Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
I'd say we should not shy away from actually trying to suspect people on this first Day as well even if there are a host of interesting new things to speculate upon. We should use the extra time we have to discuss things and to call for all the people to participate. You all know what democracy with 60% partake-rate (too many submarines) and not discussing the actual topics that influence our welfare (the identity of the werewolves) is. Just the "politics as usual" which will get us nowhere.
|
Yes, although at least for myself, I have decided to use this "two-day" (in fact) system and try to keep my opinons on people for myself for a bit longer than usual, i.e. voicing them only very late in the Day, because I want to make a clearer picture on everybody, not given just by first impressions (and as soon as I say "X looks suspicious" or simply evaluate somebody, it will create a reaction, which I don't want yet. I want to see everybody for a while in their "natural environment" as a mere observer. Call it an experiment for toDay).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boromir88
I disagree. I will pick someone who will represent my voice. Period. That doesn't mean we still can't hold people accountable for their own decisions, whether they said they were only going with their constituents or not. "Popular support" is a lame cop out, the person who best expresses their intentions, and his/her intentions fit best with mine, will be my representative. That's a heck of a lot different than me saying I'm going to pick the first person who will suck up to me, by agreeing with me, because you can't throw bull crap past this pig pen raker.
|
That is one way of looking at things, but this, in my opinion, is not as easy as you paint it. Because, I don't believe it will be like: X says "I will lynch Y" and I say "good, I want to lynch Y too, let's make X a Representative!" If I take it just from the minimalistic point of view, there will be the whole next Day between my nomination and X's actual vote, and during that time, X may re-evaluate his opinions etc., whatever. Or, X may have on his suspect list as well Y and Z, while I think Z is innocent and wouldn't like to see him lynched. No: okay, I know we don't know yet how things are going to work in real, but for now, my opinion is, the vote for my representative will be a vote for somebody I know I can trust to make a honest judgement under any circumstances. Imagine I vote for a player, and the only reason for me voting him would be because he supports lynching the people I want to. But suddenly, one of those people reveals as Seer. Or, worse, somebody reveals as Seer and somebody else as a Seer too, and now the Reps have to choose. It doesn't matter who they suspected before, now it's either Seer A or Seer B - one is a liar. And in this situation, I wish my representative to be able to judge for himself. So, I am not nominating anybody just because he by chance happened to suspect the same person as me (although of course I am not saying this can't be a criterion in the choice).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Boro
What do you mean by "the intentions of this village?" Do you mean if the the phantom proves he means well in the sense that he can lead the village to lynching wolves? Or do you mean he will prove to serve your own sinister intentions?
|
That's actually what I have to see yet. Simply put, I need him to convince me that he a) seems un-sinister enough for me to put my trust in him (which is a thing that concerns everybody in the village), b) I get certain that he does not vote wilfully to whomever his momentary whim points, but behave responsibly according to the position of the Rep that is given to him (and not end up just joking around and behaving, as my RPG players would put it, "like a terrible Chaotic").
EDIT: X-ed since the Boro I am quoting