[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

The role call idea is terrible and should die quickly in a fire.

The 'random voting' D1 strategy didn't work in Homestuck Mafia, rarely works in most Mafia games, and won't work now. Again, Mafia has the advantage of knowing who is on the rest of their team and who isn't. It is very easy under the guise of 'random voting' for Mafiates to simply refuse to ever suspect each other and instead exclusively suspect town simply due to the statistical reality that there are considerably more town out there than scum. And it is notoriously easy for random voters to then chalk up their votes for random townies as "Well, that's what we do D1, we just toss around random votes like a chump and pray we hit something."

Random voting has worked fantastically well in about half the games I've played. You don't understnad how the random voting works- it's gotnothing to do with randomly hitting scum, its got to do with causing crap and getting people to make mistakes when you accuse them of shit. It basically getting everyone talking.

[QUOTE]
I can't possibly see how preventing that line of terrible logic from justifying scum's potential D1 actions . Personally, I'd much rather vote an inactive out simply for being inactive (or barely-active, barely-contributing) D1 than engage in a Random votefest, though the ideal option is to grill each other.


Do you knwo how you grill each other? You start by throwing random votes. There is currentely nothing to grill based on.
How do you grill with no information? We need information to flow. We need people to talk. We need to rile up inactives/low actives or ditch them.
You are talking nonsense- the very reason for random voting is to start grilling and activity.

[COLOR="Magenta"]Research past Mafia games (Homestuck was recent enough, admittingly the more distant the game the less likely the evidence is relevant.) Search for discrepancies in behavior or similar patterns of behavior.

We don't have a big backlog of games with most of the participants here. Not a valid strategy.
Like I played a lot and you are free to look at me.
Other players whoplayed a lot in the past I remember- Moogle, P-Sleazy, Hawk, Bard, Ryandermen- none of them have posted enough to really make pattern recognition. Exactly the problem we're trying to fix.

Fenris pulled this strategy off (as scum) in Homestuck Mafia but, newsflash, the reason Fenris pulled this off (as scum) in Homestuck is because it's usually a tried and true pro-town strategy, and his cherry-picking way of doing so helped him sound pro-town as hell. Furthermore, by announcing this strategy outright I'm going to now make Scum worry about sounding as much as possible like their 'past selves' which can lead to slip-ups.

Stop rewriting history. The reason it worked in Homestuck Mafia was because nobody was playing. There was like 6 active players and most of them were mafia. I woud like to prevent that again.

This is why I'm against a Smarty lynch; he's more or less being the same Smarty he was D1 last game, and while it's possible that Smarty's just a very good Mafia player who plays the same kind of game regardless of alignment (again, researching other past games might give me a better indication of this) it's ALSO possible, even probable, that Smarty is just being Smarty and that going for the obvious lynch of Smarty because he's 'weird.'

I don't see how I'm acting "weird". Nobody has given a good reason for bandwagoning me- the bandwagon is just a random bandwagon.

[COLOR="Magenta"]This kind of logic is actually precisely why I'm most skeptical of those whose justifications for voting me (or Smarty, or possibly someone else) off simply boil down to: "I don't like him because he sounds too active and too serious and I dislike the nature of his serious activity."

Yes active players are good. We like active players. Inactive players you never really get information on. So when we have no information at all and no better votes we should vote inactive. I'm not saying right away bandwagon them- what I'ms aying is if deadline approaches and we have no suspicion on anyone bandwagon an inactive.

That's classic anti-town, pro-scum logic. Scum wants to find ways to phrase their votes under a cloak of pro-town "why you bein' so wwweeeeiiirrrrddd" bullcrap when, in reality, they're gunning after active Townies who constitute the greatest 'threat' . There are plenty of legitimate reasons for a townie to suspect Smarty, or myself, or anyone else, but an illegitimate reason is simply "You're too serious bro, you're actually trying to win instead of having fun."

Did you even read my post? I'msaying we SHOULDN'T vote out talkers- we should vote out the silent.
Like I don't even know what you are arguing anymore.
I'm so confused Snake- you've quoted me on mass and are calling me out for trying to vote out active players when I'm advocating precisely the opposite.
Snake you are trying to mislead the town and convince them I'm arguing the opposite of what I'm arguing. I don't know why, it's a bizarre tactic for a scum to pull.
Like I don'tknow what you're smoking but I want some.


But really Snake, you are not helping. All you are doing is scaring people into not posting. You are doing precisely the opposite of what we need on day 1. You are adopting ahigh ground position of "super-mafia player" but you are spouting bullshit which only would be useful if you were playing with a very specific set of highly active players playing to very specific codes of conduct.