In post 249, Approximately Normal Guy wrote:In post 248, Varsoon wrote:
Well, if you only have a scum read on one single person and another person steps in and says something you find scummy, replacing a completely inactive player and assuming his role, then you've got your second scum read, don't you?
1+1=2, yes.
It's not town logic to say that voting scum is a good idea?
I know it can be hard to follow more advanced play, but here's a pretty simple breakdown of what happens if we vote for him and he's VT (like he claims):
He's lynched and revealed as VT.
Anyone who built a case against him without sufficient evidence is now under suspicion.
Ergo, we have better leads to follow on who is scum.
ANG, I'm going to chalk this slip up to you not following my logic, but it seems like a pretty fucked up thing to imply someone else is scummy when their suggestion is pro-town.
What's the basis?
First of all, you can cut the attitude. I didn't say nor did I imply that voting scum isn't a good idea.
The bold is trueregardlessof what he flips.
You seemed to be not that concerned about the possibility of a mislynch, and more focused on the fact that people on the mislynch would look scummy for it. Whether the people on the lynch look scummy should not depend on the flip. You can look at their votes and the cases they've built now and decide if you think their reasoning is valid.
In a nutshell, my point was that you had no issues supporting the lynch, but your attitude was that if he flipped town then the people voted him would look scummy. You would be one of those people, and not only that, but you would have been hopping on the end of the wagon.
Nutshell-inside-a-nutshell: lynching scum is pro-town, "lynch now, ask questions later" is not.
Okay, bro, chill your jets.
You're taking pretty obtuse methods to turn the phrase on me.
Look it over a few times and stop being so quick to change the issue at hand.
