In post 6996, Giovanni il Pellegrino wrote:Obligatory "told you so" sentence about the vagueness of results given by Skullduggery.
I received answer from the mod regarding the interaction between weak and ascetic, not that it matters anymore. In case a weak targets an Ascetic with his own ability, a weak will not die.
I don't know. Something that was always in the back of my head was: Maybe MathBlade will come up with a bunch of these theories and appear helpful to the town but utterly confuse the town and slip under the radar with all of his towncred for his posts. Nothing I'm willing to fight for, just superstition.
I heavily dislike his over-aggressive and overconfident playstyle, however,
it doesn't make sense
for him to be scum. His behaviour has been pitchforky, but unlike the pirchforkers we had pre-replacement, he tries to rally Town and make them play using his pitchforkiness, unlike, say, Andrius or SlySly. Whether his method has bore fruit or not is up to debate, but truth remains his intentions seem "pure" and, more importantly, that there is zero incentive for scum to replace in and act as a Town Leader all of a sudden in a "lost" Town. If anything, I would expect scum replacing in to act more like Accountant or Pine, semi-lurking or pretending to read the thread.
He clearly is "paranoid" in some of his reads, but if you were a townie replacing in a gamestate such as this, you would be "pararnoid" as well.
In post 6957, MathBlade wrote:The reason I lean Gio's the liar too is because he voted his innocent read. That should never happen.
Let's get over this one more time. So, I claim that someone is innocent. Then I vote for him. You said that this is a scummy move. You didn't say what I would gain from this move as scum.
What I would gain from claiming that Narna is innocent, on the day that he would most likely be lynched, then vote for him? Why claim an innocent on Narna and then vote, instead of simply voting without singling myself out?
1) The premise is bad. If you are scum the entire thing is poisonous and you are not required to have actually targeted your buddy or have told the truth about any of it. I think the claim is engineered to give Maxous a bit of legitimacy.
So, since I am scum with Maxous, why would I admit that my result on him is shaky? I was believed as weak having cleared him, and since he has claimed roleblocker, I could confirm that the type of action I supposedly caught him doing is interferring (the corresponding action to his claim) and be done with it.
---------
So, according to you, my scum plan was the following:
1) I claimed weak and cleared Maxous, my scumbuddy, with most players believing me.
2) I faked an innocent on the most possible lynch target, announcing my result immediately.
3) Afterwards, I voted for him.
4) I questioned my own result on my scumbuddy openly when he claimed (or fake-claimed) all of his targets.
5) My scumbuddy ended up being a possible lynch candidate with me likely next on the chopping block.
Does this make sense to you?
