In post 782, greenknight wrote: In post 697, Tammy wrote:@Greenknight - Why would scum love early policy lynches? They don't kill the ones who don't contribute/are VI's because they want them around. They nightkill the players who are actually playing the game, and leave the distractions alive to hide behind/manipulate in the end.
Because everyone on a policy lynch is essentially making the same argument, it leaves very few trails in the voting compared to a regular lynch where people have to justify why they personally think the target is scummy. Since the way in which people pursue their targets is a primary scum hunting resource, that's a lot of information lost from a town perspective at the point in the game where town has the least information.
Since you mentioned Trekker in this context, I think he is actually scummy due to the extreme non-interactivity of his posts to date and wouldn't really be a policy lynch...
Why did you feel the need to mention "when I flip town" in your argument with Zdenek? Do you think it's at all likely that you will be lynched today?
That was in response to the increasingly strange conversation I've been having with Zdenek in which his logic keeps falling apart. He first claimed that I was being aggressively unhelpful in asking the questions I was asking, which he pointed out wasn't necessarily scummy, but I was asking too many in 439. He then made the wtf claim that I was defending people by asking the questions I was asking so that I would look good in the case of their mislynch and to reduce pressure by other people. He then made an even bigger wtf claim in 485 that I was redirecting suspicion in one and getting someone else to make a case on someone so I wouldn't have to.
In 493, he said that questions have limited use and it's best to just tell people that they're being scummy. When I told him that wasn't my play style, that I ask completely straightforward questions in order to interact with people, he claimed in 570 that he would still think asking pointless questions was scummy even if I flipped town.
Never mind the fact that if I'm doing what he's accusing me of doing that my questions can not be pointless in nature. Because if I am defending someone or attempting to reduce pressure or direct suspicion or whatever other crap he's divined in my questions, they by their very nature would have a point. They cannot both be pointless and at the same time do something. So, for him to claim that they are pointless, he has to admit that they are not doing what he has accused me of.
Beyond that this sentiment is ridiculous. It prompted MoI in 656 to tell him he's either terrible town or scum to stand by the claim that he'll still consider the questions scummy even if I flip town. He tried to substantiate his logical fallacy by using as evidence a statement by LMP in 660 in which he said that just because an innocent does something, in this case word choice, it doesn't mean it's not a scum tell.
My response to him was an explanation for why his argument falls apart and why he's wrong in his thinking. I included when I flip innocent, because it was the premise for the argument anyway.
