AG 10/AN 14 Finale

[neil the beguiled]

luckily i only knew like 3 people to id guess so i have 100% accuracy

[Opal Lion]

  

4 minutes ago, Aeoryi said:

I thought Joe was zebra >>

This brings public joe mentions in this game up to 3, I believe? Though kinda weird that one of them was aeo??

[Aeoryi]

2 minutes ago, neil the beguiled said:

luckily i only knew like 3 people to id guess so i have 100% accuracy

I hope I wasn't too obvious

I tried to conceal my identity very much

[neil the beguiled]

Just now, Aeoryi said:

I hope I wasn't too obvious

I tried to conceal my identity very much

i wasnt looking for u but someone outed u i think and then it was obv xD. im not rlly that familiar with your playstyle otherwise lol

[Aeoryi]

5 minutes ago, Opal Lion said:

  

This brings public joe mentions in this game up to 3, I believe? Though kinda weird that one of them was aeo??

I swear one day I saw Joe viewing the thread and I was convinced Zebra was Joe

>>

 

[Mat]

Good job Stick  

And Faerie, wow, I was not expecting Vulture to be a new player. You did very well and certainly deserve that pass!

27 minutes ago, neil the beguiled said:

luckily i only knew like 3 people to id guess so i have 100% accuracy

Was I one of them?  Glad I got to play with you after GMing your first game here. And funny that we ended up paranoia death spiraling on each other. Tbh that was probably predictable  

As I’ve been saying, this was probably my last game. At least for awhile. My last semester of high school just started and I’m busier than I’ve ever been, and I think recently I’ve sort of been playing SE just because it’s something I do. Call it obligation, or habit, or whatever, but the AG felt like a good time to rip the bandaid off and call it a day. I had a good run; now it’s time to pass the torch

I actually think I’ll play one more this summer, in the weeks leading up to when I leave on a church mission, after I graduate. But until then, o7 and have fun y’all. I may pop in and spec now and again, we’ll see. Thanks for the last game, everyone, it was fun and I’m glad we technically got the win  

[Araris Valerian]

2 hours ago, Faerie Braids said:

Wow! I feel very honoured to receive one of the passes. I am new to SE, so does anyone mind explaining what the passes are for?

Welcome! I both thought you played well and wrote some enjoyable RP. Hope to murder play with you some more!

1 hour ago, Mat said:

As I’ve been saying, this was probably my last game. At least for awhile. My last semester of high school just started and I’m busier than I’ve ever been, and I think recently I’ve sort of been playing SE just because it’s something I do. Call it obligation, or habit, or whatever, but the AG felt like a good time to rip the bandaid off and call it a day. I had a good run; now it’s time to pass the torch

I actually think I’ll play one more this summer, in the weeks leading up to when I leave on a church mission, after I graduate. But until then, o7 and have fun y’all. I may pop in and spec now and again, we’ll see. Thanks for the last game, everyone, it was fun and I’m glad we technically got the win  

Will be sorry to see you go, you've been a solid member of the community for a fair while now. I hope high school wraps up well for you! also, this makes me feel old... I started playing SE in high school

[Experience]

Congrats stick that was crazy well played. Aman thanks for believing in me xD

I'm glad the two and a half people I id during the game turned out to be correct :).

Like Mat, this will be my last game for quite some time. I'm sure I'll return at some point in the future once my schedule becomes slightly more free, but these past 4 years (off and on as they have been) have been a blast. 

[Stick.]

Yeah I had no idea Kangaroo was TJ 

Early game I thought Scorp was Aeo and that Cham was Mat (lol). Then when Kas pronoun-slipped on Cham and said something about her wanting to PM-Spider I thought Cham was Burnt. Didn’t really realise they were aeo until way later, and when I did I just kinda didn’t have an ID read on scorp at all until he dropped the tone concealment thing he’d been doing lol. 

I also thought Flamingo was archer C1, and once zebra started being obviously archer I thought flamingo was TJ.

