Vigi

[HereThereEverywhere]

Why should the Vigi be punished severely for killing a scummy Townie?

[Julien8080]

"I won this debate because I feel like it. Now read these threads, which totally* and completely** decimate the above arguments in every way."

You act like these threads win you the argument. If you don't want to debate, that's absolutely fine. But don't go strutting around like you won the argument just because it's been discussed before in those threads, in which I didn't see anyone's opinion change in the slightest.

*attempt to **sort of

[mdb1023]

literally every point that you've made about jailor's guilt for the vig has been countered within these threads. I would love to debate, but right now i'm not in the mood to rehash the same stupid shit over and over again when I've already made points that counter your points. Go ahead and actually read them and you'll understand.

[SkorumpowanyGlut]

"How to kill immune roles as Vigilante:

>shoot an immune
>call them out
>get the immune lynched"

I look forward to more guides like this one.

[mdb1023]

Well "I'm wrong" would be nice, but we both know that's not going to happen. I mean if you can't counter the points I made to counter your points, your argument really doesn't hold up, does it?

[Parallax7]

I think a decent buff for Vigilantee concerning shooting could be, if Vigilantee shoots an immune twice then it'll pierce immunity. All other NK's can bypass immunity. So I suppose that'd be fair.

[TimeToReap]

I think a decent buff for Vigilantee concerning shooting could be, if Vigilantee shoots an immune twice then it'll pierce immunity. All other NK's can bypass immunity. So I suppose that'd be fair.

What kind of Serial Killer do you know that bypasses Night Immunity.

[Spectre0]

I think a decent buff for Vigilantee concerning shooting could be, if Vigilantee shoots an immune twice then it'll pierce immunity. All other NK's can bypass immunity. So I suppose that'd be fair.

There is absolutely no situation in which that's useful.

Calling them out in day chat is quicker, and if Town doesn't have majority and it takes vig two nights to kill they've lost no matter what.

[Parallax7]

I think a decent buff for Vigilantee concerning shooting could be, if Vigilantee shoots an immune twice then it'll pierce immunity. All other NK's can bypass immunity. So I suppose that'd be fair.

What kind of Serial Killer do you know that bypasses Night Immunity.

NK TK. My bad, typo.

[Parallax7]

I think a decent buff for Vigilantee concerning shooting could be, if Vigilantee shoots an immune twice then it'll pierce immunity. All other NK's can bypass immunity. So I suppose that'd be fair.

There is absolutely no situation in which that's useful.

Calling them out in day chat is quicker, and if Town doesn't have majority and it takes vig two nights to kill they've lost no matter what.

Trust me I agree, I think Vigilantee is fine as is. I was only recommending a buff that was more fitting.

[TimeToReap]

I think a decent buff for Vigilantee concerning shooting could be, if Vigilantee shoots an immune twice then it'll pierce immunity. All other NK's can bypass immunity. So I suppose that'd be fair.

What kind of Serial Killer do you know that bypasses Night Immunity.

NK TK. My bad, typo.

Still yet to see a vampire hunter kill a godfather...
Or even a werewolf... They are meant to be monster hunters... Why can't they stake werewolves too? Or shoot them with a silver bullet?
Thats a lore thing tho...
So forget it as balance>lore

[amagnificentvoid]

/nosupport to vigilante being able to kill immune roles/kill Werewolf on odd days, considering Werewolf has a low enough winrate as it is already. It doesn't need this kind of nerf to it or a nerf at all.

Though I would support vigilante having guilt like Jailor does.

[Skulldug13]

Vigilante Silver Bullets - Gives Vigilante one or more shots that can kill the Werewolf

[Julien8080]

literally every point that you've made about jailor's guilt for the vig has been countered within these threads. I would love to debate, but right now i'm not in the mood to rehash the same stupid shit over and over again when I've already made points that counter your points. Go ahead and actually read them and you'll understand.

