GIEFF wrote:
Beyond_Birthday wrote:GIEFF wrote:
1. Townies use logic to figure out who is scum.
2. Scum fake logic to appear townie, as they don't need logic because they know who is scum and who isn't.
3. Therefore, being untruthful about the logic you used for a vote is scummy, and goes directly to the core of what differentiates scum from town: knowledge.
4. Panzer was untruthful about the logic he used for a vote.
Number 1.3 is consistently performed by Zilla, but you still think I'm a better lynch... which is odd for the reasons Goat pointed out and I am not wasting valuable time reiterating.
Number 1.2 is given an exit clause in you 2.1 below. I don't like this and it doesn't make you look town aligned to me.
GIEFF wrote:Beyond_Birthday wrote:Beyond_Birthday wrote:
1. Townies can have flawed logic.
2. Scum can be perfectly logical and never lie except their role. They can then crucify townies for having flawed logic.
3. No, cops should try and hide behind semi bad logic (if necessary) in order to hide the fact that they are cops. On the other hand, this is null if all 12 players are perfectly and accurately logical.
4. It was a joke vote to me, but if you were to better explain instead of just telling me (and myk) that we're wrong...
1. If a townie presents a flawed case, that isn't scummy if the person actually believes it is not flawed. I am not saying flawed cases are scummy, I am saying (for the 23rd time) that cases which are not believed by their presenters are scummy.
2. Yes they can. But hopefully they make some mistakes, and reveal to the rest of us that the reasons they provided for a vote are not genuine.
3. I agree about cop-knowledge, in general. I don't see how that applies to our current situation.
4. Seriously? Read back. Even Panzer will tell you he was being serious. I think that even mykonian will.
I agree number 1.3 is consistently performed by Zilla, and I think she is scummy. Number 1.3 was ALSO performed by you.
But I didn't deny this. Honestly, I was half assing this game and not paying much attention until whenever it was I was bandwagoned by Goat.
And for some reason, when I pointed it out, it was stupid
When you see someone surrender and acknowledge the point, you don't bring it up again and again and again. THAT IS stupid.
and didn't even merit a response, yet when Goat points it out, it's perfectly valid, and you have nothing to say in your defense.
All true...? What's your point?
2.1 is not an exit clause.
It can still be treated as an exit clause, no matter what you claim it is supposed to be.
It is a clarification, and one I have made many, many, many times before that point.
If I could say for certain who was faking logic and who was not, that would be a 100% accurate scumtell, right?
False.
Townies try to guess who is scum based on logic, intuition, and reasoning. Their votes are based on the results of this logic, intuition and reasoning. Scum's votes are not.
False. Scum play is theoretically not based off of logic, intuition, and reasoning is a false statement. In a 100% vanilla game, I would, regardless of alignment, always play to attack the scummiet player, pressure, and see reactions in order to reason out a percentage of scumminess in order to decide if person is acting as scum or for self preservation. I wouldn't care who my partners were or were not. In that sense, I would be a mad dog who would attack anyone who plays incorrectly. Thus, your statement is false in the simplest form. In games with roles, scum can play this way to attempt to avoid investigation. Also, the manner they play does not demand that they follow their attempts to find investigative roles. Thus, I strongly disagree with your read on mafia play.
Everything else I use is just different ways of trying to discern if the logic/reasoning is being faked or not.
Beyond_Birthday wrote:Number 2.2 (just above) is violated by Zilla several times. I think that 2.1 shows that you believe town would stand by their arguments even if stupid. I will now define stupid as acting illogical, making unwise choices, presenting unwise or unfounded cases, or acting scummy. Just keep replacing each in until you find the one(s) that fit the reason I called you stupid.
I agree completely that Zilla has violated 2.2 a number of times. But, again, 2.1 does NOT show that I believe town would stand by their stupid arguments. Changing your mind is not scummy. Townies can make mistakes. However, townies' objective is to get at the TRUTH, so if these mistakes are pointed to a townie and the townie cannot refute them, he should revise his case. If someone continues to hammer on a player as Zilla has on Goat, then that is extremely scummy, and I've said this over and over again.
Granted, but again, your reasoning only looks at one possibilty. You could give scum buddies an out if they make it look like they were proven wrong and admit it and appear townie for being able to acknowledge their error. It CAN be used as an exit clause. I have already critiqued your play because you just handed out to scum (before the posts cited above, can't recall where) a blue print on how to appear town to you. So, yeah, this is scummy to me since I do not know of any town motivation to declare how you decide a person's alignment.
Have you been reading the thread? How can you say I think that standing by stupid arguments is town when I've attacked Zilla for doing just that? I'm also a little surprised that you think I am Zilla's scumbuddy; I have spent far more effort attacking and building a case on her than you have.
What? You know what, no...no. I just don't fucking care anymore. You are so illogical... *Takes your wrists, slices open the skin, and lets the blood flow out.* I refuse to drink this because it is obviously infected with stupidity.
Just because you make a strong case against someone does not clear you from being their scum buddy.