|
On February 13 2013 12:40 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 12:33 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 13 2013 12:29 Blazinghand wrote:
Nice try moving goalposts mr oats
unless you have something more to say I think my case stands for itself I don't really...see a case? His reasoning isn't necessarily bad, it just differs from yours. Look, think about your thought process as a townie when you evaluated the three options. You probably rejected the Secret Ballot out of hand barring some weird circumstances because it takes information away from town, then you thought about Mayoral and Instant Majority. Thinking about the strengths and drawbacks of both, you'd note that Mayoral elections produce a different kind of discussion than lynch votes (not necessarily better or worse) and the actual vote itself tends to be about who says they'll use the lynch on whom and who you have a town-read on. Instant Majority sounds dangerous but actually buts the scum under a lot of pressure assuming nobody gets dumb and jumps the gun on the hammer. But what you don't think about, and I'm certain nobody town aligned thinks about as a main reason not to use mayoral, is the possibility of making a scum player mayor. It's a risk of mayoral, but it's not the reason you wouldn't run it-- after all, if what the mayor does is pick who gets lynched, picking a scum player to be mayor isn't a huge risk. We're not giving powers to the scumteam, and in fact, having a scum under that spotlight could be very helpful to town. From a townie perspective, which any townie will have, you probably want instant majority because it's simple and lets you lynch someone. You want your vote to do something and you want to put pressure on the scum. You don't reject mayoral because a scum might get elected-- this might actually be the best outcome short of a townie get elected and lynching scum. You reject mayoral because instant majority is better and gives you more power to hunt scum. Oats came into this giving reasoning that comes from a mindset not of townie scumhunting, but of scum shirking responsibility and blending in, and thinking fearfully. I thought this was pretty obvious, guys
While I see where you are coming from, I did actually think about electing scum as a mayor being a big downside to Mayoral vs Instant.
For one, it is immensely difficult to tell the difference between a town mayor lynching another townie, and a scum mayor lynching a townie. And for two, its much harder to hold people accountable for their votes in an 'everything-goes-wrong' mayoral election. Mayoral elections tend to turn into "Follow the vet" more than "elect the towniest person in the game".
|
On February 13 2013 12:46 Oatsmaster wrote:
Also, BH is town, because as scum, there is no point to put yourself under the spotlight this early when you can use that post later in a larger analysis.
You don't see scum "putting themselves in the spotlight" to get towncred for shitting on a bad post? I dont even...
|
Caught up.
Glad to see that we don't actually have an all caps post restriction. Fine with instant majority. Actually find it strange that secret ballot was an option, compared to some of the lesser poisons that might have created discussion.
I have my own reasons for having a minor read on BH, but for those who haven't played with him as scum he's certainly capable of being active early and taking a spotlight. Buncha spammy posts and 9 or so vote changes, way more than anyone else, on D1 of bureaucracy as scum.
Also, hello role creator, if you are who I think you are.
|
On February 13 2013 12:47 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 12:40 Blazinghand wrote:On February 13 2013 12:33 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 13 2013 12:29 Blazinghand wrote:
Nice try moving goalposts mr oats
unless you have something more to say I think my case stands for itself I don't really...see a case? His reasoning isn't necessarily bad, it just differs from yours. Look, think about your thought process as a townie when you evaluated the three options. You probably rejected the Secret Ballot out of hand barring some weird circumstances because it takes information away from town, then you thought about Mayoral and Instant Majority. Thinking about the strengths and drawbacks of both, you'd note that Mayoral elections produce a different kind of discussion than lynch votes (not necessarily better or worse) and the actual vote itself tends to be about who says they'll use the lynch on whom and who you have a town-read on. Instant Majority sounds dangerous but actually buts the scum under a lot of pressure assuming nobody gets dumb and jumps the gun on the hammer. But what you don't think about, and I'm certain nobody town aligned thinks about as a main reason not to use mayoral, is the possibility of making a scum player mayor. It's a risk of mayoral, but it's not the reason you wouldn't run it-- after all, if what the mayor does is pick who gets lynched, picking a scum player to be mayor isn't a huge risk. We're not giving powers to the scumteam, and in fact, having a scum under that spotlight could be very helpful to town. From a townie perspective, which any townie will have, you probably want instant majority because it's simple and lets you lynch someone. You want your vote to do something and you want to put pressure on the scum. You don't reject mayoral because a scum might get elected-- this might actually be the best outcome short of a townie get elected and lynching scum. You reject mayoral because instant majority is better and gives you more power to hunt scum. Oats came into this giving reasoning that comes from a mindset not of townie scumhunting, but of scum shirking responsibility and blending in, and thinking fearfully. I thought this was pretty obvious, guys While I see where you are coming from, I did actually think about electing scum as a mayor being a big downside to Mayoral vs Instant. For one, it is immensely difficult to tell the difference between a town mayor lynching another townie, and a scum mayor lynching a townie. And for two, its much harder to hold people accountable for their votes in an 'everything-goes-wrong' mayoral election. Mayoral elections tend to turn into "Follow the vet" more than "elect the towniest person in the game".
