That is entirely not the point of any of this?
Plus what happens if your BD Killers are dead?
what happens if your BD Killers are dead?
Mute him
@Kirefitten
Iām not. But feel free to rephrase it as a logical proposition so it canāt be strawmanned. You wonāt
Thatās not a very effective solution to a neutral hanging around 
Especially if itās not actually a Neutral 
Of course, but that doesnāt change how blatently almost OP the uncertainty is. If the prince isnāt alive, and thus BD has to use knights etcā¦ then itās lose lose.
Execute in the day, could be fool and get punished.
Send knight after itā¦ could do nothing as it could be a scorned, NK, MM, SSed alch etcā¦ Or it could be the cult leader, which while you would succeed, failing to execute him in the day means he got to convert someone.
Thereās a penalty for getting it wrong either wayā¦ and the big thing isā¦ thereās no way to ensure you donāt chose wrong.
Working against BD, bad logs, may intentionally vote in favor of evils:
Fool: Yes
Unseen/cult: Yes
NK: Yes
Unfriendly Neutrals: Yes
May show up as evil to investigative classes
Fool: Yes
Unseen/cult: Yes
NK: not to most
Unfriendly neutrals: not to most
Whatās the possible means besides, when played badly often seems to be too blatent.
1 Like
Thatās not a very effective solution to a neutral hanging around
Muting a fool is a very effective way to neutralize the threat.
Especially if itās not actually a Neutral
Only a possibility if one doesnāt have the scumreading skills necessary to identify a fool play. Asking to remove fool because someone got played by a fool isnāt a very convincing argument
how blatently almost OP the uncertainty is
You canāt say itās too uncertain whether an evil claim is safe to hang, because if that were true, all evils would claim evil, making it highly certain that anyone who claims evil is indeed evil (and not fool).
Itās a self-defeating argument.
Thereās a penalty for getting it wrong either wayā¦ and the big thing isā¦ thereās no way to ensure you donāt chose wrong.
The more things we canāt āensureā with 100% certainty, the better, because completely certain deductions are usually based purely on mechanics leaving no room for social analysis.
The definition of a strawman is taking one part of our argument and shifting the details and defeating it and acting like the argument is invalid. Here you changed our execution when we were talking about it in the day, to the prince execute.
Actually this is impossible. Go ahead and give me an argument about why fool is good
1 Like
Iāve seen people scumreading fools (call them out) a billion times, how is that an oxymoron? Are you saying everytime they just got lucky identifying fools and there was no skill involved?
Actually this is impossible. Go ahead and give me an argument about why fool is good
First, fool adds more room for social deduction by adding an additional possible motivation behind playersā speech and actions. This is objectively a plus, since this is a social deduction game after all. The more depth of social analysis, the better.
Second, fool is counter-intuitive, which makes him exponentially more interesting than other neutral classes which merely have a unique but non-counter-intuitive wincon.
Third, he is hilarious. This is not as subjective an argument as you might think, because the concept of a player winning by deliberately losing being funny is supported by the leading theories on humor and hilarity.
You know this is true because Shrimpy said it
2 Likes
Alright, now letās counter that argument.
Firstly; you cannot wolfread a passable Fool. Never once in FoL has it ever been possible to read a Fool, simply because the typical Fooltells are done by literally everybody and are +EV with a huge timelimit. The point is that if you scale that down but put the same players in the same environment, we often get almost the entire wolfteam but never get the Fool.
Secondly, village idiots are more organic. Everyone forgets that sometimes people are just really really bad at the game and thatās never going away. You also havenāt really explained why itās a good angle,either; in my experience, Fool is just meaningless WIFOM.
Thirdly, you just reiterated the same point again and hoped we wouldnāt notice.
Fourthly, I personally donāt find getting fucked over because I lost a coinflip on whether a guy is ACTUALLY wolf from claiming wolf funny, and nor should you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq_Fm7qfRQk
Shrimpy, whether a wolfy player is actually Fool or not is a coinflip. It really is blind luck.
1 Like
You are arguing about FoL fool. I am talking about ToL fool. I have never played FoL so I canāt speak to that.
I did realize after I wrote the post that calling fool both counterintuitive and funny is kind of the same thing. What I should have said is he is interesting because his wincon is meta and funny because itās counter-intuitive. That would warrant two separate points, since itās possible to be meta without being funny. Although, you could argue it is possible to be counterintuitive without being funny.
1 Like
Yes but it would only make sense to argue the fairness of fool in a specific FoL setup, since that isnāt the only difference.
No no no
His point is
In an environment with generally more practiced readers and something like 600% the time during the day, itās still effectively impossible to catch any but the most incompetent Fool with any reliability
Obviously in a game with significantly less time and generally less practiced reading, thatās going to be even harder
The other differences literally do not matter to his point.