Whew! Reading that post gave me flashbacks to diagramming a mock-up political speech as an exercise in a Logic class I once took. All the arguments either canceled out or were circular (as one might expect).

I'm trying to get ixy-dude off my case. But I'll stop.

It's the thought that counts, in any case.

Vitek is one of the people that knows what EBWOP is, and how to use it. Vitek posted that ridiculous stat as a method of saying that saying a stat is high or low without anything to compare it other than one's stats is ridiculous. A 6 in STR may be worse than a 6 in FIN, if STR goes from 5-15 while FIN goes from 1-10, or they may both be below average if the stats go from 1-20 (or 100).
As I've already said, I understand why he posted what he did, but I object to the phrasing, thus why I invoked LAL.

exactly, it's more of a principle thing. To get this message across, he could have just put the question out there how anyone should know what a high stat looks like, since they only know their own stats. There was just no need for lying about his own stats. Which again I really don't think is a town way of doing things.
Ahh, I don't know, if you guys really don't think it's a big deal to do something like that, I won't push this anymore.

Everyone (including me) is anxious to see how this crisis is going to play out anyway, maybe we'll have more data to go on afterwards. Really hope this goes well. It's a shame that we'll only get the results, just when I'm starting my night shift, hope I'll be able to post right away, but depending how stressful this night's gonna be, it can be that I can only comment when I'm back home wich will be about 10 hours later... :(

That was one of the points I was making in my longer entry. I knew I shouldn't have just put a quick little one up as an example because it'd just get focused on, but, no matter, we understand each other.
Yep, in my longer entry you will see that I don't actually think any of those things myself, I just thought of them as possible options. The typo thing is the last one of my possibilities, I posit others that I think are more likely.

Oh happy day, I can hardly wait to read your longer entry!!

Oh my, you lot must be bored.

Sorry for the absence, being sick and having to read drealmer7's walls of text got me a bit frustrated the other day, and decided a little break was in order.

I'm not sure that it's actually that uncommon. Granted, I've only played in a handful of games, but IIRC, Vigilante seems to come up pretty often, mostly as a self-contained role, sometimes as a JOAT's ability.
Could others with more games under their belt chime in and clarify if my impression is correct?



[emphasis added]

Not sure I understand what you mean by the part I've highlighted. Going by post #2, it seems that scum have a choice in the matter. Are you saying that perhaps one or more scum have some sort of compulsion that forces them to sabotage? Could you please clarify?

Why yes :) You're not bored then?

I have chosen to see the crisis resolving in the ways it does in BSG and more so in Dark Moon where only the participating members can
influence it's outcome. In these games the event has some requirement that has to be met for it to succeed. If it's not met it fails.

In our case we are most likely required to provide certain amounts of STR and FIN. The obvious way to resolve it is to match the required amount against the total of the respective team members.

Here the two options come at play. The crew members seem to be passive, we always aim to succeed so our stats are always just added up in the pool (so far I haven't been asked if I want to do something different so my assumption is that we automatically add up).

On the other hand the scum can be either passive as well or active.

If they are active they may be provided with the choice of whether or not to try and sabotage the mission. First way that comes to mind is if they want to sabotage it their stats are extracted from the pool and the resulting total is matched against the requirement. If it's still met - cool for us, bad for the scum. If not - we fail and see what happens.

They could also chose to help out this time for Town points and add up their stats most likely resulting in a successful mission (even if no sabotage is attempted we still may fail if the mission's requirement is too high for the participating team).

Or they may be passive meaning they don't get to chose what to do and always subtract their stats from the pool. Their sabotage may still not succeed since a very powerful crew member may be able to come out ahead enough in the resulting total to meet the requirement regardless.

I don't mean to be overwhelming with extended log entries. They don't bother me from others, so I don't think about them bothering others as much as they apparently do sometimes (especially with multiples, I suppose.) I've really just been trying to be thorough and share thoughts, as I wish others to do. I will work on my brevity. and minimizing the theorizing that I share out loud. Thanks for your patience and understanding!

I'm not familiar with these games, thanks for explaining. The wording of post #2 doesn't specifically link "failure" to sabotage, so this could well be the way. I think that the last case is out though - I read post #2 as scum being able to make a choice on how to go about their part in the mission. On second thought - do you think that it's likely to depend on the nature of each mission?

You are correct. I missed the part in #2 where they have a choice, but it should already be obvious it's like this anyway since the crisis wasn't resolved immediately but will take an additional day.

Not sure what you're referring to when you ask if it's likely to depend. Their ability to make a choice or the actual choice itself? Or something entirely different?

Anyone feel like claiming "The Flying Pumpkin that shoots laserbeams out of its ass"? No worries, it won't get used against you. I guess it's outragious enough...