I’m sorry if I wasn’t entirely clear before. Here’s my what I said previously on the matter.
I still feel that this is a reasonable thing to suspect. Don’t get me wrong, this is hardly an earth-shattering revelation. But, in terms of Day 1 suspicions, guessing that we’re facing a fully-powered scum team seems a good enough starting position. As I mentioned before, assuming your enemy has a full deck of cards arrayed against you (and playing accordingly) is good strategy. We’re playing with some newbies, so voicing his opinions could help them out as well. Remember, playing with a pessimistic outlook on how easy this will be is far better than assuming they’ve got nothing and that this will be a walk in the park for us.
I do understand your concerns. This does not give Chronos a free pass on any inadvertent PIS slips he might make. As with anything in this game, there are no cut and dried rules; we’d have to evaluate each case individually. But to claim that his day one musings had “no” positive benefit for town? That didn’t sit right with me, because I fundamentally disagreed. Like Chronos, I believe we’re facing a fully-powered enemy, and I’m planning on believing that until the evidence suggests otherwise.
While he didn’t explicitly say it, I read Chronos’ early statement as implying an all-power-role game and that perspective certainly influenced my early vote for him. Am I alone in that read?
I did not read it that way, either. Like I said, I was making the same assumption, and what I meant was that I thought that there would be a lot of powers on both sides, not that I thought it was an all-power game.
No, sorry. I just felt that Suburban’s argument against you had some meat too it, but wanted to look at it a bit more closely before I actually voted for you.
Apparent “Perfect Information Slips” are often thought to be a good way to spot scum, but in reality scum will often point out things that seem to be PIS’s because they are an apparent safe vote. Even when the person pointing it out is town, it is an easy vote for scum to jump on. Apparently knowing who was subbed in before everyone was just too easy a vote for scum to jump on.
I understand being busy. Today was one of the few times that I have been able to take the time to post from work.
I would say a lot of players find me lurky in general and it may be a bit worse when I am scum since I find formulating my thoughts into coherent posts to be difficult anyway and even more so when I am trying to hide something.
That said, I have never intentionally used lurking as a scum strategy, which I believe you have admitted to. (If I have the wrong player here, I am sorry.)
If you are Town and you are lynched, it will prove nothing about your point other than that you genuinely believe it to be true. You know that, right?
I disagree with you wholly and entirely on the subject of self-preservation votes being anti-Town. I want to emphasize that. I that a self-preservation vote can be anti-Town under certain specific circumstances, but in general a Townie who knows his/her own death will constitute a mislynch has a positive duty to try to avoid being lynched. Oredigger was himself a part of the Town, and thus the sort of nebulous “Will of the Town” that he (in your view) should have submitted to *includes his own vote.
But that said, I have no doubt that you genuinely believe your own position and do not see it as a mark for or against you.
Your refusal to engage with anyone who criticizes your actions or questions them, though, is as anti-Town in this game as it has been in every other game where you have so refused. You are not above discussing your own actions.
Except that what’s good for a player is, all else being equal, good for that player’s team. A mislynch hurts Town, and a Town player knows that es own lynch would be a mislynch. Now, a Townie who’s voting defensively should certainly also say whom they would be voting for, if they weren’t voting defensively: That’s the information that you’re talking about. But not voting defensively is asking someone to disregard information they have.
1: My quick vote did not reflect any particular great confidence: In fact, I’m almost never all that confident in my votes. But discussion is good for Town, and the quicker it starts in earnest, the better, and votes are a very strong way of starting discussion.
2: My vote was based on the fact that, late in the day, a significant number of people placed their votes in such a way that the lynchee changed. The fact that this happened is true, and therefore my argument still works. I was mistaken on the manner in which it happened, but my argument did not rest on the manner in which it happened.
3:
No, it does not imply that. If you are Town, then it follows as a certainty that nobody was trying to save you, their Scumbuddy, because you would be nobody’s Scumbuddy. However, if you come up Scum, then it remains plausible (though not certain) that that might have happened.
I’m not sure what your objection is here. Yes, they are equivalent, which is why I continue to use that as justification. I said the same thing in two different ways in different posts.
I’ve already said that it’s clear that the shift was not entirely Scum-driven, since there’s no way we’d have that many Scum in the game. This does not mean that there was no Scum involvement at all, or that it could not have been disproportionately Scum-driven. It could well be that a few Townies had legitimate (though of course incorrect) reasons for suspecting Oredigger, and that Scum then jumped on the opportunity to agree. Or it could be that Scum wanted to save you and so came up with the most convincing case they could for someone else, and were able to persuade Town to come along.
