Bay 12 Games Forum

Planet Taming Woman

It is a fun game, I rather enjoy playing as leaders I wouldn’t normally agree with like Morgan and Yang.

I recall a game with Yang I went bananas and had cities everywhere, so I had a lot of votes in the planetary government thing. One of my cities was getting a bit uppity, so I decided to rescind the ban on nervestapling by bribing one of the other leaders to vote with me.

The very next turn an emergency meeting was called to put the ban back in place, then I got pop up after pop up from some of the other leaders saying they were declaring war on me for committing atrocities, and I remember staring at my screen and saying “but it was legal when I did it!”

I found it, I think.

Me ma(mmy)

Even though I was the one that chose the fascist policy and could quite easily be lying about him giving me two fascist policies?

Why does my action solidify your read on him and not me, especially since we don’t know what card he discarded?

I mean it’s 11:4 against liberal policies, someone said earlier I think but I’m on my phone and can’t be bothered checking, so it is feasible that he got three fascist cards, and that’s the only reason I’m not smashing my phone to pieces typing out an accusation of him of being fascist.

Well, at least before he says something, anyway...

Your logic here is all messed up: you believe the most liberal people so far are the people who have been in government and passed liberal policies, except one of the fascists is one of those people. PPE: also the most suspect of the four is the presidential candidate. Had it been me as president that chose cnidaros as my chancellor, would you feel the same way?

As above, you seem to think that the first four members of government are the best four to keep in government, which is effectively you saying the fascist team is you, shadowclaw, and me.

You said earlier:

2:There is also the issue of meaningless communication, which by pursuing this particular topic you are engaging in. You can rag on about how someone isn't talking for multiple rounds, but you also need to know if the information is relevant or even meaningful. In this case, it was to explain why i feel scumhunting/townhunting via pure discussion is a flawed and pointless strategy, and why i want to start investigations ASAP.

This, to me, seems like you’re saying the discussion part of the game is the less reliable to judge someone’s alignment from, yet your two main suspects prior to this were Shadowclaw and myself and we were suspect because we hadn’t engaged in the discussion part of the game. Bonus points for suspecting my slot more because the person I replaced (why would you think I would replace in with a different role?) decided to stop playing because they found the mindset required to play “alien” to them.

To sum up, your logic seems to be that you think the most liberal people are the four that have been in government, except, conveniently, the one that is the presidential candidate now, and you think that because they haven’t put forward one of the other three former government players, even though that is you admitting you’re fascist.

On the other hand, the people you most suspect of being fascist are the ones that haven’t engaged in the discussion portion of the game, even though you think it’s the least reliable way of judging someone’s alignment, but you are 60% sure one of those players is fascist because of what they said when they decided they didn’t want to play anymore.

PPE: I’m sorry to pile on like this as IcyTea and Cnidaros also seem to be poking at you quite hard. I’ll read their posts now.

I watched Dead Man’s Shoes for the first time in about 15 years.

It is a rather brutal film about a former soldier coming to take revenge on the people who mistreated his younger brother who has a learning disability.

Not entirely sure why I watched it ‘cause I knew it would be hard going. It’s a good film, though.

hector is the best-HAROU-HOUND. NOTHIN’SEVEAGONNABRINGMEHDOWN.

1: aside from myself for obvious reasons, the most vocal members should take priority. That means you would be the next best investigation target icytea, because if you are Fascist, The last thing i want to do is feed into what is essentially a misinformation machine. At the same time, you would likely be first to call out someone if they are Fascist and you are not, for what little that is worth. For the same reasons, i find cstun and shadowclaw to be the least valuable because they have taken very little if any initiative.

You seem to be throwing a great deal of shade IcyTea's way here, man. What alignment do you think he is?

I also disagree wholeheartedly with your logic; quieter players need to be investigated, because they're still on the list of potential presidential picks, and we have nothing that can be used to glean their alignment if they don't post other than an investigation.

They can ignore pleas to post, they can't ignore being investigated by the government.

2&3:The issue with picking and judging a strategy in this game is that it's like comparing Classic mafia to games like blood on the clocktower or Among us. the translation is partial at best, and malignant at worst until multiple matches have played out and a definite grasp has been attained on both sides of the match. There are still reasons to be suspicious, namely lack of interaction with discussion, but that is really one of the very few parallels that remains true.

This doesn't make sense. These are all games about communication, if someone is unwilling to communicate it brings suspicion on them. This is my main bone of contention with what you posted above. Willingness to communicate implies willingness to help find liberals or fascists. Figuring out whether a player is either of those helps.

We can say no, sure, but we can only do that so often if we want to maintain a choice of what policies are implemented.

4:This is precisely why I want to be investigated Twice instead of once, preferably by you and someone who was previously in power. If two people are willing to confirm me a liberal, then a third will either register as fascist (which can easily be counterclaimed) or will also come up liberal and thusly be a Hard Confirm of my role. Additionally, the people investigating me will Always have truthful information, and will change behavior to reflect that. If another liberal investigated me and found me to be a liberal, why not pick me for chancellor any times they can?

Who is the liberal who will investigate you?

Reverse question time: Why do you think I want to be investigated so badly if I am playing Fascist, and why would I ask to be investigated multiple times and come into power as chancellor at least one time?

If you are fascist:

You expect the first person investigating you will be fascist. I think that would be IcyTea, unless some fascist policies are passed and I'm not misunderstanding the rules? This makes me uneasy if true, as the two most vocal players being fascist is... not great.

As cnidaros said, more than one investigation on you is a waste of an investigation, and if a fascist says you're liberal then a liberal says you're fascist you've now spread discord among the players.

Chancellor has the real power, they pass the laws.

If you are liberal:

You hope the people investigating you are liberal without you knowing if they are liberal. You were throwing shade on IcyTea up in the top portion of this post, and to essentially reword asking you what alignment IcyTea is, would you be cool with IcyTea investigating you?

Cnidaros again: more than one investigation on you is still wasting an investigation, and even if a fascist does it, they don't necessarily have to lie about you for them to gain lib cred with you.

Chancellor has the real power, they pass the laws.

Yeah, I had someone ask to use my PS2 to dry some mushrooms.

It seems a bit weird that you’d donate something you used to store your drugs and paraphernalia in and not check it before handing it over, though.