@Faerie Braids it was fun to have you on the team, hope you’ll stick around for more games!! 

[Opal Lion]

I figured that the tineye was fifth. but had no idea who the tineye was until they died.

Okay logging off of the anon account now, i promise

[Kasimir]

1 hour ago, Mat said:

As I’ve been saying, this was probably my last game. At least for awhile. My last semester of high school just started and I’m busier than I’ve ever been, and I think recently I’ve sort of been playing SE just because it’s something I do. Call it obligation, or habit, or whatever, but the AG felt like a good time to rip the bandaid off and call it a day. I had a good run; now it’s time to pass the torch

I actually think I’ll play one more this summer, in the weeks leading up to when I leave on a church mission, after I graduate. But until then, o7 and have fun y’all. I may pop in and spec now and again, we’ll see. Thanks for the last game, everyone, it was fun and I’m glad we technically got the win  

o7

All the best, and have a good year/mission! See you around sometime

[|TJ|]

I think this is the first time I have actually died in an AG, damn. Wished to keep the streak going on for a few more years :P. 

My guesses for Vulture were Quinn/deTess but yeah, really surprised with @Faerie Braids, hope you'll stay on for more games!

Also, neil talks like illwei lmao xD

And @Stick.! Amazing game as always. I did suspect Beagle was you when you said "would really like to play without my identity being known" but then I just ignored that heh :P. 

Also, nice to see that I wasn't identifiable, as I did intend to play that way. To all except Kas anyway :P. How do we village-solve if we don't know we're bros? :P. 

5 hours ago, Mat said:

As I’ve been saying, this was probably my last game. At least for awhile. My last semester of high school just started and I’m busier than I’ve ever been, and I think recently I’ve sort of been playing SE just because it’s something I do. Call it obligation, or habit, or whatever, but the AG felt like a good time to rip the bandaid off and call it a day. I had a good run; now it’s time to pass the torch

Gonna miss you, Mat! All the best for everything and hope to see you around some day. 

Also, damn, I expected more people to stay for LG100. 

GG everyone!

[Stick.]

42 minutes ago, |TJ| said:

Also, neil talks like illwei lmao xD

neil talks like mu LOL.

 

ok some thoughts:

i think the factional NK should be submittable from the elim doc. The current system makes it so villagers are able to clear each other off angleshooting the 'last online' feature on player profiles. i cannot overstate how much I hate those types of clears and even if you dont outright point it out in-thread the read will still exist in your mind and just. no lol can we please please get rid of this. i had to deal with this in last year's AG too where a couple of villagers just got hard cleared off this in end game.

 

i lost half my team to the inactivity filter - i know the village lost a fair number of players too, but even that somehow disadvantaged the elim team bc losing croc to the filter, for example, was pretty bad for me. if he posted n5 i couldve gotten him exed and the game wouldve ended in a not-coinflip. sure, skipping the NK was An Option but exeing both scorp and penguin in succession is a tall order. so yea inactivity was rly bad and don't get me wrong, I know irl isn't predictable and sometimes you just can't dedicate enough time to an online mafia game. That's fine. Players in those situations should be able to sub-out, but that can't happen when there's no one on the PH list when every non-retired player is already in the game. Flaking moderation rules were introduced all the way back in AG4 and I don't think they've been enforced once in 6 years? i have noidea why. we should maybe consider bringing those back? penalising inactivity will mean people don't just sign up for FOMO reasons and ghost the game later. instead theyll sign up as PH

 

i had at least 3 things to say here but i forgor

 

Edit:

ah yes the third thing - what are everybody's thoughts on discouraging publicising alt reads in anon games? i know kas thinks it's part of the game and i disagree in this context - meta reading is definitely a big part of the game in normal games but imo the point of an anon game is to experiment playstyles and not be bound by meta reads. i think anon games should play out fully anon. sure, you could have an id read on a player and perhaps your meta read there influences your personal read on them but i really dont think those thoughts should be vocalised in anon games because it defeats the purpose of an anon game. meta is a strong tool and should def be utilised in normal games but idk i just feel like it shouldnt be a thing in anon games.

