If you want them to justify their votes why don't you ask them? I'm not restating my case on Penngo because it hasn't changed from what I've said on page 2 and 3.
On p. 2 and 3 your case was that penngo was first protecting then distancing himself from Andrew. This hypothesis sort of worked when you assumed that Andrew was his scumbuddy. That, judging by where your vote is sitting, is no longer your assumption. How does this alter your case? ("It doesn't" is the wrong answer.)
It makes you scummy because you haven't been making an effort to find out more about the people who are tunneling Andrew/Penngo.
Fair enough point, as far as it goes. But people need to not-hunt everybody else for some time before it is in any way productive to call them out on it. If you don't give them enough time, they can just brush it off and leave us no better informed for that. For instance, Phantom's up-front statement - whether it is true or not - that he would be busy until today bought him until today, simply because there were no reasonable grounds for disputing it (but his content had better be really awesome to justify missing the first week of the game rather than replacing out).
Once we passed that point, I called you out, and then I was busy with you and Bottle for a while. Hop-skip-jumping between all the players, or a substantial majority of them, dilutes both the attention I can give each of them and any pressure they might feel to respond, so I kept my focus on you and Bottle longer than was perhaps wholly necessary or prudent.
Using math shifts the blame from yourself.
Not under any version of logic or ethics with which I am familiar.
What using math and other forms of formal logic
does do is make my argument independent of what you think about me - you only need to consider the premises and the chain of lemmas. But it does not magically absolve me of responsibility for making shit arguments if the argument itself turns out to be shit.
All the scumtells on your checklist are based on the logic "this is counterproductive for the town to do, so anybody doing it must be scum." That works great when you use it on experienced, competent players. Andrew and penngo? Not so much.
So do you have any better ideas about how to determine whether the less experienced people are scum?
Do I have a checklist? No. But you can look at the overall style and feel of their contribution and consider the plausibility of the gambit you think you spotted them trying to pull. Someone who has trouble stringing together a syntactically valid English sentence is unlikely to make particularly convoluted gambits that require careful message control. If someone has a history of cracking under pressure both as town and scum, then one needs to look at the content of their response more and the change in tone less.
In other words, a lot more guesswork and gut feeling.
For the sake of completeness, I will note that there is a case that can be made that one should treat them the same way that one treats experienced players, because that way they may improve their play faster (or drop out in frustration at all the D1&2 lynches they catch). But that is an argument over the community's way to support newbies, not an argument over whether they are scum or not.
Author
Topic: Hammertime - Here Comes the Hammer [Game Over] (Read 45219 times)