springlullaby wrote: IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum.
This isn't true. The point of the random stage is to allow a game to begin in some way. One of the most fascinating parts of this game for me is the phenomenon of how games actually begin because, when you think about, people come to the table with absolutely nothing to say to each other. It needn't be a random vote (including a random self-vote). People might suggest no lynch, might suggest mass claim, etc. etc. "joke-ness" is not the point of random voting.
And the notion of it having the purpose of "signifying a willingness to catch scum" is absolute twaddle. What the heck is the point of signifying said willingness through random voting? No player in their right mind would think "Oh, look, vollkan cast a random vote. He must be willing to catch scum. +10 townie points for vollkan." I am using hyperbole there, of course, but I think you can see my point - signification is absolutely meaningless (especially where the signification occurs by convention, as is usually the case with random voting)
springlullaby wrote: Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote.
"nothing about myself". Not true. At all. In fact, I'd say this is completely the wrong way round. Imagine if I had opened with:
theory Vollkan wrote:
Vote: springlullaby
Your avatar looks like a criminal
Would you learn anything about me? Would you gain any insight into my thought processes? Would it spring any discussion which could do either of those things? No. No. And No. It would undoubtedly be followed by something equally vapid, say:
fool wrote:
Vote: orangepenguin
because normal penguins aren't orange. Thus, you must be unusual and are therefore likely scum
Instead, I pull a move which I know will create a controversy, which I know will give me a chance to show a bit about myself, and to learn a bit about others - by self-voting.
2) "Doesn't show who I am willing to vote". True to an extent. If you are one of those types who rely on WIFOM ideas about scum random voting patterns
then self-voting will never satisfy you. Frankly, though, I think that self-voting will be overwhelmingly more likely to benefit town than by voting someone else, on the off-chance that a scum is caught by some tawdry random-vote based argument.
Springlullaby wrote: However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.
The "you have no proof" is a staple of my play philosophy as town and scum (Just see my policy list). For me, the crucial element in this game is forcing people to give reasons to justify suspicions (I feel I have ranted on that point enough, so I won't elaborate on reasons which I have already given). Thus, I always place the onus squarely on the accuser.
And yeah, self-voting is a total null-tell for somebody like me.
Springlullaby wrote: What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.
How prescient of you!
I've shown why my actions were defensible, and nobody has rebutted me on that yet (The closest was pseudo-postmodernist gibes about reason not being the be-all-and-end-all in this game, and I have shown that that notion disadvantages town enormously). You yourself have even said that self-voting is just as likely to come from "scum as town" (and, conversely, from "town as scum"...interesting the way that reversing those two words can change the tone of the sentence, hey?)
In such circumstances, I cannot see how a vote on me is defensible (and yes, I am being defensive
)
Springlullaby wrote:
You've been talking lot, tell me, have you gained any insight on people's alignment from your discussion?
Yeah, actually. My hopes have been met.
Juls - Basically, she first responded jokingly ("I <3 Recursion "). It's an interesting response, especially from a newbie, that she would essentially not react to a self-vote either way. Inexperienced players are typically the most prone to wild ideas. She also asked ixfij if he was basing his argument on policy. Good question (very good in fact). But also very non-controversial (asking a question innocently, which may lead to a prejudicial answer that other people will follow through on)
orangepenguin - "I've seen town self-vote just as much as scum, if not more. A lot of people vote for themselves, to put it simply." As I indicated, I liked this response. Doesn't suck up to me, doesn't dodge the issue, and doesn't lick his finger and wait to see which way the wind blows (and his answer is the correct one, but that's not so important
)
ortolan - Also a very good response: "Can someone explain to me why a random jokevote on oneself is any different to a random jokevote on somebody else? I'm curious." He's a new player. He sees me being put on the spot for my self-vote and asks a sensible, probative question of the accusers.
RealityFan - Obviously loves reality so much that he has yet to post in game.
springlullaby - Mercurial to say the least. She opens with a self-vote and now harangues me for self-voting. I think she is smart enough that I am not going to put this down to a contradiction. I've rebutted her above and am eagerly awaiting her reply.
Ectomancer - Hehehe. Well, he begins by asking me to justify my vote. As I said in my response, it's interesting that he flowed along with received wisdom on self-voting without explaining what he objected to from the get-go. He then tries weakly to suggest I contradicted myself
(with this:
First off, whether those other votes had reasoning has little bearing on a self-vote being an anti-town move (notice I did not say scummy).
2nd, you invalidated your point that there was nothing different between their vote and your vote by the manner in which you did it.
)
Again, reiterates his question (onus of proof lies on prosecution!)
Then weakly compares self-voting to pressure voting (the latter of which I consider stupid).
Also says self-voting is "inherently bad" (which turns out to be as complex as "I don't like it")
Then makes this weird argument that people don't have to prove their case, comparing it to "You got no case on me Copper, you cant prove nuttin". Needless to say, in a game where anybody is a potential crim, if there is no requirement to prove suspicion then, logically, it's perfectly alright to just lynch whoever we like. No, just by the fact that we don't all lynch on the first page it is clear that there is a presumption of innocence and, as I have said before, there are good town-favouring policy reasons for this.
Then accuses me of psychological manipulation ("these are not the droids you're looking for")
The shambolic case continues on this page with a concession that what I did was not anti-town. (it goes from "inherently bad" -> anti-town -> not anti-town)
Then makes this weird rights-based strawman that had nothing to do with what I said - that my whole point was that forcing reasons is good for the town.
SpyreX - Subdued reaction to the discussion, but he justified it well.
mrfixij - begins by saying that it is only in scum's interests to self-vote (Big claim). Then says he is only expressing distate in general and his suspicion of me for it was only extremely minor - this is a major backpedal from what he just said, and he doesn't acknowledge that fact. If something is only ever proscum, it cannot ever be only minorly suspicious. Then we start going into spherical cows
TDC - only one post, but I like his response (for similar reasons to Ortolan's)
)