How would that be? I'm making an assumption here, but I would think that any role capable of killing would show up as "loaded" or "has gun" or whatever. Is that not thegorckat wrote:Those wanting to vote someone Near has claimed to have investigated to 'test his claim' is ignoring that scum can say 'no gun', too.
This actually looks like a scumbuddy getting pissed off at a scumbuddy who did exactly what he said would be so dumb. This actually goes along with my theory about the aborted guilty. I'm betting Near changed the plan and decided to clear a scumbuddy instead. Disclaimer:Lowell wrote:Mizzy, I think lynching Y is an awful idea.
If Near is lying, and you think so, you should vote him. I find it unlikely that Near (a) fake-claimed, and (b) brought a scumbuddy with him in the plan (I, for one, would pixelate myself, travel through the computer wires, and appear in my scumbuddy's house to punch him in the face if he were to do that to me).
So, even if Near IS lying, I have absolutely no doubt that the person he "cleared" IS actually innocent. If Near is lying, KILL NEAR, not Y.
The ONLY scenario I can see is if Y is a godfather (unlikely, given the flavor of the game thusfar) or if Near is naive, or insane, or something (also unlikely in a mini). Not impossible, I guess, but is that really the best you can come up with?
Gotcha. When you said "scum could say 'no gun' too", it wasn't clear to me that you were referring to Near as the scum.gorckat wrote:I'm having a hard time figuring how two people aren't getting what I'm saying-
If you doubt Near's claim and want to test it...lynching someone he cleared doesn't do it. If he's scum, he can sit there and 'clear' people all game, tossing a partner out as needed to cement his place.
1) The vig is dead
2) Near claimed Gunsmith
3) Nearscum knows who does and does not have a gun
Doubts about Near shouldn't be directed at anyone other than Near.
You're actually voting for Lowell right now since you replaced Imat.jerubbaal wrote:I'll be in Chicago for my girlfriend's graduation from Thurs night to Sat afternoon, so I'll be happy to hammer Lowell Sat night if we haven't had a counterclaim yet.
Ah, I see. But yes, that's common sense, which is why I slammed Y for the idea of lynching one of the "confirmed" pair, because it doesn't tell us squat.Ripley wrote:I think what gorckat is saying is that if ooba were lynched and turned up innocent it would say nothing about Near's alignment since scum could, and almost certainly would, say this too.
Y's logic is all over the place. If he were really what he claims to be, ie an innocent cleared by Near, then he would already know that Near, if scum, gives "unloaded" results on innocents, or at least that he has done so once. Maybe he's forgotten he ought to know this - and it's much more likely that people would forget what they ought to know, when they aren't really what they say they are at all. Y has said nothing, by the way, to convince me that his logical action, if he disbelieves Near, is to lynch ooba, and again I wonder if his persistence in standing by this view arises from the lack of clarity of thought that you often see in scum who can't or don't have the ability to perceive how a situation should look to townie eyes.Mizzy wrote:Ah, I see. But yes, that's common sense, which is why I slammed Y for the idea of lynching one of the "confirmed" pair, because it doesn't tell us squat.Ripley wrote:I think what gorckat is saying is that if ooba were lynched and turned up innocent it would say nothing about Near's alignment since scum could, and almost certainly would, say this too.
Why do you think I still doubt his innocence even though I believe Near's claim? Y has far exceeding his scumminess quotient.Ripley wrote:Y's logic is all over the place. If he were really what he claims to be, ie an innocent cleared by Near, then he would already know that Near, if scum, gives "unloaded" results on innocents, or at least that he has done so once. Maybe he's forgotten he ought to know this - and it's much more likely that people would forget what they ought to know, when they aren't really what they say they are at all. Y has said nothing, by the way, to convince me that his logical action, if he disbelieves Near, is to lynch ooba, and again I wonder if his persistence in standing by this view arises from the lack of clarity of thought that you often see in scum who can't or don't have the ability to perceive how a situation should look to townie eyes.Mizzy wrote:Ah, I see. But yes, that's common sense, which is why I slammed Y for the idea of lynching one of the "confirmed" pair, because it doesn't tell us squat.Ripley wrote:I think what gorckat is saying is that if ooba were lynched and turned up innocent it would say nothing about Near's alignment since scum could, and almost certainly would, say this too.
And to sum up - you think i'm scum becauseY wrote:Believe it or not, I find it easier to look like town when I'm scum.
I do understand gorckat's logic (and I actually missed some of it myself), but the reason I'm voting ooba is that I think he'll turn up scum, and therefore we can prove Near is scum. Not vice-versa.
To clarify: I thing ooba is scum, ignoring Nears result.
When you say i haven't improved much - do you mean i've played the role of the "perfect town" like XreyoX or just that i also give you scum vibes?Y wrote:XReyoX was perfectly town. No real mistakes, nothing to actually point out. I recognise that kind of play from games I played scum. All the right choices, all the right word... Seems too much for me to be completely true. ooba hasn't improved much.
