|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 10:04:04 GMT -5
Post by special on Oct 27, 2009 10:04:04 GMT -5
I did consider my vote well. Since I had thought what I thought, I thought it was a very good vote since what I figured at the time was Pleo putting a sticking vote on himself. Let me see if I understand. Idle had a misconception of how the voting worked, he felt that Pleo's action of voting for himself was indicative of an early Scum gambit for Townie credibility, is that correct? And so voted for him based on that. Natlaw thinks that Idle didn't put due consideration into his vote, which was based on the fact that votes under Idle's misconception should be placed only with due consideration and careful thought. Idle maintains that his vote was not casual at all and was placed with careful consideration, albeit in the 5th post of the game. I think I'm following, but I just wanted it clearly stated, because I'm not seeing anything that indicates Scum in any of this.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 10:43:17 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Oct 27, 2009 10:43:17 GMT -5
Pleonast, why is not voting bad *especially* in this game? Because the voting mechanics might discourage players from voting (anti-Town because it deprives us of a primary source of information). Or give them an excuse to put off voting until close to the end of the Day (anti-Town because it gives us less time to react to scum gambits). While we can see those behaviors in any game, the no-unvotes mechanic creates a psychological barrier for a player's first vote. My early self-vote was to make it clear that I am not going to go voteless ToDay. I tend to usually start things off with geussing what we are dealing with...20 players so what do you all think say 3 or possibly 4 scum? If this is a plain-vanilla game, with no power roles and only basic scum, I'd expect about 4.5 scum. Power roles would increase that number and powered scum would decrease. Until we get more information, I'd assume a worst case of 6 scum, with 5 more likely. If we're lucky, there's only 4. There'd only be 3 scum if they are extremely powerful. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Sheesh Ed, as a moderator, those dancing votes would irk me to no end. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I see Idle has now learned why it's always better to blanch votes in a quote. How is that different than in any other game? Also, how helpful do you feel voting for yourself really is. You say it puts you "on record that [you're] going to vote for someone", but if you wouldn't vote yourself in another game, how is voting yourself in this game different? There are currently about 17 players who might end the Day without a vote. I am not one of them. That is the point. I could have done the same thing by throwing out a random vote, but I thought putting it on myself would make it clear it's not a serious vote. I had the same misunderstanding as Idle, which is why I asked the question in the rules thread. Idle somehow missed it in the rules thread and missed the early posts in this thread. That's a serious case of skimming. But not a scum tell. This statement is wrong and slightly suspicious.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 10:48:12 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Oct 27, 2009 10:48:12 GMT -5
I meant to make mislynch estimate. If there's 6 scum, that means there's 14 town, which gives us 4 ( = (14-6) / 2 ) mislynches. It's likely we have more, but let's win without pushing it, okay?
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 10:50:35 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Oct 27, 2009 10:50:35 GMT -5
Honestly, Pleo, it looks like a play for town cred more than anything.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 10:51:05 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Oct 27, 2009 10:51:05 GMT -5
Vote: Pleonast
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 11:26:33 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Oct 27, 2009 11:26:33 GMT -5
Honestly, Pleo, it looks like a play for town cred more than anything. I agree, but I'll hold off on the vote.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 11:40:44 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Oct 27, 2009 11:40:44 GMT -5
Why?
