JDodge 532 wrote:This means that by you claiming doc you put yourself in at least 3 times as much danger as you would need to normally.
Wait, hold the phone. Let me trace this conversation.
--kuribo's out-the-gate hate on you D1 was bussing.
-Why do you think this? I was in no danger at the time he replaced in.
--You claimed Doctor today to place yourself in danger.
I've already been in one Time Abuse Mafia, and I'm pretty sure I only signed up for one. No, I didn't claim Doctor D1, nor did KrisReizer IIRC.
JDodge 532 wrote:Honestly, were I your scumpartner, I'd have done the same thing and attempted to get you lynched to put myself in a better position for tomorrow, especially when you consider that you're almost certainly not a godfather seeing as that would be an obnoxiously risky gambit (although somewhat clever, I don't think any scum power role in their right mind would dare claim a power role they know exists within the setup).
"Were I your scumpartner" WIFOM aside, I know of one scum power that would try it - a player who thinks he's clean countering someone he thinks can be bullied out of the game. If you get me lynched today, it doesn't matter if you're the Godfather or anything else; you win. Why would a Godfather be the one counterclaiming? Perhaps because he has a better reputation than his Goon partner, or more experience/confidence.
Moreover, if the Godfather were so concerned about getting lynched today, then perhaps in addition to counterclaiming he would push the lynch pressure off himself. 'Sound familiar? This would in turn allow him to use investigation immunity such that if he were investigated N2, he would be able to indict the other player immediately. All of the benefits of claiming Doc plus all of the benefits of being a Godfather, even with an authentic Doctor in the game!
JDodge 532 wrote:So you can see eldarad as "trying to play well, but failing". Yet it still seems that you only see charter in the black-and-white categories of "good play = town, bad play = scum".
More like "not trying to play well, and failing".
JDodge 532 wrote:I would like to again point out that charter not even trying is not necessarily scummy. Especially when you point out that not even trying is contrary to the scum motive of attempting to get townies lynched, AND contrary to the secondary scum motive of attempting to blend in. Your entire line of logic against charter blatantly ignores the law of common sense in favour of the law of "he's not doing anything, must be scum".
Towns self-destruct more often than not. Being on the periphery, or active lurking, is just fine if the Town's willing to lynch itself to LyLo.
JDodge 532 wrote:I would argue that, in this current age of mafia wherein you have numerous people who have a more lurking playstyle, that lurking has ceased to become a meaningful tell and that lynch all lurkers is used solely as a tool to attempt to condition players into the standards of play that those who use it wish to enforce.
I don't have such a big deal with lurking as a playstyle as long as what you say when you DO show up is convincing. Active lurking is by definition failing at this, and is either a sign of staying in the background (see above) or being a playstyle miller. I've lost too many games to lurker-scum to agree with you.
JDodge 532 wrote:Why wouldn't I defend someone who refuses to defend themselves? Why should we only hold the bad against someone while refusing to look at the other side of the coin? Why is it scummy for me to attempt to prevent what I feel to be unfounded suspicion being laid upon someone?
Good question. I would reserve that for unfounded suspicion, and only for people who cannot defend themselves (V/LA or getting replaced). The first part we can debate for a while longer, but the second part is where charter fails.
JDodge 532 wrote:That's just because you don't have enough experience with the idiots who play to become jaded enough to realize that people are terminally retarded and really
don't
know what they're doing and the consequences thereof.
Which should be taken into account when looking at them. I'll defend people that I feel are newbs/n00bs when I believe I can understand why they're doing what they're doing if it's wrong. However, the suspicion should still surface that the person being defended is scum when it piles up, or if things stop becoming fully explicable by the n00b card.
JDodge 537 wrote:I'll admit that the naivety defense does make your pushing of charter much more believable, but I'm finding it hard to accept that defense all things considered.
I'm feeling masochistic today. Why is it hard to accept?
