Seacore wrote:DisCode wrote:
because if we need very few votes, it's easier for scum to control the lynch.
In my opinion this is a good thing. We tempt the scum to reveal themselves. If we need 10 to lynch and it's a town kill, then we've got all those people, plus anybody else that was suspicious to look at. If we only needed 6 and the same thing happens, then that makes it a lot easier.
When I say 'very few', then I mean 'very few'. A lynch with 10 players on board is way overreacted as it's very unlikely it will happen. Luckily, due to the change in rule, it's very unlikely this will happen as well for now.
And disagreed. Do you know how easy it is to have an influence on a lynch when you need only a few votes? It's very hard in this case to seperate the town from the scum.
Seacore wrote:I also don't understand why people are so suspicious about my pro-town comment. I'm talking about "pro-town tells" being things that actively make you think they are hunting for scum.
If you are including in "pro-town tells" the absence of "scum tells" then thats cool.
That's the only one I think can be trusted, because everything else could be scum hunting scum.
DisCode wrote:Now onto the scummy bit of the linked post, which is about the pro-town bit. It seems a way to give us the impression we can't clear each other and doubt everyone. Not liking that one bit.
Seacore wrote:Also, I completely disagree with DisCode on his vig comment. It benefits one scum team to actively hunt the other to extinction, then to come after town, because they can't trust that the other scum team doesn't have the same plan. Thus their night kill would likely be used in a vig way. If they have a dreamwalker then they will really be scum hunting.
You don't get it, do you?
Vig wants town to win. Mafia wants mafia to win. Therefore, vig kills players that are scummy or distracting/useless, while mafia kill players that are dangerous to them. Huge difference.
Also, it's notable how you discredited somebody (I believe Serial) for wanting to trust into a guilty/innocent result, while you want to trust in two whole mafia teams. At least the cop can be town-sided.
Seacore wrote:The problem with getting too high an incant population early is that it has a lack of accountability to hold people to in later days. An "accidental" multi-lynch could happen by somebody being "unfortunately away" from the game.
Are you talking about later days now? Because this whole argument started, because players started to state that random votes are bad in this game. I'm pretty sure there won't be random votes in later days.
Also, you're very scummy for trying to control future lynches:
Seacore wrote:5)Anybody who votes to make the votes uneven is viewed suspiciously, whether the person who dies flips scum or not.
6)Anybody who votes within the last hour of the last deadline is viewed extremely suspicious, probably an auto lynch.
Though I didn't ask any questions to you, Chaco, you may respond to my comment about post 47, which can be found in post 62.
Also, Seacore, I did not vote you based upon you thinking that mafia will act as vigs. It was something I disagreed about with you and disagreement is not a scumtell.
The 'boohoohoo' - speech of you being targeted was very
touching
scummy. As for the accusation against you of buddying, it seems that you don't have any troubles responding to it in post 77 (Two posts below the post I'm now commenting on). This is already scummy, but that you're now trying to play 'victim' after having stated this:
Seacore wrote:Hehe, I was about to comment on the buddying too, I'm happy for you to note it, I know that it can look suspicious sometimes, but I enjoy finding someone who sees eye to eye with me.
just makes it worse.
Chaco wrote:Money says me because he's been buddying me. It's a common scum tactic, and you fell right into it.
According to this, you believe that Seacore is playing a common scum tactic. Meaning you think he's scum. Yet, no incant. How come?
Going to look at the arguments between Faraday and Death now.