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 11:49:14 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 27, 2009 11:49:14 GMT -5
I can't answer for hockeyguy, but at the moment I'm not putting a vote down because we have a full week, and not everyone has posted yet, and although I'm apparently notorious for vote-swapping I'd still rather have more information before I jump in. You know. Since someone else has taken care of the page one vote for me.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 12:03:13 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Oct 27, 2009 12:03:13 GMT -5
Because his vote on himself accomplishes nothing unless he toyed with the possibility of not voting. Because Pleo keeps talking about how his vote makes a bold statement, and announces his intentions. Because we've got a week and a half for things to build and logical reasons for voting to sprout up, while Pleo is already casting the stinkeye on everyone, at that point.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 13:21:08 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Oct 27, 2009 13:21:08 GMT -5
No, not why you think his vote makes Pleo look suspicious, but why, given that's what you think, you don't just place your own vote.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 14:25:42 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Oct 27, 2009 14:25:42 GMT -5
Honestly, Pleo, it looks like a play for town cred more than anything. So you're effectively voting for me because I did something pro-Town? Because his vote on himself accomplishes nothing unless he toyed with the possibility of not voting. Obviously not true, since I stated why I was doing it. And got a reaction from doing it. Oh, so now you're saying I did have a reason for doing it. And stated it clearly. Do you want players to state their reasons and intentions or not? Yes, let's not have us talking and voting early when we can do it all later. That's a real stretch. I say why I wanted to do it, and did it. That's called leading by example. I haven't called out anyone yet for not voting at this point. But it sure sounds like you felt some pressure from my actions. Guilty conscience, maybe? vote pedescribe1) For voting for me because I did something ped implies is pro-Town. If we lynch players for pro-Town actions, we're going to lose this game fast. 2) For complaining that I am announcing my intentions and reasons. We gain information and insight by being open with our thoughts and actions. Being closed-lipped only helps scum. 3) For suggesting we wait to do anything. Yes, we have a week plus, but why should we wait? To have anything meaningful to work with in a week, we need players to do things now. 4) For defensive paranoia concerning my general statements about players not voting. This is the weakest reason, since it amounts to hunch (rather than the blatant anti-Towniness of the others), but it's there.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 15:01:13 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 27, 2009 15:01:13 GMT -5
Vote Count
Current Status: No Lynch.
Pleonast (1) Idle Thoughts (1) Special Ed (1) Natlaw(1) pedescribe(1)
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 15:39:12 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 27, 2009 15:39:12 GMT -5
I did consider my vote well. Since I had thought what I thought, I thought it was a very good vote since what I figured at the time was Pleo putting a sticking vote on himself. Let me see if I understand. Idle had a misconception of how the voting worked, he felt that Pleo's action of voting for himself was indicative of an early Scum gambit for Townie credibility, is that correct? And so voted for him based on that. Natlaw thinks that Idle didn't put due consideration into his vote, which was based on the fact that votes under Idle's misconception should be placed only with due consideration and careful thought. Idle maintains that his vote was not casual at all and was placed with careful consideration, albeit in the 5th post of the game. I think I'm following, but I just wanted it clearly stated, because I'm not seeing anything that indicates Scum in any of this. You got it..that's about the size of it.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 15:57:46 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Oct 27, 2009 15:57:46 GMT -5
Ok, that was early in the game that you got me confused, but I got the voting rules down now.
I really haven't seen a good start to a game that wasn't just blind luck on behalf of town, so I'm not sure there is a surefire way to get us off to a good start. I definitely think that voting is a must. I'd rather have everyone with a loosely reasoned vote than no votes at all, as accusations have a tendency to get sparks flying.
For my part, we can skip the usual "should we lynch the lurkers" discussion as I don't really think it leads anywhere. I will assume that anyone not participating at all are booted, and consider those who appear to be just barely participating scummy.
My final point is that I think (maybe that's just me) that we should keep fluff to a bare minimum. Please voice your opinions as clearly and concisely as possible to minimize the read and to allow people to be able to respond to as direct charges as possible.
My base vote is for:
vote Special Ed
For having made posts that seem intended to put someone under suspicion but without risking anything himself.