Edited January 30 by Stick.

[Haelbarde]

Thanks everyone! And well done @Stick. - was loads of fun being evil with you - thanks for keeping us updated in the Spiked doc even when the rest of you left you.

Was also nice to play alongside you @Faerie Braids, good to meet you!

[Kasimir]

1 hour ago, Stick. said:

but imo the point of an anon game is to experiment playstyles and not be bound by meta reads

So...did you experiment with a playstyle? How many people did?

You yourself state earlier:

1 hour ago, Stick. said:

i cannot overstate how much I hate those types of clears and even if you dont outright point it out in-thread the read will still exist in your mind and just. no lol

Is this not still a problem? If you penalise the public guess, everyone still has it at the back of their heads.

I think part of my objection that's coming out here is that if this is the consensus view of anon games (I'm not going to reiterate my views, except to remind everyone that AG4 Heron IMO is adequate punishment for ID guessing and being wrong about it) -

The AG is the one game where, reliably, people like Hael will sign up. It's the one major chance a year to play with your friends. And at the core of it, I think if you wanna rule anon games should penalise or ban ID guessing, then they shouldn't ever be an AG again because this just screws every player who plays an AG for reunion purposes (again, remember this is a draw of AGs for many.)

[Stick.]

26 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

So...did you experiment with a playstyle? How many people did?

You yourself state earlier:

Is this not still a problem? If you penalise the public guess, everyone still has it at the back of their heads.

I think part of my objection that's coming out here is that if this is the consensus view of anon games (I'm not going to reiterate my views, except to remind everyone that AG4 Heron IMO is adequate punishment for ID guessing and being wrong about it) -

The AG is the one game where, reliably, people like Hael will sign up. It's the one major chance a year to play with your friends. And at the core of it, I think if you wanna rule anon games should penalise or ban ID guessing, then they shouldn't ever be an AG again because this just screws every player who plays an AG for reunion purposes (again, remember this is a draw of AGs for many.)

I did drastically change my playstyle last year yea. Didnt like it though. And I believe aeo tried a new playstyle? 

Looking at people’s last online status is something everyone can do with ease so that’s not really a good comparator, because a meta read is not something everyone will know of unless shared/explained

Re: your point about the AG specifically I guess if you wanna keep AGs the same I don’t really mind. What about other anon games in general.

 

32 minutes ago, Haelbarde said:

Thanks everyone! And well done @Stick. - was loads of fun being evil with you - thanks for keeping us updated in the Spiked doc even when the rest of you left you.

Was also nice to play alongside you @Faerie Braids, good to meet you!

Likewise!! Sorry for bussing you lol

Edited January 30 by Stick.

[TheRavenHasLanded]

1 hour ago, Kasimir said:

So...did you experiment with a playstyle? How many people did?

You yourself state earlier:

Is this not still a problem? If you penalise the public guess, everyone still has it at the back of their heads.

I think part of my objection that's coming out here is that if this is the consensus view of anon games (I'm not going to reiterate my views, except to remind everyone that AG4 Heron IMO is adequate punishment for ID guessing and being wrong about it) -

The AG is the one game where, reliably, people like Hael will sign up. It's the one major chance a year to play with your friends. And at the core of it, I think if you wanna rule anon games should penalise or ban ID guessing, then they shouldn't ever be an AG again because this just screws every player who plays an AG for reunion purposes (again, remember this is a draw of AGs for many.)

thank you kas for helping me out.

also, when does next game start? i need some practice lol.

[Kasimir]

1 hour ago, Stick. said:

I did drastically change my playstyle last year yea. Didnt like it though. And I believe aeo tried a new playstyle? 

Tbh on reflection I think this is a bad question to have asked you because I think we can rightfully assert that we want to keep the possibility of playstyle shift open regardless of whether people actually use it (which fair); it just becomes murkier whether this is the True Purpose of an anon game or not, but that's a distraction from the issue in the middle. I'd note Aeo is a bad example though because she regularly claims to change playstyle every other game or so regardless of whether it's anon or not.

