-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
OI! Everyone play nice if not actively in the game and listen to the gm! WW wont function without willing GMs, and that a lot of them. That is posted as a non-player not as a demi-mod. Still good advice though.
OI! Everyone play nice if not actively in the game and listen to the gm! WW wont function without willing GMs, and that a lot of them. That is posted as a non-player not as a demi-mod. Still good advice though.
Is this your demimod color?
If I act in this sub-forum in any official capacity it will be totally clear. I just need to use a color as a non-player.
OI! Everyone play nice if not actively in the game and listen to the gm! WW wont function without willing GMs, and that a lot of them. That is posted as a non-player not as a demi-mod. Still good advice though.
They eventually listened. I had to praise Allah, but it was worth it. Plus, I hear there are some nice virgin females...
Since AOK isn't here...
If I were wolf, then I would surely have voted for packmate in order to clear my name. If you believe that I'm a wolf, then fine, vote for me like you voted for Vainglory and the village will be lose.
Why would you have done that, if you forced a tie you would have won!
I didn't get answer, yet. Yet you believe he is a villager.
Because I'm not wolf.
Edited: Vote Eternaly_lost.
I am allowed to taunt you all. I am exercising that right: I have access only to the same information as you remaining players. The difference between me and some of the remaining players is I actually used it.
Vain: While you are right on principle that you may taunt, you do however give information: namely the information that you did not have more information than the other players. I suggest you again edit this away.
Or, more likely, he could have used simple logic.
And why would a wolf make a statement like that? It would arouse suspicion. From what I've seen of the game the most basic principle of being a wolf is to keep your mouth shut about certain things.
I hope you're being facetious. It is ludicrous to insist that it is information that could change the game. If Reis has a problem with it he can ban me from his games in future, but I'd love to see him convince the other GMs that this constitutes game changing information. It would be worth seeing such an attempt even if he somehow succeeded.
Information that could change the game is votecounting, theorizing, or declaring I know something other people don't, eg "Rysz is a wolf" if you were still in game. Whether or not it were true it might affect gameplay.
Saying "I don't know any more than the rest of the remaining goodies" cannot affect gameplay. There is nothing they can draw from that claim.
Based on your logic just saying "You're going to lose" or "You're going to win" could affect the outcome.
It could. The players could assume that you know something they don't and are warning them that they're on the wrong (or the right) target.
Rather my point: they're just assuming. I could be lying. I could be telling the truth. They could equally assume that my lack of taunting indicates they're on the wrong or right target. It's all based on them making unsupported assumptions. That you kept asking for wolves to reveal themselves to you very nearly made me abandon Athalcor because of its implications. If it weren't for the attitudes of Hebelecan and Split I would have done so, in part due to your posts. I didn't see Reis telling you to STFU.
Well, I really didn't know who the wolves were. I trusted Hebel to the point where I assumed Athalcor was a baddie, but I still wanted to know who the other/others were.
But yes, anything can theoretically affect the players.
I absolutely don't. At least not with the point you're trying to make.
You can talk about completely tangential subjects or else you really should shut up. Yes it can be rediculous but at the same time anything can really honestly have an effect.
This is why I usually don't talk as a ghost, at least not nearly as much as I do when alive. You should realize that a lot of wolf strategies rely on the village being misinformed and speculation about what players knew before they died is a big part of it. If you start explaining why you did something or what you do or don't know then that will screw with how players perceive events, and that will directly affect their voting behavior. Even if you "could be lying" that just shows that there is still something to lie about, suggesting that you're still playing this game of deception when YOU SHOULDN'T BE PLAYING THIS GAME AT ALL.
In the end it's reis91's decision, but if he makes one and you simply ignore it then I'll help him meta you.
May be a slip? He didn't reply back and he did not explain it.
Edited: About simple logic, GM said it is 3 or 4 wolves. But he knew exact number. Anyway it's up to you to decide. I have made my vote.
I 100% agree with this.
Even if you think that what you say is common knowledge, it may not be so for everyone. If you say that you have no in game knowledge you may shut the door on a wolf making claims that involve you knowing things that you did not. PM conversations you know didn't happen, .. that sort of thing.