But that isn't the case, and I don't see why anyone should assume as such. Instead of saying 'we should lynch a random player if we can't find targets', why not spend your time FINDING TARGETS?
Ideally, finding good targets is always better. I've been working on it.
This is assuming that both lynches go as planned, which seems to be something you yourself aren't sure of.
I'm speaking purely theoretically here, as though having two lynches chosen without scum interference were just as realistic as one lynch chosen without scum interference.
Secondly, lynched Townies are like Aeris - once they're dead, they can't come back no matter how hard you try. An extra night phase may give a cop time to investigate or they may be cleared on another flip. Lynched Townies are always BAD, so it's good to lynch only a suspect you're confident in rather then one as a last resort IMO.
Damn it, this just reminded me of something, and I feel like an idiot for not realizing it sooner. If we lynch two people here, and the game continues with the standard number of lynches and night kills each phase, we'll end on a night kill. Three kills won't deprive us of any lynch phase. That's worth noting, though with this setup, maybe standard lynches and night kills aren't a useful assumption.
Key difference - I commented on Affinity. You didn't comment on Pesco.
Your mention of Affinity consisted entirely of:
Affinity's post of 'facts facts facts Vote Baity' doesn't feel very useful, either, but Pesco still wins out.
I don't think you can quite claim the high ground here.
So you'd rather I spent time with someone who didn't seem particularly scummy rather than with someone you had genuine suspicions of?
I'm not going to say "Hey, stop voting for that not-particularly-scummy person!" every time someone votes differently than me. I'm going to keep pressing my case until we get to the late day and I can either lay it all out and ask for support, or switch to someone who I think ended up with a better case against them.
I will admit this point to you - KY typically isn't one to lurk, usually he tries to produce and fails. Add to this the fact he was on 8 hours ago, and...
Everyone lurking while we build walls of text around each other is getting scummier every minute, in my opinion.
Scum can be sincere. Town can make honest mistakes, so scum can 'sincerely' point them out and watch the mislynch run itself.
And that's why when you asked whether I thought you and Pesco were Townie, I replied that you were neither especially scummy, but I'm not going to vote against everyone pursuing a case I don't feel strongly about, especially early on day one.
I'm looking at it from your viewpoint, where the two of us are both 'not especially scummy' and trying to analyse what you'd do in said situation. I still really don't like how Pesco is playing.
Fair enough.
But when you walk into a game, do you immediately FoS everyone playing because they're all worthy of suspicion? No. You look for someone doing something MORE suspicious than usual, and press them in a search for scum.
Right, of course, but my point is that I didn't just FoS you out of nowhere - you asked me what I thought, and I replied that you were just as suspicious as everyone else. It might not be the most standard way to put it, but since one of the scumtells KY has fallen victim to is showing a ridiculous lack of suspicion, it was on my mind.
So by this logic, if someone produces nothing scummy all game but doesn't do anything that useful either, they deserve to be lynched if necessary?
If everyone else
has done useful stuff, and
hasn't done scummy stuff, then in theory, yes, absolutely.
But this seems like a pretty large assumption. "I will agree to the Pesco lynch if none of the remaining players do anything scummy at all"?
Not entirely far fetched. Baity and KY are the only ones I consider overtly suspicious at the moment. I'd favor some others due to scumminess ex lurkina, but I haven't seen a good case against anyone else.
Alright, here's where the problem kicks in. I attack Pesco, he says some new things, and you don't give any opinion on them. To continue your 'path' analogy, this is you looking at the signpost on the crossroads, ignoring one path entirely.
In addition I still have a relatively strong, much less opinionated case on Pesco in comparison, which he STILL hasn't got around to defending against...
Everyone will tend to tunnel a little when forced to defend themselves at the same time. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's what I've fallen victim to. I'm going to do a complete reread of the thread and post some more opinions before the deadline.
Warning - while you were typing 13 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.Oh, damn. Response to those forthcoming as well.
