Open 577: Hope Plus One! (GAME OVER - SCUM WIN)

[Aneninen]

Okay, now I strongly think we should wait until the issue of the inactive slots is solved.

Mod, feel free to post it again in the Replacement Requests thread, others are doing the same.

Also, some extra time would be useful or even freeze the timer.

We were wagoning the wrong person (myself included) and it might have been different if we had waited for the inactive slots' replacements. We shouldn't make the same mistake again, I think.

[Rudolph the Reindeer]

Put your votes back on Acryon. He's not town for the claim.

[Mathdino]

VOTE: Rudy
No, but you're scum for trying to lynch a claimed PR (which would make the cop macho if he's telling the truth).

[Mathdino]

What do you expect to come of voting him? He's gonna claim even harder? All more votes on him will accomplish is a lynch, which we are NOT doing today.

[Rudolph the Reindeer]

No, read the setup again:

3 Mafia Goons
7 Vanilla Townies

2 Macho Doctors

1 Sane Cop

Spoiler alert: a fakeclaim is easily possible

[acryon]

Put your votes back on Acryon. He's not town for the claim.

Sure, a fakeclaim is possible, but you don't lynch a person D1 that has just claimed. I'm most likely going to die tonight anyway (unless they leave me alive to try and make you guys lynch me tomorrow). Your inane pushing on my wagon is just as bad, if not worse, than what you perceive my C+A push to be.

[Mathdino]

So you want to lynch him on the chance that he's scum fakeclaiming Doc?

We leave him alive for now and wait until we get to a point where we can confirm his alignment. Or he gets NK'd.

[Cane + Able]

Put your votes back on Acryon. He's not town for the claim.

Dude wtf.

The claim

should

make us think twice about lynching, especially on D1. That is a bold claim to fake, as scum wouldn't be able to live long making it anyway. The smart thing to do is wait and see how long it takes him to draw the NK. If he doesn't, he's obvscum.

That's a better strat than risking a doc lynch out of stubbornness.

[Rudolph the Reindeer]

I don't care for the claim. I do care for his actions. A claim doesn't prove his innocence when it isn't a unique role.

I never said my case was bad. I, multiple times, have addressed that it isn't extremely strong, but given the total lack of other cases in this town, it is by far the best.

You've heavily implied it. If you agreed with your case, you would have defended it in the earlier post instead of justifying that 'confident votes are better'. The fact that you're trying to defend an unrelated issue tells me you can't defend the main problem at hand -- taht is, your bad case.

[Cane + Able]

I don't care for the claim. I do care for his actions. A claim doesn't prove his innocence when it isn't a unique role.

I never said my case was bad. I, multiple times, have addressed that it isn't extremely strong, but given the total lack of other cases in this town, it is by far the best.

You've heavily implied it. If you agreed with your case, you would have defended it in the earlier post instead of justifying that 'confident votes are better'. The fact that you're trying to defend an unrelated issue tells me you can't defend the main problem at hand -- taht is, your bad case.

Bad cases aren't alignment indicative, they're intelligence indicative.

[Rudolph the Reindeer]

I'm not pinning his bad case as anti-town; I'm pinning his interactions with such case as anti town

[acryon]

You've heavily implied it. If you agreed with your case, you would have defended it in the earlier post instead of justifying that 'confident votes are better'. The fact that you're trying to defend an unrelated issue tells me you can't defend the main problem at hand -- taht is, your bad case.

You said "I'm confused how you find that so convincing as to confidently throw a "that's so easy" vote out on that slot."

I said "I would argue that a vote with confidence is better than one without in nearly every case. A vote with apprehension applies less pressure, implies lesser accountability, and is less likely to promote discussion than one with confidence."

I already had defended the case itself, so I chose to address the part about voting with confidence. I was speaking on votes in general, since I already had defended my case. Somehow you then applied this to my case, and attached some non-existent implied admittance of weakness in the case itself. If you had cared to read, you would have seen where I already defended it in 371 and 373.

[acryon]

My statement about confidence was never dodging some question about the strength/weakness of my case, and that you took it as such is your fault.

[acryon]

If you agreed with your case, you would have defended it in the earlier post instead of justifying that 'confident votes are better'.

Like I did...actually before the post you're talking about.

[Rudolph the Reindeer]

Don't buy it at all.

