A question so easy I will answer it half cut
Scum Chuc would back a Town Pizza- betcha - if it looked like Pizza was losing the fight
Voting him in the end was the icing--- You were the second runner up- when Pizza flipped you could claim Town VS Town action ---- which you are using now--- Although common Day one - your approach smells different.
AND your last sentence (underlined by me) has bells on
and I have yet to see you clarify the verbage you used in the post in question *
I must have misread this bit: “The frustration could come from choie’s first lynch actually happening as scum.” to be past-tense instead of present, my apologies.
would you care to explain what in particular about my questions are scummy? and while you’re at it, why don’t you answer the actual questions I asked rather than just putting out the same practiced statement over and over? we know that you think an early reveal is better - we want to know why you think that.
questioning the validity of vote reasons is not the same as defending a player; I had planned on doing the same with the run of votes against you but ran out of time for the night - even if I were inclined to distrust your role claim there’s value in determining the motivation behind the votes against you, yes?
Then lynch me - get it out of your system. There is little I can do but point out the flaws in your logic. Scum does not want to make noise - which is why I was certain Pizza was town. And which is why you are also wrong about me. And possibly why I am also wrong about Texcat. Still, to put myself in his/her shoes - I’d have to feel awfully strong about a case in order to actively encourage other townies to support a lynch. And why Texcat feels that way about me, I can only guess. I know it cannot be because he/she knows I’m scum, so that just leaves one option IMO.
It’s Day 2. So saying these are weak votes as compared to literally yesterDay doesn’t hold much water. We still don’t have a ton to go on here.
They’re only weak votes if you carelessly or deliberately misinterpret the rationale behind these votes, which you have.
It’s funny. I see an awful lot of complaining going on here and in the multitude of other posts you’ve made in the last 24 hours…but no actual scum hunting. And no voting. Why is that I wonder?
Maybe I don’t need to wonder. Maybe it’s because scum likes riding bandwagons and not pressing people too hard.
It’s not logical but it’s something she’d do when frustrated, as townie. This is bad play but is not indicative one way or the other.
Diver was in that game. Not sure what his deal is.
So far, not a fan of Diver’s voting record.
We are more alike than unlike. It’s *precisely *why I threw up my hands and became deathly silent. There was no point in arguing anything further, town was not in listening or thinking mode. They were guessing (no argument to be made against that) and thinking my behavior was in any way scummy (not in the slightest, but scummy has no actual definition so… no argument to be made against that either).
When has that stopped anyone.
Meanwhile, some players such as Lightfoot make less noise and less sense all at once.
Lightfoot is completely ignoring the fact that voting for Chucara might have been better for my health than not doing so and I refused because he sounded townie. So his sticking up for me isn’t even unique to that situation. I did it for him.
It’s not foreknowledge so much as guessing and also claiming vanilla.
The only thing different is that he eventually voted for me to save himself. I’m not going to touch that because he might be a town power. Or he might have a different philosophy. “I know I’m town, I only think pizza is town. Sorry pizza.” Which IIRC is almost precisely why he ended up voting that way.
I think Lightfoot’s just voting for anything she personally doesn’t understand. Not what is scummy.
I’m not saying fubbles is guilty, but I think calling people out on potential BS or hypocrisy is a great way to exert pressure, especially in cases where it looks like a scum is riding the fence.
You’re trying to bring former games into this one by asking me about my roles in the past
I kind of feel that bringing this in would serve scum more than it would town
I have repeated over and over why I think revealing my role would be useful to town. Please re-read my posts, I’ll gladly clarify them. And no, there’s nothing in my role that provides added immediate value to revealing our names.
As to your questioning of the validity of vote reasons: I guess phrasing is everything in this game. I honestly feel your post reads like a defense of choie far more than anything else.
Yesterday, we spent a lot of time debating and discussing Pizza, the Plan, his play style, and his motivations, leading to his lynch. Who started that discussion? Guiri.
Today, we’re spending a lot of time on **Choie **and she’ll probably be lynched. Who started that discussion? Guiri.
I think he knew that both of them would generate a lot of discussion and votes, so he lobbed both grenades into the middle of Town and stood back to see what would happen. And now one’s been lynched and the other is on the way to being lynched.
Vote Chucara
I’m in the same boat as Yesterday regarding Chucara. I don’t think the lynch leader is scum, he’s in second place, I’m not totally convinced he’s scum, but I think he’s more likely to be scum than Choie.
Vote Babale
Just renewing my vote from Yesterday - nothing has happened to move the scum needle over to Town.
Chucura, your insistence that your certainty of pizza’s towniness is somehow a defense of yourself is quite puzzling. Also “Scum Would Never Do That” is one of the other worst defenses ever and is a good way for Town to lose the game. In fact, can we make a new anagram? SWNDT?
To be honest I didn’t think the case against you was particularly convincing but your defense is making me more and more uneasy.
unvote choie
vote Chucura
By the way Pizza, the De’endee came was like a year and a half ago! How do you remember details like who self-voted under pressure! Did you go back and reread it or something? Ain’t nobody got time for that!
I’m still waiting for storyteller to clarify the official vote count, but if he doesn’t by tonight I’ll move anyway.
I will say that I’m confused about how quickly Diggit has been exonerated in everyone’s mind. This is how I’ve read the exchange.
Diggit: The masons should reveal. Other people: That’s a terrible idea. No mason should reveal this early, and we’re voting you for saying otherwise. (Diggit becomes lynch leader) Diggit: Well, I’m a mason. Those same people from before: OK, cool. I’ll unvote you unless a mason reveals himself to counterclaim you.
(everyone unvotes Diggit)
IF Diggit is scum, then his claim can only be refuted by another mason revealing himself, but everyone (or at least a vocal portion) just said that no masons should reveal themselves this early in the game. So now he’s ironclad.
I think I just answered the question in my own head. If Diggit is claiming falsely, then a mason should reveal now because outing him/herself in exchange for revealing a scum has a very beneficial opportunity cost for the rest of town. In other words, we can take the silence as tacit verification. Is that right?
I don’t understand why you are waiting for storyteller.
Masons should not reveal themselves this early in the game, without a good reason. Preventing a mason lynch or exposing a scum are good reasons in my book.
I was explaining the reason behind my insistence on defending Pizza. (Explaining that it wasn’t PIS). Any argument used against that could also be applied to Pizza defending me. In both counts, you are wrong.
