Lynching someone because they're playing badly is a form of policy lynch. I don't really care what you call it, though.
Alright, let's use this definition of policy lynch. I wanted a policy lynch. Now what? There's still no reason to allow bad play. I am allowed to attack a player's case with the threat of a lynch, as that case is a threat to the Town, just the same. I don't care if you're Town or scum, having a bad case is not okay. The same goes for Jimgirl up there. At least you're trying now. Finally! All I wanted was a brain.
But, I'm assuming you don't really care about that. I'm thinking big picture here, aren't I? Let's stick with the little picture. Little picture (okay, maybe slightly smaller picture) is this: She isn't lynched, but she doesn't learn. She is kept alive until some Day in the future, where people will think "Hey, why didn't we lynch her Day 1 again?" And then she'll be lynched. Then, she'll have accomplished nothing, we'll have lost a Day later in the game, where Days are far more important, and she'll have learned her lesson way later.
The littler picture is that I might be wrong, and I'd rather not end up doubting myself later, so Today is a great Day to remove both a player that is making a poor case and appearing scummy to everyone.
The littlest picture is that I'm trying to get her to do something productive Today. If she doesn't, then she gets lynched, regardless of how town I believe her to be.
This is ridiculous. To avoid wasting a lynch on Griffionday, you are going to waste a lynch on Griffionday. Days aren't really "more important" later in the game, incidentally. It can be easier to hit scum during later days due to more information, but it's better to hit scum as early as possible. Because if you lynch scum day one it reduces the mafia's rolepower in the night throughout the entire game, and it also gives you the possibility of associative tells on all future days. Thus it is madness to deliberately waste the day one lynch on someone you believe to be town.
Alright, I want to make one point clear. Days are BY DESIGN more important later in the game. A Day that is lylo is INFINITELY more important than Day 1. I can name several reasons why this is so, if you want to argue.
Now that that's been cleared up, I'll disagree with your last point. It is not madness to deliberately waste a Day 1 lynch. As proof, Org was an example of a great policy lynch. Why? Because he was often times Town that screwed around so much that he eventually lynched during lylo in just about every game. Or he was scum and never lynched. Org was a drain on the Town, and he was useless.
As such, the point in this one is that while I believe Griffionday to be Town, many people will not. And if I'm dead, I'm not going to be there to prevent her lynching. So, I'd much rather I simply threatened her to do better. That way, I don't have to defend her. She'll hopefully be able to do it herself. And she'll hopefully bring about much better cases.
As for voting a lurker... really? Man, YOU'RE a lurker. Your posts are below average in just about all the important aspects. If it makes you feel better, I'll certainly vote you. I've got no problem with that. I have never not had a point to voting as I do, but voting someone for lurking would be stupidly lame. I'd rather they got modkilled. Which is simply a better option.
I haven't been playing too well this game, mainly due to access issues. But you know what? I think I've contributed more to the town than you have. Because voting for people I think are scum. Fuck, I'd say the same about Griffionday. Any attempt to find scum is better than what you are doing.
Oh, really? I just prevented a lynch on a player I didn't want lynched, and hopefully made Griffionday to play better. What have you done again? Voted someone you think was scum? Oh boy, I'm doing that too. So, I can say for certain that I'm still doing more than you.
Again, you're wrong. If a player plays better, then I have done more than enough, regardless of what you think. Not only that, but your point is flawed in that according to your very definition, I have done, at the very least, AT LEAST AS GOOD AS YOU. Outlogicked? Good, then we're even for the policy lynch garbage you're trying to pin to me. See how this doesn't get anywhere? No, I doubt you do.
Now for the third point... The easiest answer is that there isn't enough evidence to do that. The best answer is that there isn't enough GOOD evidence to do it. I can certainly bring up your shoddy posting, contribution, understanding, and overall play, but you'll coast by making minimal effort until at least Tomorrow, posting things such as "PFP busy cant answrr" which I can't verify or counter, kill me Tonight, and then pretend nothing happened. Or WIFOM it. Or just make the Town retarded, as usual.
