Mordy wrote:Is it fair to make assumptions about roles in a game based on the players coming and going?
Yeah that's fair game. Odds are the other people may disagree with you though.
MOrdy wrote:Ie: Pretend for an instant that I could make an assumption that Vanilla Town players are more likely to give up on a game and need a replacement than Mafia players. (Maybe Vanilla players would be more bored, while Mafia players would be more engaged.) I then looked at the 'bit' that first Wolf and then Mikey filled and abandoned. Would it be fair to conclude that the 'bit' is a Vanilla Mafia bit, or is it not in the spirit of the game to try and deduce role by meta-information?
This is the common misconception. A lot of players do feel vanilla town is boring. However take a look at Newbie 700. A scum role went through FOUR, count them, FOUR replacements. That means four different people got the role of "mafia" and was replaced. Also factor in this is a newbie game. Some players just find this game not what they expected. Too much reading, moving too quick or slow, They might forget about it because they aren't used to it. Thousands* of reasons why a newbie would quit a game. And of course RL issues have to be accounted as well. A guy who breaks his arm in a car crash will replace out of a game regardless of alignment for instance.
And I don't see how this qualifies as "meta information". Unless you are using Wolf and Mikey's own meta about replacing out of games.
Delathi wrote:I'm not sure it is correct in this situation though. It seems also likely, although maybe not equally so, that Mickey popped in and found himself over his head on the scum side and ditched. He and his replacement are still on the to be watched list, but you do make some sense.
That is possible, but realize he only had one vote so him feeling pressured enough to leave is a little bit of a stretch.
Mordy wrote:You aren't reading carefully enough. Producing lots of text and being emotionally/socially engaged are not synonymous. Someone can be very intense and very quiet. There's no contradiction here.
Technically there is no contradiction but it definitly helps show just how interested in your own theories you are. You suggest both lurking is a sign of scum while being replaced is a sign of town. Those two activities are synonomous with each other a good portion of the time. You are unlikely to be replaced unless you have been lurking for some amount of time and lurking for too long will get you replaced.
Now if this isn't true of you that would mean your arguments have been that active lurking is a sign of scum and that requesting replacement is a sign of town becuase those are the only exceptions to this.
Of course there is no fault from you in this case regardless of what you meant. This new theory of yours involving replacement has to deal with the person you are voting and asking if you should be thinking him town. It only makes sense to ask such a question regardless of how contradicting it is. So let me now turn my attention to...
Archaist wrote:See a contradiction here? Scum should keep a low profile, yet they should at the same time be more engaged? I realize you're just speculating on theories, but they should at least be consistent theories.
Town should not speculate on whether the person they are voting might me town as well? That seems like a pretty big detail to miss when accusing someone of contradictions and inconsistent theories don't you think? I really like how you rip a single sentence out of his new theory to make this contradiction as well. I'm sure I can find a contradicton in most people if I ignore 90% of their posts, but that would kine take the fun out of the game.
