|
Post by Roytheone on Oct 23, 2016 11:08:46 GMT -8
Blarg actually chose the perfect choices but they ended up negotiating away from it. After a lot of deliberation, I've decided how the night actions will fall tonight so they actually didn't end up doing to bad. For anyone curious about my dilemma: They want to roleblock AB who is a hider. For anyone who doesn't remember, a hider is untargetable if they succeed at hiding away. So the dilemma is, does AB succeed at hiding first, similar to a commuter, and so he is not eligible for roleblock or does he act like a regular night action, thus he would be later in the order of operations. According to mafiascum which I tend to defer to: hider is slated to go first but it also makes the note that this order should only be followed if the two actions are both taking effect on each other. That isn't the case here, the hider does not directly effect the roleblock while the roleblock is directly trying to affect the hider. So, per the note, the roleblock should hit first. The other thing I wanted to check was if the hider was actually considered a commuter at all in official terminology. Which it actually falls into the typing of protection and investigation both of which definitely go after a roleblocker. Thus, I am allowing them to roleblock and then subsequently kill AB. Whichever way I went on that decision, I'm sure I would have gotten some salt so please feel free to re-direct spectators to this post if I happen not to be around so that they can see my work. I am sorry, but this is bullshit. That didn't take long Sorian will need a straw to be able to breath with all the salt coming his way!
|
|
Burbeting
Vice Admin
Bear of Love
The obligatory (gay) bear of the society!
|
Post by Burbeting on Oct 23, 2016 11:10:14 GMT -8
This will be boring next 3 days.
|
|
Burbeting
Vice Admin
Bear of Love
The obligatory (gay) bear of the society!
|
Post by Burbeting on Oct 23, 2016 11:10:54 GMT -8
Aka next 3 day and 3 night phases. Wake me up when nin, cabot and fran have been lunched.
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 23, 2016 11:11:10 GMT -8
Blarg actually chose the perfect choices but they ended up negotiating away from it. After a lot of deliberation, I've decided how the night actions will fall tonight so they actually didn't end up doing to bad. For anyone curious about my dilemma: They want to roleblock AB who is a hider. For anyone who doesn't remember, a hider is untargetable if they succeed at hiding away. So the dilemma is, does AB succeed at hiding first, similar to a commuter, and so he is not eligible for roleblock or does he act like a regular night action, thus he would be later in the order of operations. According to mafiascum which I tend to defer to: hider is slated to go first but it also makes the note that this order should only be followed if the two actions are both taking effect on each other. That isn't the case here, the hider does not directly effect the roleblock while the roleblock is directly trying to affect the hider. So, per the note, the roleblock should hit first. The other thing I wanted to check was if the hider was actually considered a commuter at all in official terminology. Which it actually falls into the typing of protection and investigation both of which definitely go after a roleblocker. Thus, I am allowing them to roleblock and then subsequently kill AB. Whichever way I went on that decision, I'm sure I would have gotten some salt so please feel free to re-direct spectators to this post if I happen not to be around so that they can see my work. I am sorry, but this is bullshit. What it came down to was you're only untargettable if you are successful at hiding. If hiding is a game state that you have to manually select (which you do) then it goes that someone who removes the ability for someone to manually select anything would cause you to fail to hide to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Roytheone on Oct 23, 2016 11:11:32 GMT -8
Aka next 3 day and 3 night phases. Wake me up when nin, cabot and fran have been lunched.Please don't eat them bear
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 23, 2016 11:13:07 GMT -8
Aka next 3 day and 3 night phases. Wake me up when nin, cabot and fran have been lunched. Eh, lynching nin still proves cabot is town. The town tracker also knows that AB didn't act last night.
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 23, 2016 11:22:11 GMT -8
"I guess Sorian chose not to count his unvote?"
*Splinter pls
Blarg isn't allowed to unvote on a player he isn't voting for.
|
|
|
Post by Ourobolus on Oct 23, 2016 11:27:50 GMT -8
AB - I agree and I don't. I think Sorian should have specified in your PM that you could be RB'd, but to some extent I agree that it's an ability that can be blocked, simply because there aren't a lot of roles out there that CAN'T, especially if they are Active vs. Passive. Now if you were forced to move (like a Sleepwalker), then i'd probably not RB that.
