[QUOTE=WF Tomba]
Here’s an idea.
On Day One, One And Only Wanderers was basically lynched for displaying irrational aggression.
Now, when confronted with irrational aggression, Mafia players fall into two camps:
Group A, who say “That’s suspicious behavior!”
Group B, who say “It’s weird, but it’s not a scum tell.”
This sets up an interesting possible scum strategy: attack, aggressively and irrationally, a Town player who has displayed irrational aggression. The Group A players will agree with you and lynch the poor sap. The Group B players will disagree, but they won’t vote for you because they don’t see your irrational aggression as suspicious.
I propose that Blaster Master is using that strategy in this game. He waited until he saw a town player go on the offensive with a lot of heat and not much reason. That turned out to be One And Only Wanderers. Knowing that some players (those in Group A) would vote for OAOW as soon as his irrationally aggressive behavior was pointed out, Blaster Master led a charge against him, and made sure that the attack was both aggressive and illogical, thus deflecting the suspicions of those in Group B.
Vote Blaster Master
[/QUOTE]
You’re completely misrepresenting what my case was against OAOW. Aggression, in and of itself, is a null tell. I’ve been aggressive as scum (see Batman and Recruitment) and I’ve been aggressive as town (see Simpletown). However, you paint my aggression against OAOW as irrational. You get that it’s irrational because you’re saying I unvoted him for strategic reasons. Considering just how much time I had spent discussing my reasoning, it should be pretty clear that that was not the case.
To recover my case against him briefly, he engaged in actions that I felt had a limited number of pro-town reasons. He explicitly eliminated one. That was when I defended him at first because I still saw other potential pro-town motivations for his actions. His FOS of me, based on the logic he used, seemed to me to implicitly elimate a second one. That was when I voted for him. The argument that ensued with sachetorte about it was a potential third motivation which I argued didn’t make sense. I think that is where I was actually wrong because, while it was illogical given that the other two were not his motivations, it doesn’t mean he may not have also followed it.
Either way, I was very vocal and laid my logic out very clearly. I don’t think any of my logical steps were irrational. If you want to maintain that my arguments WERE irrational, then I’d like you to point out exactly which parts were as well as why I necessarily knew they were irrational.
I also disagree with your assessment that I “waited until * saw a town player go on the offensive with a lot of heat and not much reason”. This is also a misrepresentation of the events. I actually disagreed with the first vote, at first, but his nearly simul-post actions changed my impression. Either way, I was still the second vote for him, and if you want to accept storyteller’s initial suspicion as heat, then perhaps I was the third. What exactly is “a lot of heat”, particularly since I generated a large amount of it.
I am curious though, story, what motivation for your choices so far… are you using your detective role to confirm townies, and therefore selecting those that you think will live longer and provide benefit, or are you searching for scum? I know sach, before he was lynched, was asking why CatinaRugger. It seems to me the first, but I would like to know.
). Sadly, since Blaster has not returned to respond to that post and the one following, it will shortly disappear into the mists of time…