My internet was crappy earlier in the day, (still kinda is, but at least it'll load the page properly now) so I decided to go out and do something; between chores, video games, laundry, and napping, I kind of got lost.
Anyways, tying up some loose ends here.
@Xite:
Yeah, I see. Any power roles help the town, and this plan kinda balances out all the possibilities. Still, Myst isn't exactly a prime candidate for being scum.1) Simple, if they wait until tomorrow, If he's not actually a mason, masons should wait to CC because
He runs the possibility of being NK'd tonight, so if he's VT or scum, it's better than loosing a PR whoohoo cross-kills
Tomorrow an actual mason could claim, whether myst is NK'd or not, one of them will prolly get lynched, if they're not the scum, then we lynch the other one the next day which will more likely be scum, a pretty good trade off, especially considering we have a chance of scum cross-killing at night.
As long as there's one mason left, we still have a chance of catching scum with CC's.
Satisfied?
You consistently antagonized Myst and rarely stopped to address others' views, and you seemed to place most detail and emphasis on Myst. Maybe it's not a "textbook" case, but a lot of people probably do construe that as tunneling. And sure, tunneling may not be a scum trait...2) But I really wasn't tunneling before then either. Besides, since when did tunneling become a scumtrait?
in itself
. It was the combination of that and your reactions to the claim, your undue emphasis on some details, etc. that led me to suspect you.This may be a case of differing perception (or perhaps misconception.) I don't consider my analysis of the situation to be WIFOM related. I've always considered WIFOM to deal more with players motives' and personality rather than their actions, and while it is speculate on the course of events, I think I avoid any confusing reasoning traps: I simply stated my view on the current player actions, analyzed concrete possibilities (e.g Myst's alignment, tonight's scumkills) and their relationship to said actions, and the responses that could ensue. Masons can still claim today, or they can claim tomorrow, or not at all. There3) I don't know how to explain it? Its a big guess on how scum/town would act. That's what I consider WIFOM. I know there's a more literal term for it, but I really can't be bothered to remember it, especially when WIFOM is so close to it anyways.
will
be two scumkills at night, and the victims could be either of 3 alignments. Myst is likely a Mason, and therefore is likely to be among the scum's victims tonight, as scum tend to want to eliminate power roles to give themselves an advantage. Here I'll throw ya a bone: That last bit is very likely to be construed as WIFOM, since it describes typical scum behavior, and if scum don't
behave accordingly, that could saddle the town with hard questions (which could be even more to their advantage if played right. However, in my view, my prediction of scum behavior isn't in itself WIFOM. If the next day, we are asking ourselves "How come the scum didn't kill Mysterio?", the subject in that sentence is the scum. Therefore, IMO, it would be the scum
, not I, who would be creating the WIFOM. *puts on pirate hat* Savvy?I'm
slightly
less suspicious, but I still think my vote's in a good place.@Mysterio:
Yeah, there were some holes in my analysis. I think most of my points are still understood though. However, my attitude towards Xite (pointed out by ConfidAnon) combined with my flawed reasoning seem to have put me under attack by don_johnson, which leads us into more recent times:Mysterio wrote:However, I disagree with Kai in that my partners should NOT claim unless I'm counterclaimed, even if I'm about to be lynched. Although, with Xite making himself look scummier by the day, that seems unlikely. Having all three of us claim would certainly clear three players and make us more likely to be town than anyone else, it would also give both scum teams clear targets. With two killing parties, two Masons could get wiped out in a single night. Hence why I've only been pushing for Xite to be lynched because of him incredibly scummy reaction to my claim. Anyone pushing for my partners to claim without me being counterclaimed either isn't thinking things through or is rolefishing.
That's the thing. I was V/LA before that, I just forgot to send advance notice. I wasn't really up to speed and the Myst/Xite conflict left me with no clear suspects. Nobody else was really a standout except nopoint, who was totally absent outside of RVS, as opposed to just about everyone else who posted something outside of that (a2rudeboy doesn't seem like he's equipped to play). Sure, it's not very helpful, but nobody's perfect.don_johnson wrote:so anyway:
his entry into the game is "i don't see anything suspicious." so i'll vote a lurker for pressure. its kind of a cop out.
I've addressed that not-so-small logic hole with Myst above. I...guess I was looking too far ahead.don_johnson wrote: two days later myst and xite are his "top two".
then he asks for a nopoint prod and drops a serious vote on xite.
his iso 5 is worst for me as he seems to be planting the false belief that if Myst was not a mason, that it would need all 3 masons to counterclaim in order to get him lynched. this is logically flawed. if all 3 masons counterclaim for one scum then two out of the three masons would most likely be dead come morning, decimating towns advantage in the game. if myst isn't mason, then masons can wait just as well. myst is dead tonight regardless of his alignment. no need to plan counterclaims. its kind of a useless discussion in and of itself. in fact. kai's entire contribution to this thread reads like fluff as attacks the easiest target available.
Myst is still likely a Mason though, as there have been no CCs. However, as Myst said, masons should only claim if he is CC'd, which somewhat reinforces my "now or never" stance on a Mason claim, because as you seem to realize, a mason CC won't do us much good afterwards. It has some
utility, but not much compared to preserving our PRs.You raise a very good point. At first glance, he seems to be a low-level townie; bit short on contributions, but seeming to follow his own path. Now that you dig deeper into it, it seems like he's deliberately trying to look like a townie by looking inquisitive and actively responding to other players, but his questions don'tdon_johnson wrote:in iso 6 he awards credit to andrew for "content". i don't remember any "content" from andrew.
andrews iso is pretty bad as well. he doesn't have many posts longer than two or three sentences and seems to ask questions just for the sake of asking questions.
question 1 was answered by mysterio at the time of the claim. question 2 reads like scum fishing for more scum reads from someone else. the rest are in response to other players, but carry no significance to the game. i'd like to know what "content" from andrew94 Kai deems worthy of credit.andrew's questions wrote:
1) @mysteriou why did u claim so early?
2) who else do you think slipped mysteriou?
3) im his buddy?
4) how is my grammer bad?
5) ur suspocious of an un cc-ed mason>?
6) ur saying hes mason catchs xite then takes pressure of xite? Wtf?
7) hi me what?
go
anywhere. Also interesting is the possibility of him fishing for rival scum, but said possibility is much more tenuous. Good observation in any case.Reading more...stay tuned for part 2.