So basically it's Sorian's fault.
|
|
|
Post by absolutbro on Oct 23, 2016 11:28:46 GMT -8
I am sorry, but this is bullshit. What it came down to was you're only untargettable if you are successful at hiding. If hiding is a game state that you have to manually select (which you do) then it goes that someone who removes the ability for someone to manually select anything would cause you to fail to hide to begin with. So the part of my role PM that says "While hiding, you are untargetable by normal means." is a lie then? Because his power is completely "normal means". The primary purpose of my power is to become untargetable, but with the instant death caveats that make it dangerous. Someone being able to directly target me with their power is in complete contradiction to my role PM. If a switcher had been involved or something I would not have an issue with it. But there was nothing involved in it other than someone using a normal power in a normal way.
|
|
|
Post by Sawneeks on Oct 23, 2016 11:31:04 GMT -8
"I wouldn't be against a fran or Blarg lynch today. Leaning fran because of switcher stuff and Blarg sorta saving me yesterday. "
Ty please
|
|
|
Post by absolutbro on Oct 23, 2016 11:34:04 GMT -8
AB - I agree and I don't. I think Sorian should have specified in your PM that you could be RB'd, but to some extent I agree that it's an ability that can be blocked, simply because there aren't a lot of roles out there that CAN'T, especially if they are Active vs. Passive. Now if you were forced to move (like a Sleepwalker), then i'd probably not RB that. So basically it's Sorian's fault. I disagree it should be blockable, since the role itself has enough drawbacks on its own: adding two ways for the user to die. That or we just need a public flow chart of power timings. Had I realized I could still be targeted directly, I probably would never have proposed my plan in the first place. I would have just done it and risked death, rather than knowingly telling the scum team what I was going to do. Sure, if I had hit scum I would be dead with town none the wiser, but at least I would not have been a part of actively misleading my team because my power did not work the way it should have in my mind. And clearly I cannot be expected to ask Sorian about every single possible role conflict in a closed game.
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 23, 2016 11:38:00 GMT -8
What it came down to was you're only untargettable if you are successful at hiding. If hiding is a game state that you have to manually select (which you do) then it goes that someone who removes the ability for someone to manually select anything would cause you to fail to hide to begin with. So the part of my role PM that says " While hiding, you are untargetable by normal means." is a lie then? Because his power is completely "normal means". The primary purpose of my power is to become untargetable, but with the instant death caveats that make it dangerous. Someone being able to directly target me with their power is in complete contradiction to my role PM. If a switcher had been involved or something I would not have an issue with it. But there was nothing involved in it other than someone using a normal power in a normal way. The bolded is the crux of it. You weren't hiding. From the start, the roleblockers were always moving before you did. Someone else is even able to target you though their ability is kind of "normal" as well (they can force you to target them instead of who you wanted to target). I can't reveal every possible role in a role PM which is why things have to be vague but when I was thinking about this interaction before the game started, it was something that could go either way and I was aware that it was going to lead to issues no matter where I went. For full transparency this is the order of operations I set before the game started (spoilers on all roles in the game) Scum Reactive Commuter
Odd Commuter
Even Commuter
Veteran
Scum Roleblocker
Town Roleblocker
Mediator Roleblock
Pope
Magnet
Switcher
Hider
Sound Barrier
Doctor
Mediator Doc
Armorsmith
Mafia Kill
Sniper
JOAT Kill
Doc Kill
Alignment Cop
Tracker
Cupid
Reviver But even with that, things have to retroactively happen so it's all loose to begin with (the biggest example being that the switcher can sometimes affect things earlier in the list assuming they weren't directly roleblocked which has also happened during this game).
