Glork vs. Destructor
destructor wrote:On Glork, I'd like to see a claim. If he can't vote for any player in this game, he's useless to the town besides through scum-hunting, but he's hardly been doing any of that.
I find it unlikely that he's scum faking a vote restriction, but, unlike Sly suggested in 526, I don't see why that mean he couldn't be scum who actually HAS a vote restriction. Whatever the case, he's a serious liability to the town because that's one vote we KNOW will never land on scum.
What this means is that with Glork alive, we'd be in lylo one day early.
So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone, I think you should claim right now and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.
As has been pointed out, this premature call for claim is itself scummy. Des is correct is his assessment that if Glork is town we'll be in LYLO a day early (i.e. - assume 1 scum and 4 townies left, three votes to lynch. If we miss the lynch, that's 1:3, add a scum kill that night, 1:2. However, with Glork-town alive town only manages one vote against the scum's one vote, and will never reach the two needed to lynch scum, no lynch goes through, scum win. Hence town needs to hit that lynch at 1:4 or lose, assuming nothing unmentioned here getting in the way. Or town has to lynch Glork at 1:4 and proceed as per usual. Thus LYLO is, as it were, a Day early if Glorks alive).
The fact that having Glork around late might put the town in an uncomfortable position does not, however, mean that we should force an early claim from him. I'm willing to believe that Glork has a useful role and it isn't remotely worth giving the scum that sort of info this early because of his votelessness. Des further implies that unless he's convinced by the roleclaim that Glork is worth keeping alive, Glork shouldn't be kept alive. This is extremely premature claim-or-die. Des hadn't even noted much that Glork had done that looked really
scummy
. He'd said Glork needed to post more; fair enough. He said that without a vote Glork was useless except for scumhunting and he hadn't been doing enough of that. I'm all for calls for more scumhunting, fine, but Glork's uselessness as a player was exaggerated by Des, who didn't and doesn't know what beneficial powers Glork may have. Further, the uselessness in and of itself was not nearly enough to warrant a "claim now, and unless your role sounds useful I'll feel free to lynch you based mostly on your votelessness".
Which reads way scummy to me.
destructor wrote:
Glork wrote:Olredy addrezhed most of zis, but re: engame.
A player who kannot vote in endgame kannot vin, period. If, theoretically, I vere ze scomzh vis soch a restrikzhon, zen ze ozer two towneezh in endgame vood vote and kill me, becozh zey kood not leench each ozer, and zey vill not no-lynch.
I olso find it interesting zat joo label me aszh being kompletely uselezh, vith no thought that I may have any ozher abilitiezh. Zat is not to say vezher I have an ability or not, but it iszh a very unsettling assompzhon for joo to make.
If you can't vote for scum, you can't vote for scum in end-game. Mirth says that we need a majority of living players to lynch meaning that you being alive in end-game is likely to result in a scum win. Unless you have abilities that are incredibly likely to save the town in the above mentioned end-game scenario, which is not something I'm willing to count on... without a claim and improvement of play, I think your lack of vote is a liability large enough to trump whatever ability you might have. Why do you think I asked for a claim in the first place?
In fact, I'm not seeing how you could possibly miss my intention given that I said this:
destructor wrote:So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone, I think you should claim right now and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.
What other explanation could I possibly be asking for?
Here Des makes it clear that he's not willing to wait and let Glork try to make himself and his role useful without a claim. Why is he more willing to let the scum in on Glork's role by making him claim rather than letting Glork try to work stuff well on his end? He doesn't note anything sketchy about Glork except relative lack of scumhunting, which Des did not push as being any sort of strong scumtell, as far as I know.
His only solution is to get Glork to claim or risk death. It kinda reminds me of Isacc's plan/gambit which involved asking Des to potentially risk getting Modkilled for not posting in German. Do something detrimental to yourself and your faction at my call or die. Despite the fact that Des is far from certain that Glork is town. I'm willing to kill Glork late if it appears he'll be a town liability during/right before LYLO, if necessary, but an early kill for his votelessness alone is simply scummy.
destructor wrote:Glork wrote:Dezh wrote:Elvis even said she'd played in games where voteless players were lynched on account of them being a problem for the town.
Zis is true, bot she obviouzhly doezhn't believe zat it is unekvivikolly right to leench voteless playerzh, vich is vot you are soggezhting. Vot EK said and vot joo vont to do are
kompletely, 100% different
. "Vait and zee" is ze right vay to approach it. Leenching people in ze manner joo soggezht is jost terrible.
"Wait and see" was what I said. I didn't vote you, I didn't say, "let's lynch Glork". I said you, as a voteless player, are a policy lynch one day before lylo. I asked for a claim because that was all I could see that would change that. All of this was easier for me to say because you didn't look very town either. I wanted the idea out there now, so it wouldn't be a scramble later in the game.
Now this looks like self-contradiction or backtracking. Des didn't say "wait and see". To whit:
destructor wrote:So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone,
I think you should claim right now
and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.