JDodge 532 wrote:I do think it would've been more attractive if people had looked for themselves or at very least remained cognizant of my opinion regardless of how much meaning was behind it at the time. Instead, people tend to dismiss opinions without what they feel to be "sufficient opinion" behind them. This is flawed because it essentially says "you're not allowed to have an opinion unless it's good enough for me".
But when it comes down to people disagreeing with your opinion, they have nothing to check why you believe the way you do. And considering the
horrible monotony
of the game, they won't be getting an answer for a while.
The flip side to this approach to scumhunting is that it essentially lets you direct the scumhunting efforts with seeming-little research effort of your own. That's a great place for scum to be. *continues taking notes*
JDodge 532 wrote:My metas on kuribo and eldarad are from roughly the same time. On a theoretical level, since my meta on eldarad proved to be wrong and presumably outdated, I can assume the same about my meta on kuribo. Thus my opinions in a meta context are invalid, thus I must use a non-meta context. I find non-meta contexts to be overly circumstantial. I feel that this makes my play overall worse. That was a typo on the whole "kuribo looks solidly town" bit, I meant to say kuribo looked solidly town.
So your opinion of kuribo is...?
JDodge 532 wrote:You then posit from that that both me and charter are scum
for the same reason.
Wordier but more accurate version: My separate beliefs that the two of you are scum are corroborated by this single reason, and it's not implausible to suggest you're together based on it.
JDodge 532 wrote:You're indicting me on pushing the wagon and then lumping me in with one of two confirmed town players reasoning-wise? That's a bit odd, isn't it? Furthermore, how am I scum for supposedly pushing the eldarad lynch when you're saying that only Sche and charter were pushing the eldarad lynch? Something is ROTTEN IN DENMARK HERE.
Let me try this one again. charter and Scheherazade were the ones pushing it because it was scummy. You and M-M were pushing it for the sake of any lynch. That M-M turned up Town is circumstantial and doesn't reflect on you.
JDodge 532 wrote:Answer the question. In fact, I just noticed that the first time you voted me was when I asked you a question and then called you out for not answering it - perhaps you didn't want to answer the question for whatever reason.
Hmmmm.
I cannot be linked easily to either kuribo or charter. If I had to pick one, it would be kuribo. I'll leave you to fill in my thought processes.
And about that question - you mean the one in 368? Another instance where I give a sarcastic answer
and then answer the question two lines later
. Context_is_good.
JDodge 532 wrote:Thought you didn't believe people were "terminally retarded" in that way? Seems to be a bit more convenient for you to change your mind on that now, doesn't it?
This is an entertaining, if relatively pointless diversion. Let's compare charter to:
Prof. Guppy (Lynched D1)
MafiaMann (Lynched D1)
tubby216 (Replaced in D3)
Plus a few more people who are unfortunately in ongoing games. I'd place charter ahead of all of these people. The difference is, MafiaMann and tubby were actually trying. They would respond to questions and pressure - with helpful intent, if ineffectually.
JDodge 532 wrote:Again, I am almost entirely certain that this is GF C9. Which means there is a cop. No counter-claim means Sche is a cop. Sche being a cop means he is not scum.
Sche not being scum means that by lynching one of charter/kuribo, we have a 50/50 shot as a town of lynching the correct one.
I protect Sche, you can't kill me because that would expose you anyways (meaning you have to kill whichever of charter/kuribo is town). Sche investigates one of us. We lynch according to Sche's investigation. Town wins automatically.
Otherwise, we have to take a separate 50-50 chance which leads to insta-loss if we're wrong.
If we're right, and I'm right about there being a GF, then we have to make the same 50-50 tomorrow. Which, according to my math, means lynching one of kuribo/charter gives us a 50% chance whereas lynching one of myself/Vi gives us a 25% overall chance.
More specifically than a JDodge, this is a JBarrelRoll for the amount of spin put in (see bold). As far as the Godfather investigation immunity bit goes, I think you're gambiting (see second response).
Everything you say and do matters. People will respond in ways you may never see. May those responses be what you intend.