This is the kind of explanation I’m expecting when I ask these questions. I put forth what I saw as the list of possible explanations and why I thought it was scummy. You present another motivation. I disagree with your reasoning; however, I can understand how someone would reason that way. I’ll this point settled.
This is an important point to me because, the way you stated it, I wasn’t sure if you were genuinely suspicious of me, but reluctant to cast a vote or what. It may have been a smudge, it may have been a deliberate attempt to express suspicion, it may have been something else entirely as it seems it was. I wanted you to tell me more about it. I’ve gotten a response that provides me with the information I was looking for.
Do you disagree with the reasoning I gave. Your actual motivation aside, even with the best intentions, I maintain that it is an anti-town action. You may or may not agree with my logic as to why, but I don’t think it’s extraordinarily difficult to see why I may think that, hence why it piqued my suspicion.
I’m not willing to do that, and there’s a couple reasons why. The decisions made by either a power role or the scum overnight are not real-time decisions. They have the entire night to mull over the ramifications of their actions and are much more likely to see the pros and cons of such actions. As such, a detective impersonator’s explanation is likely to be sound and well thought out, as he had just as long to come up with a fake explanation as the real detective would to come up with the real one.
Second, as was demonstrated by storyteller’s claim, if he is in fact honest, decisions that are made in realtime are much less likely to be as well thought out. He was pressured and made the claim and later regretted it. Thus, the fact that he did answer it, particularly given this example from earlier in the game, doesn’t necessarily mean that he would have necessarily thought of all of the negatives and appropriately weighed it out.
Third, we can assume that anyone who is pro-town motivated will try to act in the best interest of the town, but we can’t assume that every action will be or even that we’ll agree on which actions are and are not in the best interest of the town. That is, even with all of that information, it’s entirely possible that he weighed it differently and came up with a different answer than I did. However, we want an answer to that, we’ll have have to ask him.
This is also why I find it suspicious when people ask these sorts of questions. Sure, they could be townies who just didn’t see the negatives or disagree with the seriousness of the negatives. However, it’s also possible that the questions are asked specifically because there are nefarious reasons and a lot of times those reasons just miss the person being asked. Particularly in the case of a revealed power role, he’s more in a “help town as much as I can before I die” mode rather than a “carefully think over everything everyone says” mode.
Hence, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to scrutinize these sorts of questions.
Fair enough.
This will simply boils down to a pointless semantic argument about the usage of “you know”. I’m making my assessment of the motivations, and if they don’t match up, then bloody-well say so and explain why.
Your last sentence here is the key point with regard to my OAOW case. I make a case why it wasn’t A or B. The only one I got was from sachetorte, but I also gave my reason why I disagreed with motiation C. OAOW didn’t counter my arguments for why it wasn’t A, B, or C, and he didn’t give me an alternative D. If one cannot provide his pro-town motivations for certain behaviors, what am I suppose to think?
This is exactly the response for which I was looking, as I said above. This is a reasonable motivation for your behavior that I didn’t already cover and for which I do not see a counter-argument. Hence, why I consider this point settled.