BM wrote:
In my mind, it does just that. In mafia, you can make a point about someones actions, and then you back it up with a motive. If someone makes the most retarded comment in the world, BUT there is no reason they are more likely to do that as scum than as town, then there is no motive, and it cant be considered a scumtell.
Likewise in this instance, the assumption being put forward is that Zu Faul was targetted by the Wolves two nights in a row. Now, we are analysing what incentive/reasoning the wolves would have to do so. If there is nobody who Zu Faul was especially suspicious of, and thus, no major reason why he would be targetted twice in a row, we have to assume BS.
False comparison.
The first logic:
Player A does retarded thing X
Player B accuses Player A of being scum for doing X
Player B's accusation fails, since Player B cannot positively explain would do X over town doing it.
I agree entirely with the above, and it has great application in relation to lurking.
Now, your second logic:
Player A suggests that the scum have done X on observation
Player A is unable to explain why scum have done X
Does this mean that A's suggestion falls flat?
I don't think so. If all the evidence attests to X happening, but you can't explain why, there are two possibilities:
1) X did not happen;
2) The scum motivation is not objectively apparent
Your entire argument here, BM, rests on presuming that 1) is the case, which I think is dubious at best.
EK wrote:
Where is the rest of the bandwagon on BBM?
Sitting here in frustration at yet another flameaxe wagon for trolling
