Skruffs wrote:Tarhalindur wrote:Speaking of masons getting innocents... a-yup, I got another innocent (Yamahako, for what it's worth) last night. Given what Korlash is now saying, I'm pretty sure I'm Naive at this point.
This, in turn, means that it's time that I do a thorough reread on Skruffs and Battle Mage. At this point, I think that giving them a free pass based on investigation results is a bad idea.
I'm also interested in how none of the scum kills have targeted players in the upper half of the player list, especially since there have been no scum crosskills so far. I still suspect that there is something up with the player list, although I won't deny that ckillor coming up town is a blow to the theory. (If we do decide to lynch based on player list, Gorgon is the clear lynch today.)
Gossiping has NEVER been proven to be an investigative role.
However, The fonz cleared me of being in the soup scum mafia. Trying to refute that to put attention on me is BAD. I don't believe your claim.
I think it's funny that you abandoned your own theory yesterday o go after other people, and then,a fter it works, you still try to encourage other people that there is something about it.
Isn't it *Also* interesting to note that two claimed cops haven't been targetted, long after the other claimed cop was NK'd?
Korlash: If you are naive, like you claim, then there is no reason not to prove that you actually investigated someone, even if your investigation is faulty.
I think it's possible, and this is a spur of the moment theory, that the mason 'cops' were three people, one a 'bumbling' cheerleader, and the other two maybe each part of a mafia group. The two that were scum got the third killed to 'clear' themselves, and have been, I dunno, maybe telling their own groups who to kill who not to kill?
I don't know, it's just a theory, but it's a lot more likely than Tar's suggestion that the players who do have innocent results on them, not even by Their own claimed naive investigations, but by other, confirmed, scum-specific cops, no less, start being investigated.
I don't understand why Tarhalindur would want to cannibalize his results like that. I don't see why jsut because he has all innocent results, he would assume he's naive.
That's also why Korlash should 'confirm' his innocent results, because so far it seems that nobody who's been targetted by either of them has been Nk'd, and it's probably up to four, if not five, players by now.
I think that a pair of mason cops should be trying to investigate as many people as they can as well as claiming their results. If they are naive, it will show up after time, but until they are proven naive, there's no reason to think so.
But then again, Tarhalindur thought that one out of every three 'clumpings' was scum, and he thought that the mason-cop who had targetted him was naive, so I have no reason to think that TArhalindur is telling the truth about what he's saying.
Skruffs, the reason that I am so mistrustful of my investigation results is that I cannot square the investigation results with the way I'm seeing you play (or Battle Mage's claim, for that matter).
First: You have been continuously misrepresenting my views ever since I brought up the player list theory - you keep harping on about my original hypothesis when that hypothesis was conclusively disproved at the beginning of Day 3.
(Now, you might ask, why did I think that was the most plausible theory in the first place? The answer is that it was an educated guess. I saw the player list grouped into groups of three. Moreover, I knew that my masonry was unconfirmed and that I had another ability (note that Nightfall did not reveal that his role was identical to mine until Night 2). My gut conclusion was that each triad, in addition to a mechanical link (masonry, post restrictions, etc.), contained 1 power role, 1 relatively normal role, and 1 scum. This theory seemed to be reinforced by the fact that VitaminR - Korlash's predecessor - was utterly useless as a mason after N0. I will admit that it was a hasty hypothesis that could, and did, turn out to be wrong, but it was my hypothesis nonetheless.
Incidentally, my old doubts about VitR are one of three reasons why I haven't been taking advantage of my nighttalk capability. The others are somewhat limited enthusiasm and my perception that Korlash is an utterly useless mason partner, even if he's town.)
Second: You're being hypocritical. First, you misrepresent me and attack me for a spur-of-the-moment theory, then you try to use a spur-of-the-moment theory of your own to continue the attack? More to the point, you attack me for weak reasoning when your reasoning is based upon as many educated guesses as mine was?
Third: You attack me for thinking that I am naive, yet you subscribe to the same reasoning that lies behind my belief that I am probably naive (three sane mason-cops plus two scum-specific investigators would probably be utterly broken for the town).
(As for the merits of my naivety hypothesis - my doubts about my sanity, while fundamentally based on game balance concerns, are reinforced by some shaky flavor behind my investigation (it's not like gossip is the most reliable of sources, and popular teenage girls are often stereotyped as hopelessly naive about non-social matters) - ESPECIALLY given how closely integrated flavor and role seem to be in this game - and the fact that none of the Gossiping Masons appears to have gotten a guilty.)
Fourth: Your "I find it very interesting that neither of the claimed mason-cops has been targeted" a) reeks of inside knowledge (how can you *know* that neither of the mason-cops has been targeted?) and b) can only be answered by opening up a big fat can of WIFOM.
Fifth: If you really think that I am scum (and given the way you played yesterday, I find it difficult to believe otherwise), why aren't you backing up your words with food (or even a FoS for that matter)? To me, your play reeks of scum trying to push along a wagon without actually committing to the wagon.
