sending tokens to, they're just >rand wolf
    Ehhh in my experience, reads based on this kind of reasoning are very often wrong, but I guess it's not unreasonable of you to hold that position. I just don't share it :P.

    I'm not sure why Light is saying I'm scum, but to be fair, I'm never sure why Light is saying anything, so...

    Yes Martin, I was implying you and Lag looked somewhat TvT. That being said, your "I'm confirmed town from my perspective" felt like unneeded LAMIST in a strange way, so I'm not committing too hard on that read. I guess I thank you for your trust though lol.

    Also, Gikkle's #62 "I can get behind Lag's proposal. Don't really see any downside." feels like scum saying "hey I exist and this is good, see I'm contributing!". I am fully aware this is weak but I still have that read and for this reason
    -vote gikkle

    I love D1 for this ^^
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  38. ISO #88

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by Varcron View Post
    Yes, Rolled over



    Nearly immediately after that post was sent, you said this:



    I know you're a great player, but please tell me how that isn't backtracking from ~4 posts before to then.

    That's not what you said, what you said was that you may go back on what you said EOD which lag called you out on. Right after he called you out you agreed with him and posted who you would sauce your token to. Call it a concession instead of rolling over, the principle is the same..
    1. I think you've super-imposed your view of not saying who you will give tokens to onto me. I was talking about an issue where upon discussion with my soul-mate (who is confirmed town) may lead me unto different conclusion or consideration about a player (which then makes me view giving them a token problematic). This specifically can happen in my slot since if it were not for the fact that one of us will do odd days and the other even days then its unlikely either of us would have been able to /sign.

    2. I very clearly said in my first post to Lag about this that I'll be seeing what I can do to alleviate the issue that I brought up lol, so if you still think this is back-tracking then please actually read my posts or we can argue pointlessly about semantics
    A.K.A "That One Idiot"

  39. ISO #89

  40. ISO #90

  41. ISO #91

  42. ISO #92

  43. ISO #93

  44. ISO #94

  45. ISO #95

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinGG99 View Post
    Dude why is a mechanic like that hidden in a role card and the comments

    Lack of factional kill is preety important and spans more than just a role-card imo

    @Auwt am I allowed to discuss things (paraphrasing) that I've talked to with my soul-partner?
    Yeah no problem with that. I guess paraphrasing is better than copy pasta anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Efekannn02 View Post
    MM Magoroth and Distorted are the 3 baddies
    just like Agrael Acriel and Auwt being the original 3 baddies
    Quote Originally Posted by Efekannn02 View Post
    MafiaZ and Skwirl its all a repeat of history
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkRevenant View Post
    But Potoss has Pobes, Zeelot, and Acrons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Efekannn02 View Post
    Screw you I actually have more grudges towards the people who have their names start with A

  46. ISO #96

  47. ISO #97

  48. ISO #98

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinGG99 View Post
    Two town heads are theoretically better than one. I don't have any confirmation that anyone here but my buddy and myself here is town, and I don't see why I shouldn't consult them from time to time. It would be especially of interest if I thought X was town and was going to give them a token but SB disagreed and saw them as a wolf (potentially). Given that we both cannot guarantee being active aside from our day phases, its quite possible we won't be able to hear each-other out until the night phase (where there's no new posts to catch-up on).

    Any implication that I shouldn't consult with them on this I see as also being suggest of a belief that I would be less-off if I do consult them. Which is just fundamentally wrong unless SB likes trolling their town teammates.

    Ultimately, what this means is that the longer this game goes on without catching wolves the less likely I am to guarantee where our token goes to unless its some player that both SB and I have town-read in the past. Additionally, if we have not caught any wolves at later point which puts town at near-loss, such a game state would inherently suggest that our past reads are wrong (and gives even more reason to largely only trust the only person confirmed town to me).
    You're describing a problem that affects one, maybe two slots in a game of 10. When a strategy has substantial tangible upside benefit for town even if it's inconvenient for a slot or two - it's in the best interest for town to go ahead with the strategy anyway.

    Lucky for you though, Gikkle came up with a better solution

  49. ISO #99

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinGG99 View Post
    Idk about you but calling me, a confirmed town to myself, as being anti-town and furthermore having a vote on me the whole time

    feels fairly square in "not allowing for other perspectives" territory
    The vote on you is from your serious vote on Light for no reason in RVS but when pressed you were super cagey with explaining yourself. Your reaction to try to immediately discredit a strategy that benefits the whole town is just icing.

  50. ISO #100

    Re: S-FM 335: Bisected Souls

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinGG99 View Post
    I think MM's earlier wording when quoting me has implied that they believed both my and lag's beliefs were genuine.

    If that's so, then I'm inclined that they see both of us potentially town

    In which case I really don't see a wolf doing that in a scenario where the wolves might not ever control a night-kill as giving 2 potential town-reads early on may very quickly cage in the wolves. Especially in a 10-player game. Only exception is if both MM and Lag are wolves, but such fear would be ridiculous at this point imo.
    Why do you think MM's comments aren't a wolf TMIing us as both town?

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •