In post 821, Gamma Emerald wrote:I don't want any more claims today. I am advocating a lynch on myself so Town PRs can operate without the threat of Ascetics.
What happens if there's a backup enabler? You died for nothing.
Just as likely as ascetics needing to be enabled in the first place.
In post 821, Gamma Emerald wrote:I don't want any more claims today. I am advocating a lynch on myself so Town PRs can operate without the threat of Ascetics.
What happens if there's a backup enabler? You died for nothing.
Stop being stupid.
What do you think the likelihood of that is?
Just as likely as ascetics needing to be enabled in the first place.
It's a valid theory that scum could have a backup of the enabler role, especially if there is both town and scum ascetic in play.
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:43 pm
by TheRealGin-N-Tonic
Is this all on the wiki with the discussion of enablers and ascetics because this site is using stuff I've never seen before I'll be straight up.
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:52 pm
by TheRealGin-N-Tonic
So Ascetic is when a player can only be killed, they can not be invested or healed.
An enabler is when if the Enabler dies, the person who shared the enabled ability loses the PR status.
So if I have this correct, Gamma saying he's an Ascetic enabler means that if he is dead, then the ascetic power roles lose their "ascetic" status and can then be invested/healed/roleblocked.
Correct or am I not understanding the roles?
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:57 pm
by -Grey-
In post 830, TheRealGin-N-Tonic wrote:So if I have this correct, Gamma saying he's an Ascetic enabler means that if he is dead, then the ascetic power roles lose their "ascetic" status and can then be invested/healed/roleblocked.
Unless there's a backup.
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:59 pm
by TheRealGin-N-Tonic
So a back up enabler?
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:08 pm
by TheRealGin-N-Tonic
I've never played with these roles before but a back up enabler sounds like a really big stretch
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:12 pm
by Gamma Emerald
In post 833, TheRealGin-N-Tonic wrote:I've never played with these roles before but a back up enabler sounds like a really big stretch
In post 813, Human Sequencer wrote:Gin is also reading pretty bad.
I wouldn't mind a Gin or Asphodel lynch at the moment.
Explain my dear Human, don't just say you're okay with a lynch but back it up with reasoning lol
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:20 pm
by Gamma Emerald
@Grey: why did you feel the need to crumb your role like you did?
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:25 pm
by Alisae
In post 748, -Grey- wrote:Since Gamma claimed Ascetic Enabler, any "no results" results should be insta-lynched because the ascetic(s) is/are scum hiding behind the role.
What if there is a scum rb that just rbs you the whole game. You'll being a favor for the maf and guiding the town to do mislynches xD
In post 748, -Grey- wrote:Since Gamma claimed Ascetic Enabler, any "no results" results should be insta-lynched because the ascetic(s) is/are scum hiding behind the role.
What if there is a scum rb that just rbs you the whole game. You'll being a favor for the maf and guiding the town to do mislynches xD
In post 736, Rainbowdash wrote:1) The "scum don't have day talk" is not a slip. It is something that you should always operate on as being true unless something presents itself to directly say otherwise. If Naomi said scum DO have day talk, that would be worth jumping on. As it stands she said something that I would bet all my bits everypony else assumed is the case.
Like on one hand you have a point, on the other anyone who's played a game with an encryptor shouldn't automatically assume scum have daytalk. If Naomi said probably that would change everything.
If somebody said "scum probably have day talk" would that be a slip?
It's the certainty that makes me think slip
No I auto assume they don't cause its normal that they don't just cause I know a role exists doesn't mean I should assume its in the game. am I also to assume that there is a strong man a roleblocker a cop a doc a tracker a watcher a ghost writer a neopollition ect. ect. ect. Unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise I don't assume any role is in the game. Yes I knew it was a role that existed and wrote it in a way that they didn't exist. I explained that I assumed no Day talk and admitted in the following post that it was a role I knew about. but There is literally nothing I can give you on this train of thought; You say I know stuff. I say I don't. back to square one, drop it -_-
This makes me want to, but I'm comfortable on the All Alone wagon. After all, I'm probably going to be All Alone on it.
