In post 475, Lord Gurgi wrote:Then we're back to attacking the people who agree with the argument rather than the argument itself. At this point, you've tacitly admitted that you agree with my argument except you know you're town.
This isn't attacking anyone, it's attacking the play of mindlessly going along with a weak case.
Any questions?
So because my read of what he's doing is different than yours you want to lynch me? Or are you saying something else? Can you just clearly state it?
Let's try it this way. The scum's fear of being exposed as scum (losing information advantage) is a greater loss than the town's fear of being incorrectly identified as scum. This is the basic axiom from which all theory is derived. From this we can derive, among other things, that scum have a vested interest in brief days. Any lynch is superior to their own, they control information, burn a day, etcetera. If you're town, opening the possibility of a hammer would require you to believe that all the scum are already on that wagon or that the target is scum. Would you like to present longform argument that you believed one of these two things? If so, please explain the Wossi-Derpy team. If not, making a gambit of it risks a day to gain information. This is obviously not an efficient trade for the town. This is why it's called anti-town behavior. This is why you always wagon it.
I think you're trying too hard here. I was fake hammering to gauge Wossi's reaction. That's literally it.
"If you're town, opening the possibility of a hammer would require you to believe that all the scum are already on that wagon or that the target is scum."
So you think scum will quick hammer at this point and be able to get away with it? Or do you find anyone who puts anyone at L-1 to be scummy? Or you just think anyone who fake hammers is scum? I don't get your logic here.