That’s literally not an option in ToL whatsoever
And our response to a role shouldn’t be to kick people who are playing it optimally
It should be to kick the role for promoting inactivity as optimal play
That’s kinda obvious
You misunderstand what I said in perhaps a confusing way.
If someone claims AFK, they are either gamethrowing or fool.
So as a player, assume they are fool.
As a mod, kick/ban them if they were not fool. Unless they gracefully leave the game on their own.
actually, slanking is a viable strategy as every alingment because nobody blames you when you lose :^)
2 Likes
Okay but in a format of minutes instead of weeks the equivalent amount of talking is literal complete silence or like “hi” or something.
That isn’t even playing the game, yet it’s basically optimal strategy.
Arguably yes
Talking too much will draw too much attention, especially if you’re bad at being scummy and try too hard
Using troll box outs your existence and should pretty much never be used as it’s not even necessary
Slanking gets investigatives on you and then it’s gg
Sure there are other ways to win but in the end just leaving your computer may just be the most reliable lmao
So you are using the “afk but not really” strat as an example of an unreadable fool.
If you were right, either only fools would do this (revealing themselves to be fools), or evils would do it too, making this nothing more than an implicit “d1 evil claim” strat where only 17% of the suspects are actually fools and executing the mutes will result in a speedy victory even if a fool accidentally gets executed during the day.
Because this strat results in a speedy victory for bd, evils won’t just be mute … only fools … revealing themselves to be fools … so not even fools do it.
This means the example you’ve raised, in an attempt to prove that fool is unreadable, does not accomplish its purpose.
Then the current meta tells you whether a mute is likely to be fool, so it’s still readable.
You misunderstand
What the majority does is what was the meta
What they don’t is the meta
It shifts and the cycle continues.
1 Like
The fact of the matter is
Saying jack shit is a viable strategy to score wins as Fool.
That is clearly awful from a game design perspective.
Anyways, I have finals coming up and need to study. I will not be reading this thread again for a few days.
If you have an argument as to even a single way Fool makes the game better by then, I’ll hear it out.
1 Like
And, to reiterate, variety isn’t good just because it’s different.
Wish me luck on exams, chau nerds 
1 Like
The meta is common knowledge, if fools thinks it will allow him to win by being mute than you can put yourself in his shoes and realize it too, and you are back at the “d1 im evil please dont exe me in case im fool” strat which doesn’t work for reasons explained twice already.
Good luck on exams, if you want try to your hand at rebutting my arguments when you come back then feel free
Because saying nothing is viable as Fool, it follows that saying nothing is viable as evil once everyone realises that is the meta.
So now we can theoretically have both evils AND fools sitting there being AFK, but somehow using epic reading skills we can tell them apart?
silence on trial will remain a valid strat because of distracts and chill, even if you remove fool. If WIFOM warrants deleting a class then delete Hunter (arrow or no arrow? bear or no bear?)
We did, but brought it back, remember? In my opinion it must stay in order to discourage vote-for-role.
Yeah and I wish it wasn’t brought back. It doesn’t do a good job at preventing VFR anyways since like… Hunter’s will still claim on the stand?
Seriously how exactly does arrow stop VFR.
1 Like