I wasn't being obtuse dude.
Obtuse:
–adjective
1.not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
2.not sharp, acute, or pointed; blunt in form.
Yes, you were.
You yourself said that the mafia being able to kill mega inactives keeps us in the dark, which is a good thing for them, but then you go on to say that they don't have to do that, as if it is unlikely.
Way to describe what I'm doing through your own lens. How about I just describe what you're doing and put ", and that's exactly what scum would do" and try to pass that off as an argument?
Or hey, how about we ignore lines like this:
me said:
Mafia, at any time, can kill an inactive like Ermac and leave no trace as to who did it or why. If we're in the dark, like toDay, and lynch someone we're slightly suspicious of and they flip town and we get no real leads from it, Mafia can keep us in the dark by lynching someone like Ermac. This is an option, not a requirement, for them.
It's not a difficult concept:
We have a useless town member that may or may not be scum. Having him around gives mafia two options at all times at Night (kill him, kill someone else), and while killing someone else might be more beneficial, killing the inactive is near untraceable. No doc ever protects an inactive, no one will track him, no one does anything inactives. Our best hope is for a vig to kill inactives, but we have no control over this or even know if a vig exists.
Saying "well this guy hasn't been scummy at all, let's leave him alone"
when he doesn't post is a get out of jail free card. You lynch inactives when you don't have a lead. It's not difficult to follow.
If you're trying to imply I'm ignoring scummy activity in favor of lynching inactives... my #1 is Vult, who is both scummy AND inactive.
Your own logic undermines that contention. Yes, inactivity is anti-town however that doesn't mean he's the best candidate for the lynch. Yes inactives are not ideal to have around later in the game.
Contention, nice word. I like it.
So let's look at your logic here:
Inactivity is anti-town (true)
inactives are not ideal to have around later in the game (true)
I'm going to re-word this for you:
Inactivity is anti-town (true)
Inactives are bad to have around late game (true)
But hey, like you said, it doesn't mean he's the best candidate for the lynch. There can be better candidates than inactives. Afterall, he's my #2 choice, so I basically agree with you on this point.
But you know what's even more anti-town than an inactive later in the game? Putting ourselves into lylo or close to lylo because we decided that lynching all the inactives was a good idea when instead we're just shooting in the dark, hoping scum flip, and ending up in lylo or close to it literally no closer to actually finding scum through scumhunting that we were on D1.
News flash: unless you have strong suspicions, you're shooting in the dark on D1 hoping for a scum flip. Chances are, whoever we lynch toDay will be town. It's rare you catch a mafia member D1. However, if you lynch a guaranteed inactive you're guaranteed SOME sort of boon for town. Plus it means that we don't have to deal with that inactive later.
Riddle me this:
Assume Ermac plays the same way he is now.
When would you consider the best time to lynch him?
You have a serious unhealthy obsession with removing what you deem to be anti town from the game which more often than not is just bad general play, not scummy play. Scummy comes first always, bad play comes next in lynch priority.
...which is why I say lynch Vult, and have Ermac as my #2.
I'm not some zealot going after people who don't post. I want people to post because that's how you FIND scummy behavior. If Ermac continues not to post, we get no info on him whatsoever. He's dead weight and a dead flip if he's town. If he's scum, he gets a free ride if we don't pressure him.
I'm not willing to allow this mentality of eliminate inactives being the number one priority to run this game because its such a bad excuse for actually scum hunting, and it often prevents us from getting the flips we actually want. If you keep some inactives around, you put the mafia in a situation where they have to choose to either kill and inactive which helps town by getting a poor player out, but also makes this tough on town because the inactive likely has little to no connections with people, OR they can choose to kill someone more active which will hurt the town by removing an active contributor BUT also give the town many more clues.
Wait wait wait
You say keeping inactives around is
good, because it gives mafia options? Are you high?
Mafia members don't have to follow a set pattern. They set the stage for
us to figure out. If you give them a free pass for whatever Night they want,
they can take it whenever they want.
Ultimately though, LYNCH FLIPS are FAR GREATER IN IMPORTANCE than NK flips, for the very reason that the mafia will actively NK in a manner meant to manipulate and confuse, whereas lynch flips are complete transparent in their origins and NEED town participation to make them happen. You get a LOT more info out of them just on a fundamental level.
Cool? I'm not sure where this came from.
So what does that mean? Prioritize lynching scummy people and people with connections over just complete inactives generally speaking. Let the mafia cut the fat for us, or indies, or vigs if we have 'em. We shouldn't be wasting lynches on low info yield targets.
*narrows eyes*
If you have a list of mafia, by all means post them. Because otherwise, you're guessing.
With that, since seph wagon and adum wagon aren't going anywhere, and Sworddancer wagon has the most support of my top 3, I'll move over there.
Unvote: Adum Vote: Sworddancer
Whoa whoa whoa
WHOA.
Wait a minute, Mister hippo the crit.
you immediately I asked for your list said:
Seeing as how close deadline is getting, I'm down with lynching Sephiroth, adum, or sworddancer.
I feel they're all pretty scummy but a major reason is that I feel I'll learn by far the most from any of their flips. Mostly Sephy and adum on that point, but sworddancer is the worst inactive at this point IMO so I think he should go if we can only agree on lynching an inactive (which is not what I prefer).
So you've chosen Sephiroth, Adumbrodeus, and sworddancer....
and you choose sworddancer because he's the worst inactive
even though he's posting large chunks at a time
and then you go ape**** on me for having Ermac as my #2 because he's an inactive.
And in your last post talked about how you "weren't going to stand" for going for inactives.
I can see how each of your choices could be good lynch choices for toDay, but your reasoning for sworddancer shouldn't be "inactivity"... because he's not.
I think you have good intentions with what you're posting, but you're putting on horse blinders and it's making you sound pretty **** scummy.
I wanna give you another chance, Flame. Answer my question the same way everyone else did. Two, no more no less, lynch candidates from you and your reasoning... as if no one has said anything about them before.
Why exactly do you want to keep Ermac alive, but push for sworddancer? I'm curious.
