In post 639, Spiffeh wrote:If you're doing it to continue interacting with me, what are the results? What is being accomplished?
The results are the same results from any two people discussing content. It ought to help both of us develop reads on each other, and help the rest of the people in the game develop reads on us.
In post 640, AxleGreaser wrote:In post 431, Shazam wrote:In short, I think you've made a bad case, but you're acting like it's a good case because you want to lynch him for other reasons.
In post 638, Shazam wrote:I actually say in 431 why it made me think Frogger is scum.
Why is it bad case a scum made with intent and not just a bad case?
"Lynch him for other reasons" is an open ended statement I don't know what you think the other reasons might be.
I think everyone else understood this without explanation. I highlight in 431 that he is much too sure that you are scum for things that do not indicate scum in any way. He is so sure he wants to 1v1 you for the day. That is why it looks like he has reasons he's not telling us for wanting to lynch you, and the obvious implication is that he's scum, because it's Day 1. Only scum have undisclosed motives Day 1.
In post 645, Shiro wrote:Man this game goes fast
Shazam I wanted to vote a lurker IAI was the only viable lurker for voting.
I like the way you think though. I mean I think it is wrong but still liking the thought process
Interesting. So if you like the thought process, do you think you should vote Sakura Hana?
In post 658, Shiro wrote:
How he PoE who the potential scum in IAI wagon might be
Seemed legit. He is wrong about me and I think he is potentially wrong about Sakura but that doesn't negate that it seemed townie, I find it more likely that scum would just blankly blame someone in the middle or end
It is fakeable though so no strong feelings just an observation but yea
Actually, after reading this I have the exact same question. You say you like my thought process, but then even though it leads me to two people, you're saying you think both are town? And "potentially wrong" is weak sauce btw. Of course it's potentially wrong, but the question is whether it's likely to be right.
AxleGreaser wrote:I am going to assume 673 is an addendum to 672 and "their" refers to IAI.
k.
and yes i am not highly impressed by the theory that scum have to form counter wagons (in 12 hrs or less)(work commitments etc don't count for some reason?) or else the current wagon cant be on scum....
because once that is the default theory the obvious way to stall wagon on scum is do nothing.
You can always bring in a WIFOM argument, but I tend to lean towards no WIFOM being involved. Scum doing the opposite of what would logically be considered to be in their best interests is rare, especially towards the start of a game. And as I've stated before, 12 hours or less seems to have been doable, but it didn't happen. By my count, 6 people posted who were never on the IaI wagon, while the wagon was building from 3 to 7 votes. That is half of the players in the game who were never on the IaI wagon. Seems like enough to me, but it didn't happen.