Okay. I had to check back as to what
Menel actually said, and the following is the thing making me uneasy with him:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Menel
If there is a period of three or more Days in which only innocents are lynched, then we should look for a wolf among the most influential people during that time.
|
Now, first of all, if there are three Days we only lynch innocents - and the wolves score effectively during the Night - we have basically lost as the wolves only need to ask for the cobbler to vote with them on D4. In case we had chances on D4 (like ranger made a succesful save one Night) then I think it is essential we look at everyone as thoroughly as we can because that lynch decides whether the game continues or whether we lose. So any "let's lynch the influential people" default-setting is basically dangerous rather than helpful.
Secondly.
Menel's "plan" (let's call it a plan then and not a crusade...
) is based on faulty premises, that a) wolves always wish (or need) to lead the lynching, that b) the wolves only vote for innocents, that c) innocents are good at avoiding lynching other innocents, that d) the seer doesn't do her/his job.
An example: let's say we have two villagers. Villager A has been a strong advocat of two lynches which both have turned out innocents. Villager B has voted both times for a person who has not been lynched as B has been against the tide going for those lynched innocents.
Now which one is more probably a wolf? I'd put my money on B.
If we dilute ("homeopathisize"
)
Menel's suggestions into "we should be aware of people who might give a little nudge here and there" like
Legate seems to be doing, then we're of course making more sense, but that's actually only saying "look around" which I think we all try to do. Although we still face a problem which is that it is basically impossible for an ordo to see "a purposeful knowledge-based nudge" from "trying to make even a weak point based on hunches".