High class cat lady … High expectations … I better not disappoint … gulps … “H-h-hello-”- … slips and falls and pours soup all over May … “OH NYOOOOOO IM SO SORRY 
”
based off the timing im not too sure you read the posts you like you just click the button
2 Likes
Lmaoooo
I read all
well thats a bold claim given ive read double and viewed triple you’ve seen
1 Like
im not sure whats gotten you into cannibalism lately and im not too fond of the change
2 Likes
the worst part about polls on discourse is that they delete the votes if you edit it whatsoever
makes framing people for being horrible quite difficult, you have to mess around on discord instead
3 Likes
just now realizing ive been exchanging sappy and sapphic in my head as the exact same words and im hoping i didnt write that down on something important
2 Likes
This sentence does sound british
2 Likes
fond and its related terms “fond of” and “not too fond of” are used much more in British english so it gives it that feeling ibthink
3 Likes
Im fond of you
1 Like
Now say it in a slavic-british accent
2 Likes
1-2:1
2-3:2
3-4:3
1:1 would be the most direct way, but that is not fun, so it has to be 2:1 at minimum.
4:3 sounds ridiculous enough that it might be funny, but I don’t want to hold something that stupidly big, so I’ll scrap the entire _:3 section.
2-3:1-2.
…hm? I think this can work? Min(3) && Max(5) sounds like a reasonable setting, and the ambiguity would help out a lot.
Though… there would be no guarantee the user wouldn’t keep using [3], so what if I enforce the number to be [5] instead, and let the results be the variable?
Then, if there are multiple options, I can just randomize which setting it will be, and which things will be in it.
Now, there is one problem though: What if it’s 5:0 or 4-1? The lack of existence alone is information…
What if -and this is stupid- what if the chosen number for the setting is randomized despite choosing [5]? In other words, out of [5], there may only be [3], [4], or [5], and–
No. This is getting too complicated…
1 Like
Whats that
1 Like
Now say it [fancily]
2 Likes
I fancy you
2 Likes
Man. Is this bit really impossible to be ambiguous for rational players?
If such was the case, then who came up with–
No… I can’t blame the creators. Not all roles are perfect. There are always people who like the creations, and therefore there are always people who don’t like them.
Then, is it really impossible to make anything that uses this mechanic? Can I only come up with alternatives such as Psychic, where player agency is inaccessible?
I… don’t think it can be helped. If user agency is involved, then ambiguity would have to be thrown out of the window unless we use misleading abilities, which we (Zone) hate to use. (Yeah! Because it sucks!) (We know it from first hand experience…)
A.Cop → Know everything, immediately.
P.Cop → Know a bit, delayed.
Sensor → Know too much from a bit, immediately.
It’s weird having to come up for a solution where impurity is good and purity is bad. How do I muddle the results without making it unfair? Do I have to add dirt each time clean water is served or something? –if only it was that easy. I can’t even muddy the waters since the user knows their selection, and therefore knows which part is muddy.
…hm? They know which section is muddy? They know their selections… Then, what if they don’t know it? Instead of choosing some, how about taking the entire thing and splitting it into “sections” instead? For the size, we can use the [3~5] we used before, but instead of having the user choose the items, we can let it choose the “sections” instead! Then we can create the results based on the sections! Because if everyone is involved, then there is no way it can be pure unless the game is already over!
I AM A GENIUS! (This somehow feels like re-inventing the wheel. Someone probably already came up with this in the past, but boy am I glad to come up with it again.)
1 Like
L
1 Like
Clearly being fond of Yesterday’s Story is quite loser mentality
1 Like