That’s the wrong question to ask. I don’t need to think it more likely than not that a particular player is Scum, in order to vote for that player (though of course, it’s good if there is evidence that strong). All I need is to think that it more likely that that particular player is Scum than it is that any other particular player is Scum. The statistics are pretty clear that, overall, the people folks vote for on the first couple of Days are more likely to be Town than Scum. C’est la vie; we just have to do the best we can.
No matter how many times you keep typing this, it doesn’t make it true. I had reasons and said what they were when called upon to do so. The reason I didn’t at first is because it was blatantly obvious why I was voting.
So again, you’re just plain, flat out, 100 percent wrong.
And furthermore, number 2 doesn’t make any sense at all, Pleo. When Scuba asked why I voted, I gave him the reason. So why do you have 2 as “spinning the reason”?
You either refuse to admit you’re wrong, or you’re deliberately trying to show my actions as they were not.
I object to promoting something that “probably doesn’t say anything” as a reason for doing something, especially when re-casting it later as a reason like “it removes a line of suspicion”.
Consider that I have recognized they are equivalent, and you have admitted it. Now, go back to post #647 and make the substitiution, it would read like so (not in quote tags, because I am altering words):
“If he comes up Town, then it tells us that the people voting for Oredigger weren’t doing so in order to save a scum-buddy, and thereby probably doesn’t say anything. Knowing which arguments are not helpful is just as important as knowing which ones are.”
Now, that seems odd, no? That’s my objection, especially when combined with the whopper that “knowing which arguments are not helpful is just as important as knowing which ones are.” (One point of many you didn’t actually address, naturally.)
===
That being said, you’ve explained your overall reasoning, I think it reinforces how weak your original case is, so I don’t see any reason to quibble further over it.
(Note that I don’t consider making a weak case at this point a personal failing or tell, because we have so few facts.)
===
Speaking of facts, I’d like to go over those and see if they tell us anything.
We know two vanilla townies are dead.
We know the names and roles and canon of the dead.
Does this impact the value of the proposed name/canon claim? Is it any more likely to help or hurt?
Does this impact the likelihood of the unproven claims? There are two, mine and Idle Thoughts.
(I don’t know the dude from Supernatural, so I don’t know how much of a “hero” he was. This makes it hard for me to get a fix if Joel seems a legit “hero” claim.)
Does the Night kill of peeker give us any insight into Scum thinking? I see Astral Rejection tries his hand at this in post #611.
Does the fact there was only one Day kill and one Night kill tell us anything about the possible Scum power roles / third-parties?
Well, it strongly suggests that there’s not a serial killer, and lends weight to the hypothesis that there is no vigilante. Either one might choose not to kill (though that’s uncommon for SKs), and it’s also possible that we had multiple attempted kills, but that a doctor or roleblocker stopped one, or that multiple killers targeted peeker. And we might also have killer roles that only get to make their kills under certain circumstances. So we can’t say for sure that we don’t have a vig and/or SK. As for Scum powers, I’ve sometimes seen Scum have a power that lets them make multiple kills in a Night, but in every case I’ve seen, that had to be activated somehow, so it probably couldn’t have been used in Night 1 anyway.
I’d say it is more likely to hurt, as power role distribution is now more concentrated in the general population.
It doesn’t impact my view of the claims on the table at all. YMMV.
I think it may have been an effort to incriminate you, as I included in my vote post.
The phrase ‘day kill’ is usually reserved for someone dying outside of the lynch, and if memory serves, people have been voted for (and possibly lynched) in past games for using it to describe a lynch, as it arguably indicates the Scum perspective when looking at the lynch of a Townie.
But assuming for the moment that you did not just make such a scum slip and used the term innocently to refer to the Day 1 lynch, I don’t see how it tells us much of anything about scum/third party powers that is not obvious, particularly if you leave out conjecture about Town power roles.
Conclusions in no particular order with the information at hand:
1- The scum/third party pool had the combined abilities to kill at least once last night and that kill was not successfully blocked.
2- Peeker wasn’t protected, or if he was protected then that protection was overpowered, redirected, or blocked.
3- Oredigger didn’t have a lynch-stopping/lynch-surviving power and was not acted upon by anyone with a lynch-stopping power.
