In post 1606, Titus wrote:First, your statement seems to imply that if this was by someone less successful that it may be valid.
It would probably carry more weight as an argument.
It's hard to tell someone who is considered good at what they do - moreso than yourself - that what they do, they're doing wrong.
In post 1606, Titus wrote:
Second, my gripe with Mastin's play has nothing to do with the amount of formal or informal logic. Rather, his behavior is obscuring and detrimental to the town. Most gambit are. We should all strive to be candid and straightforward. As such, gambits should be limited. Gambits that require self-voting should be done as a last resort, if ever.
If Mastin is town (highly unlikely) then this play is very anti-win con and thus not a good strategy.
Given that your argument against gambits is rooted in obscuring truth, and your argument favoring candid and straightforward is rooted in formal logic, I'd argue that your gripe has entirely to do with the amount of formal and informal logic usage. That's how you operate; you frame everything within that scope.
Regardless, an adept player can successfully pull of a number of complex gambits that outwardly appear anti-wincon but are later revealed to be both pro-town and good strategies.
The key lies in the player's ability.
In post 1606, Titus wrote:
I don't care if Mastin is perceived as successful, his play here is downright bad. I evaluate every player based on what they do here, not based on their meta reputation.
*Her.
Your argument about her play being bad is because you have an objective stance of anti-gambit. She could single-handedly win the game with a gambit and you would consider it bad play because of the presence of the gambit. That's not a good stance to take, for obvious reasons.
Ends justify the means, etc.