I bet you're right on this Yos. That role seems terribly anti-town, so if he WAS forced to make a choice every 4 days he made the most pro-town move he could there. Thanks Sir T.I also noticed he self destructed 4 days into day 2, and day 1 lasted 4 days; I wonder if he had to choose each day, 4 days into it, to either end the day early, or self destruct?
Aww c'mon, you've been here since 2004, that's newbspeak.Seol wrote: I don't have a case on Yos, just a gut feeling.
Right - so why should it count as validation for a vote? Why say that in-thread, where it's clearly not convincing evidence that your vote is OK? That's part of the reason to give reasons for votes, isn't it? To demonstrate that it's a justified vote? And to convince others that the person your voting for deserves their votes, too? Because you want scum lynched?Fonz wrote: You are of course, correct that one player's gut isn't likely to convince another. Doesn't mean it's an invalid basis for a vote.
What about all the other options? Like a poorly reasoned case against someone you think is scum (which I believe listing a "gut feeling" as your primary reason is)? OR even a nice, neatly-reasoned case against someone you DO think is scum? Why would you bother making a case on someone you DON'T think is scum?Fonz wrote: Riddle me this... which is more likely to end up with dead scum?
1. A nice, neatly-reasoned case against someone you don't actually think is scum.
2. A gut vote on someone who definitely feels like scum to you, but you're not yet able to articulate fully why you feel that way.
Hmm. That's weird. I didn't know disagreeing on theory made scum.But I DO think it's scummy and underhanded of you to take this position. If you didn't think it scummy, why did you bring it up in the first place?
Oh that's right, it was a joke! Ho ho ho!Occam wrote:Aww c'mon, you've been here since 2004, that's newbspeak.
Policy lynches R bad.Fonz wrote: Lynch all claimed millers.
Right, but that wasn't an "attack", unless you count jokes as an attack. If anything it was an insult, but I didn't even mean it that way, so, no.It doesn't. But attacking someone else, over something that isn't scummy, is scummy.
I agree with this, but I also think that millers can be useful, and that they should always claim day 1. I think lynching the miller on day 2 is better than lynching the miller on day 1, though. It's a waste of a lynch because, by the odds, town is lynched more often than scum on day 1 - and lynching the miller on day 1 throws a whole bunch of shit into the fan. All the interactions on day one become less useful and potentially even confusing to the town when someone flips miller on a day one lynch. I will turn up guilty - then you'll look at all the people who interacted with me. As a miller, though, I'll potentially be implicating people who shouldn't be implicated. In my view that invalidates productiveness. And I know it's day 2 - but I'm calling this day one, because yesterday was almost entirely useless and ended without a lynch, so for all intents and purposes this is day one.Why lynching claimed millers specifically is necessary:
If millers were not policy-lynched, it becomes too good of a claim for scum. They essentially get immunity from being busted by a cop. Therefore, millers should not claim, and claimed millers should be lynched. It's a policy lynch because it's not based on the likelihood of the individual miller claimant being scum- but because it hurts towns, in general, to allow miller to become an acceptable claim.
Because then that's ALL discussion is about. I wasn't able to post until 60 posts into the game, just after MM had figured out he wasn't playing. I said:So, why wasn't this in your first post though?
...and I didn't think "I'm a miller" was a good place to start. I think it's a good way to get something back on track, but not a good starting point. And that's really what it would have been, a starting point - because we were back to ground zero after monkey got nuked.Now I'm just confused about where to start... everything for the past three pages has been tossed out the window with the monkey...
Well we're talking about something relevant to the game - which is a good thing. That was my intent, like I said. The risk involved is that there's little risk in lynching a claimed miller - I realize that - so in a way I'm risking a self-sacrifice. But exposing bullshit like the lynch all millers plan is worth it, even if it's not until tomorrow. Either way I didn't fully understand my role until now - I'm a standard miller, shows guilty as cop investigation, not on death.what impact did you expect claiming to have? How did you expect it to benefit us? What negative consequences did you foresee, and how did you justify those as being worthwhile?
In reflection claiming in post one would have been a better thing to do. But given the circumstances I didn't think it was the best move, like I said. By elaboration I assume you mean the details of my role pm - as I said, I came dangerously close to quoting it, and this mod seems to be a stickler on the rules. I didn't want to risk it, so I paraphrased as best I could.forbid wrote: What if I was voting you for the execution of the claim and the elaboration?
Name indicates theme. For example, if this game were called "Washington D.C. mafia", wouldn't it sort of makeSeol wrote: trying to argue what makes sense based solely on the name of the game strikes me as trying to justify that the role you made up should be plausible.
Well I haven't been lynched, and I certainly don't want it to be for these reasons - but either way, asking for evidence of scummy actions is protown, since the whole idea behind defending yourself as town is to avoid a mislynch.Seol wrote: Bolded section strikes me as "lynched for the wrong reason" frustration.
You're right about that - but I have explained why I didn't claim p1d1 and I don't have more of an explanation than that.seol wrote: That's talking about an immediate post 1 day 1 claim, for the purposes of attempting to nullify the drawback inherent in the role. You didn't claim p1d1, and you didn't do it to nullify the drawback, you did it to "generate discussion". I don't really see that you were implementing this strategy.
I think I'd like to hear what, specifically, you don't like.seol wrote: Plus, there's a whole bunch of other stuff about the claim I don't like, apart from it simply being a miller claim.
It WAS vague though.forbid wrote: It was the fact that you stated your PM didn't really explain the functions of your role, and yet your elaboration vaguely did.