In post 836, xRECKONERx wrote:#1) Best scum team isn't being removed. It's just that Don Corleone is no longer just an individual award.
#2) The idea behind Don Corleone not being Body of Work is sort of a "fool me once" conundrum. If someone gets away with a flawless scum game once, then by all accounts, they shouldn't get away with it again. If someone is consistently killed as town Night 1 due to their prowess as a town player, that's something that can at least partially be quantified. If someone is consistently lynched Day 1 because they're good at playing scum and nobody can trust them... well, that really shouldn't reflect poorly, should it? Great scum play should include some moonshots and "one-in-a-million" gambits. We feel that, unlike town play, scum play necessitates some very unique manuevering which cannot be judged well over the course of a body of work.
#3) The easiest way to delineate between why scum and town have to be treated separately is this: townplay allows for a sort of consistent algorithm or method to discerning scum play. If you get 100 people together and go, "pick scum out in this game", no matter how many people are wrong, at least one is going to be right (statistically). Town play has a lot of guessing involved, and though it's educated guessing, it's still guessing, in the end. EVERY GAME that is played, someone called scum correctly, at some point. It's a very rare outlier for there to be no scum called correctly. Now, with scum play, there's no "algorithm" or "method" -- because the SECOND a scum technique is used for a win, it becomes more dangerous to pull off again. So we felt that scum should be rewarded for pulling off hail mary, shot-in-the-dark plays -- and those can really only reliably occur once in a while, certainly not more than a couple times per year. People felt hamstringed by the "body of work" qualifier to nominate for scum games.
I will say this: we are working, backstage, on actual criteria/rubric sheets for each award in order to make our exact qualifications feel more...robust. I totally understand that right now, it can feel very one-sided. We don't want that. We want to provide the least subjective criteria possible so people fully understand what goes into each award. I feel like, once those rubricks are made available, the conversations here will mostly center around "How can we improve this rubric?" rather than "Why don't we have an award for XXXXXX?". Because I feel like, in the end, we have most of our bases covered.
If you're great at playing scum and you still somehow manage to get lynched Day 1 that's because you're not perceived as good enough, if you're town, to be worth keeping alive ain the face of that risk and don't deserve any sort of nomination on account of that very scum-play relevant failing.
Who gets consistently lynched D1 because no one can trust them? Who feels hamstringed by not being able to repeat plays as scum?
I don't understand this reasoning. I further will go on the record as saying that if someone feels like they're consistently lynched day 1 as scum because they're scary it's because they're not as a rule showing themselves to be of enough value to town to keep alive in spite of that: which is something scum should be able to do. So yeah, that's failing at being a solid scum player and we shouldn't change the rules to enable people who can't play well under heavy scrutiny?
Like I played on an alt as scum for 2 games and the 'unknown alt' portion was about as hard as surviving a weekend at the holiday inn. This should be considered part of the deal.
I also virtually disagree with every single rubric criteria, for the record.