This isn't a town mindset. If Alisae is town and genuinely thinks I'm the best lynch for today, it's unlikely they'd be this comfortable with me being a vanity wagon. Townies get frustrated when their preferred lynch isn't gaining traction, whereas scums are much more okay with staying out of the limelight.
I will ALWAYS make the point that pushing on fake slips is a scumtell, in every single game I ever play. Because it's been a very reliable tell for me. I'll let you in on a couple of my other tricks as well; being "excited" about the game when the general mood is depressed or uninterested to the point of wanting to abandon is a scumtell. Claiming an investigative PR and making a lot of content about who you're going to check the following night (especially framing it as an fos ie "For that I'm going to check YOU tonight") is a scumtell. Jumping on people for too quickly commenting on a nightkill is a scumtell. These are all things I will pretty much always points out when they happen, regardless of my alignment.
Scum love having a "justified" vote. Instinctively, they look for a vote where they can lean back on a "factual" basis. A "slip" is a perfect example. When you push on a slip, you're no longer making your own read, you're just saying A therefore B. There is no read, you're presenting it as a fact. And when the person you push flips town, you don't have to defend your "read" being wrong, you can just use that justification you built as a scape-goat. It's what scum subconsciously do ALL THE TIME. Yes, sometimes town will mistakenly think they've found a scumslip. Players like Mathblade are notorious for that kind of play. But as a general rule it's a scum tactic.
^ Something a player that I respect once told me.
I also have a hard time believing that town-Alisae believes this strongly that slip-hunting is scummy, yet has said
absolutely nothing
about TwoFace's attack on Naomi. TwoFace has only accused Naomi of slipping somewhere around
eighty million times
, so there's no way Alisae can have missed it. There's really no good reason for town-Alisae to be ignoring TwoFace here. But as scum looking for a reason to push the Grey wagon, it makes a lot more sense for Alisae to use this against Grey while ignoring TwoFace.
Like, I really, absolutely, cannot overstate how certain I am that Alisae got a red PM this game.
In post 813, Human Sequencer wrote:Gin is also reading pretty bad.
I wouldn't mind a Gin or Asphodel lynch at the moment.
Explain my dear Human, don't just say you're okay with a lynch but back it up with reasoning lol
Why do you care so much? I hadn't posted inbetween your original question and your requote of it, which doesn't fit your otherwise devil-may-care attitude to the game and how you're read.
Everybody else who has attacked you has been met with a somewhat aggressive and combative tone. Why are you more diplomatic with me?
Is Gin an alt? It would seem as though this is his first game, but a few others have commented on his voting habit from what seems to be past experience with his play.
Not as sure on scumGin anymore, now that I've realized just how new he is.
Grey wagon still stupid.
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:12 am
by Asphodel
Hey AllAlone here's what I have on Alisae in my upcoming (abridged) reads list:
Alisae: Reading her town. Her paranoia about lynchbait seems like it's coming from a less-experienced townie who found a new scumhunting heuristic and wants to try it out as much as possible. Her initial suspicion on Gin is actually pretty reasonable, and her subsequent vote on AA makes me think her panic was legit. I also think new scum would be far more hesitant to claim non-ascetic than she was.
Thoughts? Particularly given that she has kinda backed off you?
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:16 am
by krylea
In post 817, Gamma Emerald wrote:I don't believe the claim for a second. Even then, optimal play IMO is to lynch me, and let the town PRs do their work tonight.
Orrrrrr, instead of lynching town, we could lynch scum instead, how bout that?
I am not happy with the situation vis a vis grey and am not sure I buy the claim, but I'll UNVOTE: for now.
Probably going to go back to Asphodel wagon, but it's getting a bit too much traction too fast this time and I want to look at who is hopping back on it.
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:21 am
by Human Sequencer
^with krylea on that one.
Instead of lynching town gamma to weaken ascetic, we should just lynch scum so that we win the game lmao.
Like if you buy the claim Gamma is pretty much conftown to you, so why would you waste that lynch on a townslot for 'Oh we might get a guilty...' or something like that.
Ascetic really doesn't seem that powerful for scum tbh.