I don’t think that saying “if I were scum, this is how I think I would play” is necessarily a bad thing, but I can understand reservations about it. Remember, I play on the assumption that the scum are as smart or smarter than me, so making any sort of statement about how scum should play is likely not giving them information. In the off case that it IS a new stategy, they’re then faced with a WIFOM situation of using the superior strategy, knowing we’re aware of it, versus using an alternate. IOW, while it intuitively seems to be helping the scum, I just cannot logically justify that it is. But, fair enough, I’m happy to bug you about it again later.
To retouch on the point from above, and reiterate one of my primary points in the game, sharing information is generally to the town’s advantage because we have a disadvantage in information, so anything will help UNLESS it happens to be information the scum don’t have like the identity of a power role. Now, there may be other exceptions, but I really think that unless one can come up with a good reason not to share the information, chances are it’s to our advantage that you do. Hence, why I asked what you perceived the advantage of withholding such a list may be. And if, perchance, you said you couldn’t reveal why until such a time, I could live with that, but I’d expect it to either be patently obvious, or come with such an explanation upon it’s revelation.
But that’s the point, I DID examine his motivations. I found his voting without providing reasoning to be more consistent with a motivation to without information and/or provide wiggle room later rather than a motivation of simply agreeing that that candidate was the most scummy. Upon further discussion with him, he clarified that point, as well as explained his reasoning. And while I did find his reasoning flawed, the motivation behind the reasoning appeared to be pro-town, so I felt comfortable enough unvoting him and investigating another person.
Funny, you seem to be behaving this way, except with the targets reversed. I provided my reasoning for why I felt CapnPitt’s motivation was likely pro-town, you and I discussed this directly yesterday. But here, my attitude did not change, I found what appeared to be anti-town motivation. Instead of attacking my reasoning behind that motivation, through ad hominem attacks at me with smudges and such.
So I have to ask you, prior to my discussion with hotflungwok, did you really think I was off my rocker? Do you not find unreasoned votes suspicious, particularly two Days in a row? Even if you don’t, can you not at least see how someone else might find that suspicious? How about the talk of the Vigilante. Attacking me personally, making vague statements about my attitude, my level-headedness, so on are baseless smudges. If you disagree with me, back it up, attack my reasoning.
All I’m seeing here are false generalizations about my behavior or my reasoning. I can only imagine a couple reasons why these generalizations aren’t backed up. One option is that you’re incorrect, which is entirely possible, but surely upon looking back you’d realize that; this has not occurred. Another is that you just haven’t gotten around to it yet, this is possible, but seems somewhat inconsistent with your previous play, but also means you would eventually do so. A third option is that you’re deliberately making false generalizations such that providing specific cites, would either requite a lack on context, or provide contradictory examples. Thus, barring a support for these generalizations, I just cannot see compelling motivation behind any of those options, except for the third.
They seemed less smudgy and more directly suspicious of them than what you did to me. In inclined to believe those were legit, and you were since recruited, but I cannot back that up with anything other than intuition at this time. So fair enough, I’m willing to give you the benefit of that point for now.