Unvote, vote: gandalf
Soben wrote:1. His vote had a reasonable basis, Pine stopped posting when pressured and he pointed that out.
2. Changing of reads and releasing information of why you're chaning your vote isn't a scum-tell.
3. I need to re-read into this more and have a discussion with S about it, but it looks like a valid point.
4. Vote hopping is certaintly not a scum-tell if anything it occurs more from town as scum don't like the attention it gives them. I don't see voting your weaker FoS over voting your stronger one a scum-tell, there's close to no scum-motivation for doing so.
1. No, he did not stop posting.
2. Opportunism is a scumtell, and only explaining his votes after making them illustrates that he may have just been following other people when he first made them. It's a way to be able to bandwagon without having to justify your own votes.
4. Look at his Pine vote. He had been talking about LMP for most of the game, with only one mention of pine in the past (to call him town) and then switched votes. Later, he changes from LMP to beefster (again, he talked about LMP a fair amount in early game but had been ignoring him for some time at this point) with only one previous mention of beefster. He then explains his beefster vote. He
still
hasn't explained his RBT vote, just that he's "that obviously scummy." In other words, he's sheeping without justifying his own votes. The key to the scum motivation in it is that he voted them as they were bandwagoned (e.g. opportunism), combined with the fact that in exactly one of his votes had he mentioned the person he voted for before the voting post. He's making
these scumreads up on people that are being bandwagoned so he can join the fun, not voting for people that he thinks are wizards. Soben wrote:You were saying that attacking lurkers is a good idea even though there's redirection, the fact that the players getting attacked are lurkers changes nothing and would lead to the following occurances:
1. Attacked lurker is town, they die we don't hit mafia.
2. Attacked lurker is mafia, they attack is redirected, we don't hit mafia.
Well first of all, there isn't even a guarantee of redirection (plus the only type of redirection that would really matter would be bus driving, as opposed to direct redirection targeting a single person's action). I've also (I think somewhere) expressed the possibility of limited-use protective abilities in scum hands, which could make this plan a good thing. The worst thing that happens is that we injure or lose a town-looking town-aligned player but learn about scum abilities. However, we could also have benefits (like pushing lurkers to post more, avoiding mislynches, killing scum, making scum use limited-use abilities). Essentially, it's setup speculation. But I feel like it isn't as risky as, say, the "claim at L-1" plan.
.
