Page 1
Ordinary random voting down to where mwaxsays:
mnowax wrote: not voting everyone cause you all look scummy.
This is the sort of comment I would expect from a newbie, but mno has been here two years - so this is most peculiar. CKD and spring vote mwax, looks to be for mno's weird comment.
Page 2
Weird vote from TSS:
TSS wrote: Vote: blazerunner for being second on the armlx wagon.
Being second is inherently scummy because? Occult raises the good point that TSS didn't kick up a stink about the second vote on mwax. Blaze makes a really dodgy point suggesting pre-emptive lynching of power roles to prevent recruitment. Yos2 blasts this. Blaze then retreats a little and suggests that, if a power role is cornered, it will be unlikely that town will lynch a CL. Aside from the probability problem with this which Yos raises, I don't like that blaze suggests:
blaze wrote: But perhaps lynching is really not a good idea, we might just remember "that guy claimed and probably was already recruited" and lynch him after the recruiter.
Aside from the fact that lynching the CL is unlikely, the setting up of lynches that blaze proposes is deeply flawed. Needless to say, if, as a rule, the claimer is to be lynched after the death of CL, then it follows that cult ought not to recruit the claimer. Thus, the proposal is anti-town if applied.
TSS flips the onus of proof:
TSS wrote: Actually, I have a perfectly good reason for focusing on the armlx bandwagon rather than the mnowax one. And even if I didn't, I can only cast one vote, so you need to show a reason why armlx is less deserving of attention than mnowax
Aside from the vagary of the "reason", it's slippery to say that other people need to prove that it is wrong of TSS to focus on just the armlx wagon. He's the one that's asserting that armlx is somehow more worthy of attention. Thus, I hold him to account to explain his opinion.
Blaze brings up the issue of lynching claimed townies so they don't get cultified. This came up in Mini 500 - Cult Mafia, a cult game where I was mafia. IIRC, this idea was very firmly placed into the "Anti-town Ideas" pile.
Blaze casts a vote for TSS on the basis of "aggression". This sort of justification for a vote a pet hate of mine (along with "too emotional", "overly-defensive", etc.) By the looks of this post, and subsequent comments, it looks like you are basing this on the "needs to die" thing. I agree, it is a weird thing to say, but some people are more exuberant than others in this game. I don't see how you can treat this as a scumtell without meta evidence.
I don't like viking's advocacy of lyncing claimed townies. He relies on a dubious assumption about setup to justify this. Even if this assumption were correct, the "lynch all recruits" logic doesn't progress anywhere, as armlx points out. He seems to have a misunderstanding of the setup, however, based on later comments.
Blaze retracts his advocacy of lynching townies
I really dislike mwax suggesting that vanilla's should lurk.
After reading the armlx-blaze exchange, I dislike armlx's suggestion that blaze shows he has some knowledge about the game (at least more than his ideas would suggest) based on...the fact that Blaze knows what wifom is. That's the only evidence he gives to suggest knowledge of the game when, in fact, newbies can very easily be exposed to the concept of wifom (it isn't exactly a complex idea). It looks like armlx is trying to paint blaze as less of a newb.
Page 4
mwax declares that blaze killed DGB. Unless mwax is being stupid, this looks like a tracker or watcher claim. Hmm...Mwax later says that blaze "slipped and said something that confrimed something. I can not say why, but, or how i know, but he is not beneficial to the town."
Mwax wrote: no there is not. If the came upon this information he let go by accident, then i have also opened myself wide open.
The difficulty here is that the above post seems to be a qualifier from Mwax himself on the certainty of what he has said regarding blaze. However, any further probing into mwax
might
amount to role-fishing and may result in information leakage.
