Hypothesis: mathcam is scum.
Implacable logic.mathcam wrote:That's the second time shaft.ed's jumped on a chance to attack someone that could have been easily prevented with a closer reading. To this credit, he's since backed down from one of them, but given how carefully he's been paying attention to the rules, I can't help but feel that it's scummy that he hasn't been paying similar attention to player's posts.
Lemma: mathcscum not bloody likely to slip up.
The above exchange seems extraordinarily contrived, circular, and incestuous. Read again: "if the parenthetical remark is a suggestion to improve the plan, then I should point out that this was already part of the original plan" - why is that worth a discussion? I'm weirded out.mathcam wrote:I may be misreading this sentence, but if the parenthetical remark is a suggestion to improve the plan, then I should point out that this was already part of the original plan:Adele wrote:While I'm not in 100% agreement with this plan (the same role may be particularly useful to scum, but also to town; should be working from a weighted net perspective of "cool scum" minus "cool town"?)Adele wrote:Until I see something particularly scummy, it seems sensible to figure out which of the rolesare significantly more harmful if they are in the hands of scum than they are beneficial if they're in the hands of pro-town players.
Corollary: mathcam is easily bogged down in trivial semantics with Adele. Why?
Solving for Oman: Here mathcam plays Mr. Obvious. Why?mathcam wrote:Oman: I think the most important thing is that you don't use your power indiscriminately -- if you feel at some point during the game that you can set up a beautiful trap to catch someone in a lie, then go for it, but take into account the consequences and potential confusion if you're wrong. I'm not sure there's any more guidance anyone can offer.
OMG I so don't want mathcam to be scum. He's totally going to take us for a ride.mathcam wrote:If we have cops A, B, C, then on day 2, we could make cop A reveal first, then cop B, then cop C. On day 3, we permute the order so that B reveals first, then C, then A, etc.
But then after all this subtle, over-my-head blah blah, mathcam simply "I think I'm leaving my vote on JDodge, with no new reasons than I had before (except possibly for increased lurking)." Urgh.
mathcam's reasoning for voting Oman was incredibly weak. Strange considering how they both somewhat agreed on the value of "no lynch." Strange, very strange. Then long after, after post after post of hardly mentioning Oman and gettin bogged down in subtleties, "Still like lynching Oman."
Strong suggestion: mathcam does NOT get a free pass in this game. He talks a slick, detail-oriented game. But when scrutinizing the big picture, I see some wishy-washy bandwagon riding all day yesterday. I don't like it.
Today, matchcam keeps repeating that Gorgon is the lynch. I would tend to agree with this; however, comparing mathcam's behavior yesterday, and his behavior today (much more boldly going after one player) gives me cause for concern, and we shouldn't rush lynching Gorgon without taking an in-depth look at mathcam himself.
QED