The question was "What do you have to contribute if you're active enough to post?". It might not have been the answer you or Phoenicks were looking for, but it's a valid answer - she can contribute her vote.my point was not "you should do something useful"
it was "winter enchantress, in your response to phoenicks, you gave a fluffy non-answer that avoided the question entirely. you didn't contribute to suggesting any direction to the town"
honestly if you can extract any useful information from winter enchantress's posts other than "avoids questions when queried" then i'm all ears
To call inactivity on Day 1 is ridiculous.honestly, if you have a mislynch, you can't really go wrong with voting inactives. nothing will ruin a town's chances like an inactive town. removing that highly increases the town's chances of winning.
I don't think that anyone was saying that activity was a strong indicator of alignment.
See above.No strong reason to vote for a lynch is not a strong reason to vote for a no lynch.
Let's assume that every player has posted Day 1. What would you do then, as 'being inactive' (which, by your actions, seems to imply 'not having posted thus far') is no longer a valid reason for a vote?
~The Artist Formerly Known As PichuBoy~
I'm glad we settled on tagging people to make joke posts as a misunderstanding of how to play =]Also mafias are full of misunderstandings. There have already been some in this game.
Inactivity hurts the town and should be discouraged. You said something good worth emphasizing:I don't think that anyone was saying that activity was a strong indicator of alignment.
If I don't encourage activity and discourage inactivity, I can't complain because I took no measures to prevent inactivity.If I don't vote, I can't complain about what happens because I took no measures to prevent it.
"Scumhunting" lynches rarely work on Day 1 -- with a very high proportion of townies it is far more likely that townies will suspect each other than mafia. I prefer to lynch inactives because they have the same chance of being scum as anyone else. If they become active as a result of being lynched, then it is better for the town than the alternative. If they don't, there is a blank chance that they are scum -- which is pretty much the same chance you have of lynching scum on Day 1 anyways.
As for no lynching: It can benefit the town, and it can't. When you have an inactive town not lynching only increases inactivity. It can be very anti-town, and I think that in this case it is.
Now I'm quite and truly done with discussing optimal play because it really doesn't get anywhere.
First I'd take a shot, then I'd remember that I can't get in trouble for not answering a hypothetical question.Let's assume that every player has posted Day 1. What would you do then, as 'being inactive' (which, by your actions, seems to imply 'not having posted thus far') is no longer a valid reason for a vote?
And I agree with pretty much everything Leopard has said (seriously it's great to see you in a game) except for this:
Vote: Insanish Danish
When there are so many votes they're weak. With two votes on Insanish Danish there is more pressure to become active.
Honestly, I have no idea why you want to force people to make random posts. I also have no idea why you keep bringing up irelevant actions in past games. Whatever joke post you used to track down a mafia with, or whatever, doesn't seem to be the result of you forcing them to make sure joke post.
Either way, I'd rather see people be silent if they have nothing to say so they don't clog the thread of people who actually have something to say. If someone is quiet for so many phases they're either looking a bit suspicious or just inactive. But on Day 1? Pur-lease. Honestly I'd just wondering if you want to make it harder to track down certain posts by wanting more joke posts.
(But you continued it so it was no longer just half canon on 'stats side.)(twinArmageddons started it.)