Kirbyoshi wrote:@Tajo's 417:
1. How is stating facts exaggerating a case? I simply said he didn't answer the vast majority of the questions. I don't see any exaggeration there, as it is true.
You said it, and implied it was scummy, that it was a reason to vote for him. Looking at the context, I don't see that at all. It's not that he avoided answering questions; those 6 questions were all about how we should do a lynch, and he responded to all 6 by saying
Tony wrote:I started answering the questions, but realized it all fell apart by the fact that I don't think voting for a lynch candidate will a feasibly strategy.
As far as I can see, that actually is an answer to all 6 of Kast's questions, since all 6 of those questions are based on an assumption we'll lynch. You might not LIKE it as an answer, but to claim he avoided questions and is therefore scum really seems dishonest here.
3. Again, nothing scummy about following a vocal player you have a town read on.
Eh. There can be, depending on how you do that. ALso, you didn't say you had a town read on him, just that you were going to follow him "until he started dropping scumtells".
4. I was planning on starting to scumhunt in my next post, or whenever majority decided enough mechanics discussion, but that wasn't the majority, considering the posts after that.
It's not like there's a point when you just stop discussing mechanics and start scumhunting. You should generally be doing both at the same time in the early stages of a game like this. Also, vauge comments about how other people should be scumhunting while not sticking your own neck out and making an attack seems like you might be trying to look like you're helping the town without taking any risks.
5. Bottom line, I think it's ok for you to vote me with a weak case, as long as it's an early vote. If, however, you say that it's a scumtell that I have a weak case, when your case is no stronger, that raises my eyebrow o_O
There's a difference between a weak case, as in "a case that weakly implies a person might be scum", and a misleading, possibly fraudulent case. The first one is fine, especially on day 1; if someone is even slightly more likely to be scum then random, then that's worth looking into. The second one is often a sign of scum who's faking scumhunting.
6. Being concerned how people take your vote is a nulltell, as town doesn't want to be lynched any more than scum does.
I already explained this, but no, that's not right.
The best way to tell the difference between town and scum is to look at their priorities, to look at what their goals are, and to see if someone appears to be playing for a pro-town goal or a scum goal.
A scum's priorities:
1. Don't get lynched today.
2/3. Avoid getting your scumbuddies lynched today.
2/3. Look as townish as you can so you'll be less likely to be lynched later (sometimes higher then the one above, sometimes lower)
4. Find town power roles.
A townie's priority, especally early game:
1. Figure out who the scum are.
2. Get the scum lynched
3. Try not to get lynched yourself.
So, yes, both town and scum want to not get lynched, and so anyone who's attacked should defend themsleves. HOWEVER, if someone appears to be putting "Don't get lynched, look townish" at a higher priority level then "find scum, lynch scum", it's a great scumtell. If you are town, "is this going to make me look bad" should not be the thing driving your choice of who to vote, because finding and lynching scum is far more important. If you're scum, though, it should be. So, if someone is more worried about how they look then about voting for the guy they think is scum, it's a good scum tell.
I'm gonna pull a chamber and
Vote: drowmage
Ok, why?
I want us to win just for Yos' inevitable rant alone. -CrashTextDummie
