I agree. Albert's play has been scummy. He exaggerates his role tremendously and, furthermore, his claim contradicts the rules. Yes (acknowleding his most recent post) it doesn't necessarily contradict the rules since non-standard roles based around the "usual mechanics" may be included, but I quote the article ABR linked us to:
The Psychopath actually describes two different roles, neither of which are very common.
Not that it proves anything, but it gives a further indication of the unlikelihood which, combined with ABR's conduct and misrepresentation of his power, convinces me.
I do have a question though.
Miztef wrote:
However, there is still a chance it is a possible, and I believe we should ask a person the majority of us agree is scummy to hammer him. That way, if he is telling the truth, we at least used his power to the best of our ability, with the least risk.
Now, the article states:
The Psychopath is a normal townsperson, except he has a bomb and an aggressive streak.
If the Psychopath is lynched, he takes someone down with him - the first player who voted for him that day dies as well.
Does that mean DeathSauce only will die, or DeathSauce AND the lyncher will die if ABR is Psychopath?
If it is the first case, then Miztef's plan (ie. the scummiest person hammers ABR) doesn't need to be enacted since only DeathSauce will die.
In the alternative, if it is lyncher AND DeathSauce I think I have an idea even more cunning than Miztef's!
The first player who voted dies, right. So, if the lyncher dies as well, why not have DeathSauce unvote ABR, then have other people join the wagon and put ABR to -1 and THEN have DeathSauce REVOTE. That way, DeathSauce is both the first voter AND the lyncher - meaning we don't risk losing a second town. Unless you feel damned sure someone else is scum, this option is certainly the safest.