(My question concerns what I’ve bolded)
As no one but Drain has come forward claiming to do anything last Night that could have conceivably caused the Night to be skipped, are you inferring that Drain must have stolen the book? If that is not what you are inferring, then I don’t understand what you are trying to say.
Hi from Moscow!
I think he is proposing the following scenario
a) Drain is on the level and has reported their role accurately
vs
b) Drain has the book, had figured out a night cancellation use of said book, and fake claimed to gain town cred by use of said power
So I think the point is just not to automatically assume a, but to also consider b
I thought it was Day and Night for in-game Days.
Yes, that is what I meant. One and Only just explains it better.
There is a third possibility wrt Drain. A Third Party could have had that spell available intrinsically. People have said that her character is very like one from Buffy, and what were the outside characters in Evil Dead 1? Third parties.
If we replace Vanilla with PFK or SK in her PM, the PM makes quite a bit more sense, doesn’t it? Especially if we assume there was an additional power or two that she just happened to leave out.
Yeah, I don’t think Drain is Scum, but I definitely think she’s a possible third party. We know there are likely to be two hostile third parties, but this is a really big game, so there may be room for a non-hostile third party too.
We typically use toDay, toNight, or toMorrow, or Day and Night here.
Though I don’t see why she would have called herself “Vanilla” instead of “Special” if she did that.
I’m going to try and take a solid look at the case on Mahaloth tonight, seeing as how I was scum with him and was in fact the guy he bussed in random mafia.
OK, I don’t think Tom Scud/Guiri is Scum for two reasons.
The substitution: I think it’s much more easy to spoil a Town player beyond redemption than to spoil a Scum player. Scum know a great deal more about the game than Town do.
In post 888, Astral voted for Oredigger, using Guiri’s reasoning as his primary evidence. Astral was Scum, and knew that Oredigger wasn’t. I don’t think he would have risked exposing Guiri like that if Guiri were Scum.
That being said, it does not eliminate Guiri/Tom Scud from being a possible Third Party.
I don’t think it sucks. I’m not used to playing here and I do play “off-style” in this game. No big deal - I just didn’t think it was a scummy off-style, more an off-Total-style, really.
And I know my case on Plankton might seem weak. But I think part of that is I’m getting a scummy vibe off him. But I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around it and pinpoint it down.
How would #2 expose Guiri/Tom? and please stop using ‘scum wouldn’t do that’ to justify conclusions you’re drawing.
As to the first sentence, I can see her calling herself “Vanilla” not realizing that story would use “Special” to describe her role.
As to the second sentence, it would be very much appreciated. Though, as I recall, he never really bussed you. He just made waves against you with weak cases and then defended himself (successfully) with a “why would Scum do that?” defense.
It was this one that made me think of a non-denial denial:
When you’re playing Scum, you know you have to lie, almost constantly. So you need to prepare a defense before you even post anything. You already know all of the holes in every argument, so you try to prepare all of the answers to all of the questions in advance. You need to review every word to make sure you aren’t claiming to know something you don’t know; you need to make sure that all of your argumenst have a solid basis; you need to make sure you don’t say anything that contradicts anything you’ve said before.
My point was that you started out saying that if you were scum, you’d have a defense ready and would “make sure you aren’t claiming to know something you don’t know” and that you need to “make sure you don’t say anything that contradicts anything you’ve said before”.
So you’re denying that you said anything you should not have known (since you’re claiming not to be scum) and that you never said anything to contradict yourself (based once more on you not being scum).
However you started all that by saying:
The thing is, I haven’t really bothered thinking all that much about how I am going to defend myself, because I haven’t done anything wrong.
So to start it all off you claimed you in fact never claimed anything you should not have know and you never contradicted yourself.
So what you denied doing (PIS and contradiction) and what you say scum would never do is the very same thing.
So the denail (not being scum) is based on scum playing perfect and not making mistakes which is pretty much what you then claimed to have done, however you not bother thinking about it makes you (even if you did show scum-signs) non-scum.
The reason I used the phrase was the fact that you somehow manage to say that you indeed never contradicted yourself nor did you show signs of PIS (which Scum wouldn’t do or would be prepared to defend if they did) - yet, you might have shown scum-tell but the lack of defends is an indication that you’re not Scum.
My problem with this is when you boil it down it’s a way to get away with a lot of scummy things while saying “Yes, that might have been very scummy indeed. But since I didn’t bother to think about it might have been scummy, I can’t be held accountable for it. I can admit to it showing scummy-ness but not to me being scum”.
