"ALL THE OPTIONS OF PEOPLE THAT I COULD REALISTICALLY LYNCH RIGHT NOW ARE MY SCUMREADS"
You built your fence and now you're sitting on it, bro.
Your opinions aren't extreme in the least. :/
You still haven't answered for the points I made in 1272.
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
In post 1276, Persivul wrote:Has it occurred to anyone that, regarding the no result, as scum I could have simply said I don't know, maybe there was a redirect. Instead, I'm being honest about my role choices. I didn't know ascetic should claim immediately (I checked the wiki and it didn't say to), but when confronted I was honest about it despite their being an easy alternative explanation.
In post 1276, Persivul wrote:Consider:
- A town has flipped with a commuter choice. Lane is also claiming commuter and no one finds that suspicious.
- I'm ascetic, and similarly we've had a town flip with the same choices as mine.
- hiplop didn't go into detail but also said in 1244 that duplicate roles make sense to him.
I'm being pushed for being a town ascetic, when everything we know about the setup so far supports me in that claim.
In post 1253, Apricity wrote:In post 1227, Hellhound wrote:oh so i misinterpreted the results we got.
we DID get flubber's results. it was a "no result" on persivul.
i am now ok w/ lynching persivul.
VOTE: persivul
Why does a "no result" make you ok with lynching Persi? He's in my guess for the scumteam too, but I'm wondering why this specifically.
In post 1280, Persivul wrote:How do town ascetics balance out town investigatives?
In post 1285, Heat wrote:In post 1280, Persivul wrote:How do town ascetics balance out town investigatives?
are you just making noise for fun or
In post 1283, Heat wrote:In post 1253, Apricity wrote:In post 1227, Hellhound wrote:oh so i misinterpreted the results we got.
we DID get flubber's results. it was a "no result" on persivul.
i am now ok w/ lynching persivul.
VOTE: persivul
Why does a "no result" make you ok with lynching Persi? He's in my guess for the scumteam too, but I'm wondering why this specifically.
eww apricity this feels so fake
In post 1287, Apricity wrote:In post 1283, Heat wrote:In post 1253, Apricity wrote:In post 1227, Hellhound wrote:oh so i misinterpreted the results we got.
we DID get flubber's results. it was a "no result" on persivul.
i am now ok w/ lynching persivul.
VOTE: persivul
Why does a "no result" make you ok with lynching Persi? He's in my guess for the scumteam too, but I'm wondering why this specifically.
eww apricity this feels so fake
Why? Isn't it completely non-indicative? I scumread him myself but not because of that no result. If he just didn't visit anyone I don't see how that proves anything either way, so I was wondering why Hellhound voted straight off of that. I was more looking from Iecerint's and Flubber's ISOs plus votecounts. And now also that ascetic claim because the way he reacted to Hellhound's vote was bad.
In post 1289, Persivul wrote:How in the world are you OK with lynching an ascetic when we've seen a town ascetic flip and we know there are duplicate choices being given out?
When asked why mod would offer ascetic to town, HH replied "balance for a potentially large number of investigatives" but wouldn't expand on that.
Think it through. If ascetics claim and are believed, then investigatives won't go there, it narrows down the target pool, and actuallyincreasesimbalance.
The only way that town ascetics balance out investigatives is if they'remislyncheddue to a no result coming up on them - and I'm being pushed due to a no result.
OTOH, if scum have RB as an option (and mod hinted at that when I complained about the options), then having ascetic along with another ability makes at least some sense. In that case it's better if the ascetic hasn't claimed, as if he's targeted it wastes a RB shot, and most of what we've seen has been X-shot. (Although I admittedly hadn't thought that through when I didn't claim, I just didn't think about it period.)