Actually the reasoning was fine. The problem was the reasoning was based on factually incorrect data. There is a difference. Had MHaye been scum in the last game, I would look at the situation very differently, but he wasn’t. That was a factual error, not a reasoning error.
Then why state it at all? Was this some sort of bizarre trap of “I’ll espouse dumb reasons to vote for someone and if anyone else agrees with me then they are scum?” You did not say your vote was random when you made it, you said:
(color removed)
Which doesn’t look like a random vote to me. And I re-iterate, the reasoning was fine… the facts were wrong.
Then you defended your action in response to MHaye.
(note, One And Only Wanderers is addressing MHaye in the above quote) MHaye didn’t view your vote as random, and neither did I.
Also, I think MHaye responding to votes on him is the correct thing to do. What would you have him do? Say nothing?
In summary, the reasoning would have been fine had MHaye been scum in the previous game. MHaye wasn’t scum.
While One And Only Wanderers wrongly implied that MHaye was scum in a previous game, I do not hold that error against him. I think it was a mistake and not one that scum would purposefully make.
I do have suspicions of One and Only Wanderers based on his insisting that his vote on MHaye was random.
I think it worked spectacularly once, resulting in the Alpha Wolf getting lynched on Day 1. But most of the time it’s not a reliable scum tell. Or shouldn’t be considered one, anyway. This point has already been made by others, so I’ll just leave it at that.
Bringing in grudges is never a good idea; case in point: the meltdown between Auto and ArizonaTeach in the Cult of Sekham. I think it’s odd that anyone would try to see this as some sort of scum tell, but sacher has already admitted his flawed reasoning, so I’m willing to let it rest.
After reading the latest set of posts, I have no idea whether OAOW and sachertorte are in good faith or not, but for the moment, I’ll assume they are. I guess I’ll vote fluiddruid for lack of any better ideas, but I expect I’ll probably change it once she starts posting.
i never said MHaye was scum in a previous game, that is just how I interpreted his post. You will notice i put a ? at the end of the sentence in question. The reason I was talking about it at all, was because of MHaye’s overreaction. A second vote on page 1 does not indicate a willingness to lynch. It’s so far away from being a lynch it’s funny. Im quite pleased with the generated traffic tho because I now find you and MHaye suspicious for entirely new reasons.
Sorry for not posting - ended up going out of town at the last minute over the weekend.
For now I’m going to:
sachertorte
…if for nothing else a serious lack of judgement. Voting for someone because they oppose assuming roles based on a previous game makes no sense. Roles are randomly assigned and revealed through gameplay, not prior roles, obviously. You can look at playstyles, sure, but it’s a little early for that.
OK, I said I was going to put up a vote tonight, based either on suspicions generated by actual posts, or on lack of participation.
I’m not going to get stick an oar into the Mhaye/sachertorte/One and Only Wanderers brouhaha, because it looks to me like snowballing misunderstanding. We all find ourselves trying to make bricks without straw in the early stages, which leads to this rapid exchange of votes based on increasingly circular reasoning.
My weak-reasoned vote is therefore based on lack of participation. Realising this may change when the US gets out of work, I’m going to:
I’ve never been afraid of a good old fashioned bandwagon. Especially when that bandwagon is against a player who, despite her later backtracking, was willing to try to play on people’s memories of a player’s past roles in order to get a lynch going against them. That smacks of demagoguery, not reasoned analysis. Dice have no memory.
Meanwhile, I am afraid of a bandwagon when I think that it’s disproportionate to the offence. Yeesh, people, Townies vote based on faulty reasoning all of the time. I’m not willing to lynch someone solely based on one poorly-thought out vote.
It’s day one. Our percentage of lynching a scum are almost certainly equal to the percentage of scum in the total population. What we can do, however, is eliminate people who are going to bring their baggage into a game. My vote stands.
I didn’t bring up the idea that MHaye was scum in his previous game. That was One And Only Wanderers
MHaye explained that he was town in his previous game.
I explained my reasoning from the point of view of MHaye being scum in his previous game.
I retracted my vote since it was based on faulty information.
That said, I understand the bandwagon on me. There is precious little information to go on, and there was even less when I latched onto the single piece of possibly scum-motivated information in the game thus far. My crime was not vetting the data before acting.
For those voting for me for the MHaye thing: For the record, I’d like to hear your thoughts on One And Only Wanderers. I feel it is only fair to distinguish why one is voting for me and not for One and Only Wanderers.
Good ol’ Mad. You forgot to ask everyone else to explain your vote for you.
For those who didn’t follow Mafia6 (?) - Psychopath, Mad voted for me late in the game and refused to give a reason other than asking everyone else if they saw the same things he did or something like that. It really irritated me. I’m assuming for now that he’s having a little fun with me by doing it again.
(Do swine have hooves? I thought swine had trotters.)
