MovingPictures07 wrote:Russtifinko wrote:
I definitely wouldn't call what I said a logical fallacy, or lunch me over it. I suppose it all depends on how often you expect roles to switch. Based on what I've read, it seems likely they'll switch a lot, in which case there's no reason not to lynch your BTSC-mates (unless they do stop completely, in which case you've likely screwed yourself). Other players seem to expect relatively little switching, at least across alignments, and it that case it does make more sense to look outside your group.
However, MP raises probably the best point for lynching your teammates. If you have a chance to switch and your teammates have figured out a way to catch you in a lie once you do, they're the people you need dead most in the game. So he's actually supporting my argument even though he says he's against it.
No, I respectfully disagree.
You're right, it does depend on how often you expect roles to switch. However, it also depends on how you're approaching the game: for your current alignment (i.e., for the benefit of civilians) or for your own self-interest (i.e., as an LMS), the latter of which you are doing.
I completely recognize your POV, and you are right, there is a point to be made with my exact argument as to preferring to lynch your teammates rather than defending them.
However, here's why the latter (your) viewpoint makes less sense:
1) Regardless of how often you expect the roles to switch, one has to make assumptions. The latter viewpoint makes many more assumptions than the former. The only assumption that one is making right now, if one is civilian, is that: I am civilian and my teammates are as well. This is a confirmed true assumption. Any other viewpoint is mere speculation. The problem with your viewpoint is that you're making several assumptions:
a) That roles are going to switch every night. We don't know this.
b) That everyone's roles will switch every night. We don't know this.
c) That, at some point, you or one of your teammates will be switched to a baddie role. We don't know this. See 2) for more detail.
The truth is, right now, we have no idea how often roles, and more importantly alignments, are going to switch. If one is going to play the game covering every possible contingency that one can never trust anyone else, even if one knows others are civilians right now, then the civilians have little to no chance of winning this game. Your viewpoint will essentially lead to the "random lynch" mentality, or rather, the "lynch my BTSCmates mentality". That's a dangerous mentality, especially at this stage where we have no idea how Rox planned these mechanics. In addition, you never explained why you believe the bolded and underlined above. What are you basing that on? Even if you believe you're basing it on solid information, is it not possible your interpretation is flawed?
2) Even if one expects the roles to cycle out every single night, with every player receiving a new role, it is still statistically likely that most players will be given civilian roles, just as it was at the start of the game. Even at the extreme of everyone's roles cycling out every night, it still very well could be possible for members of an original civilian BTSC group to
never switch to a baddie role. That is possible. Naturally, it is even more possible the less that roles and alignments are switched.
3) Perhaps most importantly, mechanisms that assist one's original BTSC grouping in possibly rooting out future baddie converts, may hurt
you, if you're the one that's switched alignments. What if you're one of the ones that hasn't, and you're still a civilian? Why would you argue against developing such a policy, and instead advocating lynching your BTSCmates? Developing ways to catch baddies in lies does not hurt the civilians one bit; in fact, it gives them an advantage, which they very much need this game. Why would you oppose that?
So, no, Llama, Russ is not "right". He has a valid and logical viewpoint, yes, but only if one cares only about him or herself, an attitude (LMS) that will very likely result in the civilians losing this game, and one that I think needs to be avoided at all possible cost.
I can't belive you voted for me. Somebody told me that it would be easy to lunch me because I post so much but I never thought that you would lead an attack against a teammate after what happened to you earlier. 
I have the same civvie role I had before.
I'm glad I have more time to think about it.
I'm not defending myself as a cornered Hunger, I am defending myself as a civ mortified that everything I have done in D1 is now blowing up in my face simply because 
.
How noble.
)
<-- (closest to a wizard I could get. FIX IT, MIGHTY SOCKMAN!)