This.
Just because YOU (BH) may not have been thinking about electing a scum mayor, it certainly crossed my mind.
I've never played a game where having a mayor was a choice, only ones where we were forced to pick a mayor. In a couple of them, scum was elected, and it has turned out badly for town. So yes, that is something I thought about.
I don't get how "adding another angle of thought to something" = "HOLY SHIT THIS GUY IS SCUM"
|
On February 13 2013 12:40 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 12:33 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 13 2013 12:29 Blazinghand wrote:
Nice try moving goalposts mr oats
unless you have something more to say I think my case stands for itself I don't really...see a case? His reasoning isn't necessarily bad, it just differs from yours. Look, think about your thought process as a townie when you evaluated the three options. You probably rejected the Secret Ballot out of hand barring some weird circumstances because it takes information away from town, then you thought about Mayoral and Instant Majority. Thinking about the strengths and drawbacks of both, you'd note that Mayoral elections produce a different kind of discussion than lynch votes (not necessarily better or worse) and the actual vote itself tends to be about who says they'll use the lynch on whom and who you have a town-read on. Instant Majority sounds dangerous but actually buts the scum under a lot of pressure assuming nobody gets dumb and jumps the gun on the hammer. But what you don't think about, and I'm certain nobody town aligned thinks about as a main reason not to use mayoral, is the possibility of making a scum player mayor. It's a risk of mayoral, but it's not the reason you wouldn't run it-- after all, if what the mayor does is pick who gets lynched, picking a scum player to be mayor isn't a huge risk. We're not giving powers to the scumteam, and in fact, having a scum under that spotlight could be very helpful to town. From a townie perspective, which any townie will have, you probably want instant majority because it's simple and lets you lynch someone. You want your vote to do something and you want to put pressure on the scum. You don't reject mayoral because a scum might get elected-- this might actually be the best outcome short of a townie get elected and lynching scum. You reject mayoral because instant majority is better and gives you more power to hunt scum. Oats came into this giving reasoning that comes from a mindset not of townie scumhunting, but of scum shirking responsibility and blending in, and thinking fearfully. I thought this was pretty obvious, guys
Wow, you really thought about this bh. But I don't agree with your vote because being honest I didn't think of a lot of what you said about mayoral election. For example, I thought that a mayoral election would be bad if we elected scum, but you just pointed out why that could be really good. Oats just vocalized some of those thoughts and you attacked him for it. That doesn't make him scum, just someone who didn't think about it in the same way you did.
|
Also, I think scum BH is better at the game. At least he appears to be better than town BH.
|
On February 13 2013 12:55 Oatsmaster wrote:
Also, I think scum BH is better at the game. At least he appears to be better than town BH.
What are you basing these BH reads on?
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On February 13 2013 12:57 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 12:55 Oatsmaster wrote:
Also, I think scum BH is better at the game. At least he appears to be better than town BH.
What are you basing these BH reads on?
probably on trying to get md to stop attacking hin
|
On February 13 2013 12:55 Oatsmaster wrote:
Also, I think scum BH is better at the game. At least he appears to be better than town BH.
Then you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Have you ever read a scum BH game? Like the time where he fake voted for himself right after the deadline? Or the time when he claimed Cop night 0, was caught in his lie, then trolled for all of day 1?
How about read town BH in Rock Band, where he was the towniest player day 1 and was shot night 1 for it? Or Liquid City, which was basically the same (except he replaced in, on a smurf)?
Why are you making shit up? :o
|
No no. The way he's talking about scum BH and town BH and their play, it sounds like he's got specific games that he's referencing for your town and scum play.
|
I am basing them/it off his posting.
So does me giving BH a town read alignment indicative?
|
Maaaaaaaaaaaaaan, Keirathi. I had similar thoughts, but I wanted to see what oats was referencing before bringing that up.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On February 13 2013 13:00 Oatsmaster wrote:
I am basing them/it off his posting.
So does me giving BH a town read alignment indicative?
given how youve phrased it yes... u scum
|
On February 13 2013 13:00 Oatsmaster wrote:
I am basing them/it off his posting.
So does me giving BH a town read alignment indicative?
What about his posting, though? Why is it townie?
|
On February 13 2013 13:01 austinmcc wrote:
Maaaaaaaaaaaaaan, Keirathi. I had similar thoughts, but I wanted to see what oats was referencing before bringing that up.
