I think you're not buying it because it's inconvenient to you, rather than because you actually think I'm a dumbass.In post 768, implosion wrote:Because I'm not focusing on the traitor, I think she's scum and don't necessarily know which and don't buy your reasoning for her not being mainscum.And I think you're wrong on the traitor. We don't need to elim the traitor to win - elimming the last mafia wins us the game. So why would we ever focus on the traitor?
Exactly - town should have an approach which allows them to control the narrative and, crucially, ANTICIPATE how scum will respond. It might not be sexy, but it's a logical and 'winning' strategy. It relies on a more consistent and structured site meta of course. But yes, completely agree that scumteams will adapt to town gameplay - and town will then adapt to respond. I suppose I'm arguing mostly for a return to first principles, because currently the approach is too ad hoc and easy for scumteams to manipulate, town winrates are much lower than they should be (although they are often assisted by scumteams who can't work together).In post 768, implosion wrote:It really shouldn't! If it was, scum would literally never defend each other and would just bus and automatically win off the town cred."always push people that defended scum" is not "extremely narrow-minded". It should be a basic principle of mafia.
Independent of my view on how mafia should be approached overall, my views in this game are not "wringing all the nuance out" - quite the opposite. Me using analysis of the setup, and my understanding of players within the game is much more sophisticated, and you are the one dismissing it as inconvenient - which does not accord with your view on taking a context-based approach.