Thesp wrote:As uncomfortable as I am with claimed vigs who fire N1 being left alive, I do find your argument here very compelling.
Is that because they're likely to be SKs, or as a metagame pressure to stop vigs firing night 0 to weaken vig claims for SKs who fire night 0?
Coron wrote:...that is the most lame excuse in the world as far as I'm concerned, a SK who wanted to claim vig would claim that most likely. I don't really understand all the unvoting, heck I was about to place my vote there.
I'll explain my reasoning in a bit more detail then.
If he'd said he always fires on night 1 due to meta-strategy or whatever, then fine. If he had a beef with DeanWinchester for out-of-game reasons, then fine. If he said he was a compulsory vig, fine. Those are all reasons a townie vig might fire night 0, and those are all also common excuses from SKs claiming to be vigs.
He didn't say that. He said he fired because he
thought
it was compulsory, but later realised it wasn't. This gave me a problem, as the only time I can see re-reading a role PM in detail is when it's going to make a difference to your play, and the only time to do that is at night. But if he re-read it at night, then he'd have realised in time to take back the kill, so that doesn't add up. In fact, when I saw that argument, I thought "Gotcha!".
But there's an invalid assumption there - that being there
was
another time to re-read role PMs, ie recovering from the crash.
If he's the SK, the thought process "oooh, I don't have to kill if I don't want to, that didn't occur to me" doesn't fit, because SKs want to kill (yes, there are certain odd situations where they might not, but that mostly applies to night 0 and he didn't choose not to fire then). In other words, for him to have had this thought process is in itself evidence he is town. Of course, it's possible he didn't have that thought process, and it's just another excuse. I have problems with that, though.
If he's the SK, there are two possibilities. Either he had a pre-prepared explanation for his justification for the "vig kill" night 0, or he didn't. But, of course, he didn't know there was going to be the crash when he sent his kill in - so whatever his explanation was, it wasn't the "I re-read my role PM when the site recovered from the crash". If he did have a pre-prepared explanation, then he must have noticed the opportunity to drop that pre-prepared explanation when the crash happened and decided to switch to this one, and yet despite having come up with this justification as a cover plan,
not brought it up until directly questioned thereon
.
If he
didn't
have a pre-planned explanation, then he either came up with it after the crash - which means a) he didn't come up with a strategy at the beginning of the game when he was deciding his nightkill, but suddenly realised the need for a day 1 claim strategy midway through day 1 and b) came up with this intricate and clever lie at that point - or he came up with it when being pressured to justify his actions, at which point he didn't come up with any of the standard excuses but remembered the crash from over a month ago and came up with that as an excuse for realising he wasn't overeager.
Now, none of these are impossible. However, they're not, IMO, very plausible - they require a great deal of ingenuity and in most of situations where he's an SK it also requires a change of mindset. Thus,
if
his justification for the kill is a lie, it's a
very
clever one, and the two most likely scenarios for him coming up with it as a lie have additional problems. If his justification for the kill is the truth, that strongly indicates he is town.
There might be some flaws in that thought process, but it's good enough for me at the moment.