Sorry, if I had refreshed before posting I would have seen your post and held off.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On February 13 2013 12:47 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 12:40 Blazinghand wrote:On February 13 2013 12:33 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 13 2013 12:29 Blazinghand wrote:
Nice try moving goalposts mr oats
unless you have something more to say I think my case stands for itself I don't really...see a case? His reasoning isn't necessarily bad, it just differs from yours. Look, think about your thought process as a townie when you evaluated the three options. You probably rejected the Secret Ballot out of hand barring some weird circumstances because it takes information away from town, then you thought about Mayoral and Instant Majority. Thinking about the strengths and drawbacks of both, you'd note that Mayoral elections produce a different kind of discussion than lynch votes (not necessarily better or worse) and the actual vote itself tends to be about who says they'll use the lynch on whom and who you have a town-read on. Instant Majority sounds dangerous but actually buts the scum under a lot of pressure assuming nobody gets dumb and jumps the gun on the hammer. But what you don't think about, and I'm certain nobody town aligned thinks about as a main reason not to use mayoral, is the possibility of making a scum player mayor. It's a risk of mayoral, but it's not the reason you wouldn't run it-- after all, if what the mayor does is pick who gets lynched, picking a scum player to be mayor isn't a huge risk. We're not giving powers to the scumteam, and in fact, having a scum under that spotlight could be very helpful to town. From a townie perspective, which any townie will have, you probably want instant majority because it's simple and lets you lynch someone. You want your vote to do something and you want to put pressure on the scum. You don't reject mayoral because a scum might get elected-- this might actually be the best outcome short of a townie get elected and lynching scum. You reject mayoral because instant majority is better and gives you more power to hunt scum. Oats came into this giving reasoning that comes from a mindset not of townie scumhunting, but of scum shirking responsibility and blending in, and thinking fearfully. I thought this was pretty obvious, guys While I see where you are coming from, I did actually think about electing scum as a mayor being a big downside to Mayoral vs Instant. For one, it is immensely difficult to tell the difference between a town mayor lynching another townie, and a scum mayor lynching a townie. And for two, its much harder to hold people accountable for their votes in an 'everything-goes-wrong' mayoral election. Mayoral elections tend to turn into "Follow the vet" more than "elect the towniest person in the game".
Even this thought process I consider distinct from oatsmaster's thoughts. See you don't just stop at "what if scum is elected", you immediately think about distinguishing town mayors lynching townies and scum mayors from lynching townies. You worry about a weakened discourse from the mayoral election and give specifics, and by the very action of doing so heighten the discourse of a potential mayoral election and pressure scum. This is not the thought process of a hasty unskilled scum player. Contrast what you've posted here with what Oatsmaster posted:
On February 13 2013 12:01 Oatsmaster wrote:
Well, I dont think mayor is necessarily good because its not worth the risk IMO.
If we vote in scum, We will defiantly not get a scum lynch tomorrow, and also, it basically kills discussion.
What we don't see is any attempt to analyze, lay the groundwork for analysis, or even press for instant majority lynch. He's basically saying stuff similar to what you're saying, but he's saying it from a defensive, hidden, scummy mindset. It's key to realize that Oatsmaster and I are in agreement about which lynch system would be best for D2, but the way he's voiced his concerns has been scummy. Of COURSE the thought of a scum mayor occurs to you, and even if from your personal experience it's bad, it only takes a casual comparison between your post and oatsmaster's post to see that oatsmaster is scummy scum.
It's also important to note that Oatsmaster's initial response to my pressure was to discredit me-- say I'm "trolling" or have "confirmation bias", rather than convince me or defend himself adequately, and only after it appeared that others were listening did he decide his best defense was to call me town with no reasoning then disappear from the thread. Admittedly, it is possible that he's a confused townie, but his immediate reactions (discrediting with a gradual transition into panicked buddying) confirm his scum alignment in my eyes. Pending further information, I say we should all vote to lynch him.
|
Someone asked why not mayoral. So I answered to the best of my ability.
Am I really the only person with a town read on BH?
Well yeah BH, I thought you were trolling, as you have a tendency to troll early game.
Clearly you are not as can be seen from your wall of text.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
Oatsmaster, most people who have played with me extensively are aware I'm very active and aggressive as both scum and town, and am highly prone to shenanigans as any alignment. I won't comment as to my own guilt. Experience tells me I will do too good a job of prosecuting myself, and convince you that I am guilty - or else you will decide that my prosecution was too half-hearted, and that I am scum. I will remark only this in my defense - that I have never been mislynched as town, and get lynched all the time as scum.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
actually, I got mislynched in storm mafia when I replaced in! I think that was the only time though.
|
On February 13 2013 13:43 Blazinghand wrote:
Oatsmaster, most people who have played with me extensively are aware I'm very active and aggressive as both scum and town, and am highly prone to shenanigans as any alignment. I won't comment as to my own guilt. Experience tells me I will do too good a job of prosecuting myself, and convince you that I am guilty - or else you will decide that my prosecution was too half-hearted, and that I am scum. I will remark only this in my defense - that I have never been mislynched as town, and get lynched all the time as scum.
What are you even defending yourself from? He's done nothing but call you townie :o
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
