[the sun fan]

Originally Posted by ShadoWolfe

@sunfans bigpost

I understand where you're coming from. I just think we disagree about the fundamental nature of an inactive, and that premise extends to our thoughts on modkills.

You consider an inactive town/wolf to be a part of town/wolf. A player, albeit one whose performance, or lack thereof, obfuscates their alignment and attempts to gather info about it. If town, a weak town that forces town to create a better PoE and lynch within it, including the inactive if necessary. Removal of the inactive from the PoE helps town by removing a player they would otherwise need to lynch.

I don't. I called them non-players for a reason. The reason the bar is so low to avoid the modkill is that, fundamentally, it takes the absolute bare minimum engagement in game to avoid it. A player that needs to get modkilled because they were unable to make 5 game-related posts in 48 hours is not a player. They are, at that point, a deviation from the intended game design. An imbalance that needs to be resolved. Obviously, early replacements are ideal for this. But where there is no substitute, the modkill needs to happen to allow game to continue fairly.

It doesn't, at it's core, prevent the inactive meta entirely or remove inactive strats from wolf repertoires. It just sets the bar low enough to where there is a minimum amount of engagement from everyone to avoid non-players filling the roster.inning.

I'm honestly surprised you're disagreeing with the post
by removing the so-called non-players from the game, you're arguing that town doesn't benefit?
imo they clearly, clearly do, while wolves would almost always prefer that to remain around