1 hour ago, Stick. said:

Looking at people’s last online status is something everyone can do with ease so that’s not really a good comparator, because a meta read is not something everyone will know of unless shared/explained

I actually kind of disagree with this, but want to talk about it a bit later because I want to get the easy stuff out of the way

1 hour ago, Stick. said:

Re: your point about the AG specifically I guess if you wanna keep AGs the same I don’t really mind. What about other anon games in general.

Specifically I do think the AG as a reunion game should be a carveout or an exception, or it just shouldn't be anon. AGs were not always anon anyway, and one might fairly argue that not making them anon might let ancient returnees live longer which is kind of something you'd want if you're playing with someone you last saw two years ago, for instance. (I bracket the new player issue since this is always desirable in a game regardless.)

Now leaving the AG out since we don't explicitly disagree on this:

My position then is that I don't feel exceptionally strongly (lol) on where this lands. My concerns are largely (IMO) in principle implications and if they can be avoided or shown to be non-issues, then I'm way less hesitant about what happens to anon games in general.

1. I brought up the online status issue because simply put, we can't deny that some reads are widespread and shared. I think most people IDed me and Lion very early. Raven caused a lot of confusion but was also pretty identifiable later on. You can say we weren't trying very hard to be anonymous but that Wormmon meme is too good, look at Wormmon's face which is one issue altogether, but the fact of the matter is that some players are going to be way easier to identify than others. In that regard, the online status issue is, I'd argue a good comparator - Aman explicitly based his early game read of me off my identity. How many players did? (Sart did not, I agree, since I'd drop dead from shock the day V!Sart and I don't manage to read each other as E) but I think it's definitely an issue to be had wrt say, Raven or anyone else more or less consensus.

2. Further implementation questions: are you allowed to privately guess in small PMs? Where do we draw the limit? The obvious case of "stop, you're abusing this" is if I PM every player in the game and tell them my ID guess, so clearly I can't be allowed to do that. Am I allowed to share my guesses in small PMs with three to four players if I'm trying to stop someone from getting MLed? What if I share my guesses with the five most influential players pushing the Village/thread?

-You can argue that it's fine to place an arbitrary limit. My argument here isn't that it's arbitrary (doesn't matter that it is, just that one must exist), it's that if you don't have a clear policy on this, you are once again allowing this in through the backdoor, and then it becomes a case of reasoning which no one can openly speak about but is clearly present.

-There's a minor implementation issue where some players are more accurate at IDing than others and then potentially just get sheeped even if they never say who or players end up talking around the issue by speaking vaguely of the profile and indicating they've identified the player. Once again, the "whereof we cannot speak" issue comes back in through the back door IMO. You can argue here you wouldn't do that, but I think for it to be effective, it has to be something everyone else is on board with, because it takes enough semi-sheeping on this for it to again be a backdoor policy problem.

3. I think we are both, now, speaking unclearly about the issue in general: that the purpose of an anon game shouldn't really be to try alternate playstyles per se because that doesn't really help people who don't necessarily want to change playstyles, and it creates the false impression that only anon games are testbeds for playstyle evolution.

a. As an aside, you can argue this is a branding problem, and I hope I'm never proven right if this comes to pass, but we need to avoid the development of an attitude that an anon game is the 'right place' to change playstyle. We have playstyle toleration issues every once in a while and I GMed a game that was a massive clusterchull in that regard (also anon.) If the result of any shift in formalising anon games like this is that anon games are considered the main place to switch up playstyles, we have a problem. Any game should be an acceptable place to experiment with playstyles, with the usual caveat about drawing the line and being pro-social. We shouldn't be needing to relitigate this again.