I read them. As I'm sure you expected, I wasn't convinced. The arguments I saw there were not damning to me, no matter how much you act as if you have already won. "I've already countered your points" and just doesn't work for me. My sincere apologies for that.

One point that we seem to disagree on most is that Vigilantes should be punished with death over killing scummy townies. Often, townies are just bad. They act like evil or Jester, and they happen to be idiotic/game-throwing townies. I think the place where are views diverge is that you seem to almost always blame the Vigilante when a townie gets shot, or at least believe that it's their fault often enough so that the odd Vig who gets screwed over by an idiotic townie/Witch/Trans is a small enough margin to be ignored.

I disagree: I see more Vigilantes getting screwed over by game-throwing/dumb townies and Witch/Trans than I see townies getting screwed over by gamethrowing Vigilantes. I don't argue that bad play on the part of the Vig is a large factor, and that they should be punished for it, by becoming a Citizen for the rest of the game. However, dumb townies, Witch, and Trans need to be taken into account too. Losing a townie and your shots is enough of a punishment. It prevents further bad shots, in the case of a game-thrower/dumb Vig, but it also doesn't completely cripple the Town just because a townie was gamethrowing/acting stupid, the Witch got lucky, or the Trans messed up. Show me a Vig who always waits until they have complete, absolute, 100% proof with no chance of Witch or Transporter messing them up or their target even having a chance of being townie, and I'll show you a bad Vig. Sometimes, you HAVE to take a shot, because it's do or die.

This game isn't about waiting until you know everything, it's about taking what you know and making calculated risks based off of your information. Should Vig be punished with death over that? Hell no. They're already punished with losing a townie. Losing shots, fine. We have to give at least SOME deterrence to gamethrowers. But being killed because you followed the spirit of the game? That's bad. We have to balance this for both decent Vigilantes who shouldn't be completely shut down for taking a risk or getting screwed by Trans/Witch/terrible townies, and also for terrible Vigilantes who are idiots/gamethrow. Having Vigilante just lose his shots is an excellent way to balance for both ends of the Vig spectrum.

Important side note: I really don't want this to become heated or angry. I like debating, but I hate when people take debating too seriously and personally. Call me a bitch. That's irrelevant. I'm not saying you have to treat me like a 3-year old or anything, but a lot of people on the internet like to get inordinately enraged over minor disagreements. You seem like the person that doesn't back off easily - just look at your signature! That's not a bad thing - it's actually great to argue with people who hold up their side of the argument. I read you as a very spirited debater who doesn't actually have any malice towards their opponent, and I hope I'm right. I just want to have a friendly debate over the Vig. Hopefully you feel the same.

[mdb1023]

literally every point that you've made about jailor's guilt for the vig has been countered within these threads. I would love to debate, but right now i'm not in the mood to rehash the same stupid shit over and over again when I've already made points that counter your points. Go ahead and actually read them and you'll understand.

I read them. As I'm sure you expected, I wasn't convinced. The arguments I saw there were not damning to me, no matter how much you act as if you have already won. "I've already countered your points" and just doesn't work for me. My sincere apologies for that. fine. Since I'm on my PCC right now, this'll be easier to do that usual when I'm limited to typing out things on my phone.

