This is a PM that I sent to Stardust just now:
[quote="Azrael']
Post-game, the debate over whether I should have been unilateral and taken out Imopen when he was still at three votes is going to be interesting.
On the one hand, it'd be easy to say with hindsight that it'd bring the game home for the town. But it's also against the spirit of the game and the general rule that it's better to talk through every possible permutation of the scenario that needs to be addressed, and decide things as a group with the benefit of the group's knowledge. Is it really a win, as a team, if one player unilaterally picks off all the scum? And I hate the idea that one player, even if he has some amount of special knowledge, should make unilateral decisions about the town's lynch.
I guess it comes down to fear and faith. I'm used to working with towns that have faith in me, and in towns that I can have faith in. When that's not the case, maybe a different set of rules are called for. I've been wanting to cooperate with the town throughout the whole game, to reach decisions together, to not be the lone wolf making all the choices and all the analysis, but maybe I should have recognized that a partnership is only possible if you have partners who buy into the same process as you.
I guess my focus has been more on making this the kind of place that I want to play mafia, and playing the style that's worked for me in the past, then on recognizing the situation for what it is, accepting it, and trying to win this particular game by adapting my tactics to an entirely different, less serious meta. Hmm.[/quote]
IDK if it's too late to try to figure out how to make this work, whether there's still time to change my tactics to fit, but I guess I have to try. I'm not even sure how to begin, though, or even if I ought to.
Like, railing at people to do behavioral analysis like I'm used to doing isn't doing any good at all. That's out. Doing the analysis myself isn't working so hot either, even with GR, only the deadline and the complete lack of anyone else doing cases has made the lynches on GR and Ham go through.
But I don't know how else to play and still be effective in case-making. I guess I could try to go with being less oriented on the details of the case, and more effective in being persuasive and clear? Put all my effort into the presentation, since the details are too boring and arcane? Huh.
I don't know think that's quite right, though. It's not that people aren't talking about detailed subjects, it's that people are looking at the detailed subjects, evaluating them, in strange ways. Be persuasive in the details that do interest people, I guess. Control frustration. Set reasonable goals and expectations.
Back to work.
