Alright, massive WoT incoming. Will summarise my points in a tl;dr EBWOP afterwards for all you lazy bastards who won't bother reading this.
KY, give us more hunting rather than telling us who looks Town please. In particular:
Serpentarius- Undoubtably town. Great scumhunting and nothing remotely fishy.
What exactly is this? I've already brought up the whole 'Hey, neither of you look particuarly town/scum, so instead of contributing I'll just let you blab about each other' point, so saying there's 'nothing remotely fishy' is sort of jumping to a conclusion.
Gut says both pesco and Rou are scum. This play off of each other seems forced; I'm not feeling town bouncing off of town here.
I'd place Serp and Carth as working for the good of town. Baity reminds me of Sol in 9squad, newbie who bit off more than he could chew.
UK is actually paying attention this game. KY is trying harder than usual. Kiro and Alice, uh... well, they exist?
Thanks for all the reasoning you've supplied for your suspicions, Edible.
I will admit it's occurred to me that Affinity hadn't done anything more than provide a generic opinion behind a vote, but he's provided that much at least. We should waiting to see that Beilos flips town before holding it against him since if Beilos is scum it becomes a moot point.
So making a poor case is okay if it lynches scum? Whatever happened to bussing?
I don't think it's a distraction. The chance might be the same or better if you were to start picking someone else apart (which is precisely what you're aiming to do now, right?), or it could be worse. Do I think you and Pesco are worth suspicion? Absolutely, but just not really any more than anyone else at the moment, and neither more than the other.
Here's what gets me - you manage to say that I'm both suspicious and not suspicious.
And are you honestly saying that there's no-one else you'd rather question and thus you're going to sit and watch two players give arguments that don't convince you? That's, at best, sheer laziness.
Rou, you are going to lose on the vote reason. The d12 thing was added later from what I read. I also don't think point by point will get anywhere. Probably both of you should organize defenses/attacks and take them as a whole. Because some of your scumtells are basically junk (such as the one I mentioned), while there appear to be a couple good ones hidden amongst them
I never claimed he voted Baity based on 2d6, I got mad at him when he pointed it out later. Why does a point have to be presented at the start of the case to be flawed?
Rou, I wouldn't have entertained that either. If he wins because he was lynched, it would be bullshit anyway and since most of the time a jester is just RFG'd, I'd just say "Good job winning with a bullshit role. Let's play mafia now"
If the typical 'no roles with lynch as win condition' rule was there I'd have given it no further thought, but it was conspicuously missing so I panicked. I apologise.
Fong's Gambit is too popular (well-known) to be used effectively. The options that occurred to me at the start were:
-Let random votes fly
-(somehow) generate discussion on D1
Both options were just as random as each other, in terms of the impact it would have on the game. It isn't hard to determine which option was chosen. I seem to have accidentally used the gambit without realizing it, it seems [as it is my first game here; I was unaware of the complications it causes].
You know, there are better ways to generate discussion than self-voting, such as, say, developing a genuine case against another player rather than a jokevote. >_>
And if it wasn't intended as Fong's Gambit, what exactly was it meant to do?
I would consider that being reactionary to the extent of self-vote is scummy in itself. The analysis in the case at that time (e.g reactionary self-vote) is really already implicit in the accusation since it occurs so commonly that I don't need to explciitly put it in. I would say that it was also better than any other vote I could place, since he was the most scummy then.
So there was nothing new to talk about, no original analysis to produce? It's just a clear-cut 'Selfvote obvscum see you on D2'?
The problem now with Rou seems to be that he charges at Pesco for the stuff regarding #46-49 when Pesco didn't vote Baity specifically for that.
FPMH is an initial suspicion which either stays or goes based on later posts. He KEPT IT ON based on the dice and the self-vote.
The flipping the question around in #56 feels like a false scenario or something like that (probably didn't use the right words for it). Why are you trying to prove something in Baity's defense? I did not get good vibes with that post.