One point that we seem to disagree on most is that Vigilantes should be punished with death over killing scummy townies. Often, townies are just bad. They act like evil or Jester, and they happen to be idiotic/game-throwing townies.I think the place where are views diverge is that you seem to almost always blame the Vigilante when a townie gets shot, or at least believe that it's their fault often enough so that the odd Vig who gets screwed over by an idiotic townie/Witch/Trans is a small enough margin to be ignored. as town, you work together on a team. It sucks dick, but sometimes you just have bad team mates, and bad team mates punish the entire team. Unfortunately, if you shoot a townie who is acting scummy (especially early game), you also share that blame for being too hasty. The thing about scumreading is that there's not an exact science to it. I guarantee you there are no two people who play this game exactly alike (except maybe aly and Syanna, but that's neither here nor there), so what would be a scummy move to one person may not be a scummy move to another. If you are shooting a townie because you THINK they are scum based off of their behaviors that you arbitrarily define as "scummy," you share the blame in that as well. So no, it's not entirely the vig's fault all the time, but they cannot be completely blameless in shooting a so called "scummy town."
responses in bold.
I disagree: I see more Vigilantes getting screwed over by game-throwing/dumb townies and Witch/Trans than I see townies getting screwed over by gamethrowing Vigilantes. I don't argue that bad play on the part of the Vig is a large factor, and that they should be punished for it, by becoming a Citizen for the rest of the game.I disagree, that's not punishment enough. The reason vig commits suicide as well as loses all bullets is to give the role more risk. Without the suicide, there's not enough risk associated with the role. You could just shoot some random person and confirm yourself with a death note, or, if death notes are removed, say "I'm going to shoot (player B) to confirm myself" with no risk of the repercussions that come with it. Shooting an innocent is NOT enough of a punishment for random shooting or miss-shooting, because in the long run, losing one townie isn't actually that devastating with the amount of townies per game and the powerful town roles (unless of course we're talking about late game "shoot maf or lose" situations, in which case you would still be in as much shit if vig did commit suicide because of it). However, dumb townies, Witch, and Trans need to be taken into account too. Losing a townie and your shots is enough of a punishment. It prevents further bad shots, in the case of a game-thrower/dumb Vig, but it also doesn't completely cripple the Town just because a townie was gamethrowing/acting stupid, the Witch got lucky, or the Trans messed upagain, as town, you work as a team, and the team suffers because of the actions of poor team mates. In Survivor (the TV show), when a team loses a challenge, someone gets voted out, even though the loss could only be attributed to one person. And it's not typically a scenario where they vote out whoever cost the team the challenge, either. Since it's a social deception game and it's more so about taking out threats than about removing the weak link (unless it's like the first couple eliminations, usually), so someone who performed well in the challenge can take the fall due to the blunders of someone else. Same concept applies here, you suffer due to the blunders of your team mates. . Show me a Vig who always waits until they have complete, absolute, 100% proof with no chance of Witch or Transporter messing them up or their target even having a chance of being townie, and I'll show you a bad Vig. Sometimes, you HAVE to take a shot, because it's do or die. and in that case, it really doesn't matter if vig commits suicide or not because if it's truly do or die, you're screwed either way if you shoot the wrong person.

This game isn't about waiting until you know everything, it's about taking what you know and making calculated risks based off of your information.I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't take risks, but there should actually BE a huge risk if you're going to make a move. The only time that shooting an innocent townie is truly a huge punishment alone is when town is low on numbers, and again, youre screwed whether vig shoots himself or not because of it. Should Vig be punished with death over that? Hell no. They're already punished with losing a townie.again, in the long run, losing one townie isn't really that big of a risk, especially if it's early game. Losing shots, fine. We have to give at least SOME deterrence to gamethrowers. But being killed because you followed the spirit of the game? That's bad.That's not being killed for following the spirit of the game, that's being punished for either being too hasty with your gun, misreading your target, or deciding to take a risk and meeting the consequences of said risk. We have to balance this for both decent Vigilantes who shouldn't be completely shut down for taking a risk or getting screwed by Trans/Witch/terrible townies, and also for terrible Vigilantes who are idiots/gamethrow. Having Vigilante just lose his shots is an excellent way to balance for both ends of the Vig spectrum.it really isn't because, on the bottom of the spectrum (gamethrowers), people will shoot night 2 and go afk the entire game, which would punish town just as much as vig suicide would. I agree that we don't balance around this alone, but if your going to consider a solution that appeases both sides of the spectrum, this is completely fair game since this does NOT balance both ends of the spectrum.