Also, for being annoying with all the voting. ;-)
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 16:17:21 GMT -5
Post by special on Oct 27, 2009 16:17:21 GMT -5
[snip] My final point is that I think (maybe that's just me) that we should keep fluff to a bare minimum. Please voice your opinions as clearly and concisely as possible to minimize the read and to allow people to be able to respond to as direct charges as possible. My base vote is for: [bleach]vote Special Ed[/bleach] For having made posts that seem intended to put someone under suspicion but without risking anything himself.Also, for being annoying with all the voting. ;-) Italics mine. Your accusation is clear, concise, direct and does minimize the read. I feel, however, that it lacks clear, concise and direct support. Can you specify where I made posts intended to put someone else under suspicion? I'm left assuming that you referring to my obviously fluffy post with many votes, but assuming is never good. Besides, if that's what caused your vote, wouldn't it have been more concise to say you were voting me just for being annoying? Additionally, I disagree with your suggestion that we keep things too brief. I think it is in the discussion that we find Scum. The more we encourage talking, the more likely we are to find Scum. If all we do is respond with clear, concise, and direct accusation, we won't ever discuss anything. Who would make the first post? They've got nothing to discuss. Or are we left discussing procedural issues? I think we need to talk, pressure, even be aggressive at times. Talk about things and talk some more. I know my specialty is over-talking things until I get lynched (I'll try to cut back this game....the over-talking and the being lynched), but I will not completely stop. I think the banter, the pushing, the back and forth provides the Town with information. Maybe not all of it good and useful, but some of it will be, and our job will be to sort it out and find the useful stuff. In the end, it'll be more useful than just staying completely on topic and very short all the time. I think that style plays into Scum's hand too easily.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 16:47:31 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 27, 2009 16:47:31 GMT -5
I really haven't seen a good start to a game that wasn't just blind luck on behalf of town, so I'm not sure there is a surefire way to get us off to a good start. I definitely think that voting is a must. I'd rather have everyone with a loosely reasoned vote than no votes at all, as accusations have a tendency to get sparks flying. I recommend you read the Conspiracy game that just finished up. Boozahol Squid P.I. made a mistake on Day 1 that outed him as Scum and got him lynched. No, there's no surefire way to get us off to a good start, and I'm certainly an advocate of voting every Day even if I can't come up with a good reason, but... Additionally, I disagree with your suggestion that we keep things too brief. I think it is in the discussion that we find Scum. The more we encourage talking, the more likely we are to find Scum. If all we do is respond with clear, concise, and direct accusation, we won't ever discuss anything. Who would make the first post? They've got nothing to discuss. Or are we left discussing procedural issues? I think we need to talk, pressure, even be aggressive at times. Talk about things and talk some more. I know my specialty is over-talking things until I get lynched (I'll try to cut back this game....the over-talking and the being lynched), but I will not completely stop. I think the banter, the pushing, the back and forth provides the Town with information. Maybe not all of it good and useful, but some of it will be, and our job will be to sort it out and find the useful stuff. In the end, it'll be more useful than just staying completely on topic and very short all the time. I think that style plays into Scum's hand too easily. Pretty much everything Ed said here is true and accurate. The more discussion there is, the more information there is, the better it is for Town. Not to mention that one person's "clear and concise" is another person's "WTF does that mean, anyway." So: vote chucara for a post that seems to want to stiffle discussion. There will be no stiffling here.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 16:48:01 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Oct 27, 2009 16:48:01 GMT -5
[...]Your accusation is clear, concise, direct and does minimize the read. I feel, however, that it lacks clear, concise and direct support. Can you specify where I made posts intended to put someone else under suspicion? I'm left assuming that you referring to my obviously fluffy post with many votes, but assuming is never good. Besides, if that's what caused your vote, wouldn't it have been more concise to say you were voting me just for being annoying? Additionally, I disagree with your suggestion that we keep things too brief. I think it is in the discussion that we find Scum. The more we encourage talking, the more likely we are to find Scum. If all we do is respond with clear, concise, and direct accusation, we won't ever discuss anything. Who would make the first post? They've got nothing to discuss. Or are we left discussing procedural issues? I think we need to talk, pressure, even be aggressive at times. Talk about things and talk some more. I know my specialty is over-talking things until I get lynched (I'll try to cut back this game....the over-talking and the being lynched), but I will not completely stop. I think the banter, the pushing, the back and forth provides the Town with information. Maybe not all of it good and useful, but some of it will be, and our job will be to sort it out and find the useful stuff. In the end, it'll be more useful than just staying completely on topic and very short all