funny that you guys wonder why this website is dying but do everything imaginable to make it absolutely insufferable and unsustainable by punishing people when you could, i dunno, be taking extra steps to ensure that they understand how the game is played and can enjoy it rather than feel demonized over what's obviously a simple mistake.

He did show intent. Very clearly. But here is why i didnt want it refunded.

1- clacium played it well and took the opportunity of betraying as soon as the other scum voted the town.

2- other scum was dumb and didnt take precaution and therefore deserved the loss

3- this was not a conventional gt.

Also i am glad about the below mentioned things.

1- clacium playing to his win condition and going for the solo win. It makes me happy that people are trying to maximize their benefit.

2- mods finally stepping up to bring a good change by being strong in this case. Especially them understanding it.

3- mods daring to comp manhunt. People will learn the setup after a few bumps like these. But we have to endure it.

What i am sad about

1- holden not understanding that what he did was wrong and against his win condition.

2- multiple players saying that nling wont help. It doesnt matter if it doesnt help. But there is a chance that it will help. If i am dying, instead of giving up i will take the 0.00001 percent chance to survive. Also you can see that the odds in this case are not that bad.

3- mods should have announced at the start of the round about the kingmaker situation.

4- some people thinking that this setup is new to comp when it was comped 3 rounds ago and have been comped multiple times.

5- people asking to not comp third party setups because they dont understand it. @them- if it is comped it doesnt mean you have to play it.

well for what it's worth this is obviously a note, manhunt is still relatively new to comp (in the sense that it's being reintroduced after a LONG time of not being played) i.e. definitely new to this playerbase considering the last time it was comped had to have been at least three years ago prior to round 704. no offense to holden but the guy really doesn't strike me as some sort of intellectual mastermind here either so it's uhhhhh highly possible he just Didn't Realize All Of His Options And Played Against His Wincon Because He Didn't Realize His Wincon Was Still Even In Effect At That Point.

Doesn't game throwing require intent to throw the game? Sounds to me like Holden was frustrated and thought that it was autoloss.

Someone had said "read the strat, you should know it by now" but not knowing how to play isn't GT

I want Nathan to explain to me why is it so difficult to comprehend that the user didn’t show any intent, other than this one line you’re misconstruing to throw the game,

Rather they gave up, most likely because they and everyone else in the game considered the game over . At best it should have been noted and addressed publicly

Since this setup is new to comp

U dumb fk I don’t care about his run, the violation is stupid & should have been a noted, followed by a message in main lobby wall and the forums stating that what occurred in that game will be considered throwing for someone.

if a clear is in a 3 way and they hammer someone after saying “I’m going to let you get this win” they’re throwing ??

As I pointed out, the reason he got vio'd and the game was refunded was because he went beyond basic GTing (which as you point out, is quite complicated in Manhunt), and said "I'm going to give this win to you" which amounts to throwing for someone.

It hasn't affected his run, because I suspended him before the reset when he had 0 hearts. He's now unsuspended and happily playing games.

You: player had a 1% chance of winning, they played the game to the best of their ability, however at the end of the game they didn’t consider this 1% chance of winning, so instead they decided they’d dictate who won ...

As a team we know this is a new, obscure setting with a lot of moving variables - let’s vio this person instead of noting and letting it be publicly known that in scenarios like this the town member must simply vote NL instead of jointing with someone

Bsm u are so ignorantly wrong it’s upsetting . Just lock this thread man

MisterPresident says

I don't understand why moderation was even required in this instance. It's not that the game was completely thrown. The player, in this case, was given zero options to win. That is the fault of the setup and the 3rd party role. There should be no obligation to play "fairly" in a setup with three different teams. If anything, the Agent was a douche. No violation should be given.

For a possible solution to this problem, see my above post.

The only way to play this was for Holden to say whichever one of you votes me first, I will vote and give the other party the win and forcing it to a NL and prisoner's dilemma.

It's the only possible way Holden could have won.

Instead, he chose to tell the killer that he would side with him, which is gamethrowing, because it intentionally goes against his win condition and leaves him no way to win (you can't joint with killer as town).

Finally, he says ingame that he will vote with the Killer to give him extra points, which is just flat out throwing for another player.

Better to just refund and vio now rather than pause for 3 days at the end of the round to see how many other times throwing occurred.

