So, we are one short for shortening?
Pro: Toaster, IronyOwl, Imiknorris, Bookthras
Absent: Zrk2
Against: Dariush, Jim, GG, Shakerag
I'm not surprised by Dariush or Zrk2, of course, and Shake has always been a bit lurky, but the other two are... odd. First, they are both courageous players, I'd expect them to actually "oppose shorten" if they thought it was unwise rather than let it linger or pass the buck. That speaks to a certain reluctance to stick one's neck out. If you think it's a bad idea, but you don't oppose it, you're being shifty and scummy.
Let's look a bit closer at GG's recent comments:
Meph: Does shortening multiple days in a row increase the danger?
Assuming it doesn't, I'd be fine shortening. I also think I actually already asked that, but don't remember an answer if I got one.
Meph: Does shortening multiple days in a row increase the danger?
The less you rest the further ahead you get but the more tired you will be.
GG said "assuming shortening multiple days in a row doesn't increase the danger, I'd be fine". Meph reply does not indicate there's any cumulative fatigue, but how tired you are is only a function of how long you rested (that phase, implied). But GG not only didn't shorten, but proceeded to go back on his statement and accused me for proposing the shorten:
I think his "shorten twice in a row" strategy is terrible, and far more likely to get people caught than a single insta-shorten.
Note this is
after Meph's reply. There is absolutely no indication in any of Meph's posts that it would be far more likely to get people caught. Worse, he thinks shortening two days in a row is scummy... what was his original suggestion? That we insta-shortened today, right after shortening yesterday. The very thing he now thinks is scummy, but with even less rest, and a nolynch on top. It's like he's trying hard to get people caught.
GG, answer these please:
a) Meph implied, in reply to your question, that fatigue is only linked to extent rested on that day; with that in mind, how do you justify asking for an insta-shorten? and why didn't you follow through with your original "I'd be fine with it"? Or if you disagree with that interpretation, then justify your own interpretation, with quotes, that support an insta-shorten as safe.
b) You now say "shortening two days in a row" is scummy. What were you trying to do
here? It says, right after the D3 shorten "If we have a night without a night kill, we agree to do an insta-shorten no-lynch." Isn't that shortening two days in a row? Didn't you say that was far more likely to get people caught?
But that's not all that's been going on. See this:
Bookthras When you post, it looks like your trying so hard. But then you always seem to go for the easy lynch targets, don't you? And now you've gone silent. Maybe it's just my gut, at this point, but something seems incredibly off about your play in this game.
I don't mind if he votes me, but it was based on a lie, so I challenged it. His answer: "It was a got feeling, and looking back it doesn't really bear out."
[1] In other words, a lie, or at least an admission there was no basis for his statement. When further contested, he added:
My vote is on Bookthras mostly for pressure, but also to see if anyone followed it. [...] I still think Books opposition to an instashorten nolynch is suspect. He's not even arguing against it on merits. I still support the idea. Meanwhile, I think his "shorten twice in a row" strategy is terrible, and far more likely to get people caught than a single insta-shorten.
So... for pressure? Pressure to do what? No, you didn't vote me for pressure, you voted me based on a lie, and followed up with another lie (or at least unsupported by Meph) that shortening D4 was "likely to get more people caught", even after making that very same proposal yourself.
The other lie, that I've not objected "on merits" to the nolynch. Of course I have, multiple times, and come down to this Meph quote:
The whole idea behind leaving someone behind is for them to slow down your chasers so the rest of you escape. If you decide not to leave anyone behind, you are more likely to get a bunch of you caught. At least, that's what's happened so far during this escape.
I didn't make this up. Yet you continue to push for the idea that Meph said is most likely to get "a bunch" of people captured. You think I haven't argued against it on merits? How about
this post? Or several others?
In short, you lied, several times, advocated actions that you yourself consider more likely to get people caught, and lack the balls to either follow though on your "I'd be fine with it if not cumulative" statement, or to object to the shorten if you actually believe it unwise.
GG said (in two posts, but quoted together for brevity):
What I'd really like to do is spend a longer time resting today, and, if we go another night without a kill, do the no-lynch insta-shorten tomorrow.
And personally I still see the insta-shorten as the best way to avoid the fallout from not lynching someone.
a) do you think extending to do nothing is something Meph would encourage?
b) on what do you base the speculation that "insta-shorten" would avoid the fallout from nolynching? Nolynching means captors get to you faster (no one left behind to block them); insta-shorten means no rest, so we will lose people from fatigue. This will likely result in
more people getting captured, not less. After all, another Meph quote:
Meph, if we take too short of a rest break, will the fatigue from continued running affect our escape chances? That seems likely, as you are stopping to rest for a reason.
How do you reconcile the above with your notion that not resting would "avoid the fallout"?
But let's leave that aside, and see if we can deduce something else from the situation. Let's assume for the moment that Dariush was lying about he being the only killer, with a two-shot in the entire game.
N2, we lynched a dopp who went willingly and ran in the expected "happy medium" length of rest time. We lost Powder Miner.
N3, we lynched a dopp who went willingly and ran a few hours ahead of the expected length of rest time. We lost no one.
If we wait until deadline and run, we'll probably lose one person. It'd be unfortunate, but consistent with N1/N2 and the standard attrition rate in these games. If we shorten, we may again lose no one. That'd be great. If we're too tired, we may lose one person to the standard "capture" kill or fatigue, but we'd be in the same situation as if we hadn't shortened.
The
only case where shortening is worse is if we think it'd get "a bunch" of people captured (like, say, a nolynch). Is there any reason to think so? I see none, none supported by Meph quotes, and none supported by flavour or experience. So why not try to shorten?
Jim, Shakerag: have the balls to either shorten or oppose the shorten.