Lets talk a bout sheeping.

[LicketyQuickety]

Simply put, for players who are by and large, both articulate and have consistently good reads I have a suggestion on how to pressure them. Encourage and follow their reads. Eventually if everyone follows the people who are most likely to have the best reads and they are wrong too many time, you lynch them. I admit this has more practical value for large games. So it could play out like this: Day 1 everyone plays like they would normally play following their own reads and voting for their prefered lynch. Day Two adopt a follow the leader approach where the leader is by and large the errr... leader. The leader dictates who gets pressure, what players should be scrutinized and ultimately, when enough discussion has transpired, who to lynch that day. If the read was good and the player who was lynched is Scum, then you leave it up to that same player to play the leader role once again on day 3. If the leaders resulting actions lead to a miss-lynch, there is a new leader who is chosen who has statistically had good reads and got the correct read on the miss-lynched player. If the day Two leader sheeps the Day 3 leader and there is another miss-lynch then you lynch the day 2 leader. This process continues until the game is over. Thoughts?

I don't understand why sheeping is traditionally a weak play. Can someone explain this please?

[LicketyQuickety]

Obviously PR complicate things a little.

[LicketyQuickety]

Burden of Proficiency

also, this method would affect the good player's ability to get reads, because everyone is acting the same, everyone is sheeping.

it's kind of like being an innocent child or a mason; when I was a mason my reads were shit. being in a position like that does weird things to your head and your ability to scumhunt.

It can affect a Towns leaders ability to get accurate reads and it can bolster the ability for the leader to get reads. Its all on individual basis. Players will gain a reputation for if they want to be sheeped or not. No, not everyone will be sheeping and that is where the art in discovering who the scum are.

It does not make everyone feel uneasy being in that position, it could very well do the opposite.

[LicketyQuickety]

This is never going to work barring a setup that revolves around it.

Even for the best players, reads change over time simply because everyone has their own sets of beliefs and reactions that they use to judge others. Noone here is in the 90th percentile for catching scum across all of their games and even then it begs the question of when to sheep them. This leads to a stifled and stale discussion with very little input from individuals once a leader is decided. Sheeping is great. Blindly following people because they can supposedly read the line between town/scum is not. This is more like random lynching but with an emphasis put on more experienced players.

If by change over time, you mean get more accurate over time, I would say that is pretty typical for people who consistently read people well. I bring up this discussion as a discussion topic and to see what people think about it. What is the difference between sheeping a role and sheeping a player? It is largely a game made up of individuals who act according to their possibilities presented to them. There need to be a known theory for how to approach sheeping and that is the discussion. It is actually the complete opposite of random. There is complete direction given to players as opposed to giving a group of people each their individual outlook without consequence. At lynch, >50% of players have to agree. That is by and large a majority of Town agreeing on a Scum lynch with comes from a single observation that a Town player has made on a Scum player that gains momentum through collaboration in some form of at the very least seeing eye to eye for most of the Town players.

[LicketyQuickety]

being in a position like that does weird things to your head and your ability to scumhunt.

People making reads on you generally makes them easier to read.

Is this a serious comment?

[LicketyQuickety]

OK, so clearly some people have issue with Sheeping in at least some senses of the word. I would almost be up for scrapping the idea, except I think there are times when it is not only appropriate, but optimal.

[LicketyQuickety]

I need some context SCH. What post were you reading?

[LicketyQuickety]

Simply put, for players who are by and large, both articulate and have consistently good reads I have a suggestion on how to pressure them. Encourage and follow their reads. Eventually if everyone follows the people who are most likely to have the best reads and they are wrong too many time, you lynch them. I admit this has more practical value for large games. So it could play out like this: Day 1 everyone plays like they would normally play following their own reads and voting for their prefered lynch. Day Two adopt a follow the leader approach where the leader is by and large the errr... leader. The leader dictates who gets pressure, what players should be scrutinized and ultimately, when enough discussion has transpired, who to lynch that day. If the read was good and the player who was lynched is Scum, then you leave it up to that same player to play the leader role once again on day 3. If the leaders resulting actions lead to a miss-lynch, there is a new leader who is chosen who has statistically had good reads and got the correct read on the miss-lynched player. If the day Two leader sheeps the Day 3 leader and there is another miss-lynch then you lynch the day 2 leader. This process continues until the game is over. Thoughts?

I don't understand why sheeping is traditionally a weak play. Can someone explain this please?

This is all so much easier than actually thinking!

It's fine to follow a 'leader' if your own legwork leads you to also suspect the player they are after, but following a leader because they ought to be right more often than not is just lazy.

With all do respect, it doesn't matter at all whether it is lazy or not. All that matters is if it works or not, because that is the bottom line.

[LicketyQuickety]

I'm not running for election. Thanks tho!