Yay. I was actually expecting that the game would be back into Scene Three by this afternoon, so I'm pleased that I get to ramble at you more.
Nearly every time the Talitha half of Talilan posts, it gives me hope that they might actually be protown. Maybe I just have an issue with Ortolan's gameplay in this game. I don't know. That's mainly why I find the Talilan hydra "moderately Scummy" right now. I am trying to decide if Ortolan's just an idiot townsperson, or if Talitha is saving face for a bad scumbag.
Yos wrote:It's "unnacceptable" to have doubts about someone's alignment? It's "unacceptable" to have a gut feeling, based on stuff that's happened in the thread, that I might have been wrong yesterday and that the guy I was trying to lynch yesterday might actually be town?
Or is it unacceptable for me to say things you don't agree with, no matter if they're right or not? Because you don't seem to care if my logic came to the right conclusion or not, you just want to use it as an excuse to lynch me.
It is unacceptable to me to believe that you, as a protown player, would use another player's general mood to trump their obvious and repeated anti-town actions. It's a stance that I cannot and will not get over. It has me convinced beyond reasonable doubt that you are scum. I'm not even sure why we keep going in circles about this, but you seem to want to rhetoric me into some kind of submission. Ain't gonna happen, Yos.
With regards to my General Case, you missed my point again. I'm going to spell it out one last time, and that's it. Read the following bracketed part of my post carefully, and respond to it all at once rather than taking each scenario out of context of the general picture.
------------------------------------
There are two possible cases for the size of the [Something Else] group when we reach Endgame. Either there are two [Something Else]s left, or there are more than two [Something Else]s left.
Let Player X be an arbitrary member of [Something Else].
If Player X plays "sacrificial lamb" for group [Something Else] -- for ANY reason (to lead a mislynch, confuse the town, because they made a terrible move by stunting themselves onstage rather then claiming during Scene One, etc.) -- then they will very probably be lynched before Endgame. Thus, when Endgame hits, Player X will not participate in Endgame.
If the mafia players do not have a "sacrifical lamb," they might reach endgame with more than two [Something Else]s left. In this case, an arbitrary Player X could be chosen not to participate in Endgame, because only two [Something Else]s can. Thus, when Endgame hits, Player X will not participate in Endgame.
This applies to each individual scumbag. Either they will be lynched down to two left, or they will have to choose some of their own to be excluded to endgame.
My point is this:
[Something Else] has ZERO REASON to play to have ALL OF THEIR MEMBERS SURVIVE, because they will have to exclude all but two of them anyway. Like I said in my last post, if I'm scum, I would totally use at least one of those extra players to confuse the town for several days, even if it meant they would eventually get lynched.
Thus, the idea that "Player X wouldn't make a play because it would get them lynched" falls through. If Player X will not participate in Endgame even if they play to survive, why not use them in a manner which will confuse and mislead the town?
The ONLY manner in which this fails is if Player X is offered up as a sacrificial lamb and somehow manages to NOT GET LYNCHED, while the town lynches all but one of his friends. THEN he would be a "sacrificial lamb" who made it to endgame. However, I see this scenario as being EXTREMELY rare.
------------------
Now, read that all at once, as one point, and stop and think about it, Yos. Then read it again and stop and think about it some more. I hate having to baby somebody who's been around as long as you have, but you're completely missing what I'm saying, and thus making arguments that don't make sense due to lack of proper context.
Yos wrote:Ok, so you said "partial information credibility" instead of "partially confirmed", but it means the same thing.
Another example of you not understanding what I post. Read it again:
Gaspar wrote:During Scene One, CKD proposes the whole "recruit me to their team" idea, knowing full well that a cult-like recruitment fits in with the flavor, and gives his fake "Parital Information" credibility.
This gives credibility to
his "recruit me to their side" Partial Information
. It is NOT intended to make CKD look more protown. They are NOT the same thing. Not even remotely.
If I post "Partial Information" that looks credible, it does NOTHING to confirm my alignment one way or another. Scums can give credible information just as easily as Innocents can give credible information.
Ok.... You were the least offending party anyhow. I basically view a large portion of this back and forth coming from people simply wanting to be right. It's pretty obvious elmosaurian is scum at this point. That fact has been proven repeatedly with his illogical stance on KY and insistent nudging toward door #2. No need to clog the thread or cause those who are behind to slip even further back because the page length explodes every time they log on.
