Trent: The quoting is so hosed up in this post that I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I'd rather let you try again before I attempt to respond.
bler144: I believe 'no lynch' is a viable strategy, y'all don't.
Beware generalizations: Most players here think No Lynch IS a viable strategy
in certain situations. Day 1 will virtually never be such a situation.
There are a couple of standard guidelines that you may or may not be aware of. I'm going to run through them in case you aren't. A particular game may break one or more of them, but usually these hold true (at least here on GOG):
-All scum know who the other scum are. By extension, all scum know who is town.
-Each townie only knows their own personal alignment.
-Townies should not lie. It is in town's best interest NOT to lie, so that when you flip town other players can trust you meant what you were saying. There is a mantra, Lynch All Liars, because scum have to lie about being town aligned, and scum will lie about other things to make themselves look better or townies look worse. I'm sure you've noticed yogsloth talking about catching people in a lie.
-Town's primary weapon (and quite possibly only weapon) for killing scum is the lynch. If town never lynches, then scum will eventually win.
-A player's alignment and role are revealed by the moderator when the player dies (so the alignment and role become known facts).
I'll take a stab at explaining why No Lynch is usually not a good plan.
Most players here believe that when one lacks any information at all, then No Lynch is not a viable town strategy without some kind of plan to recommend it. On Day 1, there is a general lack of information about the setup, player's alignments, assigned roles, and so on, and unless you
know that the information can be gathered in a different way (example, informational roles are guaranteed to be present and town aligned), then you need to lynch people to get reliable information to identify scum. As the bodies start hitting the floor, you can look at who is town and who isn't, and evaluate player's statements with this knowledge in mind. If town doesn't lynch, then only scum will be selecting which people die, and that lets scum rule the game. If players won't lynch without being certain about who is scum, then scum can more easily direct the game or possibly just sit quietly and let town strangle in indecision. Notice that one scum victory condition is when they equal the number of town players (thereby letting scum dictate the lynch).
When townies are active in lynching people though, scum don't have nearly the same level of control in the game. Townies outnumber scum so that a few mislynches can occur without town losing. If townies are lynching then scum have to participate (instead of sitting on the sidelines), which means scum risk making a mistake. Scum will also have to sometimes help lynch other scum, or else risk being outed.
As for whether No Lynch is a good idea in our current situation: Lets say we No Lynch. Scum will select a townie to execute tonight, then we start discussion again tomorrow. We can speculate on why scum selected their victim, but we can't prove anything. If there are no investigative roles, then No Lynch puts us in a worse situation tomorrow than we were in today (there is one less townie, and we aren't any closer to finding scum).
If you can satisfactorily demonstrate to other players that there are town investigative roles that can determine who is scum in time for the scum to be eliminated, you might get more traction for a No Lynch. If the only such role is YOURS, however, then claiming you have that role will pretty much paint a giant target on your back for scum to shoot at tonight. Scum would love to know who has a power so that the power can be neutralized before it becomes a threat to them.
bler144: sometimes you have to put an idea on the table and let it breathe to realize that it was a dumb idea.
As for Wyrm, I don't think he was scolding me.
I can empathize with "Well, it seemed like a good idea in my head". Also, I wasn't scolding, just informing.
agentcarr16: Bookwyrm acted strangely, with his little trap. And his general 'wounded' attitude, when many other players (at least some of whom are definitely town) have told him that his traps are unhelpful, is really not what town needs.
Until I return then, on Friday morning, I am going to
vote Bookwyrm I hope that the deadline hasn't passed by then, as I really want to get a longer read on everyone before I vote for the deadline.
I'd like to ask about this:
1) How do you know that town players have told me my "traps" are unhelpful?
2) If my attitude upon being questioned is unhelpful, then what attitude SHOULD I have displayed?
3) It seem that you are unwilling to lynch most players because they've been quiet or non-helpful. I have a hypothetical for you: If you removed yog, trent, and I from the list of players, who would you select for a vote instead of me?
bler144: I think yog's post only helped persuade me further "if you can survive to late game, you’re a rock star. I’ve seen it." Assuming that's accurate, it seems a bit like sacrificing one's queen just because you don't like the way her crown was cut.
That assumes that JMich is actually town. If he's scum, then he'd be working to lead town astray at that point. While you don't want to uselessly throw away your queen, you generally would like to eliminate the opponent's queen early.
bler144: ...that you can in practical reality get 7 of those 8/9 to cohere around a single suspect, rather than, say, scum tipping over the wagon on a townie.
Scum can't just all vote as a block. If they do, then as soon as it is detected, the scum are hosed, and town should be able to nail at least one scum even if only by accident. By the same logic, scum may vote for other scum.
This is why distancing and bussing are things. Also, the hammer vote tends to be scrutinized by townies precisely to check for a scum finishing a townie off.