the time. I think that style plays into Scum's hand too easily. Aside from the long voting post, I meant #60. Yes, I should've posted a quote. This will however be a lot easier when I have something solid to go on, which I admittedly do not have this early in the game. And no, we should not stop talking. I just meant to say that when you have an accusation be concise, allow the "target" to respond and elaborate as needed. What we don't need (but can admittedly make the game more fun) is a lot of jokes and other fluff. Especially on Day one, concise accusations won't be possible. And yes, aggression is absolutely good. It gets people talking, respond, exposes inactive players (a scum tell imo - I've used it every single time (both) I've played scum so far) I am absolutely for being aggressive, which is also why I placed my vote on you so early. It forced you to respond to the accusations, and while I got nothing this time, maybe someone else will be lucky. Begging your pardon, my vote stays for now, however.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 17:22:39 GMT -5
Post by special on Oct 27, 2009 17:22:39 GMT -5
Aside from the long voting post, I meant #60. Yes, I should've posted a quote. Since you didn't provide the quote, allow me to be a little more direct and include it now. (I know it's at the top of the page, but humor me anyway) <font style="font-size: 12px;"> For having made posts that seem intended to put someone under suspicion but without risking anything himself. Also, for being annoying with all the voting. ;-) and you do so in an unclear and indirect way (by not clarifying which post was the basis of your accusation.) I think if you had included my post, you could never have come to the conclusion that I was trying to put someone under suspicion because my post directly states that I didn't find any suspicion in either of them. So, I guess I need to ask you a little more clearly and a little more directly: Aside from the long post, what in post 60 led you to the conclusion that I was attempting to place someone under suspicion? Also, what part of the long post do you see any serious accusations pointed at anyone? I've even clearly placed footnotes detailing my 'inside jokes' (The annoying part, I can understand and appreciate that aspect of your vote.)
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 17:38:17 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Oct 27, 2009 17:38:17 GMT -5
No, not why you think his vote makes Pleo look suspicious, but why, given that's what you think, you don't just place your own vote. is this to ped or hockey? 'cause as near as i can tell ped did vote.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 18:05:38 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Oct 27, 2009 18:05:38 GMT -5
Hey everyone, Well after catching up here is my thoughts so far: If this is a plain-vanilla game, with no power roles and only basic scum, I'd expect about 4.5 scum. Power roles would increase that number and powered scum would decrease. Until we get more information, I'd assume a worst case of 6 scum, with 5 more likely. If we're lucky, there's only 4. There'd only be 3 scum if they are extremely powerful. True, I can not argue with this, after all i have said a few times better to plan for the worst but hope for the best and assumptions are the mother of all f* up's...So if you are going to assume, assume the worst and then find out hopefully it ain't so bad. You are right 3 is probably unlikely, I just have no clue so was just wanting to take a stab in the dark with what it could be, but I do have to admit it is extremly unlikely for there to be only 3. A kinda funny thing is a few games back I remember I did a similar post but did a odds similar to your which was worst case senario, as I said that is just how I tend to have one of my first posts almost every game...speculating the odds is kinda my thing...anyways I actually took major flack for wanting to think worst case senario. Which i still look back at and do the dog tilt head huh, thing...."you mean thinking worst case is not good, are you guys for real"...LOL... Because his vote on himself accomplishes nothing unless he toyed with the possibility of not voting. Because Pleo keeps talking about how his vote makes a bold statement, and announces his intentions. Because we've got a week and a half for things to build and logical reasons for voting to sprout up, while Pleo is already casting the stinkeye on everyone, at that point. Not to stick up for Pleo, since I have no clue about his alignment but Just for my 2 cents worth. I agree some what with assuming at the time he was going to vote someone else, then ok it may not accomplishe anything. So while I tend to be a person who puts alot of thought into the vote and tries to do it, near the middle of the day, that way if anything major comes up I have time to change it, and also gives whom ever time to respond. I do see that some people play differant and want to vote early and vote often. Though voting for your self is a little odd, I do not think for me it is a real tell of anything. What I am hazzy on is how is this casting a stinkeye on every one? I mean he voted himself, not voted or FOS'd everyone. So would not the only one he technically stinkeyed be himself? I mean if you want to say for example you think he is saying "I am scum and though it is day one I give up, lynch me now." Ok I can see that...completly unplausable and unlikely as it is, I can see that, but stinkeye everyone? I just am having a hard time following the train of thought on that one. Maybe I am way off here and I am missing something but that is my thinking right now.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 18:14:45 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Oct 27, 2009 18:14:45 GMT -5
and ed i don't quite follow so help me out like you asked to be.