b. I point out the unclarity because I think the elephant in the room that neither of us are talking about is rep. That basically, it's not so much/just about changing playstyles but about getting to be someone else without your rep. And that's kind of what we're talking about instead of meta (correct me if I'm wrong, perhaps you really only do care about the meta aspect.) And that's the one thing you can do in an anon game that you cannot do in any other game, which fair enough, but...

c. I think we need to ensure this, if we can, in a way that lets other players choose to draw one someone else's meta/history/rep if they want to. And I think this happens way more rare than even those who change playstyle (since the last real case was AG4 Rae/Heron who went to insane extremes about it to impersonate another player.) But I think just as you could argue it's about in principle providing that space even if no one else wants to use it or is really using it that way, the same applies here with regard to enabling players who deliberately want to pass themselves off as someone else (as someone in particular or as a new player.) And in this respect, the point often isn't to just troll, it's to deliberately alter how other players perceive or react to them. Does this require allowing some discussion? I don't know, maybe. Maybe we don't need to utter it publicly at all - but this does risk re-introducing the PM issue.

I think that's really just the flip side of people guessing IMO and basing action off it - that they should be allowed to be mistaken and hurt their team as a result of it. This is kind of Archer tunnelling hard on Swan by assuming Swan was Raven and had claimed early and therefore was Evil, IIRC. It's just that Archer revised that ID before he could shoot Swan.

I don't see any of this, to be clear, as 'don't do this' objections - I just think they're 'stuff to probably work out now/at some point before working it out on the fly' and also 'a good answer to this would swing me more strongly to 'hey this is a great idea and i like this a lot.''

Last point:

I think GMs should be allowed to suspend this, in the same way you can, as a GM, suspend the codes/cipher rules for Tineyes. Largely because I've been helping vet a game Drake's been working on and it's a Reckoners anon game where you are specifically encouraged to hide your identity and guess those of others as a specific mechanic - your abilities are more effective if you can guess a player's true identity, including the NK. IMO it's a clear case where having there be guessing is good because players will respond to the in-game incentives anyway.

[Stick.]

re: implementation it'd have to be implemented everywhere i think, PMs and docs included. i'd like to see 1 anon game run with this in place at least and see how it plays out

re: blatantly obvious players, well that's just something that happens and can't be avoided. to me personally only about 15% of the playerlist here was blatantly obvious, and even then there's always a slim chance that it's someone else larping as the blatantly obvious playstyle (like rae in ag4) so it's not really an issue. this isnt the same as the last online feature that 100% hard clears people if there's a significant enough margin from the start of the night turn

and yeah im using 'meta' as an umbrella term including things like reputation

another thing i wanted to bring up was player distro balancing but idk how much of a role it played this game in particular 

 

[TheRavenHasLanded]

25 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Tbh on reflection I think this is a bad question to have asked you because I think we can rightfully assert that we want to keep the possibility of playstyle shift open regardless of whether people actually use it (which fair); it just becomes murkier whether this is the True Purpose of an anon game or not, but that's a distraction from the issue in the middle. I'd note Aeo is a bad example though because she regularly claims to change playstyle every other game or so regardless of whether it's anon or not.

I actually kind of disagree with this, but want to talk about it a bit later because I want to get the easy stuff out of the way

Specifically I do think the AG as a reunion game should be a carveout or an exception, or it just shouldn't be anon. AGs were not always anon anyway, and one might fairly argue that not making them anon might let ancient returnees live longer which is kind of something you'd want if you're playing with someone you last saw two years ago, for instance. (I bracket the new player issue since this is always desirable in a game regardless.)

Now leaving the AG out since we don't explicitly disagree on this:

My position then is that I don't feel exceptionally strongly (lol) on where this lands. My concerns are largely (IMO) in principle implications and if they can be avoided or shown to be non-issues, then I'm way less hesitant about what happens to anon games in general.