Important side note: I really don't want this to become heated or angry. I like debating, but I hate when people take debating too seriously and personally. Call me a bitch. That's irrelevant. I'm not saying you have to treat me like a 3-year old or anything, but a lot of people on the internet like to get inordinately enraged over minor disagreements. You seem like the person that doesn't back off easily - just look at your signature! That's not a bad thing - it's actually great to argue with people who hold up their side of the argument. I read you as a very spirited debater who doesn't actually have any malice towards their opponent, and I hope I'm right. I just want to have a friendly debate over the Vig. Hopefully you feel the same.Dude, you read me spot on. I feel like I may come off as spiteful or easily pissed off, but I'm really not a hateful person, I just get fired up pretty easily about things I believe in. Hell, I've even gotten into political debates with some of my more conservative family members over Facebook (nothing major, all kept respectful, we just don't agree on some issues). I can (and will) keep this civil, since you actually seem to have a sense of hearing other sides of arguments. That fact that you took this long to respond leads me to believe that you actually went through those threads and read my arguments, so good on you, I appreciate someone who will keep an open mind. I will do the same, and I always admit when I'm wrong (just look at my view on VFR for proof of that). It's just sometimes I get heated quickly with people who act opinionated and closed minded with issues (like Kirize. No offense, but I find his arguments to be somewhat close minded and I often get the sense that he's very sure he's never wrong about anything. That's not an ad hominem, just an observation). I appreciate this side note. have a good evening.

[Julien8080]

One point that we seem to disagree on most is that Vigilantes should be punished with death over killing scummy townies. Often, townies are just bad. They act like evil or Jester, and they happen to be idiotic/game-throwing townies.I think the place where are views diverge is that you seem to almost always blame the Vigilante when a townie gets shot, or at least believe that it's their fault often enough so that the odd Vig who gets screwed over by an idiotic townie/Witch/Trans is a small enough margin to be ignored.
as town, you work together on a team. It sucks dick, but sometimes you just have bad team mates, and bad team mates punish the entire team. Unfortunately, if you shoot a townie who is acting scummy (especially early game), you also share that blame for being too hasty. The thing about scumreading is that there's not an exact science to it. I guarantee you there are no two people who play this game exactly alike, so what would be a scummy move to one person may not be a scummy move to another. If you are shooting a townie because you THINK they are scum based off of their behaviors that you arbitrarily define as "scummy," you share the blame in that as well. So no, it's not entirely the vig's fault all the time, but they cannot be completely blameless in shooting a so called "scummy town."
That's where you are wrong. I can think of at least two situations in which the Vig can be completely blameless for shooting an innocent townie. Getting controlled by Witch and getting screwed over by a Transporter who didn't pay attention. Sure, there are a few things you can do to try to prevent that from happening, but when it comes down to it, you are at their mercy. (Especially if the Transporter is exceptionally thickheaded.) For scumreading, I can definitely agree that everyone has different views when it comes to scummy Town members. However, there is always at least scome common ground. For example, someone who votes guilty on a revealed Mayor, and does absolutely nothing to defend himself. Classic Jester move, right? It's a good shot to either prove yourself in your DN or at least reveal the existence of a Vigilante while also getting rid of a pesky NE. But no, he was Lookout and now you die. Totally your fault.

I can see where you are coming from: shooting someone just because they didn't vote up so-and-so without even giving them a role claim and defense, for example, is usually bad play on which you should be punished. However, there are many scenarios where it simply isn't your fault, but you pay the price for it.

Tell me, what is the problem with shooting people you arbitrarily define as scummy? Besides scumreading, pretty much the only way to be sure about someone's guilt is through a TI or confirmed townie. Not even then, actually. Confirmed townies can often be wrong, and you cannot be sure that a TI claim is legitimate. Actually, they are quite commonly false. I suppose you could find out who is guilty through the process of elimination, but the game is usually decided by then. So, taking those facts, should no one shoot anyone as Vig? After all, you can almost never be absolutely, completely sure that someone is guilty. Plus, you run the risk of getting messed up by Transporter. Wouldn't shooting someone always be too hasty or risky, given the slight chance they were townie? After all, taking what you said, it will always be at least partly bad play on your part if they are innocent.