Well, “bussed” in the sense of “voted for me as a fellow scum”.
I disagree very much with this.
If a Scum have access to the spoilers and can see Town power-role including actions they have taken, that would spoil them as much beyond redemption as well.
Not to mention that we’re likely to have two PFK’s in the game…
I disagree strongly that this is useful evidence. What if a scum Guiri got the results. There are all kinds of things scum could have been sent that would advantage them too much to know.
This, on the other hand, is a useful data point.
Of course.
I was, and am, claiming that I never said anything that I should not have known. I don’t think I’ve said anything to contradict myself, but it’s possible that I did. I’m sure someone will be glad to point it out if it did happen.
I think this is the same thing you said in your previous paragraph, so I still agree with you here.
I never said “scum would never do” these things. Obviously Scum do this sort of thing all the time, because they very often get caught doing it. I said that Scum are under more pressure to not do such things, because they know that they are ‘guilty’ before they open their mouths. I also didn’t say that I did “not bother thinking about it”. I said that I didn’t spend a lot of time preparing a defense before I was accused of anything. My point being, if I were Scum, I would know exactly what sort of defense I needed to prepare, because I would know which parts of my story were most likely to be suspect (the parts that I lied about). But as town, since I’m telling the truth, I don’t know what I might need to defend myself against until someone brings it up.
I want to address a couple phrases here in particular:
“the lack of defends is an indication that you’re not Scum”
I never said anything like this. A lack of defense is not a Town-tell; it’s one of the things I myself called out peeker for. And in any case, I did defend myself. I have spent most of the last 2 Days defending myself. In fact, the bulk of the post which you quoted from is made up of me defending myself.
“But since I didn’t bother to think about it might have been scummy, I can’t be held accountable for it.”
Again, I never said that I shouldn’t be held accountable for my actions. You didn’t quote here the last paragraph of my post, which begins “Now obviously, I don’t expect that everyone is going to believe everything I say “just because I’m town”. I know it doesn’t work that way; I still need to support my conclusions with some kind of reasonable analysis.” Here I come right out and say that I must be held accountable.
You seem to be fosucing exclusively on the last couple paragraphs of my post, while ignoring the bulk of it, in which I give denials for the various Scummy actions of which I am accused. Not “non-denial denials”, but actual “what I did wasn’t Scummy at all, and this is why” denials.
Just to provide a bit of context: The post that you quoted here (2130) was in response to Nanook’s Post 2117 in which he accuses me of not having put up any defense to a previous post by Normal (2088). As I told Nanook at the time, I felt I had already addressed the issues in previous posts, so I didn’t feel it necessary to ‘mount a defense’. But since I was being called out for not having done so, I provided one. My comments at the end (the ones you quoted above) were made in frustration for being called out for ‘not defending myself’, when I had been doing so all along. In retrospect, it would have been better if I had left out those last couple paragraphs, and just stuck to ‘mounting a defense’. Not because they aren’t true, but because they don’t really do a good job of supporting my own case.
Oh well, I made my bed, now I have to lie in it…
NETA: That “What if a scum Guiri got the results.” was the beginning of a hypothetical that didn’t quite work out outside of the sugar-deprived confines of my head. I meant to delete it.
In addition, anyone could have gotten spoilers on the Third Party or Parties (I think 2 is likely but not yet proven), which wouldn’t have unbalanced the game, exactly, but would have been massively unfair to those players (or that player).
@Suburban
I think what Total Lost is saying is that your defense is circular.
You are saying:
Total is making the following case:
I understand what you’re saying, and if that’s what total Lost means as well, then she’s correct, as far as that goes. But my argument is that this is not my defense.
My defense came earlier in the referenced post, and in a number of other posts, where I addressed the issues brought forth and defended myself against them.
I never attempted to use “I had nothing to hide, so I didn’t bother preparing a defense” as my defense itself. I was trying to make a point about how the thought process differs between Town and Scum, and apparently failed miserably.
Am I not now making myself clear? Is it not apparent that I did in fact make an attempt (several actually) to defend myself against accusations? It would be one thing if people were saying “I’ve read your supposed defense, and I don’t believe a word of it”, but that’s not what’s happening here. Instead people keep saying “you didn’t provide a defense”. Maybe I’m just completely incapable of being objective here, but that seems like a rather narrow view of things…