I don't even understand this point. Pesco's argument for Baity being scum was that claiming he rolled 2d6 and then selfvoting was all part of some master plan. I asked him to give one possible legitimate example to prove he wasn't BSing and he failed to provide.
I actually did not catch any notion of this in any of your posts because the way you go after Pesco and ignore Baity after pointing out his softclaim makes me feel like you think he's a Town PR. See also "defense of Baity" point I made above. So if you are suspicious of Baity, how do you see this fitting in with your suspicions about Pesco being scum?
Quick bus to make Pesco look good and stop him from being the classical MotK policy lynch.
I'd have been able to be more verbal about my suspicions of Baity had he actually SAID SOMETHING USEFUL.
I'll need to see Rou's points set out clearly to respond. They've been founded on the dice misrep as far as I can tell and I regard those as worthless.
THIS IS NOT MISREP. It's not as if I'm claiming you said something you didn't, and while it may not have been your initial reasoning for voting Baity it was easily your weakest reason.
Rou's barely addressed what was spoken by people other than Pesco and can't seem to keep a clear head. Complaining about the lack of anyone else... doesn't work for me when he buys so thoroughly into Pesco's snarkiness.
Forgive me for finding it annoying when people have no objection to Pesco's ad-hominem attacks on me. Seriously, he's MotK's resident
Draco in Leather Pants.I don't think it's far-fetched. If we find a reasonably plausible scenario that links two or three players as scum, I say we try to lynch them all. Going after several unrelated suspected scum gives us the advantage that we clean up several leads at once, but going after a group of apparently coherent scum makes it a lot harder for any of them to escape a lynching, in case our suspicions are correct. I favor the latter.
But if our suspicions of said group are wrong, there's a good chance we'll lynch nothing but Townies.
And if we can make several of these plausible scenarios and lynch one player from each, that cuts down our suspicions considerably. Putting all our eggs in one basket is insanely risky.
Re-reading Roukanken v. Pesco, it looks to me like Pesco is just being an ass. Whether that's normal for him or not, I don't know, since I've only seen scum-Pesco in my history here. Still, I've seen townie players use abrasiveness to great effect before, so I won't consider it a scumtell.
Do you see ANYTHING as a scumtell? I find it hard to believe that you honestly don't see anything as worth commenting on in this argument for one side or the other.
-Make myself look so much like scum, that you'll waver it off, because nobody plays like that... (save for me in this game, I hope) >_>
Isn't this the inverted Too Townie fallacy? "You're so scummy, you must be Town?"
Seriously, deliberately acting scummy is HORRENDOUS Town play. Colour me severely unconvinced.
Surely, after reading my first point, it could make you pass off as a townie, but the fact that it didn't work as the majority have casted suspicion on me proves that this is arguably one of the stupidest things scum can do. Further, I can say with great confidence that (almost? Rou might've had the idea that I was.) nobody thought of this.
Baity, as much as I hate to break it to you Stupid Scum =/= Smart Town. Sometimes it's just Stupid Scum.
Quite the opposite. My whole point is that neither of them seem really scummy to me, but I don't mind them squeezing each other and seeing if something scummy pops out. They're both playing smart, as I see it. At this stage in the game, you can agree with people's methods without agreeing with their votes.
Serp, I find your lack of an actual opinion annoying. You have your own suspects for scum, correct? If so, fight about them, argue your side of the debate. Don't sit back and let other people do the work for you - scumhunt, dammit.
I think I explained my reasoning pretty well in the post you ninja'd. If one being scum implies that the other is scum, I favor going after them both, since multi-lynch is an option. That's why I placed the vote in the first place - I kept it 'cause Affinity hadn't shown up to defend himself yet.
Where, anywhere in
that post, did you raise this idea? Are you trying to say that we're either both scum or neither scum now? Honestly, why is wringing an opinion out of you so hard?
