I don't understand what possible advantage I could have from mistaking your names. Most of the time, it's just a misread and me failing to check my posts. If you'll notice, I often fix that mistake when I make.sthar8 wrote:Clockwork:This was my way of saying "I told you so, and you should have gone with the logic" to strife. This should have been obvious since his next line from that post basically says "but I think we should ignore the logic here and go with gut."sthar8 wrote:Strife220 wrote:
For face value, Sthar8's logic is pretty solid.
That's all I've got to say about that.
Second, strife was the one speculating about fake claims, and trying to outguess the mod. In fact, I've raised that as a point against him already, so I think you can see what my stance is on the subject. I have not defended against any accusations from you, mostly because you haven't made any against me. In fact, the reason you might see buddying between strife and I is that you'verepeatedly misattributed my statements to him throughout this game. I wonder if you hope to gain some kind of advantage from this, or if you need to be reading a little more closely, as the last time I consistently agreed with strife was on Day 1, and even that was not across the board (for example, our opinions on Oman were markedly different).
I'll force myself to make sure that I don't mix the two of you up from now on.
I don't like this post at all. Explain to me how it isn't to the benefit of the town to all assume that the scum are going to try to manipulate us and work in ways that it isn't possible to do that.sthar8 wrote: Third, Iproposeda list, then asked for discussion on it. If anyone had proposed any changes, we could have agreed on them, but it seems everyone liked my first draft. Your suggestion that scum would be able to manipulate the list to some form of advantage is insulting to the town, since scum are a small minority at this point. I'd rather assume that at leastsomeof the pro-town players have brainssomewhereinside their skulls. If the scum are as good and the town are as stupid as you're trying to make them out to be, then we've already lost this game.
[quote="sthar8"
I am not cleared, and have never claimed to be cleared. In fact, as of this post we have only two cleared players: Oman and Liam. Being confirmed is not a prerequisite for acceptance of any argument or claim. The standard we use is logical validity and soundness or cogency, because even a confirmed pro-town player can propose arguments with horrible, fatal flaws, as I believe to be the case with strife's thoughts yesterday.[/quote]
Completely agreed, hence why my argument about you picking the list was that you weren't cleared.
Alright, I like this reasoning. I just don't like how the entire town didn't take much time to question anything about the list. Isthar8 wrote: My intent behind the list was to take into account soft-claims and scumminess to create an order that was dangerous for false claims. This isimpossiblewith dice, and I've stated repeatedly that we should try to get as much benefit from the massclaim as possible.
For example, strife soft-claimed first. This suggests to me that he has a roleclaim ready, since he could have been forced to claim right away because of his risky (and poorly reasoned) move. If he's scum, having him claim last maximizes the chances that his claim of choice will be taken already, forcing him to counter, or lose the benefit of any breadcrumbing he's done and make up a new claim on the spot. If he counters, we can test the powers or lynch the scummiest one, and if he makes up a new claim it will not be as thought out as his original, which leaves more room for scummy errors.
hate
leaving any possibility of manipulation. If you'll read back, you'll notice that I didn't even pay much attention to the claim at all as I was still wondering why the doctor was still alive, if you recall. I admit that I should have counter claimed that role however, it's unlikely that I'm the only Vanilla Townie here. So I'm not the only one who made the mistake.sthar8 wrote: Finally, what you're saying with your claim is that you could have countered Muerrto on flavor and chose not to? That's two people who just chose to let Muerrto off the hook with a claim they knew was false (points to BB for stating strong suspicions and lynch preference, even after he had unvoted, though).
I don't feel that this vote isn't justified. You have some good points about me and I've been having some really bad play here. But tell me this, if my claim stands to be true are you going to leave your vote on me?sthar8 wrote: Your play over the course of the last two days has served only the goal of attempting to confuse and scare the town. In addition you dropped your Muerrto vote as soon as it looked like others might be unwilling to lynch him, without giving any reasoning other than "if you guys don't want to lynch him, I won't vote for him." I'm happy with you at the top of my scumlist.Vote: ClockworkRuseNote that I do not advocate lynching until after the claims have been completed an analyzed fully.
And for the record, I didn't just say 'If you guys don't want to lynch him..." I did unvote because I saw your reasoning and weighed it against my own. Guess who's made more sense when I sat there and thought about it?