so if chuc would have voted you just for being annoying that would be semi "understandable" even though you would disagree. but because there is something more than just irritation it merits some further questioning?
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 18:17:10 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Oct 27, 2009 18:17:10 GMT -5
No, not why you think his vote makes Pleo look suspicious, but why, given that's what you think, you don't just place your own vote. is this to ped or hockey? 'cause as near as i can tell ped did vote. To Hockey.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 18:23:04 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Oct 27, 2009 18:23:04 GMT -5
is this to ped or hockey? 'cause as near as i can tell ped did vote. To Hockey. that's the way i read it. it just looked odd with ped's response right after your post.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 18:44:26 GMT -5
Post by Guy Incognito on Oct 27, 2009 18:44:26 GMT -5
I don't think I've been in a game with this much voting on Day 1. At this point, I don't have a pinging feeling enough on anybody to place a vote on anybody else. However, I do like how we can commit to placing a vote.
Vote Guy Incognito[/color]
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 27, 2009 21:13:36 GMT -5
Post by special on Oct 27, 2009 21:13:36 GMT -5
and ed i don't quite follow so help me out like you asked to be. so if chuc would have voted you just for being annoying that would be semi "understandable" even though you would disagree. but because there is something more than just irritation it merits some further questioning? I would understand that he found me annoying. He did state it as his second reason for voting me. I admit that my posts can be annoying to some, so I was conceding that part of his reason for voting me.
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 4:02:42 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Oct 28, 2009 4:02:42 GMT -5
[...] I would understand that he found me annoying. He did state it as his second reason for voting me. I admit that my posts can be annoying to some, so I was conceding that part of his reason for voting me. Actually, the annoying part was only a joke, hence the smiley. I originally voted for you just to get a reaction, there really is no reason to defend much of anything this early in the game. My primary reason for posting is that you appear/appeared to be playing just as I would if I were scum. - Saying something, but without actually saying anything, and without just posting fluff. That being said, I wouldn't even call what I have right now a minor suspicion. But until something better comes up, I'll keep my vote there. (as I don't know where to move it) I also think someone else deserves a little limelight, as this is as much as were going to get from this discussion.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 7:00:55 GMT -5
Post by special on Oct 28, 2009 7:00:55 GMT -5
My primary reason for posting is that you appear/appeared to be playing just as I would if I were scum. - Saying something, but without actually saying anything, and without just posting fluff. I don't put any credence on statements like this. Why on earth would you have a different playing style when you are Scum, and why would you point it out? Isn't the point as Scum to look as Town-like as possible? So, basically, I put the "I do this as Scum/Town/3rd party" in the same category as "Scum wouldn't do what I'm doing"...basically completely worthless. But, I think I understand your point, basically that you see the Scum motivation by posting game content without taking a stand. I respectfully disagree, in that I was taking a stand that I didn't find either player I was commenting on as having any scum motivation in their actions. I also think someone else deserves a little limelight, as this is as much as were going to get from this discussion. This I agree with, though I think it's always tough to find things to talk about Day 1, so any conversation is usually useful conversation if it leads to a discussion about the game.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 7:06:23 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Oct 28, 2009 7:06:23 GMT -5
