What are scum trying to do right now? In no particular order:
- Avoid attention
- Find power roles
- Protect scum-buddies
- Get town lynched
- Build town-cred
This is the framework that we should be using to find scum. For example, Jimmy focused mainly on 5) above, with I would argue some 4) in his stirring of the pede brouhaha.
With that in mind, I’m going to
vote Thing Fish
Reasons: There has been a fair amount of pro-town strategy type discussion - e.g. advising OAOW not to full-claim, and thinking about which side the leader powers favour. However, we’ve all got some sheep’s clothing. What I don’t like is:
The following pair of quotes re. the peeker/DB wagons early in Day One.
Here we have both the belief that the DB votes are a scum-led distraction from peeker followed immediately by the claim that the case behind those votes is reasonable. And the suggestion that he might reconsider his vote for peeker.
Now we have an unvote of peeker with maintained suspicion (shades of Jimmy!) but more importantly we’re re-writing history: his initial impression of the DB case was that it was reasonable, not bogus. Editing your posting history is a very suspect maneouvre.
Then there’s this, in response to AllWalker’s comment that lynching a Doc on Day One wouldn’t necessarily be a complete disaster (NB - just that comment, no vote for peeker).
The problems with this are:
- He’s using an argument AllWalker himself made as reason to throw suspicion on AllWalker
- He’s exaggerating AllWalker’s position on lynching peeker
- He’s seen CIAS’s suspicions of AllWalker and throws them into the mix although (as AllWalker later shows) they’re not well-founded. Evidently no effort made to check CIAS - so why trust him?
Clearly, it’s an attempt to make AW look suspicious - but it’s based on very weak sauce.
Finally we have this, which outlines the arguments for his current vote:
- Encourages BillMC vote but doesn’t commit to one himself
- Despite his oft-repeated doubts about peeker, apparently anyone who takes those doubts to heart enough to vote on them is clearly scummy.
- Boozy’s lightning-quick change of votes was weird, but it always bugs me when people use things like this as a reason to vote. What’s the scum motivation for Boozy to make that shift? TF is challenged on this point later and claims that it looks like Boozy’s trying to find the easiest person to get lynched. But there were lots of easier people to get lynched - if that was Boozy’s motivation, there was no need for him to do something so attention-grabbing.
So in summary, Thing Fish gets my vote because he tries to have things both ways, pushes bandwagons without voting on them, borrows unfounded accusations without checking them and tries to make obvious weirdness into scumminess without clear reasoning.