In post 5343, ulyana wrote: In post 91, Taly wrote: In post 49, ulyana wrote:multiple volunteers seems so odd to me,
it is like, what is it you are hoping will occur when chosen?
I have no expectations, that's the fun of it!
If I explained my motive, that would defeat the point.
Well, I didn't know what the vote was for in Event 1, but believed scum did.
One was that the chair was for something negative, so I figured scum would want to wagon a townie who is enthusiastic for an elimination or punishment. Alternatively, I think town would generally have more cautious viewpoints over me wagoning myself or at least inquiry me like you did - but without trying to shade or conclude that scum must be contained within the group of self-voter
Prism/Me/Pooky
- which is something
Dunn
did.
The other was that the chair was for something positive, so I wanted to see if any potential scum would try and pocket me or influence my decision-making. It turned out that
Gamma
was the unwilling subject for this. I didn't see it Event 1, and by the time it was happening, I'd long given up on trying to use the chair for a force of good because majority of the plist disagreed with assuming the chair was a positive thing. Still, I figured if the chair was positive, towny players would take me in good faith as
Pooky
did if not a bit of apprehension.
There's a reason why I didn't sync with
Pooky
until later in Event 1. I genuinely was taking time trying to discern how genuine his intentions were in just trusting me out-of-the-gate.
I stuck to my guns about not being transparent because I didn't want my intentions to influence how players would interact with me. I wanted everyone to only know that I was a player willing to put my hand close to the fire for the benefit of either solving or taking control of a potential reward.
A player I could pose the same question to and trust when evaluating others' replies.
Think I'm not?
