Nope. As I said, it was a mild suspicion, brought about by the fact that you voted for the same as someone else, without demonstrating your own reasoning. The fact that, apart from a single post, where you questioned me and orangebottle and voted for me (in the somewhat iffy circumstances of following two other votes but not providing your own reasong), your posts have been sparse and reactionary, does not help your case.
Why would I need reasoning to vote you with a question?
But yes, third vote without a good reason for it is noteworthy, at least.
You don't
need reasoning to do so, but it helps. It was not the vote by itself that was suspicious, it was the fact that it was one of three of a kind.
What is it exactly about having multiple votes that makes you suspicious? Would an actual townie intentionally avoid voting people with too many votes on them?
I'm saying that, all other things being equal, I can see scum as having a higher incentive to co-ordinate votes. It's not having multiple votes that is suspicious, it's following the voting habits of another. I admit, in the first round you can't treat it as a major tell, but if such behaviour persists through multiple rounds, then it becomes a lot stronger. Ideally, a townie would demonstrate their own line of reasoning that leads them to vote the same as someone else, but there is a problem that "I voted for X for the same reasons that Y did" may become a problem. After all, both of you (if you are both town) have the same information to work with, and both should arrive at the same conclusion. However, that does not consider the possibility of special roles. Special roles means that people do not have the same information, and so that reasoning is not guaranteed to be sound (even if you do not have a special role, you cannot guarrantee that the other person does not).
ed boy: Have you considered that the scum might want to seperate themselves to avoid detection, and as a result, intentionally vote for different players? Also, what do roles have to do with anything? The scum with the role could share intel with his/her partner, and that would be preferable for the both of them.
The problem is, you can apply that same logic to any situation to get paradoxes. If you have that "the best thing for scum to do is X", then doing X becomes a scummy action, and so if they do X they will attract attention, so doing X is not the best thing. Similarly, if you have "It is bad for scum to do Y", then Y becomes an unscummy action, and so scum will want to do it to avoid suspicion. No matter what conclusion you come to about the behaviour of scum players, you can use that same reasoning to conclude that they will do the opposite.
As for the roles, it means that the townies involved have different information available. The logic "I voted for X for the same reason as Y" requires all of the townies to definitely have access to the same information to work, which is not the case.
ed boy: Of course not, that's a terrible idea. We would be down to four townies and one scum by day's end, and the next morning it would be three town. If we mislynch, we go to three townies, then two the next day because of the NK. That situation is known as LYLO. It'd be pretty easy to mislynch too: four dead townies who contributed nothing in terms of suspicions or cases, then the remaining three have to figure out who among them is scum. Town mislynches frequently enough as it is.
It isn't such a horrible idea. In the first round, there are seven townies and two scum. If the town mislynches on the first day, which given the number of people involved would be likely, then they would start the next day with five townies and two scum, which is a worse ratio that the option I described would result in (three to one).
I also wonder why the FoS on IronyOwl; Why are you getting that suspicious of the Owl? Do you have any reads on anyone else? If so, what are they and why aren't you questioning them? If not, why not just vote for Irony at this stage instead, if that's your only suspect.
I'm also suspicious of backtobasesix, but lots of other people are. If I were to say "I suspect backtobasesix", then I wouldn't really be adding anything new to the discussion. I had a minor suspicion of IronyOwl, and nobody else did, so I put that up.
As for my new focus, yes, I vaguely noticed that a bunch of people were on basesix for lurking, but that's not something I actually considered. I just don't get how someone could not notice that the game has started. So I asked. It's probably going to be a staggeringly mundane and believable explanation, but there won't be any responses to gauge unless I ask something.
If you know what the answer's going to be, why are you asking the question? If his response is obvious, your question is unnecessary and you're wasting your time. Ask somebody else a question and stop filling our heads with nonsense.
He doesn't know what the answer's going to be - he can guess with high confidence, but there is always to possibility that his guess will be wrong, which is why it is a good idea to ask anyway.
unvote.
ed boy You seem to be asking a lot of questions, but don't seem to be following up on most of the questions you asked.
Well, that depends on what you consider to be following up. I ask people questions and I see their answers. Often, I am satisfied with the answers and I don't see the need to ask further questions. I might then leave that question, and ask a further question, which might seem like I'm abandoning the old question, but I'm not ignoring it.
EBWODP:
What's EDWODP? I didn't see it in the list of abbreviations.
Author
Topic: Beginner's Mafia XXVI - Scum Win! (Read 63859 times)