I felt that the argument is coming down to a matter of opinion. I call these 'noise' arguments because both scum and town are just going to state their own opinion over and over again, giving off no scum-tells and thus harming the Sig:Noise ratio of the game. The vig has heard the arguments and will ultimately make his own choice about who he is going to kill - excessive bickering isn't going to change his mind. Whether the directors/anti-directors have been trying to harm town is made as clear as it's going to be after their first post once their opinions are made clear.silence wrote:I don't understand this (this is not the only post that includes this kind of complaints). The discussion about whether it is protown affectsstrife220 wrote:Whether or not it's pro-town to direct the vig is becoming one of those 'my god take it to MD' topics.
- whether the vig will be directed in this game
- whether the directers/anti-directers have been trying to harm the town
If discussion about how this game should be played and has so far been played is forbidden, what IS ok to be posted? Claims, votes, that's it?
Other 'noise' arguments (arguments that become distracting after the first few posts) include whether or not lynching lurkers is pro-town, whether or not policy lynches are acceptable, when no-lynching is a good move, whether or not lynch-all-liars is a good philosophy, and (new to the list) whether or not arguments such as those previously mentioned should be debated in-thread. Once the topic turns to restating opinions, conversation should be cut off and started in the MD forums after the game.
in summary: discussion about directing the vig is important for the first few comments, but after it starts taking up pages of posts, it becomes unhelpful and distracting.
