In post 863, fireisredsir wrote:town made the right play and it's pretty rude to pretend that we were throwing by doing it when it literally won the game
Town making a play that should lose them the game happening to win the game because it happened to be the right play in spite of every appearance suggesting it should be the wrong play,
Is indeed something I would call objectively throwing, throwing that would be throwing in 99% of the case but since we were in the 1% it so happened to not be a throw. (Pooky pls don't be mad at me at the wording, am using fireisredsir's wording here.)
You had reasons to scumread Datisi, but don't pretend that every vote on Datisi did. The only other slot I think which expressed play-based reasons was GuiltyLion. (Well, that and Roden who ironically was off the wagon.)
LLD didn't (the closest she got was "mastina doesn't look like she's leaving behind a will and is still alive, therefore Datisi scum with her" when she literally had access to the proof that wasn't the case because I had done exactly that in the nonsupporters PT and kingsguard N1 and there were reasons for me to still be alive); furtiveglance didn't (his reasons were survivalistic); UNOwen didn't; Drapion explicitly didn't (Drapion explicitly said he was throwing the game with his vote); Enchant didn't (he just did what Enchant does).
It wasn't throwing the game because Datisi was actually scum but he had every reason to not be. There was a paper trail, but don't pretend that the trail was perfect just because it was true. Don't pretend that just because it happened to be what happened that arguing it happened was the most logical conclusion that didn't have flaws, didn't have counterpoints.
There was literally a failed nightkill in a council where a scum-Datisi knew exactly where the protections were.
That failed nightkill literally gave the town an extra elimination, something which a scum Datisi wouldn't want to do because as a cop he would need to clear more players.
The mastina check wasn't something objectively bad; literally half the town explicitly called it a good check.
That was true for each check, too; they were called good checks.
While there was a "Datisi cleared LLD and LLD is scum" narrative, that LLD hard-pushed Datisi was proof that wasn't a world we were in.
There were mechanical reasons for Datisi to be town; there were mechanical reasons for eliminating Datisi to be a bad idea. If Datisi were town then eliminating him when given those mechanical reasons would've been a bad idea. There was a trail showing how Datisi
could
be scum, but that trail was something which in a balance of probability would be ruled improbable: paranoia, compared to the reasons for Datisi to be town.
Having Datisi be eliminated the night after there was reason for Datisi to be conftown was something which shouldn't have happened. Any fears of "the scum could have endgame tools"
should
have been countered by the fact that a failed nightkill meant they couldn't use those tools.
The argument that Datisi gave up a scum kill, giving the town an extra elimination, in order to try and endgame when by having given up a nightkill he delayed any possible endgame, is in of itself contradictory. It literally makes no sense. If Datisi wanted to endgame then sacrificing a kill would explicitly go against that objective. If Datisi wasn't trying to endgame then a kill being sacrificed made sense, but in that case it should've been okay to give an extra day.
Basically, if Datisi were intending to endgame, a failed nightkill would prevent that from happening, so the failed nightkill meant it wasn't possible to do and thus that Datisi could be kept alive. If Datisi weren't intending to endgame, then an endgame wasn't possible to do and thus Datisi could be kept alive. By every logical metric, "Datisi let a failed kill go through" and "Datisi as scum can endgame the town if not eliminated today" should've been mutually exclusive arguments.
Yet they were made in tandem and so happened to be correct--in spite of the logical contradiction involved. Don't pretend the contradiction wasn't there just because it happened to be the correct deduction. It being correct doesn't make it be the most logical option; it was explicitly illogical. It explicitly had huge gigantic flaws in narrative. It happened to be the narrative in the game (largely because I was the one making the shots and scumastina is highly illogical), but it wasn't at all obvious, it wasn't at all a default assumption.
It was akin to yolovigging a claimed cop--in 95% of games that would earn disdain from the inevitable town cop flip because of having a paranoia read on "but what if the cop claim is scum". Yet because it was the 5% where actually the cop
was
scum, after the fact, people don't complain because it happened to work out when 95% of the time it wouldn't have.
An action that should cripple the town, is an action that would be a throw--but when it so happens to do the opposite, does that magically make it be okay? Does that make performing the action which should be a throw, be less of an action which should be a throw? I would say no. An action which should be a throw is still an action which should be a throw, even if it turns out to be the opposite.
Datisi = scum mvp