cicero wrote:No. The game is long enough already. It's a pattern of things. Like your switch from searching for the CR to anyone scummy,
How else do you expect to find the cult recruiter, except by searching for a pattern of scummy behavior?
and your vacillation of whether you believe there's a team of Lost Boys or a single CR. Not just vacillation but actively forgetting to account for such.
I never "actively forgot to account for such". I don't know if there's a group or a single cult recruiter; I've tended to think a group more likely for a long time. I often say "a cult recruiter" or "the cult recruiter" or whatever, but that term when I use it always means "anyone with the ability to recruit people." Like, when I say "a lynchproof cult recruiter is broken", that statement applies equally no matter if we're dealing with a single cult recruiter, or a member of a group who is capabale of recruiting for that group. On the occasions when I have specifically delt with the idea of a specific cult recruiter, it was usually in answer to a bad argument that assumed there was one; for example, your bad argument that a lynchproof cult recruiter makes sense as a way of preventing a lone cult recruiter from being lynched on day 1; I responded in terms of a single cult recruiter, because I think that even in that case, a lynchproof lone cult recruiter does not make sense.
In any case, though, I'm not making any assumptions here, because we don't hane enough information to do so. I'm willing to look at things from either possibility, to evaluate the potential of any one person being either a lone cult recruiter or part of a recruiting cult group, and I have and will continue to do so. Like I've said before, obsession with consistancy is a scum tell; townies need to be more flexable then that, more willing to consider other possibilities. The fact that I'm willing to go back and fourth between lone cult recruiter theories and cult group theories, to consider people in either light and to think the game through in terms of multiple possibilities, is a good thing, and everyone should be doing the same; getting too focused in on a single, unproven theory in a game where we know so little is bad for the town.
Also your scumhunting seemed disingenuous with Fonz
What? "Disingenuous"? How was that "disingenuous"? I made very clear why I suspected him, and most of the town agreed with me. He acted really, really scummy day 1.
, then you went after what I would say are the easy wagons
If by "easy wagons", you mean "people who looked scummy", then yes, of course I did.
, and now you've sorta mostly clammed up.
Clammed up? Are you kidding? I've made 11 posts in the PAST 3 DAYS, 12 if you count this one, and most of them were quite long and detailed and content-filled. I wasn't around over the weekend, but before that, I made 4 long content-filled posts on Thursday of last week, 6 on Wednesday, 4 on Tuesday, ect ect. And for the most part, those were not short posts, either, By any reasonable standard, I've been INCREDIBLY active in this game, almost absurdly so; I mean, I make more posts per day in this game then most active mafiascummers make in all of their games per day combined; especally considering how crappy Bluehost has been this month, I think the amount of time and effort I've put into this game is extremly high.
Your recent insistance on how we should all lynch MoS instead of vigging him has also never rung true to me. When I challenged your balance arguments against it, suddenly you werent up to the challenge because you'd never played in a game like this before, so you threw out some possibilities but nothing definitive.
What? Of course I was "up to the challange"; I've explained like 20 times why a lynch proof person with the cult recruiter ability could never be a balanced role, in any situation I can imagine. Of course there's a bazzilion possibilities for what we're dealing with here, because we have so little information, but not a single one of them includes a lynch proof cult recruiter, all right? And it's not just a balance issue, either; there's also the incredibly serious game-play problem of a cult recruiter being able to "take down" one more townie after he's been caught, which is just horribly warped since that means another person who was pro-town just randomally loses the game. I don't know why you keep acting like you don't understand these arguments, or acting like there's some reason to not believe them; they're quite clear, I think.
Certainly nothing definitive enough for me to accept your lynch-immunity logic re MoS and why we should lynch him and, if he's town, go No Lynch.
Um, if he's town, then WE SHOULDN'T LYNCH HIM OR VIG HIM. Duh. Your whole "no lynch" argument you keep making is a red herring, since yes, a no lynch would be bad, but a dead townie would be worse. Isn't that obveous to you? Why are you attacking me for "bad logic", while ignoring the huge holes in your own logic?
The "vig MOS" argument was just bad; the cost for the town, of probably getting a Frog Brother recruited for example, was just way too high, and as I think that a lynch proof cult recruiter is so unlikely as to not even be worth worrying about, a lynch would be nearly as good; if he's pro-town, then a lynch is better then a vig kill, since it obveously means that a pro-town person dosn't die; the only situation where a vig kill is better then a lynch is if he's a cult recruit, and a small chance of killing one random cult recruit isn't really worth the cost.
In any case, the whole "vig MOS" camp looked so scummy to me, I really tend to doubt he's any kind of scum at the moment, so I don't want him lynched or vigged any more. I still say, though, that unless you've got a really good argument for him being a cult RECRUIT, that lynching MOS would be better then vigging MOS.
Like I said a variety of stuff has tweaked at different times. As I've said many times, you have a mind like a steel trap. I know it. You know it. So when over and over I go "wait... that's not so definitely true..." or "but he used to be all about the CR and now it's anyone scummy..." etc.
By the way, the big point when I changed from "We must focus on the scum recruiter" to "any bad guy is fine by me" was the point where Maryta claimed, and at that point, the natrual assumption seemed to be that anyone who was recruited had the option to decline. If that was the case, then getting rid of any bad guy would seem worthwhile to me; lynching cult recruits is only actually a bad thing if the cult can sucessfully recruit more then 50% of the time.
However, now that more days have gone by we haven't had anyone else make the same claim, the scales of doubt in my mind are starting to tip back the other way; it's looking like, assuming Maryta is telling the truth, that perhaps not everyone does have a choice, because if they did then we probably would have hear someone else claim to have been bitten, right? If most people don't have a choice, then I'm leaning back in the direction of "get the cult recruiter or recruiters first, leave the recruits until later". Again, though, we don't really have hard facts to work with, and if new evidence come in (like, if tommorow someone claims to be a vanillia townie who got bit but is still pro-town), then my mind is likely to change again.
Note that, dispite my suspicion of Ecto very likely being recruited last night, I haven't pushed for his lynch; I don't think he's a origional scum memeber (since then, Maryta wouldn't have gotten an innocent on him), and so I don't think he's a good lynch target until after we take out the cult recruiter. So bascially, I've now gone back to thinking that we don't really want to lynch cult recruits at this point in the game.
In any case, the flaw isn't in my logic; my logic is fine, it just reaches different conclusions as new facts come in, which is a GOOD THING; you SHOULD come to different logical conclusions when you have different facts avalable to you. Irrational consistancy is a scum tell.
I want us to win just for Yos' inevitable rant alone. -CrashTextDummie
