Gerhard Krause wrote:@Tracey - What makes this a better lynch than Stuart? There is no guarantee we have a vig, or even a cop for that matter, and it would literally sicken me to see Stuart get away with this strategy.
You're right. We don't know anything about the game setup or potential roles, but his behavior today is not going to change overnight and I doubt anyone will forget it (despite someone, can't remember who now, I'll find in a minute, said they wished everyone would forget it). Killing Stuart is going to give us no information tomorrow since at least a couple of people have already said that this bandwagon is so easy that scum could get by without getting on the wagon. There is a connection between Emile and Stuart, it is just they we don't know what it is. Lynching Emile will give us more information about Stuart; but let me say that I don't really think that it is good practice to lynch others to get information about someone else; but at this point, with everything else Emile has said/done, I'm comfortable for the time being with this option. I'm never thought I would inspire a massive bandwagon switch, but I hope that some additional conversation will be sparked and maybe some actual scum hunting will occur.
Gerhard Krause wrote:Let's say that these lynches are of equal value, and we find each just as scummy. Emile doesn't have any ties to any other player, and his flip really won't give us any information about Stuart. However, if Stuart flips scum, it is unlikely that Emile is scum also, and I he flips town it gives his stubborn tunneling slightly more credit. I'd feel more comfortable with lynching Stuart than Emile.
Stuart Whyte wrote:My reasons aren't game specific.
I missed this post by Stuart when I was posting, so my point about it being role related could be moot; however, again, the source is unreliable.
Gerhard Krause wrote:Orski has only posted twice. This is an issue. This must change. Edward only posted three times before him. I didn't catch this before, but it is seriously bothering me.
Good call. I agree, lurkers are bad all around. When things like Stuart's play are so front and center I sometimes miss who is lurking. Why don't you want to put pressure on them? Do you want to keep the pressure on Stuart at the same time?
Claude Lefevre wrote:Also, it might be a linguistic problem, but I was getting the impression that you too are not bothered by the eventuality that Stuart may turn out to be town (which seems very unlikely to me, tbh)... you generally look pro-town to me, Tracey, but it is a fact that
Stuart got at L-1 twice, and both times someone stepped back pretty quickly
... this bothers me.
I wasn't bothered at all for a while; but I stepped back from my absolute frustration. I'll comment more on this, but I want to run it by the mod first. I'll post once more on this later today once I send my question and get a response.
Claude Lefevre wrote:but it is a fact that
Stuart got at L-1 twice, and both times someone stepped back pretty quickly
... this bothers me.
Why does this bother you? I'm actually somewhat relieved that the lynch didn't go through yet because of the other conversations going on. However, it depends on the people who backed off the lynch, and their alignment. Since you appear to believe that Stuart is scum, do you think the people who stepped off are scum not wanting to get a lynch on their partner? Or do you think they are town being wishy washy? (Not accusatory)
Claude Lefevre wrote:In conclusion: Stuart reiterated refusal to discuss his FoS's with us bothers me way too much, as it bothers me the fact that two players stepped back whenever he got at L-1. Quoting Tracey, "I may be making my own bed", too, but I
Unvote; Vote: Stuart
. I am really curious to see what happens now.
Claude Lefevre wrote:2) I want to see what happens now that he is at L-1 for the third time.
If we were at a standstill at L-1 once twice now, what do you think will change now that he is at L-3 for the third time?
Igor Schultz wrote:If your good point is true then stu must be lying about his claim.
It could be possible that he isn't revealing everything about his role, too.
Igor Schultz wrote:Thats why I can't follow him because I can't trust someone who has lied. Your point would have been valid if he had not claimed. If he had yet to claim I would think about hopping off his ass. But as of now I don't forsee a vote change.
That's fine. I appreciate your input and perspective. It is a difficult situation for sure. Let me make sure I am reading your POV: if Stuart had not claimed you would be more inclined to think he is town?