1. I brought up the online status issue because simply put, we can't deny that some reads are widespread and shared. I think most people IDed me and Lion very early. Raven caused a lot of confusion but was also pretty identifiable later on. You can say we weren't trying very hard to be anonymous but that Wormmon meme is too good, look at Wormmon's face which is one issue altogether, but the fact of the matter is that some players are going to be way easier to identify than others. In that regard, the online status issue is, I'd argue a good comparator - Aman explicitly based his early game read of me off my identity. How many players did? (Sart did not, I agree, since I'd drop dead from shock the day V!Sart and I don't manage to read each other as E) but I think it's definitely an issue to be had wrt say, Raven or anyone else more or less consensus.

2. Further implementation questions: are you allowed to privately guess in small PMs? Where do we draw the limit? The obvious case of "stop, you're abusing this" is if I PM every player in the game and tell them my ID guess, so clearly I can't be allowed to do that. Am I allowed to share my guesses in small PMs with three to four players if I'm trying to stop someone from getting MLed? What if I share my guesses with the five most influential players pushing the Village/thread?

-You can argue that it's fine to place an arbitrary limit. My argument here isn't that it's arbitrary (doesn't matter that it is, just that one must exist), it's that if you don't have a clear policy on this, you are once again allowing this in through the backdoor, and then it becomes a case of reasoning which no one can openly speak about but is clearly present.

-There's a minor implementation issue where some players are more accurate at IDing than others and then potentially just get sheeped even if they never say who or players end up talking around the issue by speaking vaguely of the profile and indicating they've identified the player. Once again, the "whereof we cannot speak" issue comes back in through the back door IMO. You can argue here you wouldn't do that, but I think for it to be effective, it has to be something everyone else is on board with, because it takes enough semi-sheeping on this for it to again be a backdoor policy problem.

3. I think we are both, now, speaking unclearly about the issue in general: that the purpose of an anon game shouldn't really be to try alternate playstyles per se because that doesn't really help people who don't necessarily want to change playstyles, and it creates the false impression that only anon games are testbeds for playstyle evolution.

a. As an aside, you can argue this is a branding problem, and I hope I'm never proven right if this comes to pass, but we need to avoid the development of an attitude that an anon game is the 'right place' to change playstyle. We have playstyle toleration issues every once in a while and I GMed a game that was a massive clusterchull in that regard (also anon.) If the result of any shift in formalising anon games like this is that anon games are considered the main place to switch up playstyles, we have a problem. Any game should be an acceptable place to experiment with playstyles, with the usual caveat about drawing the line and being pro-social. We shouldn't be needing to relitigate this again.

b. I point out the unclarity because I think the elephant in the room that neither of us are talking about is rep. That basically, it's not so much/just about changing playstyles but about getting to be someone else without your rep. And that's kind of what we're talking about instead of meta (correct me if I'm wrong, perhaps you really only do care about the meta aspect.) And that's the one thing you can do in an anon game that you cannot do in any other game, which fair enough, but...

c. I think we need to ensure this, if we can, in a way that lets other players choose to draw one someone else's meta/history/rep if they want to. And I think this happens way more rare than even those who change playstyle (since the last real case was AG4 Rae/Heron who went to insane extremes about it to impersonate another player.) But I think just as you could argue it's about in principle providing that space even if no one else wants to use it or is really using it that way, the same applies here with regard to enabling players who deliberately want to pass themselves off as someone else (as someone in particular or as a new player.) And in this respect, the point often isn't to just troll, it's to deliberately alter how other players perceive or react to them. Does this require allowing some discussion? I don't know, maybe. Maybe we don't need to utter it publicly at all - but this does risk re-introducing the PM issue.

I think that's really just the flip side of people guessing IMO and basing action off it - that they should be allowed to be mistaken and hurt their team as a result of it. This is kind of Archer tunnelling hard on Swan by assuming Swan was Raven and had claimed early and therefore was Evil, IIRC. It's just that Archer revised that ID before he could shoot Swan.

I don't see any of this, to be clear, as 'don't do this' objections - I just think they're 'stuff to probably work out now/at some point before working it out on the fly' and also 'a good answer to this would swing me more strongly to 'hey this is a great idea and i like this a lot.''