|
|
|
Post by Ourobolus on Oct 23, 2016 11:38:04 GMT -8
AB - I agree and I don't. I think Sorian should have specified in your PM that you could be RB'd, but to some extent I agree that it's an ability that can be blocked, simply because there aren't a lot of roles out there that CAN'T, especially if they are Active vs. Passive. Now if you were forced to move (like a Sleepwalker), then i'd probably not RB that. So basically it's Sorian's fault. I disagree it should be blockable, since the role itself has enough drawbacks on its own: adding two ways for the user to die. That or we just need a public flow chart of power timings. Had I realized I could still be targeted directly, I probably would never have proposed my plan in the first place. I would have just done it and risked death, rather than knowingly telling the scum team what I was going to do. Sure, if I had hit scum I would be dead with town none the wiser, but at least I would not have been a part of actively misleading my team because my power did not work the way it should have in my mind. And clearly I cannot be expected to ask Sorian about every single possible role conflict in a closed game. It's a good point. The only other time I think we had a Hider was Woof2, and I don't think there was a Roleblocker in play at the time. It's something we should discuss before S7.
|
|
|
Post by absolutbro on Oct 23, 2016 11:38:35 GMT -8
For the record, this is the part I specifically take umbrage with:
"That isn't the case here, the hider does not directly effect the roleblock while the roleblock is directly trying to affect the hider. So, per the note, the roleblock should hit first." The hider DOES directly effect the roleblock by preventing it from happening. It is the primary function of the hider: to become untargetable. To prevent a roleblock by not being there to roleblock.
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 23, 2016 11:42:43 GMT -8
For the record, this is the part I specifically take umbrage with: "That isn't the case here, the hider does not directly effect the roleblock while the roleblock is directly trying to affect the hider. So, per the note, the roleblock should hit first." The hider DOES directly effect the roleblock by preventing it from happening. It is the primary function of the hider: to become untargetable. To prevent a roleblock by not being there to roleblock. It's referring to the golden rule they have at the top of the page "Apply actions which modify other actions before the actions they modify." They're talking about specific attempts to modify another role. The roleblocker is singularly and purposely targeting you to change how you act. Your affect is not modifying something specifically, but instead causing a general area around you.
|
|
|
Post by Sophia on Oct 23, 2016 11:52:14 GMT -8
I'm surprised they're not just policy lynching Blarg for that. >_>;
|
|
|
Post by Sawneeks on Oct 23, 2016 11:54:17 GMT -8
I'm surprised they're not just policy lynching Blarg for that. >_>; But he lynched Scum tho :p Surely Scum would never lynch one of their own.
|
|
|
Post by Sophia on Oct 23, 2016 12:45:05 GMT -8
Holy Fran Pileup, Batman!
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 23, 2016 12:48:51 GMT -8
I'm confused on how they justify fran as an evil switcher when only one kill happened. Like sure, if AB died as a part of a group, he likely got killed via hide choice but occam's razor and he was just the NK and that's it.
(Yeah, yeah, I know Occam quit Gafia like 2 years ago).
|
|
|
Post by ezekelrage on Oct 23, 2016 13:02:34 GMT -8
Interesting, when fran flip town, they will probably lynch cabot next since he wouldve had to be lying and AB hid behind him. Unless they go nin, but nin killing me confirmed him in most eyes. Would be funny for town to bring up the theory that I was killed by scum mate again to prove nin is scum lol. Most likely they will turn on nin sayin he was neutral kill I guess?. Ty/Blarg need to work on the confirmed town list. If Maz wasn't confirmed and Fran lynch goes thru, he would be on the chopping block next.
|
|
|
Post by Roytheone on Oct 23, 2016 13:11:16 GMT -8
Is kitty realizing the difference between "action failed" and "your target didn't move"? He has to tell them that asap.
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 23, 2016 13:12:36 GMT -8
Is kitty realizing the difference between "action failed" and "your target didn't move"? He has to tell them that asap. He got the result "your target visited no one" That's as clear as I am being. He is also aware that his shots are all used up so that should be another clue away from action failed as well.
|
|
|
Post by Roytheone on Oct 23, 2016 13:14:52 GMT -8
Is kitty realizing the difference between "action failed" and "your target didn't move"? He has to tell them that asap. He got the result "your target visited no one" That's as clear as I am being. He is also aware that his shots are all used up so that should be another clue away from action failed as well. Then he has the keys to steer town away from this bad path. If he decides to not claim that could be a game deciding mistake.
|
|
|
Post by absolutbro on Oct 23, 2016 13:28:58 GMT -8
I'm confused on how they justify fran as an evil switcher when only one kill happened. Like sure, if AB died as a part of a group, he likely got killed via hide choice but occam's razor and he was just the NK and that's it. (Yeah, yeah, I know Occam quit Gafia like 2 years ago). You are making this way too complicated. I even said in my claim post that if I hide behind scum then I die. All Fran had to do was guess who I hid behind (and one choice is more logical than the other) and then swap that player and a scum player. They don't NK, so I die solo and it looks like I hid behind scum. Sure, they give up a double kill, but they still get one kill AND discredit both nin and cabot. It was a contingency I thought of but didn't share, because I wasn't trying to give scum a roadmap.