You all should check out Open 574 (Stack The Deck). Texcat claimed cop. Everyone immediately jumped off the wagon. Turns out he was scum after all. Moral of the story is that a claim doesn't mean that the person's confirmed town.

[Mathdino]

Why are we still talking about this? By talking about this I mean why is Rudy still attacking and why is acryon still defending.
acryon's case was bad. That's great. We're not lynching him for it given the claim. Let's move on. If acryon actually manages to stay alive we can talk about him later.

Should vote Rudy more, this is ridiculously anti-town.

[acryon]

Don't buy it at all.

You all should check out Open 574 (Stack The Deck). Texcat claimed cop. Everyone immediately jumped off the wagon. Turns out he was scum after all. Moral of the story is that a claim doesn't mean that the person's confirmed town.

Obviously it doesn't mean I'm confirmed town. But it means you don't lynch me today, especially because if I am telling the truth, you lynched one PR and weakened another one all on D1.

[Mathdino]

Don't buy it at all.

You all should check out Open 574 (Stack The Deck). Texcat claimed cop. Everyone immediately jumped off the wagon. Turns out he was scum after all. Moral of the story is that a claim doesn't mean that the person's confirmed town.

I was IN IT. And if the game wasn't abandoned I guarantee you the scum would've been decimated since the vig had veritable proof she was scum.

Stop trying to generate paranoia. We are not lynching acryon today and that's final.

[Rudolph the Reindeer]

But it means you don't lynch me today, especially because if I am telling the truth, you lynched one PR and weakened another one all on D1.

That same argument could be applied to any day in the game (provided there hasn't been a doc flip yet). We need to draw the line.

[acryon]

Rudy is being very anti-town, but I'm not sure I'm convinced it's actually scummy.

Everyone is saying the case is terrible, etc. So Mathdino, specifically, can you answer me why I am wrong about C+A misrepresenting players multiple times?

[acryon]

But it means you don't lynch me today, especially because if I am telling the truth, you lynched one PR and weakened another one all on D1.

That same argument could be applied to any day in the game (provided there hasn't been a doc flip yet). We need to draw the line.

Except later on, the docs could double-claim and out me if I were lying, and it wouldn't be nearly as bad for us as it is now.

[Mathdino]

Rudy. Dude. If anyone claims or flips doc at any point in this game and someone CC's, acryon can die. It's pretty damn simple, unless you think LyLo is gonna be 2 docs and acryon deciding what to do.

acryon, what you call misrepping I call tunneling and miscommunicating.

[acryon]

Rudy. Dude. If anyone claims or flips doc at any point in this game and someone CC's, acryon can die. It's pretty damn simple, unless you think LyLo is gonna be 2 docs and acryon deciding what to do.

acryon, what you call misrepping I call tunneling and miscommunicating.

What about this is tunneling or miscommunicating?
-Create's Strawman #1 on Mathdino in 101.
-Create's Strawman #2 on me, regarding Pastro's ban. Continued to try and push it and misrepresent me despite my reiteration multiple times that I did not say what he was trying to make it look like I did.
-Only scum gains when people are misrepresented, and C+A misrepresented both Mathdino and myself on separate occasions.

Oh nice... throw out a shitty case on me and leave it to stew over the weekend.

Right, because I didn't first vote you a solid week ago... How many times can someone mis-represent people before this town recognizes them as scum?

How could this one specifically be a miscommunication or tunneling? I clearly had my vote and case on him for 5 DAYS before leaving for the weekend.

[acryon]

And C+A responded to my case the first day I voted A WEEK AGO, and then tries to say "Oh nice... throw out a shitty case on me and leave it to stew over the weekend." Nobody likes a case on them, but town has no reason to lie about the case to make it look bad.

[Mathdino]

101 isn't scummy IMO. It's bad but it's not scummy and it makes a certain amount of sense from a town perspective. If something pings at that stage in the game and you're an aggressive player, usually results in tunneling.

On Pastro, meh. Like I said, I skimmed that discussion because I didn't really understand what you were trying to say so I can see C+A misinterpreting.

Given that you're town, that last point is actually pretty good, but not because of misrep. Calling a case shitty is not misrep, it's just arguing; 'shitty' is pretty subjective. From your standpoint you never write shitty cases. It's the sarcasm and the fact that the mudslinging doesn't match the reads that gets to me.

That said, that's not enough to overpower my current townread on C+A and the rest of your case doesn't hold enough ground for me to switch. I like my Rudy vote.