Griffionday,
TheWetSheep: I'd like to strongly advise you to vote. The town cannot win on a no lynch at lylo, and barring a scum error it cannot win unless all three townies are voting for a mafia member.
"Nuh-uh!"
The onus is on you to provide some kind of argumentation if you're making up a new tell
"It's scummy because I say it is!" - also, you really should explain why you didn't say anything when I explained my reasoning way back then. All I'm seeing at this point is panicked scum. If there was an actual problem with that kind of reasoning you would have said something about it at the time.
It's scummy because there's absolutely no way of logically arriving at that conclusion. I'm gonna go into IC mode for a bit to explain this. I'll do so by comparing it to two seemingly similar but far more likely to be valid statements.
"If X flips scum, then Y is also likely to be scum" - Can make sense because it's possible to see interactions between mafia members. If player X and player Y had a scummy interaction, then player X flipping scum helps solidify a scum read on player Y. Often valid.
"If X flips scum, then Y is likely to be town" - As above, but in reverse. If the interaction between X and Y does not look like a scumteam interaction, then it follows that with X shown to be scum Y is not likely to be. Also fairly valid.
"If X flips town, then Y is likely to be scum" - Almost always nonsense. Player X is town, so there cannot be a scum-scum interaction between X and Y. This means that both of the above arguments are invalid, and there's really nothing to replace it. The most common form of it, "If player Y is wrong about X being scum then player Y is scum" is also terrible, because it's possible for a townie to be mistaken. There's really no logical justification for it at all.
So there's no real townie motivation behind it. But there is a strong scum motivation behind it - you can get one mislynch, then push another mislynch immediately afterwards using the backlash from the first. As there is a strong scum motivation for chaining lynches in this way and no real townie motivation, it is a scumtell.
Anyway, as for why I didn't address your previous post, it's because you weren't chaining lynches then - just expressing your opinion on who was scum. Further, you also said that "I don't think I will know which until vector has come back and responded to your accusations" - implying that you were just undecided rather than preparing to chain lynches. Also note how that quote implies my accusations had some validity - you wouldn't care about Vector's response to a bullshit case.
I avoided a tie and of the two lynch targets, voted the one that I wasn't sure was town. Remember this?
The post where you say Vector looks like scum and a scumteam involving her makes a lot of sense? Yeah. Absolutely nothing in that post implies that I was your preferred target at the time, and you even explicitly agreed with one of my points and disagreed with a point made against me. Heck, nothing in that post suggests that your Vector vote was reluctant. You are trying to retroactively change your reasoning after the fact, which is scummy because it implies you are looking to mislynch people with lies rather than find scum with honest reasoning.
notice that the only people I'm comparing are Sheep, who as I've said over and over, I think is town, and Vector, who I couldn't read well.
But you make three separate points implying that you think Vector is scum, and didn't allude to any more preferable target. If you really were reluctant about the vote, you should have said so. I'll go further, in fact: you
would have said so.
Now then, lets look at the end of day votes:
votes on Sheep: 2
votes on Vector: 3 (including myself as the last one to vote)
Now then, lets see if you can put two and two together.
I do not disagree with the principle of a tie-breaker vote. If you had stated at the time "I don't think that Vector is very scummy, but she's the best of two bad options and I don't want a no lynch" then that would be fine.
But you didn't. You said absolutely nothing to suggest any of that, so it's clear that you're now lying because telling that lie makes it easier for you to start attacking me for something you had no problem with (and indeed went along with yourself) yesterday.
As I said before, I'm working on the basic premise that one of the two of you is scum. I got a mildly scummy vibe from you, and no real read at all of Vector, which after all this time is reason for suspicion by itself. I was ok with a lynch of either one of you, because if we got the first lynch right, we'd have lynched scum and that's that, or if we got it wrong, we'd get it right today.
See above, on how chaining lynches like this is bad and scummy
not every aspect, Day was stretching pretty hard and brought up meaningless stuff many times. The problem I have is the way you pushed for us to lynch Vector before she got back and could defend herself, paired with the way you refused to hunt for scum among any of the people other than your two lynch targets. toss in the fact that your playerslot was totally idle before you replaced in, and you've actually been quite useless all game. I don't think that is coincidence, I think you're scum.
Captain Ford being unable to play makes him scum, somehow? In any case, you are saying here that you agreed with the bulk of Griffionday's reasoning, but never once mentioned it yesterday. Your "useless" argument is silly - no mafia members have been lynched so far, so you could argue that every single player in this game has been useless by that token.
I did, see the above quote. Also, as I said before, over and over, your reasons themselves were fine. The way you presented them and pushed them, in other words how you used them, was the problem.
See the rest of this post
You haven't been paying attention if you think that's all I'm saying.
Nuh uh
Author
Topic: BM XLI: On Wings of Haven -- Scum Victory! (Read 100324 times)