Amid washing the dishes and cooking I just checked the situation, and must just shortly comment on this.
[QUOTE]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JennyHallu
Nogrod, I have two points.
A) Quietness is not necessarily cheating. It is one strategy among many, and it doesn't make her any safer. And, as far as we know, WQ may not have even realized the game has started.
|
No it's not necessarily cheating. I totally agree. And WQ might be anywhere or know anything or not. We just don't know. But I strongly disagree with you about it being a strategy among many. I call it "not playing". Figure a game where all the players adopt this "strategy" of yours! There wouldn't be a game at all! Those who
willfully do not post anything are just hang-arounds, parasites one could call them: using those who really play to their own advantage. People who eat from the pile the others gather. People can do so, I know, but the moral side of it is another thing. Real life hindrances are understandable, sure, and another thing. (Although one should consider beforehand, whether s/he is actually having the time to really play when getting involved!)
Quote:
|
I don't think there is any reason for ad-hominem attacks such as calling a quiet player a "moral loser", or referring to an error as a "lie" (with all the negative connotations therein) without any evidence to prove or disprove whether it was deliberate. As you pointed out earlier, this is, in the end, just a game. You claim to have little patience with rhetoric, so please tone down your own.
|
Ad hominem means accusing the personal properties or characteristics of the one you are talking with / about...
But seriously. Those two examples by you do not belong to the same category of things. First. Someone who is a wolf, and cheats all people by staying absolutely quiet, is not plaing fairly. And a win achieved by that tactics I would call very unmoral indeed! (Think of it: three wolves, two nonposters, one very careful post/aDay type. While the villagers realize the situation after 3-4-5 innocent lynches + nightly killings, it's too late already. You call that fair game, good game, or morally plausible tactics, when it comes to playing with each other - meaning, trusting each other to play fairly eg. giving others a chance?)
To refer to error as a lie is strong rhetoric indeed, but on the other hand claiming lie to be an error is the same as well. To this instant we don't have but your word and my word. I can confess, I have used rhetorics (to have a reaction from you), but can you confess yours?
Quote:
|
B) Your first several posts were urging us to 'put pressure' on the quiet players, even within a few hours of the start of the Day. Now you advise we ignore the quiet? I am confused as to what, exactly, your stance on the issue is?
|
Please!!! I thought we were over this already! Didn't I say, that in the beginning it would be
good tactics to voice an intention to go for the quiet: not to actually kill someone to begin with, but
to make the wolves talk!!! If a wolf "knows", that the quiet are suspected s/he starts posting! And that's what we want: posting wolves who could thence make slips etc.!!! So kind of wrenching them away of "your strategy"! It's totally different thing, who we should try to lynch in the evening!
But what comes to this day's situation, it's a bit different already. We already start to have a picture of this mess - albeit a dim one. And please, I said we should ignore them
at some point,
if we just have anything more sensible to vote.
What you seem not to have understood, is my point, that if the wolves are playing unfair game, we should ignore them (as well as quiet innocents). That way we might lose the game, but we would have played a fair game. So all the moral glory for us, and the shame to those who played without the spirit of playing and sharing the game!
Oh my, how I can't even make a little comment short!
