In post 37, Yosarian2 wrote:Seriously; voting on gut is fine if that's the best you can do, but if you actually have a reason for thinking person X is scum, it's usually best to say it. You can lead with a vote and explain later to get better reactions if you want, but if you have reasons, you should share them at some point. You might convince other people, or there might be some huge hole in your logic that someone else can point out.
Just remember that half the reason of making a case on someone is the chance that you might be wrong, and if you are, you want someone to explain to you why you are wrong. It's not a debating club; if you "win the debate" but lynch a town it doesn't help you.
This x10,000!
In post 28, gorckat wrote:I agree with Fonz here.
If I were to take the time to elaborate every single point in my agreement, that wouldn't increase signal and would be a pain in the ass to read.
The problem is that people think "case" and think "20 pages of elaboration" when it does NOT have to be that way. Sometimes, a point NEEDS elaboration to make any sense. Sometimes, you just SEE something that is scummy as fuck, but it's so subtle that you NEED to explain it, especially when playing against good players.
For example, I've felt the need to do big, logic-based cases on players like mith and VP Baltar and been proven right, because they're not terrible, and you can't explain their scumminess by going, "He's late on the wagons!" or whatever. They're good enough not to do shit like that.
In post 43, Yosarian2 wrote:
That's really not true.
I can't tell you how many times that I had a town gut read on someone for most of the game, but I voted them anyway, because logic dictated that they had to be scum. Usually logic trumps gut.
Well, I wouldn't say "usually," but sometimes, logic trumps gut. And sometimes, gut trumps logic. Either way, if you don't examine the logic by putting the case out there, you can never examine the logic's validity.
In post 51, Yosarian2 wrote:In post 50, Timeater wrote:Logic is subjective when it comes to interpreting the actions of other individuals
Well, logic is objective; it's just that logic always relies on assumptions, by definition, and the assumptions can always be wrong. When someone is logically scumhunting always make sure you agree with their assumptions before you follow them.
Also this.
I basically wholeheartedly disagree with everyone who says cases are scummy and/or anti-town. Cases are NECESSARY and IMPORTANT parts of the game, but should be used sparingly, and when warranted. Just because some people start spam fights with cases does not mean that cases are inherently spammy or anti-town.