Dinivan, on 14 March 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:
Olar Ethil, on 13 March 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:
Quote
/snip
Ah, but there's a difference between people who are not posting much and people who are laying low. I mean, you're not going to lynch someone who has said nothing, but someone who posts but is non-committal...those you can go after.
What Karosis said here also made me uneasy. Going for someone who seems non-committal, not someone who hasn't posted but someone who is not making waves? It is day one. Day one generally does not see very many strong cases and it can be understandable then why people are non-committal, many are even though they vote a certain player on day one. I'm not saying non-commital players do not warrant attention but I think that they become more apparent and more likely to be scum or role later in the game. On day one it can be a combination of not much to comment on, weak cases and time constraints. I think going after that on day one makes it just as likely to hit town.
eh, snipping my former post, I think I went a little overboard, as last vet's game was still on my mind a bit, and that was a special situation.
Generally I dislike (as Karosis does) the tendency to let day 1 slide, to find nothing bad in non-committal behaviour etc. Only gives places for scum to hide, doesn't benefit town.
Now here OE (and someone else later one) even advocate that non-commital players should be alone, as scum is usually "more enthusiastic about the game". this approach minimizes the possible information on the thread and should be abandoned.
Don't use the veteran's game as an example of anything except for how we absolutely SUCK BALLS when we are altless and are being retards. I can't remember the last altless game scum didn't win.