Not when the entire Town has told them not to. And if we have it at 6/6 then we'd need 2 of your clueless Townies to mess things up.
Does a 6/6 seem at all likely to you right now?
This implies that lynching is necessary. If we have a choice between lynching one player who's probably scum, and lynching two players one of whom is probably scum and the other could be anything, we'll be worse off choosing the latter in the event that Player 2 is Town. In the same way we only want to go for the triple lynch with 3 strong suspects, we want 2 for the double lynch.
What!? I can't believe you're saying this. It goes against everything I know about lynching philosophy in mafia. Sure, lynching a Town is wose than lynching no one at all, but
why would you assume anyone as 100% town? Why would you assume that in saying "I don't think your case on Pesco is good," I'm thinking that Pesco is 100% town? You start the game with the same degree of suspicion for everyone.
Please, can everyone reading this line comment on this argument, so I know I haven't been dropped into a bizarro world where it's a good idea for the town to sacrifice lynches if they don't have a solid case?
Reading through the thread,
you don't even agree with this!
Here, you say that you're pro-doublelynch, and
anti-singlelynch, with no mention at all of how this should be modified depending on how many good cases we have. This is what a contradiction looks like, Roukanken.
This logic that it's okay to randomly accuse people with no suspicion when there are better targets around is horrifically flawed. It's like taking your random vote at the beginning of the game and sticking with it, giving reasoning as you go along.
At the time, BaitySM was starting to look pretty bad. At the time, everyone seemed to agree that a multi-lynch was a good idea. If it had been a typical one-lynch day, I probably would've jumped on the BaitySM case like everyone else, but I wanted to stir things up and find a good candidate for a second lynch.
You do realise that if PvR IS a Town/Town fight, sitting and letting us pick at each other would be an excellent plan for scum, right? Whoever wins it's a free mislynch.
Not really, considering that Pesco's argument was pretty much entirely a defensive one. His attacks were all on your character and your technique, not on your towniness. If Pesco wins, then he doesn't get lynched, and someone more suspicious does instead. Again, you yourself said
here that it's not smart to defend other players' statements.
No. No, no, NO.
I can't believe you're actually saying this.
There is NO reason to make a case that you know is poor. Pick out people's mistake because you honestly believe they're scummy, don't do it if you know there's a flaw in your logic.
We seem to have a fundamental disagreement here on early scumhunting strategy. That said, when I initially made that post, I thought it to be a
weak argument, not a
flawed one. I knew it was contrived, but I thought it could theoretically be true. With more time to think about it, and with some other players' comments on it, I eventually came around to the opinion that it was indeed flawed, but left it there since Affinity hadn't properly responded to it yet, and I wanted to see what he'd do.
I've given a good list of reasons for why to suspect Pesco, but as is you're still proving worse in my eyes.
That doesn't make sense. If you're no less suspicious of Pesco, but just more suspicious of me, then you ought to be pushing for a triple lynch. Instead, you're just paying lip service to Pesco right now as an afterthought.
HERE'S MY POINT - IF YOU THOUGHT MY CASE AGAINST PESCO WAS POOR, WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU VOTE FOR ME LIKE ANY NORMAL TOWNIE WOULD?
I'm pretty sure that Pesco thought your case against him was poor. Notice that he didn't vote against you. Your point here makes no sense at all. I figured it was just a bad case early in the first day, which, as I've made known, I consider better than nothing. For all I knew, Pesco might've cracked with a bit more pressure.
It just feels condescending is all. Like you're goading him into agreeing with you.
In my defense, it's a really obvious point, and Zakeri has a reputation as a skilled player. He shouldn't have needed me to point it out.
Alright then:Translation: "Neither of you seem that scummy, but I'll let you argue anyway."
Translation: "Both of you are relatively suspicious."
How do you get from "not any more [suspicious] than anyone else at the moment" to "relatively suspicious"? If anything, that should be read as "relatively not suspicious."
Translation: "Pesco is being a dick, but since that's very rarely used by Townies I'll ignore it as a scumtell entirely."
Irrelevant, and as far as I can tell, it's just his personality.
And we're back to 'Neither of them are scummy' again.
Quote was "neither of them seem really scummy to me." That should be read as no more or less scummy than average.
"Apparently I now want to lynch a player who I just said isn't scummy, because obviously we need to doublelynch, right?"
Considering that
you agree with that statement, as previously linked, yeah.
"And now I don't want to lynch him because I want to get rid of an inactive instead."
Yes, that's right. My opinion has always been "I don't mind lynching Pesco if no one better comes up." Someone better came up. Now I don't want to lynch him.
Happy now?
Still waiting on that grand list of contradictions and waffling opinions. All I see here is a few unrelated quotes you take issue with.
KY's obvious due to vote, on calling people as townie. Baity as well for his earlier weirdness play. And the deal here is more just letting some random lynch slide by when you have other ideas; in your later posts after the fact you're looking at a bait/KY/alert triumvirate? (not too impressed by a shot on alert, really, but eh.)
I consider Baity and KY scummy on their own merits, more likely than the average player to be scum, but I consider Alert a nuisance for not existing. Also getting irritated at Edible for the same reason. I've been pushing for Baity and KY to both be lynched for awhile now. Since a triple lynch is a possibility, and I've not had any other leads, I've been fine with trying to get someone else in there too - "letting some random lynch slide by" is fine when it doesn't interfere with getting rid of the really scummy people. Now that we clearly have inactivity hijinks to deal with, I'm
not happy with lynching some random person along with Baity and KY. I think we should aim for getting rid of one of these inactive liabilities too, if we can manage it.