I recently adopted a cat. It's a female cat and is around 1 year old right now, i named "Fairy". During my vacation i visited my parents for a week and took Fairy with me. Fairy was scared from a new place and didnt come out from the room for a day, soon after that Fairy ran around the house at any given moment when i left the room's door open. On the fourth day Fairy figured out that she can get out of the room if the door is not completely shut. She worked with her paws and nose to get a small gap open and then slip away. I then started to shut doors completely when i didnt want Fairy to get out (there were several reasons i didnt want Fairy to get out sometimes, one of them was that there is another cat living at my parents house, who was not excited about Fairy). Fairy noticed that it was different now but still tried to get out, she first tried to dig a hole in carpet underneath the doors, which didnt work. Fairy then tried to jump through window that the doors has, but it didnt work because its a glass windows that does not open. When all failed Fairy sat patiently near the doors and waited for somebody to open the doors, sometimes using voice, sometimes silent.

morale of the story: 1 year old can can figure out that when there is a chance, even if small - it can lead to a victory.

So you have to be dumber than 1 year old cat to not understand a simple concept of the topic you are discussing with 5 pages (i didnt read any but 5 pages for this topic that can be summarized in 1 comment is too much)

I mean, they literally used the game mechanics in the correct way, even if it was .

There's no reason to vio for a situation that the setup made possible in a non-rule-breaking way

I don't understand why moderation was even required in this instance. It's not that the game was completely thrown. The player, in this case, was given zero options to win. That is the fault of the setup and the 3rd party role. There should be no obligation to play "fairly" in a setup with three different teams. If anything, the Agent was a douche. No violation should be given.

For a possible solution to this problem, see my above post.

Hey, I have an idea, let's just stop comping 3rd party setups

hey everyone, stop being a lame little B*TCH that wants to close this thread

hey everyone, stop focusing on the intricacies of GTing in Manhunt which we would probably note for, and instead look at the fact that HoldenRye voted against his win condition with the reasoning that "i will help you on your run calciumkid" and this denied another runner points she was otherwise guaranteed to get.

For that reason only, Nathan and I agreed that it was a refund, and a refund also requires a vio which is why it's been given.

Can I close this thread yet?

TelluriumNitrogen says

So get this. If say it's a different setup, is it gamethrowing if the 100% confirmed mafia selfvotes, simply because there's that 0.1% chance will GT and let the maf win?

The difference here being that it's not gamethrow for maf and killer to betray eachother giving town the win and there arent different point allocations by town gamethrowing and choosing a winner.

There are a bunch more differences but hopefully you get the point

well well well what do we have here

But if it's gamethrowing for the last remaining town to carry out this threat...

You can't have your cake and eat it pranay

So get this. If say it's a different setup, is it gamethrowing if the 100% confirmed mafia selfvotes, simply because there's that 0.1% chance will GT and let the maf win?

denial says

To dumb people like wajjj, read what pranay said earlier

Towns way to force a nl is through a threat of crossing the first person who votes them. It means the killer or spy has to give a cross to the other and hope they hammer with them and not against

You're right that if spy or killer initially voted nl instead of the remaining town it'd be suicidal because you're telegraphing your intent

Also not sure why anyone is even arguing this point because calcium got the solo win because this essentially happened; town and maf crossed and he had a hammer on joint or solo win.


You can argue some things but it's not super rare that town wins in this situation if they can get the nl through

Everyone agrees, however the player base abt yet knowledgeable in this setup, in this instant it should have been noted.

There is no question about it

To dumb people like wajjj, read what pranay said earlier

Towns way to force a nl is through a threat of crossing the first person who votes them. It means the killer or spy has to give a cross to the other and hope they hammer with them and not against

You're right that if spy or killer initially voted nl instead of the remaining town it'd be suicidal because you're telegraphing your intent

Also not sure why anyone is even arguing this point because calcium got the solo win because this essentially happened; town and maf crossed and he had a hammer on joint or solo win.


You can argue some things but it's not super rare that town wins in this situation if they can get the nl through

Zhuorb says

80% of the userbase tries to NL after an n1 save in janitorial

this is legitimately infuriating, however

Lol as if JailerPowerFantasy v2 is in any way a high-brow setup that needs 'grasping'

80% of the userbase tries to NL after an n1 save in janitorial and you think they can handle manhunt lol