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 23, 2016 13:40:34 GMT -8
I'm confused on how they justify fran as an evil switcher when only one kill happened. Like sure, if AB died as a part of a group, he likely got killed via hide choice but occam's razor and he was just the NK and that's it. (Yeah, yeah, I know Occam quit Gafia like 2 years ago). You are making this way too complicated. I even said in my claim post that if I hide behind scum then I die. All Fran had to do was guess who I hid behind (and one choice is more logical than the other) and then swap that player and a scum player. They don't NK, so I die solo and it looks like I hid behind scum. Sure, they give up a double kill, but they still get one kill AND discredit both nin and cabot.It was a contingency I thought of but didn't share, because I wasn't trying to give scum a roadmap. That's a waste though. If town is really trying to lynch cabot then nin just tells them "no, lynch me" and self votes. Nin dying clears cabot 100% and nin is out of powers so no big loss as opposed to cabot who is a pain in the ass every even night. So they give up a double kill for one mislynch. Not really worth it when they could have just killed Mazre, cabot, melon, or anyone else who is cleared (yes, the cabot kill wouldn't have worked but they don't know that).
|
|
|
Post by absolutbro on Oct 23, 2016 13:41:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by absolutbro on Oct 23, 2016 13:44:07 GMT -8
You are making this way too complicated. I even said in my claim post that if I hide behind scum then I die. All Fran had to do was guess who I hid behind (and one choice is more logical than the other) and then swap that player and a scum player. They don't NK, so I die solo and it looks like I hid behind scum. Sure, they give up a double kill, but they still get one kill AND discredit both nin and cabot.It was a contingency I thought of but didn't share, because I wasn't trying to give scum a roadmap. That's a waste though. If town is really trying to lynch cabot then nin just tells them "no, lynch me" and self votes. Nin dying clears cabot 100% and nin is out of powers so no big loss as opposed to cabot who is a pain in the ass every even night. So they give up a double kill for one mislynch. Not really worth it when they could have just killed Mazre, cabot, melon, or anyone else who is cleared (yes, the cabot kill wouldn't have worked but they don't know that). Except they KNOW a switcher was in play when nin used his cop 1-shot, so that's all they really have to bring up to cast doubt on cabot.
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 23, 2016 13:46:41 GMT -8
He got the result "your target visited no one" That's as clear as I am being. He is also aware that his shots are all used up so that should be another clue away from action failed as well. Wait, so the tracker could ALSO target the "untargetable"? You didn't hide last night so yes. On a normal night, no, he would have failed and been refunded his shot. It's a good thing for town he got a result on you though, he just needs to actually let town know what happened.
|
|
|
Post by absolutbro on Oct 23, 2016 13:47:34 GMT -8
Wait, so the tracker could ALSO target the "untargetable"? You didn't hide last night so yes. On a normal night, no, he would have failed and been refunded his shot. It's a good thing for town he got a result on you though, he just needs to actually let town know what happened. Yeah I just edited. The distinction occurred to me a moment after posting.
|
|
|
Post by Sorian on Oct 23, 2016 13:58:06 GMT -8
You didn't hide last night so yes. On a normal night, no, he would have failed and been refunded his shot. It's a good thing for town he got a result on you though, he just needs to actually let town know what happened. Yeah I just edited. The distinction occurred to me a moment after posting. Don't know why I said, he would have been refunded. That's wrong. Only refunded if he was role blocked. ---- True on them being worried about fran though. I think Burb said town would lynch all 3 of nin, cabot, and fran. If they do that then they've failed, no way they have to go through all 3 to figure out none of them are lying.
|
|