In post 212, Onion Bubs wrote:I hope you don't mind me using that format ChannelDelibird. It looks like a really good way to format a post where you talk about several different things but you want to avoid scaring everyone with a great wall of text.
I personally like text walls, but don't mind it when people spoiler stuff to make it easier on the eyes either.
Just make sure that anything really important isn't spoilered, so we'll see it every time we re-read or skim the thread, and you're golden!
![:]](./images/smilies/icon_smiling.png "Cheerful Smile")
In post 212, Onion Bubs wrote:
I like the sentiment that helpful stuff should be encouraged and harmful stuff should be discouraged, but it would be more helpful if you were a bit more specific about how Derangement and I are helping the town.
I'd rather Onion use his time trying to hunt scum, and not explaining the things that most people seem to agree on, unless it is to add something no one else pointed out yet.
Why do you want to hear more about why he thinks either of us is being helpful?
In post 212, Onion Bubs wrote:
In post 133, Derangement wrote:Okay, so I did some background reading.
A skim of several of Tripod's games tells me that he would definitely do stuff like this as town.
As scum, I've also seen him do some risky things, so it's not as clear cut as I'd hoped.
Are you saying that, if Untrod Tripod's previous town games showed him playing more cautiously, then you would've been dead certain that he is scum? Or that if his scum games showed him playing more cautiously, then you would've decided that he must be townie in this one?
That'd be silly of me to assume.
Ill only be certain of someone's alignment if they scum-claim, if they fail to do something that'd instantly give one of the factions a win, or when Word of Mod reveals it.
That doesn't mean I won't see certain actions as more likely to come from scum, and others more likely to come from town, and weight my reads accordingly.
What made you imply full certainty in your question?
In post 212, Onion Bubs wrote:
Even if you do manage to spot a pattern where they exhibit one particular behaviour only as town or something like that, how do you know that the game you're currently in with them isn't the game where they (consciously or otherwise) break the pattern?
I
don't
know.
Which is why I use meta as a gauge for how suspicious I should initially be, just like I do with a bunch of other unreliable stuff like activity, mood, or even gut.
I then go and look into what everyone's doing, and try to figure out why they're doing it.
I'll look closer at people whom I suspect the most, unless I happen to have enough free time to be super thorough with everyone.
My vote has two uses: figuring out who is or isn't scum (by forcing people to react to being one step closer to a lynch), and lynching those that I think are scum.
If I do not make it obvious why I'm voting someone, then that is because either:
- I think that sharing my reasons
at that time
would alert scum to something that I'd rather they remain oblivious of, so they can keep playing poorly;
- I'm more interested in determining someone's alignment than I am in convincing everyone else of my current read on them;
- I had already voted for this person before, and don't have anything new to add about them. My vote is probably due to a changed read on someone else.
Similarly, if I unvote someone without much fanfare (which will be a large majority of the time), that means I'm still considering, to some degree, that they might be scum after all.
Unless I have an
Eureka!
moment where one of my scum reads does a full 180°, or a town read becomes significantly stronger, I'd rather let each player defend themselves instead.
Your friendly neighbourhood Derangement, or Dee for short.
May contain traces of nuts.
