Tell me please, because that sounds like the typical I know this player is scum, so his actions look ultra scummy when I look at them?
If you have 22 players, it's just damn near impossible to look at everyone D1.
And what can we do about meta? LP and Stan will always be on the low activity front and I would inherently scumread low activity because it is always a disadvantage for town, but look at this community. As we can see here it has nothing to say about their alignment...
You have to weigh meta for what it is. StarSketch is never going to post - and frankly, I have some things there that I will bring up in the review thread. LP, though (hi, LP!) may post minimum amounts, but he was working. His analysis was solid. So instead of just relying on a meta of LP doesn't post much, I think we need to be looking at factors - what can we glean from the content of the posts, the motivations, the moves he's trying to make? Like if it hadn't been a day end thing, I dunno if *Splinter would have been lynched. That was not a scum move. Why would scum risk that?
I don't really care how often people post. 10 is a benchmark. But some people contribute and some don't. hom3land is new and trying. LP was working. Stan is being Stan and that's situational; look at what Stan is doing in this game. Benghis and Star could have been lynched - but I think it's meta too that tells us not to do that. Scum teams using that urge to say people aren't scumhunting. It's an easy way to attack town and foster suspicious. The problem is that we fall for it as town.
As for specifics on what I think people were missing, I'll have to go back - but like with rac? That was bullshit. He shouldn't have been lynched as a "coaster." That was manufactured and town was lazy to go along with it. It happens, but we can do better. (But like I said in here, it IS easier in spec, when you know. Of course it is. But we gotta take that with us, too.)
You are calling for a lynch inactive stance. It's impossible. Benghis, StarSketch, LP, Stan, maybe hom3land... What good does it bring to lynch them? I don't want low activity to be in the game in the first place.
I agree. But it also clears dead weight - we spend too much time digging for scums in active players by nitpicking tiny things. I was really disappointed to see people calling turmoil scummy for doing vote analysis. I mean, really? What is inherently scummy about doing that? It's all about how it's leveraged, presented, talked about, used, no?
I'll do some calculation/Monte Carlo simulations when I better figure out how to do those kinda game theory things, but I think balance was quite town favored here. There are even ish numbers for each side, but powerful town roles, a town aligned neutral (apart from dying they generally help town, are incentivised to find scum and the lynch is a much, much bigger risk than a NK) and fairly weak scum roles that only counter town's and don't do any direct benefit beyond neutralizing it (godfather/ninja can give fake info).
I'm with cabot on this, obviously, though I do think we could have pushed more on all sides. But after working with my research project and reading signups, planning, review threads, and really thinking about the evolution of the community as an outsider, I think we've moved toward disempowering town as an attempt to get them to play better and I think that makes things less fun for some and powers scum, who are naturally powerful by nature of having knowledge.
I will grant that my take on this is all likely to be very different than the more experienced players; I think about things first from the perspective of a researcher and second from someone still learning to play, design, balance, etc. But it's what I see.