I have never seen you take such a ridiculously defeatist attitude before. If you think I'm scum who will kill you tonight then you should be pushing to lynch me as hard as possible. Unless somehow lynching a town player will allow the others players in the game to lynch me??
Oh my God, no you did not.
This game is the entire reason why I do not believe in the Town. That game was handed to them. On a silver platter. And they screwed it up.
Because of that, I never fully trusted the Town to do a single thing. So, I do not want to see bad play happening right in front of me. Because of this, I have no doubt in your ability to mentally retard the Town. Don't even try.
Also, I was busy on a vacation until recently. I even mentioned it in the post you freaked out over.
I doubt I have the evidence to lynch the two of you. Leafsnail maybe, but I don't have the resources to do that right now. You I can deal with later.
Those resources happened to be time. Plus, you were pretty uneventful until recently, and didn't need as much evidence to point out how terrible you were playing. Now, you're trying, and I applaud that.
The point is that I'd rather I fixed a problem we're having now that will continue to reoccur while I'm still alive to do it. I used to think this game was winnable by yourself. But it's not. No matter what team, alignment, or role you have in a game, you need to rely on other players. The players I need to rely on just happen to be the Town. And if they can't shape up their actions, then I wasn't going to win with flawless arguments anyway.
You could try leading by example, eg by voting for someone you think is a mafia member.
Honestly, your posts are baffling me. It feels exactly like something you would write in the mafia chat. "Griffionday is making bad arguments, seems like a good mislynch candidate!"
I could also tell them what they're doing wrong, directly. That seems to work better, and is actually LESS scummy than being indirect about it.
Now, this second part, I'm going to need explained to me.
You're saying that my posts are something I would write into mafiachat (Just an fyi, I would never, ever write that, because that's nothing like me, but let's assume the message is similar [I'd never write that same message either, but again, assume]) However, I'm telling everyone... in the thread, mind you... that Griffionday is playing poorly, and would make a good mislynch candidate. I then, in the thread, tell everyone that I don't believe Griffionday is scum. All while telling Griffionday what he should do to make himself look better. In the thread.
Because, that argument, right there, doesn't make any sense for a scum to do. I don't know where you might think that this would make good scumplay, but it wouldn't. This would make me the worst scum player that had ever existed. Because not only am I telling everyone he's a good mislynch target, I'm also telling him how to play better, so that he doesn't get mislynched later. I just... How do you guys even think of these things? How do you conclude people are scum without thinking like a scum? Where would you ever conclude that this would be a scum play to make?
If the answer to any of these isn't some sort of frozen over Hell, then I question your ability to properly find scum. ... But then again, I'm like some sort of WIFOM god, so I guess I can't even bother with that rationale... Curse my lack of foresight! I can't help that I play like scum regardless of my alignment, but oh well. I'm fine with being right this time.
Wuba (and Jim):
Wuba: While I think I get your points on Jim, just so I'm clear, please list your top three or so scum picks in order.
Jim, Leafsnail. I don't have a third at the moment. It'd be silly to think too far ahead, anyway.
Also, do you actually get my points? Because I don't think I can just take your word for that. If you did, you'd at least implore Jim to try harder, regardless of whether you believe he's scum or not.
Let me see if I get this straight- this post is where it clicked for me. The post prior of yours I was about ready to vote you because your lead-in was bananas.
Basically, you suspect Jim because he, in your opinion:
RVed Ranger then pushed a weak case
Didn't do anything else
Voted over you for a bad reason
When pressed on the vote, gave a poor rationalization
Am I correct?
Those are, indeed, my main points. However, I'd change the second one to be about that he is voting me with bad reasoning. The technicalities are stupid to point out, so I'll just let it go.
Author
Topic: The Lonely Prince: He Who Shall Serve (Read 193249 times)