ga7 wrote:This has nothing to do with a random lynch. I don't think most of the people who voted had that particular argument that you seem to refer a lot to in mind when they did so. Whatever you say is subject to interpretation, and now you claim the only valid argument against you is that you don't want to get lynched? What kind of BS is that? What about the backtracking and grasping at straws you did so far? To me it looks like the further the day went the deeper you dug your own hole, so don't blame mob mentality if some people find your actions suspicious.
The thing is, most people who have their vote on me, voted that way right after Skoff said, "hurry it up", and 5th said that he would go to me based on 5th's law. Then a handful of people just basically agreed and voted. This is mob mentality.
When you say, "overly defensive" and "grasping at straws" and "backtracking", that's the same as "doing things to try to stop your lynch."
But the one statement that I agree with wholeheartedly in what you just said: "whatever you say is open to interpretation." This is actually related to a point I've been thinking of making for a long time, but I've been afraid of doing so because I was afriad it would be interpreted the wrong way. But since I seem doomed in this game anyway, I figure I'll go ahead and make it before I get kicked out (thank god, because frankly, I want out of this game):
Any statement can be interpreted as scummy.
In fact, I have a write-up that explains my point further, and what I think should be changed about the way we play in order to fix it. I call it "Ditocoaf's Proposal," because I'm not quite respected enough to write any laws.
Ditocoaf's Proposal wrote:A. Inherency: Any statement can be considered scummy, because any statement could normally be said by a scum player.
i. Mafia players are one thing, but pretending to be another.
ii. Any statement a townie would make, either to help the town or to prevent their own lynch, can be attributed to a scum's desire to be seen as town.
iii. Scum players will purposefully misinterpret a townie's words, attempting to start a bandwagon based on that interpenetration. Town players will accidentally misinterpret a townie's words, attempting to find scum.
B. Harms:
1) Any pro-town player can make a statement, and a scum player, or a mistaken townie, can misinterpret it, thereby causing a townie's lynch.
2) Players are forced to try to "go with the flow."
i. Scum players try to effect the game's outcome in order to win.
ii. Trying to effect the game's outcome can be interpreted as scummy, and is often assumed to be so.
iii. Since both townies and scum players want to avoid being seen as scummy, they will try to avoid being seen effecting the game's outcome.
iv. Instead of open debate about the best course of action, players have to avoid seeming attached to their own reasoning.
3) Players are caught in multiple "Catch-22's"
i. Continued from Harm 2 point iv: ...However, since scum will also want to avoid being seen as attached to their reasoning, "backtracking," or not sticking to your argument, will be seen as scummy. This forces players to attempt to walk the line between determined and wishy-washy.
ii. Players don't want to seem "too pro-town", because that seems desperate, but they don't want to seem too "indifferent", because that also can seem scummy.
iii. Being "lynch-happy" can be seen as scummy, and being anti-lynch can be seen as scummy. Players need to avoid being seen as either.
C. Proposal:
Currently, we often choose suspects based on status-quo logic: "That statement seems scummy because a scum player would say that." Instead, we should choose suspects based on proposal logic: "That statement would not normally be said by a town player."
D. Solvency: This line of reasoning is much less restrictive, and much more accurate.
i. Worth the wait: Even though opportunities for status-quo logic are much more frequent than opportunities for proposal logic, it is still worth the accuracy advantage. In fact, though situations where proposal-logic can be applied are currently rare, the increase in open, determined debate and discussion will likely increase the number of times scum will slip up and do something a townie wouldn't.
ii. Less Restrictive: We won't be caught in the catch-22's with this as the primary line of reasoning. Currently, we have to try and avoid anything that scum would do, which is most things. Under proposal logic, we would only have to avoid things that a townie wouldn't do, which make it so townies don't have to be careful at all.
iii. More Accurate. Most statements and actions in Mafia could be done by both a townie, and a scum player trying to act town. Going after a player who did something that could have been done by a scum player is not much better-off than a random lynch; we're forced to rely on "gut feelings" about those actions. We might catch scum, or a townie who accidentally stepped over an invisible line. However, if we went after a player who did something that a townie wouldn't do, we would only catch scum and really dumb townies.
Go ahead and lynch me now. I want out.
(If I'm town, I just said that because I'm fed up. If I'm scum, I said it because I want to seem like a fed-up townie. You go figure.)F1fth wrote:And you're not necessarily getting lynched because of your words, but because you rubbed people the wrong way. It sucks, I know, because as town I have been bandwagoned and outed (I think as a doctor) day 1 as well. But it HAS to happen to someone. No lynch is not an option.
If I were to suggest something, it would be to start mafia games in the night phase like they actually supposed to be. That way, the first day wouldn't always come down to a random day 1 lynch. As a matter of fact, I have no idea why we don't here on CC.
Isn't a no-lynch on day 1 the
same as starting with night? I agree that's what should be done. But whatever; I spend too much time playing this game anyway. I need to go outside more.
Mods: Find me a replacement in all my other games, will you?
adios!
