I don't think we are talking at cross-purposes. You've said you see Max as likely town, but when I posted that you hadn't really done any effort at justifying your position [see * below on this]Orto wrote:I think we are talking at cross-purposes. I do not think it is good, out of the blue to simply say "someone is town". If there are bad arguments being presented against them, I think they should be shot down, and if they are under threat of lynch then other arguments may be brought in to show independently why they are pro-town. Trying to establish people's towniness can be unhelpful because 1) you may be defending scum and 2) it signposts who the scum might want to night-kill.voll wrote: Yes, but the obvious retort to your argument against giving reasons for finding people town is that, if you have good reasons for that conclusion, you might be able to dissuade a wagon on them. Sure, there is a risk of the person being scum, but that's like saying that you shouldn't give reasons for suspicion in case somebody is protown. As for the "buddy" point, it really depends on the reasons. If your reasons for finding him protown are good, then it won't matter if he is scum, because your conclusion was reasonable. In contrast, if your reasons are poor, that becomes more viable.
tl;dr version: Reasons for towniness should be given just the same as reasons for scumminess. Any argument for the latter also applies to the former.
You might say "well it looks like Max is under threat of lynch here, so this is a case where you should be bringing those arguments in". I would say firstly that at the time when his votes accumulated I was not really following the game (this is the period when EmpTyger accused me of lurking), there was also no vote count for a long while. Secondly, I think it is wrong to assume that he will be a default lynch at this stage, as I still maintain the current reason(s) for voting for him are crappy.
But even in spite of this, as I just told magnus_orion, I have in fact put my thought process for why Max is town on the table ANYWAY. It is that his setup speculation is not scummy, and furthermore the fact that votes piled on him for something that wasn't really scummy in the first place also suggests he is town being wagoned by scum.
1) "You may be defending scum" - Yeah, but, as I said, this doesn't have any problem unless your reasons for defending them are themselves scummy. You may be helping scum; you may be helping town. I mean, there is a risk that, when one makes a case, one might push a townie's lynch; that doesn't mean we shouldn't make cases. Likewise, and conversely, the risk of defending scum doesn't mean you shouldn't argue for towniness.
2) "signposts" - Yeah; it's true that scum will often go after people who are declared town. THis is the best argument against declaring people pro-town. The problem with this, though, is that you had already declared that you find him likely town. If you are town, then scum know you have a genuine belief in Max's towniness. As such, you've already signposted your position. This point, therefore, doesn't apply.
*
"Setup speculation not scummy" - As you'll see from my past posts, I agree with you on this point; doesn't make Max likely town though. It's a nulltell.
"wagoned by scum" - Just because a wagon sucks doesn't mean the wagonee is town. More likely, maybe, but this isn't a strong line of reasoning.
It's not a strawman.orto wrote: Whether deliberately or not you've presented exactly the same strawman as Sotty (who according to the gender symbol is a girl, btw) already did in Post 483, which I replied to in 498.
You attacked him as saying that he had a tone of expressing discomfort on a range of people, without making any real case. I understand why that's problematic- if people simply declare gut positions that can give retrospective justifications. However, he was raising the "discomfort" in the context of questions. In my case, he was distrubed by my non-voting,in Kairyuu's his reaction and apparent double standard re Nat and Fritz.
Your argument would be valid if he had simply said: "vollkan makes me uneasy" and "Kairyuu makes me uneasy". My point is that the uneasiness was tied to specific behaviours that he wanted answers on.
Hmm? I said I would read over your posts to see if I could understand your suspicions. You probably won't change my mind, but that's not the point - it's to see whether your posting is as bad as everybody makes it out to be.Max wrote: Volkan, looking at my posts won't change your mind, it's their posts you need to look at. BTW. DGB!!!!
On that note,
{NUmbers are from you in isolation}
5: Gut feeling Yos is scum. You are clear there is no logic to your position. <Insert my boilerplate rant here>. You then ask Yos who his scumbuddies are.
6: You restate you have no evidence for Yos suspicion.
7: You say you don't think Nat is scum, and you then ask Yos if Nat is his scumbuddy. I can't see the basis for that sequencing. Then, furthering this, you ask "if not" (Why "if not"?) is there another scumgroup (I can't see the train of thought here) and then " you think it is plausible that an SK could be shot [at in] a large game". You answer "No", because of an unexplained belief in two parties; then you assume a SK couldn't be NKed and, on that basis, you conclude Nat isn't scum. Your logic just doesn't make sense to me, yet alone the assumptions you are building on.
12: "Yos is doing very little that makes him seem pro-town". Your posts thus far haven't pointed anything else out by people that do seem pro-town, so highlighting Yos's not doing pro-town things seems to be holding him to a different standard (and isn't an argument for scumminess)
15: The presumptuon that reporters cannot be roles because only parties have a stake in fixing elections. I've already explained what is wrong with this.
25 :You assert Yos has been manipulating people, again without any explanation or evidence. and make a series of claims which I questioned earlier
28: The post I am responding to where you assert your suspects.
33: INteresting point here; you say Kairyuu is scummiest after Yos because he hasn't explained himself. To take that ball and run with it, you haven't given anything substantial to justify your claims against Yos.
I don't know what to make of your play. Frankly, I'm leaning towards VI.
I don't get why he thinks someone shouldn't be lynched for being anti-town. 
