The Replacement wrote:Yosarian2 wrote:
Because he was obviously lying? IF you catch someone lying about their claim, if they keep talking themselves farther and farther into a corner trying to lie themselves out of a hole they dug for themselves, then 99% of the time, the right play is to lynch them.
Town is perfectly capable of lying. Your response doesn't actually address the point I made of why scum would be more likely to make HIS claim than town.
Town shouldn't lie about their role, because when they do, it generally really hurts their side badly. (As this game proves, by the way). On the other hand, scum quite commonly lie about their role, and it's often the right move for them. So when you see someone lie about their role, it really increases the chances that they're scum; it's probably the single most reliable scumtell there has ever been, and by a big margin too. There's a good reason that lynch all liars is a good rule of thumb.
It's even more true when someone is clearly trying to lie their way out of another lie.
In this case, the reason a scum would make his claim is obvious; because the way he made that claim convinced the town to delay lynching him. For a mafia member, "getting lynched tommorow" is usually much better then "getting lynched today".
People dig themselves into lies because they believe coming out of the lie will be worse than trying to stay in it.
Right. ESPECALLY SCUM. Because scum can't ever tell the whole truth, and their main goal is to not get lynched, so they tend to pile one lie onto another.
And don't respond with "Oh I told him it would be better if he came out and told the truth" because you said nothing to actually make him believe that it would be a better idea. Pointing to Xtoxm's lynch isn't very convincing. You simply saying that something is better if done a certain way does not make it true.
TOWN SHOULD NOT LIE. SCUM DO LIE. So if we catch someone lying, then lynching them is the right move 95% of the time. And I'm more moderate on this then a lot of people, because I say 95% instead of 100%.
I mean, how do you suggest catching scum, if you refuse to accept that "proving someone was trying to lie about their role claim in order to avoid a lynch" is a reasonable reason to think someone is scum?
By your logic, asking someone to come out of a lie would just further give you reason to lynch them based upon catching them in a lie.
(shrug) The thing is, I already knew he was almost certanly lying, because his claim made no sense. If he was town and confessed to lying, and explained why he had done it, he might not have been lynched. You are right, he still would have looked suspicious as hell (becuase, again, *HE HAD LIED*), but I personally would have listend to him and then made a judmenet based on what he said.
In any case, you trying to attack me because I've twice now correctly figured out someone was lying about their role is insane.
Yosarian2 wrote:
People who unvoted Mufasa on day two just to vote him on day three are very suspicious for doing so, especially since this allows them to effectively ignore half of the players for two consecutive days.
Did you miss the part where Mufasa said on day 2 "the town should lynch me tommorow"? You'd better not say something like that without having a damn good explination the next day, and he did not.
The town should never be aiming to lynch a town player.
Well, duh. What made you think we were aiming to lynch a town player?
He made such an extrodinary claim, I was willing to give him enough rope and give him that extra day he asked for; I was even willing to wait until the next day to finish the claim. HOWEVER, that always comes with a price; if you make an outlandish claim like that, you NEED to be able to back it up when we call you on your bluff, or else we have to assume that you are lying scum.
Often, in a situation like that, the best way to figure out if someone is lying scum or not is just to give them enough rope and see if they hang themselves with it. Which was exactally what I did.
I don't care if you are a Hunter or have some if-lynched triggered ability. The town doesn't need to lynch those kinds of players to win.
Well, yes. Which was actually how we figured out he was lying, if you remember, was because his actual claim on day 3 didn't at all fit the "it's good for the town for me to be lynched tommorow instead of today" claim he made on day 2.
We would be better off lynching scum. We win by eliminating the werewolves, not seeing the cool effects that town players have when they get lynched.
Right. We want to lynch scum. And a big part of how you figure out who the scum, especally in a setup with a lot of unique roles like this, is partly by figuring out who is telling the truth and who is making up fake claims to try and not get lynched, because the scum make up fake claims to try and not get lynched, and town never should.
If you don't like partial claims then where was that insistence to get a full claim from him on day two instead of leaving it hanging?
Eh? I never said there was anything wrong with partial claims. In fact, I specifically said on day 2 that if we were not going to lynch Mufasa that day, that we did not WANT him to claim fully that day, because it would only help the scum figure out if they should kill him or not.
Again, I gave him that leeway, because the situation was such that if he was lying scum, there was very little chance of him getting away with it, and if he was town telling the truth, then it's better for the town to wait until day 3. Perhaps I should have also considered the "what if he's a vanillia townie making up a stupid fake claim for some stupid reason", BUT I DON'T, BECAUSE TOWNIES SHOULD NOT EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER DO THAT in that kind of situatiion.
Once again you fail to actually address the point I make, which is that of it allowing you to essentially ignore half of the players in the game for two days straight.
Because I have no idea what you're talking about or what that has to do with Mufasa. I don't think I ignored anyone.
Yosarian2 wrote:
Excuse me? "Let" the bad play happen? I was doing everything I could to try to prevent Dr. Pepper from being lynched, since there was absolutly no good reason to lynch him. I tried to *prevent* the bad play from happening, and it's frustrating that peple were unwilling to listen, and instead followed people like Zwet who wanted to lynch Dr. Pepper while giving either no reasons or at best no good reasons.
Then what you should have done was to tell him to back the hell off and wait for Percy to actually come and respond to the points brought up against him first. What Dr Pepper did was deprive the town of Percy's response, you further contributed to that by jumping into the argument yourself.
Um...no. Just no. If a person makes a bad argument, I'll point out that it's a bad argument. That's the pro-town thing to do. If you think person A's attack on person B makes person A look scummy, you should say so.
Why would you want to limit discussion like that, by telling people what they can and can't respond to? When person A attacks person B, it's actually other people's reaction to the wagon that's especally useful in gathering information, more often then not.
If Dr Pepper truly thought that was Dingoatemybaby's stance then he should have waited first to see how Percy would handle it.
Well, I don't at all agree; if you see something worth commenting on that you think is scummy, you should point it out. Also, I don't understand the double standard here. Percy wanted to pressure someone. Dingo attaked Percy for that, before the guy who Percy wanted to pressure responded. Dr Pepper attacked Dingo for that. Why do you have a problem with Pepper's play and not Dingo's?
Pepper thought Dingo was trying to protect the lurker by attacking Percy's attack on it. That was a completly reasoable suspicion, considering the circumstances. If he had that suspicion, then saying so was absolutly the right thing for him to do; there's no need for him to wait to Percy to respond, because Percy's response is really irrelelevent to Pepper's suspicion at that point.
You did very little to prevent the situation, if anything, you augmented it.
Why should I have tried to prevent Dr Pepper from trying to hunt scum? Right or wrong, Pepper was playing in a very pro-town and helpful way there, and he should have gotten more support from the rest of the town then he did.
I want us to win just for Yos' inevitable rant alone. -CrashTextDummie