Last point:

I think GMs should be allowed to suspend this, in the same way you can, as a GM, suspend the codes/cipher rules for Tineyes. Largely because I've been helping vet a game Drake's been working on and it's a Reckoners anon game where you are specifically encouraged to hide your identity and guess those of others as a specific mechanic - your abilities are more effective if you can guess a player's true identity, including the NK. IMO it's a clear case where having there be guessing is good because players will respond to the in-game incentives anyway.

my code is always honesty. honesty above all else. unless im elim. but ill claim my role always lol.

[Araris Valerian]

1 hour ago, TheRavenHasLanded said:

my code is always honesty. honesty above all else. unless im elim. but ill claim my role always lol.

My code is also always honesty above all else. This was my first game and I was a Smoker.

In regards to NK submission, I probably agree but also think this is generally less of an issue than the inactivity itself. Mostly since only 1 elim has to submit the NK, so this only works as a clear when you are certain only 1 remains. Especially if the NK doesn’t conflict with other actions.

In regard to player IDs, I tend to think that if you don’t want to be ID’d, then you can make that effort. And if you think Kas is getting ID’d and village read too easily, well, there’s the NK or pulling something like what Rae did. But I know from experience that trying to avoid IDing yourself is a bit burdensome, and it’s easy to slip. So I don’t think it’s even practical to try and enforce something like this, at least in a game like the AG with so many players that lasts for quite a while.

[TheRavenHasLanded]

1 minute ago, Araris Valerian said:

My code is also always honesty above all else. This was my first game and I was a Smoker.

In regards to NK submission, I probably agree but also think this is generally less of an issue than the inactivity itself. Mostly since only 1 elim has to submit the NK, so this only works as a clear when you are certain only 1 remains. Especially if the NK doesn’t conflict with other actions.

In regard to player IDs, I tend to think that if you don’t want to be ID’d, then you can make that effort. And if you think Kas is getting ID’d and village read too easily, well, there’s the NK or pulling something like what Rae did. But I know from experience that trying to avoid IDing yourself is a bit burdensome, and it’s easy to slip. So I don’t think it’s even practical to try and enforce something like this, at least in a game like the AG with so many players that lasts for quite a while.

wdym by first game? your signature says otherwise.

[Stick.]

5 minutes ago, Araris Valerian said:

My code is also always honesty above all else. This was my first game and I was a Smoker.

In regards to NK submission, I probably agree but also think this is generally less of an issue than the inactivity itself. Mostly since only 1 elim has to submit the NK, so this only works as a clear when you are certain only 1 remains. Especially if the NK doesn’t conflict with other actions.

In regard to player IDs, I tend to think that if you don’t want to be ID’d, then you can make that effort. And if you think Kas is getting ID’d and village read too easily, well, there’s the NK or pulling something like what Rae did. But I know from experience that trying to avoid IDing yourself is a bit burdensome, and it’s easy to slip. So I don’t think it’s even practical to try and enforce something like this, at least in a game like the AG with so many players that lasts for quite a while.

nah i dont really think id'ing people is inherently village-sided - i did use meta arguments to staunchly defend stink/hael at various points in the game and i used meta arguments to sus cham + to get you killed so it's useful as either alignment. that's not really my point

[Araris Valerian]

18 minutes ago, Stick. said:

nah i dont really think id'ing people is inherently village-sided - i did use meta arguments to staunchly defend stink/hael at various points in the game and i used meta arguments to sus cham + to get you killed so it's useful as either alignment. that's not really my point

Hmm. I guess if someone says something like "My ID of ___ causes me to read them e/v", that feels vague and not very fun to interact with if you have no idea what they are talking about. But at some point folks like Kas and Aeoryi get ID'd by a majority of the players and I think tiptoeing around that is pointless.

[Araris Valerian]

3 hours ago, TheRavenHasLanded said:

wdym by first game? your signature says otherwise.

That was an (apparently failed) attempt at humor, since it followed my statement of honesty.