VectorYou mirrored BK's answers exactly on a fairly specific point.
Not exactly, no. And I said exactly what I believed. You're saying I was lying to pocket BK, but I clearly wasn't. "4mask has a less legible style now" he posts a million posts a day as 3rd party (or he did in the last game), that's a less legible style than before; you tend to read to me as town, I've probably already said as much in other games (though you're doing a good job of changing my preconceptions, so well done).
Lucky is indeed an easy wagon, and you can observe for yourself that the majority of the newer players are sitting on it regardless of their alignment. But in the light of it being an ideal scum bandwagon, I don't see why you suggest launching Lucky and then looking for the scumteam among the wagoners. If you're actually looking for scum and think that they're riding the Lucky train, attacking the bandwagoners now would make more sense to me.
The big word is "if".
If Lucky is town. I think he's doing a good job at behaving like scum so far this day, so no one is completely unreasonable for voting him but given what we know about him there's a good chance he's lazy town.
And I went away and had a think about this "lynch chaining" accusation and it really is the most bullshit thing. In this game we find people scummy by their actions. If their actions are "jumping on a weak player and doing nothing else of note" then we'd have good grounds to lynch them, right? Like, let's see what players do and assess things after the flip? Now, if I were to vote for players for just voting someone whose alignment I can't know for sure, you're saying that would be better-- do you know something about Lucky that I don't know?
"I'm going to daykill Lucky," "Hahahaha nope instead I built a house to spark conversation," "But not conversation about what it is and what it does," "Only OTHER conversation," "there is SO much viable CONVERSATION about my MYSTERIOUS MANOR,"
Look: I'll take your point if you can think of some ~other~ conversation revolving around Instant Architecture than the one that I'm pursuing at present.
Yeah okay this is an absolutely fair point.
Fallacy what did you mean by "conversation" if you've nothing more to say about the house?
Early Webcasting Analysis
For this game I decided to cast a wide net and return to the old technique of trying to start a conversation with everyone simultaneously. There used to be this notion I had the purpose of RVS questions should be to set traps, to catch someone in a hypocrisy or to bely a scum mentality. But it wasn't well founded. I don't think anyone ever got caught in those traps. No, just the act of starting an engagement with people is the important part. Gives everyone more content to work with.
So who didn't engage? Who isn't reading the thread? I.e. who doesn't care about catching scum? This is obviously just the lowest bar players have to reach, but does everyone reach it?
Answered right awayTricMagic
ToonyMan
4maskwolf
Reverie
Jim Groovester
BluarianKnight
FallacyofUrist
Caz
Toaster
Complained about the questions so clearly read them but didn't bother to answerVector
Answered right away but ignored the follow up questionSecretdorf
Won't read or answerLuckyowl
Conclusions: Lucky can't even raise himself to the lowest bar of "reading the thread". Clearing his slot is probably sensible. Secret is also moderately disengaged from reading. Vector must have figured I didn't care about the answers because they complained about the questions and then didn't answer the one I asked them, despite it being the most game relevant question I asked anyone.