Yos wrote:Well, not really. If you're a gunsmith, and you find a gun on someone, you ideally want them to claim before you do, otherwise they'll just claim some role with a gun after you claim. If you can get them to claim vanilla first, and THEN you claim you saw a gun on them, you get more information because you've now caught them in a lie. I've seen gunsmiths try to do this in any number of ways; call for a mass claim, try to just flat out wagon a person to a claim, ect. I've never seen "fakeclaim cop, demand a claim, then tell the truth about your role after they claim", but it makes sense as a gunsmith gambit.
I do not understand what this has to do with the present situation. DX's predecessors did not do the rational gunsmith behaviors that you specify. This is part of why I am skeptical of DX's claims. Also, it is too abstract for the present situation, because no scum could fakeclaim vig by D2 because Meransiel had already outed me as the vig. The only way hypo-MBL-scum could hide would be if he gambited that the set-up had LOTS of vigs, or if we suppose that pine kept quiet because he speculated the same. Hence, even if you have some kind of point I'm not understanding in the fakeclaim-cop gambit talk, the utility was pretty marginal because the vig was already out.
From a DX-scum PoV, what happened is that he claimed Cop, but then noticed that he couldn't rationalize earworm/pine's play AT ALL if they'd known 100% that MBL was scum all game. So he had to switch to a more plausible story afterwards (Cop -> Gunsmith). Of course, this doesn't work to well, either, because of the detail that I was already the outed vig by very early D2. So you have to postulate 2 instances of poor play, basically, but I don't think either is particularly far-fetched -- when I'm scum, I notice that lots of silly scumfriends say "claim cop" blatantly as a piece of advice, and DX replaced in long after D2, so I could see him forgetting about details of what happened before he joined the game when he adjusted his claim.
And this is before we have to explain people lurking to replacement in a slot that has a guilty on someone. <_<
Yosarian2 wrote:Also, if he was going to fake a guilty, why not just say that he got the guilty last night?
None of this makes any sense as a scum gambit. Scum gambits tend to be neat and simple. This kind of messy combobulation usually means that what you've got is a pro-town person telling the truth (and making some poor decisions).
THIS is the argument I think is somewhat valid (the WIFOM angle I mentioned in an earlier post). However, the fact that it makes little sense as a scum gambit does not necessarily mean that the probability of the scum gambit is lower than the probability of it being poor town play. Both of these are low-probability events.