That being said, I wouldn't even call what I have right now a minor suspicion. But until something better comes up, I'll keep my vote there. (as I don't know where to move it) I also think someone else deserves a little limelight, as this is as much as were going to get from this discussion. What's your opinion of Pleonast's 'I'll vote myself until I switch to a real suspicion' then? Instead of an unvote you could likewise vote yourself (when not in danger of being lynched and will be back before Dusk to move it elsewhere). Your last sentence is my main reason to keep my current vote on Idle, who made a similar statement of 'stop talking about this' (plus an added 'or else you're suspicious' and when I did a vote for it). I agree that my original reason to vote him isn't because 'only scum would have done that' but I think a vote should be placed with more care. If you want to see discussion on something else, bring that else up and stop talking yourself about the topic you don't want to talk about, but telling everyone else not to is anti-town imo. (anti-town isn't pro-scum and pro-town isn't anti-scum disclaimer)
|
|
Chucara
Borogrove
Idleboard's Elite Coder Club
2009 Winner of Best Person in the Universe
Posts: 287
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 8:13:27 GMT -5
Post by Chucara on Oct 28, 2009 8:13:27 GMT -5
What's your opinion of Pleonast's 'I'll vote myself until I switch to a real suspicion' then? Instead of an unvote you could likewise vote yourself (when not in danger of being lynched and will be back before Dusk to move it elsewhere). My opinion is 'meh'. I consider Special Ed the most scummy right now, but this is Day one with a week to go, so it is likely to change. I see no reason to change it to myself. In fact, I'd rather that everyone started voting earlier. Question is: why do you want me to switch my vote? Your last sentence is my main reason to keep my current vote on Idle, who made a similar statement of 'stop talking about this' (plus an added 'or else you're suspicious' and when I did a vote for it). I agree that my original reason to vote him isn't because 'only scum would have done that' but I think a vote should be placed with more care. If you want to see discussion on something else, bring that else up and stop talking yourself about the topic you don't want to talk about, but telling everyone else not to is anti-town imo. (anti-town isn't pro-scum and pro-town isn't anti-scum disclaimer) I'm not trying to stifle discussion, I'm trying to get someone else than me and Ed into it. Talk about it all you want - I just don't see what else there is. Most of the discussion started from my loosely reasoned vote. Sister Coyote: Do you honestly think that I'm trying to stifle discussion? I've been doing nothing but trying to get things going.
|
|
|
Day 1
Oct 28, 2009 10:25:35 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 28, 2009 10:25:35 GMT -5
Sister Coyote: Do you honestly think that I'm trying to stifle discussion? I've been doing nothing but trying to get things going. You've said it's better for us to be clear and concise -- so to say as little as possible to get our points across. I agree that clear is critical, especially for Town, but I think that saying as little as possible is better for Scum (and any PFK we might have) than it is for Town. The more conversation we have, the more information is on the table, the better for Town. The less someone says, the less chance that they're going to be caught in an inconsistency or a lie (and yes, I still subscribe to lynch all liars, though I know there's disagreement on this point) or that they're going to slip up and say something they shouldn't. Also, I also think someone else deserves a little limelight, as this is as much as were going to get from this discussion. This certainly looks like a form of stifling to me: "Okay, we're done here, move on citizens, move on." Well, maybe you and Ed are done here, but that doesn't mean there isn't more to be gained from the discussion of Ed and Ed's vote, or your vote on Ed based on Ed's vote or style or whatever. There is always something more to be gained from a discussion of a certain point -- including any tangents a particular discussion might wander off on to. Now, I'll admit I'm generally suspicious when two or more people seem to be dominating the discussion on a particular Day -- especially when there's a low signal-to-noise ratio (as with Ed and Meeko in the Conspiracy game), and for much the same reason I don't like it when someone suggests a particular topic is "done."
|
|