Titus Academy: Article 1 - Town Cohesion

[MathBlade]

Meh.

I don't like this document.

The Town cohesion bit I do not understand flatout.

It pretty much reads "Do whatever the loudest" people want. That isn't cooperation IMHO. That is bullying dissenting voices into submission.

[MathBlade]

That has pretty much become the standard of MS anyway.

You have to scream pull and kick to get anything even read and even more to be listened to.

I have tried lemonade numerous times and said I will vote in these X people and told I am not flexible enough when X+1 is a townread by maths.

[MathBlade]

yeah actually, if town would just never fakeclaim at all that'd be great

Agreed.

[MathBlade]

I have only done it once but it was with the cooperation/knowledge of the person claiming the role and in the scum PT the deception worked.

[MathBlade]

Meh.

I don't like this document.

The Town cohesion bit I do not understand flatout.

It pretty much reads "Do whatever the loudest" people want. That isn't cooperation IMHO. That is bullying dissenting voices into submission.

I'm honestly not sure I see how you could interpret it that way. Could you elaborate?

Player A and B are loud and claim a scumread on player C.
Player D has an unorthodox read on player E as scum.

Player A and B say "work with the town or we lynch you because A and B think E is town"
Player A and B accuse player D of not working with them because they don't want to lynch player C because they townread player C. Player A and B get hostile.

Player A and B threaten to lynch player D because they disagree saying that "They must be mad etc."

Meanwhile C is Town and then just disagrees with A and B and D whenever they get online.
A and B essentially are the "loudest voices" and if everyone else doesn't go along they get the stink eye.

[MathBlade]

This pretty much says sheep whoever is loudest and feels wrong.

[MathBlade]

Honestly look at Gistou or Shadowrun.

I just got in the townblock and stayed there.

Anyone who disagreed with FA was promptly lynched or ignored. I have yet to see a townblock game go well besides in memory and that I fucked up.

[MathBlade]

Player A and B are loud and claim a scumread on player C.
Player D has an unorthodox read on player E as scum.

Player A and B say "work with the town or we lynch you because A and B think E is town"
Player A and B accuse player D of not working with them because they don't want to lynch player C because they townread player C. Player A and B get hostile.

Player A and B threaten to lynch player D because they disagree saying that "They must be mad etc."

Meanwhile C is Town and then just disagrees with A and B and D whenever they get online.
A and B essentially are the "loudest voices" and if everyone else doesn't go along they get the stink eye.

Except in the scenario you've just described, A and B are disregarding what she said on her 4th point.

The only time it would go down as you've described, assuming we were using the criteria Titus laid out, is if D is a legitimate disruption to the town and are being policy lynched, as mentioned in point 5 (which is a strategy I don't really agree with in most cases).

The solution, as I see it, is that A and B should be having a dialogue with D about all of their respective reads as they try to reach a consensus (or, at least, a better understanding of each other). Not to mention, you are leaving out the rest of the town's input. Why are A and B such powerhouses that every other member of the town must go along with them or risk being lynched/labeled incompetent? And again, if that's happening, then the town should be questioning A and B anyway, because if they are disregarding any alternative opinions, it means they are just operating in an echo chamber and probably doing a poor job of proper scumhunting.

And, I mean, we're not even discussing here whether any of the claims presented by A, B, or D have any logical merit, as well as whether the rest of the town is being swayed by any of these arguments. I realize it's just a hypothetical scenario, but it still just seems like it's a gross oversimplification.

Honestly look at Gistou or Shadowrun.

I just got in the townblock and stayed there.

Anyone who disagreed with FA was promptly lynched or ignored. I have yet to see a townblock game go well besides in memory and that I fucked up.

That sounds like a scenario where the group has become

too

cohesive and has succumb to groupthink. The whole point is for a plurality of opinions and an openness to different ideas in order to find the best solutions.

Maybe I am not explaining it well enough.
The merits aren't discussed or if they are they are just "No you suck." And at best a sentence or two reply that is on point and the rest is a 2-3 page rant about being a distraction because you disagree. And then I have to be louder to be heard and it starts a vicious cycle in which then people are right loudest voices take over and are dissenting.

OR I can take the insults any time I disagree and just not get a single question answered.
Take 1900 for example. I incorrectly scumread Transcend. Not a single person addressed the case on him for three days. Titus begged to vig me because I didn't see a nonexistent case. :/ Honestly if someone had tried that game instead of just "No. I don't lynch Transcend D1 ever. That game could have gone different."

Blindly sleeping because voices are loud is horrible to me and I cannot understand it.

[MathBlade]

Gistou was pretty bad, and town were made pretty lucky from night actions since the 2 scumteams cross-killed each other...for thinking the people they were killing were town.

Town _should_ have lost Gistou I think.

Honestly I think I would have coasted were it not for me dying the only way I could :/

But it was because I used what Town gave me. :/

Like I just don't understand the points. I am trying them but to be frank I don't get them and I don't see how turning off trying makes me a better Town player.