-(also
@Celever) I know it wasn't a bot last time, but you're all acting like it was in this game and it's obnoxious. It's the "go-to excuse" to avoid any question, and it shouldn't be. And of course you can play a game without fully claiming. But any step above my definition of "claiming" would be heavily restricting, and playing a game where you can't even back up your results (if any) would just lose any meaning. I mean, if that's the case then run a full Vanilla game, for Christ's sake. And sure, e don't have an strict definition, so I'm personally using mine until told otherwise by the host by giving us the proper rules. I'm not going to say "yo, WPM, use this definition or quit", but my thought processes will go by this definition and whoever tries to defend behind the "I-I'll get p-punished, halp" /without a logical reason/ then you'll bury yourself.
It's not obnoxious: it's the situation we're stuck with. There's no more reason to believe that your interpretation is right than any of ours, and so running with your interpretation could have pretty dire consequences. It seems strange to me how piously you're sticking to this definition to the point of being willing to dish out suspicion to anyone who doesn't agree with it (which is everyone), and really make me think you have a greater knowledge of these anti-claim mechanics than the rest of us. As Jabs said, though, last game the anti-claim mechanics were controlled by mafia. Not saying there's a link, just saying this logic is transferrable now.... simply that it could be.
I agree with you, though, in that the anti-claim mechanics have made this game feel pretty restrictive. Not because the mechanics themselves are bad, because they
can work in games perfectly well. The issue is that the game doesn't seem built around them all too well: my reward for the certamen, for example, was a one-use investigative ability, but when I asked the hosts for confirmation that if I shared the results of this ability it wouldn't trigger anti-claim mechanics, they weren't willing to provide me this confirmation. Therefore, that's a logical reason I have to not share the results, or even who I decided to target, because there is a host-confirmed plausibility that sharing those results would trigger anti-claim mechanics. And what feels restrictive is the fact that we have mechanics that might trigger upon sharing results with the rest of the players, but still have roles in the game which provide results. It renders those roles completely useless, especially since they're pretty weak in the first place (though the first certamen apparently had a strong prize if we trust the flip, so the certamen I won having a phenomenally weak prize may be the exception rather than the rule), so it's not like one player finds out for certain the X is mafia and, though they can't share their results, guns for them like nobody's business. It's more like one player finds out for certain that X targeted Y last night, which is pretty useless even if you
can share it with all the other players, and the mechanics do feel disconnected from the game design.
And the above paragraph is why I would lean towards siding with your interpretation that it could well just trigger based on copy/pasting the role into the thread. However, because the hosts have kept is as intentionally obtuse as they have, it's not a risk that's rational to take, even if you
are right. So no, it's not suspicious to "hide behind" the mechanic: it's simply following the safest path, which is an obviously good thing to do 99% of the time. If someone finds themselves willing to risk the wrath of the anti-claim mechanics because they can turn the game (known informally as a F*** TIGER) then by all means, but in every other scenario it does not make rational sense to do so.
Luis said:
@Celever, I never stated I had a full case on you, just FoS in that particular scenario and something to take into consideration
may matter in the long run, or it may not.
But even ur FoS is bad smh >:L