I disagree: I see more Vigilantes getting screwed over by game-throwing/dumb townies and Witch/Trans than I see townies getting screwed over by gamethrowing Vigilantes. I don't argue that bad play on the part of the Vig is a large factor, and that they should be punished for it, by becoming a Citizen for the rest of the game.I disagree, that's not punishment enough. The reason vig commits suicide as well as loses all bullets is to give the role more risk. Without the suicide, there's not enough risk associated with the role. You could just shoot some random person and confirm yourself with a death note, or, if death notes are removed, say "I'm going to shoot (player B) to confirm myself" with no risk of the repercussions that come with it. Shooting an innocent is NOT enough of a punishment for random shooting or miss-shooting, because in the long run, losing one townie isn't actually that devastating with the amount of townies per game and the powerful town roles (unless of course we're talking about late game "shoot maf or lose" situations, in which case you would still be in as much shit if vig did commit suicide because of it).
No repercussions? Becoming a Citizen for the whole game and losing a probably innocent Town member isn't a large repercussion? Tell me honestly. If Vig got changed to what I'm advocating, would you random shoot N2 with a name in your DN? I would bet money that you wouldn't. As much as you say it doesn't matter, the above consequences mixed with the risk of a Witch would be enough of a deterrent for any rational player. And yes, I do see the flaw in that argument: not all players are rational. Some might just do that, even if it's only a very small minority. However, much of this minority likely already recklessly shoots N2.

Now, let's talk about the supposed "minor punishment" that losing a townie is. Going optimistically (Any and NB assumed to side with or be townies), it's 10 Town-aligned members versus 5 evil-aligned bad guys, and it can generally be assumed that a little less than two people die per night. Let's say Vig doesn't die on shooting a townie. From N1 to N2, probably about 3 townies are dead, and generally a bad guy. Now it's 7-4. If two more townies, and let's say another baddie, dies on N3, it's 5-3, townies to baddies. But let's say a Vigilante shoots a townie anywhere on that scenario. Now, the Vig's target dies, and the evils kill another. 3-3. Evil majority by D4. What I described to you is not a trumped up version of events that wouldn't feasibly happen in an average game. Evils died in this game description, and I even gave the townies BOTH the NB and Any.

The point of that example was to show you how the Vig losing a townie messed up the entire game for them. By losing a townie vote, they lost a a day and night they could have used to find evils. Depending on the shot player's role, they lost whatever actions the townie could have done for the Town. The Vig is neutered and is now just a voter. Even without the suicide, the Vig and the townies are heavily punished.


However, dumb townies, Witch, and Trans need to be taken into account too. Losing a townie and your shots is enough of a punishment. It prevents further bad shots, in the case of a game-thrower/dumb Vig, but it also doesn't completely cripple the Town just because a townie was gamethrowing/acting stupid, the Witch got lucky, or the Trans messed up.
again, as town, you work as a team, and the team suffers because of the actions of poor team mates. In Survivor (the TV show), when a team loses a challenge, someone gets voted out, even though the loss could only be attributed to one person. And it's not typically a scenario where they vote out whoever cost the team the challenge, either. Since it's a social deception game and it's more so about taking out threats than about removing the weak link (unless it's like the first couple eliminations, usually), so someone who performed well in the challenge can take the fall due to the blunders of someone else. Same concept applies here, you suffer due to the blunders of your team mates.
I have not and do not disagree that the townies should be punished for Vig's mistake. However, a neutered Vig on top of the townie shot is enough, for reasons stated above. The townies should be punished, not decimated.