The call for claim, obviously premature, is obviously called for by Destructor "now". I'm pretty sure that my interpretation of the second part as "if I don't get a good explanation as to why we should be keeping you alive, we shouldn't keep you alive at all". Des didn't say "he's a policy lynch the day before LYLO". He said "we should get you to claim and explain why we should be keeping you alive". Nothing about witing till the day before LYLO.
Lies or backtracking. Either way, it looks damned scummy.
Glork wrote:
Dezh wrote:So, basically, your argument here has always been that I'm blindly pushing for your lynch without considering context, which isn't true at all.
Dezh wrote:So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone, I think you should claim right now and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.
Joo tell me vezher joo vere "considerink knotekst" or giving me a "klaim or die" ultimatum, based on vot joo originially said. Don't joo dare try to change vot joo pushed. Joo vere blatantly fishing for a claim, else joo didnt vant me alive. Joo didnt say "perhaps Glork vill be investigated and vill bekome konfirmed town" (vich vood obviouzhly negate ze desire for a policy leench). Joo never said "perhaps Glork vill have anozer ability vich vill become evident vithout him having to klaim on D1 for no reason at all." Joo never said "perhaps Glork's lack of vote is temporary, and he vill be able to vote later." Tho joo never outright DENIED zese possibilitizh,
joo implied zat me klaiming is preferrable to exploring ze dynamics of my role vithin the context of ze game.
And ZAT is vot botherzh me so moch about joor play. I vood NEVER expekt joo to take soch an onreazhonable approach as town, and zat is vy I think joo are ze scomzh.
Hopefully zis post hazh artikulated my pozition moch more.
I'm going to QFT what Glork said here. I may be becoming redundant. If so, I apologize, but I'm busy etc.
destructor wrote:Funnily enough, Glork, as town, should be more than happy to be lynched at the appropriate time because of this.
(Something for anyone who's voting me to think about: If I were scum, wouldn't I want to keep a voteless player alive?)
WIFOM defense. There are plenty of plausible reasons, not least that Glork may have a useful role to compensate for his votelessness, not least that you wanted to appear to scumhunt and Glork looked like a juicy target. Not least a bunch of other possibilities. Imaginality thought of another: "Azide from hoping to get claim, destrructor may alzo haf been hoping if ozzer vagons fizzle out ve vould fall back on a 'lynch Glork he iss useless' lynch as deadline apprroaches". The WIFOM defense is noted, however.
destructor wrote:caf wrote:Right now, as his missing vote is hardly crucial D1, it seems natural simply to lynch him if he's scum, and not if he's town. (Ain't that groundbreaking logic?
Winner!
Which is why I've made arguements against Glork
that have nothing to do with his lack of vote!
Where? Before the post where you ask Glork to claim etc. I see little attack on Glork at all - asking him to post more. Nothing in the manner of "He's not scumhunting at all . . . [insert a few sentences of case here] . . . so I'm fairly suspicious of Glork." Unless I've missed something, but I do not think I did. I think afterwards you bring in a point about disparate reads on myself and Darox. The fact remains that this came after the post in which you demanded a premature claim and implied, or seemed to, that we should lynch Glork based only on his votelessness and current unsatisfactory level of posting/scumhunting. Which I still think is way too much and still think is scummy.
Another decent quote capturing some feelings on some of your defenses, Des:
Glork wrote:A klaim is only von vay of covering zis, and it is easily ze VORST vay to cover it.
Agreed.
destructor wrote:Glork wrote:Dezh wrote:Yeah, but I never actually said "if glork doesnt claim we should lynch him" in the first place. Neither did I mean it.
Bot joo said "klaim and explain vy ve shood keep you alive." I'm sure joo can see vere I interpreted it as such.
Maybe,
but you're still
ignoring the obvious
: I didn't vote you.
Yeah. Then if I say "I have a scumvibe on Player X, and Player X also wears green underwear. Therefore I want a claim from Player X now so he can explain why he's worth keeping alive; if he isn't, I say bag him for the reasons mentioned above" and don't vote Player X . . . I haven't done anything weird or scummy? Maybe I'm not getting something here, but I'm pretty sure I am. Granted votelessness is more dangerous than green underwear (or is it?!), but not Day 1 to the degree that a claim demand or a statement about not seeing the point in keeping a player alive at all if the claim doesn't indicate usefulness is so overdone that it is, in fact, scummy. The fact that you didn't vote him didn't erase the fact that you demnded a claim in what really looked and still looks to be "claim well or die" language.
destructor wrote:Why? How is giving a player who doesn't look pro-town lenience for "what could happen" remotely good play?
Because the alternative is lynching everyone you have any decent case/vibe on and a limitation (remember Sly's foreign-languages-are-scummy stance? This is scummy just like that was) because even though it "could happen" that they have useful roles, etc. giving lenience to someone with a limitation who doesn't look too townie would be bad play.
Gah, I'm getting incoherent and long winded. Sorry, pals; I tried my best to address the case as I see it; a lot like Glork sees it, as a matter of fact. There you go.
I'm only happy that the Mod is pleased with my efforts
.
