In post 3156, May wrote:
I'm a little confused by the discourse around "you're playing so badly you're playing for the other team if you're town, so I think you're scum"
Technically if you BoPed Jon Doe to correctly read all slots every time he rolls town and concluded he must be scum, and Jon Doe is in fact town performing more poorly than usual, when you reconcile your understanding of Jon Doe's capabilities with his performance and actions that came you are determining "he would be playing against the town win condition to lim all those townies and must be playing the scum win condition".
Of course in any real case, if would make more sense to have lower confidence that Jon Doe is as strong a player as you think e is relative to your confidence that Jon Doe would play by the rules. It would be kind of rude and unnecessary to say that Jon Doe loses games on purposes more often than he fails to play as well as his reputation.
So I think it kind of hinges on to what extent "you must be throwing it you're town" is abstract rhetoric that's not showing which "if" in your "if then else" is softest faithfully, for dramatic flair, or if it's interpreted as like, for real this players is planning to disappoint the moderator with what is being done to this game if they are town.
Hypershock's comments in f3 seemed more of a dramatic way of putting "playing badly" but thinking about this much gets me to understanding the grievance. I think it's miscomm
"If you are town, your play is shit"
Sorry, if you correctly understood, this is just bog standard mafia for more than a decade and I think it's infeasible to structure mafia such that it does not involve politely stated versions of that argument. I wish it was but I don't think you can.
would you rather have an elimination controlled by town and wolves, or an elimination controlled solely by town?
Yeah, a 2shot vig that just shoots the lowest post counts d1 and d2 or something is a huge asset. Even if the vig's choices are "random", that's a lot better than letting scum control the kill, who are guaranteed to kill town and will fish for a PR.
Town lims are more or less random anyways, particularly early in the game
neap is very strong, but banning it here and then fakeclaiming it is kinda too obvious. if banning neap as the scum team, I'd probably just have gone for straight VT claims
In post 3156, May wrote:
I'm a little confused by the discourse around "you're playing so badly you're playing for the other team if you're town, so I think you're scum"
Technically if you BoPed Jon Doe to correctly read all slots every time he rolls town and concluded he must be scum, and Jon Doe is in fact town performing more poorly than usual, when you reconcile your understanding of Jon Doe's capabilities with his performance and actions that came you are determining "he would be playing against the town win condition to lim all those townies and must be playing the scum win condition".
Of course in any real case, if would make more sense to have lower confidence that Jon Doe is as strong a player as you think e is relative to your confidence that Jon Doe would play by the rules. It would be kind of rude and unnecessary to say that Jon Doe loses games on purposes more often than he fails to play as well as his reputation.
So I think it kind of hinges on to what extent "you must be throwing it you're town" is abstract rhetoric that's not showing which "if" in your "if then else" is softest faithfully, for dramatic flair, or if it's interpreted as like, for real this players is planning to disappoint the moderator with what is being done to this game if they are town.
Hypershock's comments in f3 seemed more of a dramatic way of putting "playing badly" but thinking about this much gets me to understanding the grievance. I think it's miscomm
"If you are town, your play is shit"
Sorry, if you correctly understood, this is just bog standard mafia for more than a decade and I think it's infeasible to structure mafia such that it does not involve politely stated versions of that argument. I wish it was but I don't think you can.
So accusing players of breaking rules is more accepted than telling them they are bad.
Got it. Don't talk with me.
Wizard-Mercenary
You need replacement/players ASAP? PM me! I almost always accept.
In post 3192, Tangion wrote:
there was a good chance i would have been limed if i wasnt outed/claimed as i was one of the leading wagons that day if i remember right.
That's was fire and C-worl with enchant because of annoyance that fire is not moving faster. So if I vote fire then we are fine more than likely
In post 3189, LoveKilling wrote:
I think this game was easily solved/winnable if I don't out tangion, that's my bad but gg everyone.
Tbh i dont think it was your fault, i think it was quite reasonable imo and even if the main person pushing it was scum I mean I thought it would be fine as well. I also should've tried to do Hypershock before C-worl but i guess i thought id live till elo to get hypershock in case it wasnt c-worl? At least i was less likely to vote on enchant, but i kept my vote on c worl which was a mistake ig
In post 3189, LoveKilling wrote:
I think this game was easily solved/winnable if I don't out tangion, that's my bad but gg everyone.
its not just on you other members of town including me told you it was our best option you outing me is not just on you
I outed you out of fear you were going to die. If I don't do that then we kill fire and you can keep me alive while I just sit as a confirmed
It might have been harder to lim fire like that though. If town manages to lim fire without revealing the doc, the game does look better for sure. But it was still very winnable in either case, and tangion would probably have been wagoned sooner rather than later anyways and be forced to claim.
![:]](./images/smilies/icon_smiling.png "Cheerful Smile")
Love 
