mvnForum Homepage

Print at Jan 21, 2021 4:21:38 AM

Posted by lyaka at May 26, 2012 12:13:08 PM
Oh my god, all the posts. Well, this game won't be boring :p I'm doing memorial day stuff with my family this weekend, but I can see that the postcount and wordcount will not be suffering by my absence.

Just a couple of observations on the goings on thus far. (I'm doing the thing where I keep up with reading on my phone, then get back to my laptop to make posts, so my thoughts will tend to come in digest form.)

Tae vs MrBriney: This seems a lot like two innocents (or at least non-rogues, stupid multifaction games) going back and forth over something that is actually relatively minor. It's not that neither of them have made salient points, but fundamentally this started as a molehill and now it's a mountain.

Oh, and...

riku wrote: 
I can say from my own experience that gut feelings are not always (and not often) triggered by something specific. In fact, that's what usually leads them to be characterized as gut feels -- someone reads as suspicious, but you can't nail down why. Trying to pin a justification to a gut often leads you to over-placing suspicion on something that really isn't that suspicious, due to trying to account for your gut feeling.


...and then Goats votes based on this. Really? I found this worthy of a QFT, and you found it worthy of a vote. Of course, I had my now-infamous "three points" gut-vote on Talisker two games ago, so maybe my view is skewed here. But Goats' reasoning raises an eyebrow...

Goats wrote: 
I know that riku is generally playing defense lawyer in many arguments made in the game, but this one seems off.

That's kind of a gut feeling right there, isn't it? The bit I just quoted is the beginning of Goats' post, and he goes on to talk about a few other things, but I find it significant that his opening argument is a gut-based suspicion on a player who defended gut-based votes. It's self-contradictory at the very least, and I'm wondering if perhaps you are not trying to save your buddy-buddy's bum.


Re: items. I completely missed the part where items could be transferred between players, which nicely invalidates a lot of my arguments, since items are not 'use it or lose it' after all. This pleases me since it allows itemholders to be a bit more selective and have strategic decisions to make about the dispositions of items.

I also see that several people have suggested that items should not be talked about. I've gone in and out of the 'don't talk about things' camp, but given that there actually doesn't seem to be much to talk about at the moment, I have no problem holding off- at least until the situation changes- so this is official notice that I'm dropping this conversation thread.


Furare wrote: 
I had been going to mention Lyaka's assertion that the OP suggested non-rogue non-town factions, but I see Marinated beat me to the punch. I couldn't find any mention of neutral roles in the rules. I suppose "conversion" might suggest "cult" to some people, but I would really expect some sort of line about neutral win conditions in that case.

A couple of things suggested to me that there would be multiple factions:

* The reference to converstion, as you point out
* The reference (in the OP) to communication outside the thread being restricted to gang forums. Not 'rogue' forums, but 'gang' forums. The use of a neutral term (gang vs rogue) implies that there is more than one non-innocent faction.
* Bans revealing status as well as lynches, while 'other methods of death' (not expanded on) conceal it. This strongly implies that these other methods of death will be plentiful, not just one guy with one power, if in order to balance that bans reveal status. This, in turn, suggested the possibility (to me) that the people with non-ban-or-lynch kill abilities constitute a faction.
* It's a role-heavy game. Every ROMS role-heavy game has included a neutral faction, so I assumed this game would too.

As I said, suggestions and assumptions.
Furare wrote: 
...disagreeing with you always feels pretty indistinguishable from being wrong.

Talisker wrote:'s actually a Lyakarchy.

Puzzle Pirates™ © 2001-2020 Grey Havens, LLC All Rights Reserved.   Terms · Privacy · Affiliates