Show me a Vig who always waits until they have complete, absolute, 100% proof with no chance of Witch or Transporter messing them up or their target even having a chance of being townie, and I'll show you a bad Vig. Sometimes, you HAVE to take a shot, because it's do or die. and in that case, it really doesn't matter if vig commits suicide or not because if it's truly do or die, you're screwed either way if you shoot the wrong person.
In some of those cases, yes. But I think I gave you the wrong impression when I said "do or die". I more meant that you can't just sit around doing nothing all game because there is a slight chance of anyone being townie. While you should be punished for shooting the wrong one, you shouldn't absolutely wreck the game because of it by way of the suicide. Even if you disagree, one more townie vote is still a big deal. It's one more day and night until evils gain majority, it's another chance to lynch evils.

This game isn't about waiting until you know everything, it's about taking what you know and making calculated risks based off of your information.
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't take risks, but there should actually BE a huge risk if you're going to make a move. The only time that shooting an innocent townie is truly a huge punishment alone is when town is low on numbers, and again, youre screwed whether vig shoots himself or not because of it. Should Vig be punished with death over that? Hell no. They're already punished with losing a townie.again, in the long run, losing one townie isn't really that big of a risk, especially if it's early game.
There WOULD BE a huge risk to shooting a townie, even when you look away from Vig losing his shots, which is also a big deal. Maybe one more townie dying doesn't seem like a big deal when you have an early game numbers advantage over your opponent. But numbers dwindle quickly, as I demonstrated on my above example. As I keep emphasizing, majority is everything in this game. Losing even one extra townie is devastating. I'm not exaggerating. One less day for the townies decides games.

Losing shots, fine. We have to give at least SOME deterrence to gamethrowers. But being killed because you followed the spirit of the game? That's bad.That's not being killed for following the spirit of the game, that's being punished for either being too hasty with your gun, misreading your target, or deciding to take a risk and meeting the consequences of said risk.
You assume the Vig was too hasty, misread his target, and/or had control over his kill. For the latter, Witch and Trans. Just saying. For the former, let's say there is a Town member who is acting scummy as hell by almost anyone's measure, refusing to claim when asked, and voting and talking in an exceptionally scummy way. Would it be too hasty to shoot him? After all, you don't KNOW that he isn't townie, even though 19/20 times that guy isn't townie. Of course you shoot him. Sometimes, yes, he will be townie. However, it's worth the risk. If he is townie, I agree you should be punished, even if it wasn't completely your fault. But a suicide is simply disproportionate and doesn't take scenarios in which it isn't or mostly isn't your fault into account.

We have to balance this for both decent Vigilantes who shouldn't be completely shut down for taking a risk or getting screwed by Trans/Witch/terrible townies, and also for terrible Vigilantes who are idiots/gamethrow. Having Vigilante just lose his shots is an excellent way to balance for both ends of the Vig spectrum.
it really isn't because, on the bottom of the spectrum (gamethrowers), people will shoot night 2 and go afk the entire game, which would punish town just as much as vig suicide would. I agree that we don't balance around this alone, but if your going to consider a solution that appeases both sides of the spectrum, this is completely fair game since this does NOT balance both ends of the spectrum.
Wouldn't people going AFK after a random shot be functionally the same as a Vig gamethrow suicide, which you already defend? What's your issue with that?

And let's look at the other side of the spectrum, the Vigilantes who are good but get screwed over by others (like the gamethrowing townie who claims Mafia or whatever else, the Witch, the dumb Trans). I fail to see how your position makes this fair for them. My position, while punishing them for killing a townie (as it should be) doesn't cause a giant upheaval for the whole game, and especially the Vig, because of one townie's dumb mistake. And yes, the Town should suffer for it, but an extra townie dying is overkill. Vig losing shots is being fair to screwed over Vigilantes, while also appropriately punishing hasty/gamethrowing ones.

I'm sorry for continuing the circlejerk, but I'm glad you can hold up a debate without devolving into petty insults and logical fallacies. It's also nice to see that you are willing to change your opinion by being presented with enough facts and evidence, which I am also inclined to do. There are too many people who can't.