Well, I don't automatically assume scum in the case of a trap. I assumed Adel's trap was going to be anti-town based on my understanding of scum claims and, thus, I voted her to push the trap-setter (though, you seem to have stepped up in her stead).JDodge wrote: How intricate the reasoning depends on how intricate the trap, and again, towns need to push trap-setters more. Automatically assuming scum based on "setting a trap" is just as scummy as "setting a trap" is in your hypothetical.
Well:No. Your point was that if the town follow unquestionably they aren't doing their job. I am saying that there is a wide margin of reasonable error judgment in these matters. The analysis might not be perfect, or the player might not be totally up to scratch. Either way, the trap presents potentially big consequences for what can be just a minor imperfection.JDodge wrote:Exactly my point.Vollkan wrote: Of course, the townies in question might not have taken the trouble to really think things through in the fullest way, or they might just be incapable of doing so.
I agree with you on both fronts.JDodge wrote: Traps are less dangerous if you know how to read into them, and I really don't think this two-sided argument is getting anywhere; for one, it's entirely based on a playstyle argument, and furthermore we're falling into a pattern of just repeating ourselves over and over again.
This discussion has taught me that traps can be useful for some people, if they are up to judging reactions. That's something I'm going to need to work on from now on.
On that note,unvote.
Yeah, I was wrong here. If a person can reliably read a trap, they ought to be able to do so and explain their thoughts on it afterwards.JDodge wrote: Which is exactly why you do not run in and "disarm" a trap before anyone has the chance to react on it. Even if you can't read it, perhaps somebody else can and can explain to you what the tells are within said reactions.
Jdodge wrote: But again,I am not voting based on your reaction to the claim. I am voting you based on two factors:
1) The intent to deprive the town of potentially useful information from reactions to the trap
2) The ease with which you voted someone stating that you didn't necessarily know why you found it scummy.
1) I didn't consider there to be any potentially useful information, because my conviction was that such reactions are unreadable. You've disagreed with me on this, and said you can read the reactions. In that sense, yes, I have deprived you of potential information.
2) I voted because I saw it as anti-town and wanted answers.