LynchMePls wrote:Fonz wrote:At the end of the day, if both players stick to their stories as stated so far, we've got no choice but to lynch Feysal. But it still strikes me that there's something fishy here.
I'm not crazy about the "we've got no choice" bit here. It's preparing for a move to the wagon but if the flip goes the other way it's like "well, we had no choice...".
I'm trying to work out what your actual problem is here. Do you not think you should always lynch in non-lylo situations where two players claim contradicting role information, especially when neither is a 'power role' per se? Is it not a no-brainer? And do you really think it matters whether I personally join this wagon or not? I have made quite clear that I have a town read on Feysal. Nonetheless, if this is
not
a case of player or mod error, we have two players claiming contradicting information.
PeregrineV wrote:
@The Fonz- I have no idea why David Parker lied. Why do you think he lied?
The most obvious explanation would be to protect his buddy ThAd. The second most obvious is to buddy up to ThAd-town. Both of those are more likely than 'He really thought ThAd was town and it was worth the risk' because the risk there is HUGE for town.
Beasts of the Sea wrote:The Fonz wrote:Incidentally, I never said I didn't think Gonnano was scum. I had a neutral-ish, mildly scummy read on him, but thought others were much scummier and that the case on him was overblown. I said I thought Bvoight was explicitly town.
I read "
gonnano isn't that scummy" as "he's not worth pushing a lynch on" and "he's not as scummy as everyone else thinks" and "he's pretty much not scum".
The first two follow, then the third is just a massive leap. If I thought he wasn't scummy at all, I would have said so. Look at my catchup post. I found his early behaviour troubling, but later on the arguments against him seemed to be blown out of all proportion. He was probably in the top half of scummiest players, but there were something like 4-5 people I wanted dead sooner, and I was uncomfortable with people trying to tie him to bvoight, who again, I read as town.
The Fonz wrote:No, I'm not. You contended that I was pushing Furc to save Gonnano. I was using the exact same arguments to push Furc when Gonnano was at threat as when Smargaret was at threat. The Gonnano wagon was available when I voted Furc first, but I preferred the Furcwagon. To my mind, when you accuse someone of 'pushing X to save Y' it implies that saving Y is the major motivation behind your push of X. And that doesn't make any sense since I was pushing Furc with the exact same line of reasoning I was before Gonnano was in danger.
The Fonz wrote:To point out that I am well aware of Furc's rep for idiocy and erratic play, and that that wasn't why I was voting him: specifically, that I felt his play in this game was specifically scummy even taking into account my meta knowledge of him
, because a) Despite all the stupid things I'd seen him do, lying as town wasn't one of them and b) his lies in this game seemed particularly survival-orientated and therefore scummy: claiming BP has obvious motive for scum wanting to avoid potential rival scum's nightkills, and claiming doctor when caught out seems designed to avoid getting lynched, and c) he didn't change his claim spontaneously, as you might expect someone just being erratic to do; he changed it in response to being caught in a lie, which is what you'd expect scum to do.
BoTS wrote:I think your are going out of your way to interpret your previous posts incorrectly. Your post
here barely assigns motive only to his behavior being isolated to this game because you said "but this behavior is bad even for him".
Wait, what? This statement here is basically a paraphrase of 'his behaviour in this specific games stands out as scummy, even given his meta' and yet it's like you're trying to act like it's a contradiction of it. It implies knowledge of his meta, and that his play in this game stands out as being particularly bad ie scummy.
And that doesn't make any sense with your afterthought
here.
Seriously, wtf? How does adding another example of erratic play that I'm aware of (therefore elaborating on the fact that I am all too familiar with Furc's meta) contradict
anything
in the earlier point? Essentially, my explanation here, being true, makes perfect sense. Your interpretation of it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Your argument is basically that I was doing the exact opposite of what I was actually doing: trying to get Furc lynched for merely being his erratic self when quite obviously, the whole point of bringing up Furc's erratic meta in the first place was to make clear that I was NOT doing precisely this- his play in this game stood out as scummy with full knowledge of his tendency to be erratic.
Beasts wrote:The Fonz wrote:The former is only really possible if LMP is his partner and decided that he was going down despite the claim so he might as well get some town cred. If the scum had actual watching results and LMP wasn't his partner, he wouldn't have got caught out on his claim.
You are downplaying the situation considerably. If gonnano wasn't lynched and was a claimed watcher how long do you really think he would have survived until endgame and never been revealed?
Again, what's your actual point here? I said 'Well his partners would have known he was going down due to the watcher thing, and therefore it would have been really easy to bus.' Your counterargument appears to be 'No, it would have been really easy to bus anyway.' How does this make me not voting him any scummier? If anything, it just strengthens my point.
BOTS wrote:The Fonz wrote:Claiming BS results and hoping no-one counterclaims them is incredibly risky relative to claiming actual watching results.
Which is why I asked you if you thought he was on a scum team with an actual watcher. Do you think that is the case or not?
And I thought i'd answered this. Emphatically not, for obvious reasons.
BOTS wrote:The Fonz wrote:I didn't claim a town read on both. The more town of the two imho (Bvoight) was the one people were trying to lynch first. The bolded doesn't even make sense. You think I'm scum with Gonnano, and was trying to use the 'Well bvoight was town so now I don' suspect Gonnano no more' kind of argument argument when I made quite clear I THOUGHT BVOIGHT WAS TOWN IN THE FIRST PLACE, and therefore never bought into any kind of 'Bvoight and Gonnano' theory?
I started looking at you more closely when I was reading back over gonnano, but as I said it isn't out of the realm of possibility that you may be scum with bvoit. In either situation you determining which order others find them scummy is scummy because you should have been advocating for your solid town read and the person who "isn't that scummy" to not be lynched; not weigh out the order in which people would like to lynch them.
But again, this is a really reachy, confirmation bias-y argument. It's simple. I wanted the people attacking them to explain themselves, and commit to a position. Which is protown. It's like you read it and thought 'Well how can I make Fonz asking this question sound scummy?'