Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ashersky]

And, scum that wants to lynch him is just a fact.  There has to be at least one scum in the set VT\{Silver}

I don't know that math thing.  But if you mean if all three VTs want to lynch him then there is a guarantee of at least one scum in those three, then yes.

[ashersky]

Aldo, I'm not getting PPEs.

[Witherweaver]

And, scum that wants to lynch him is just a fact.  There has to be at least one scum in the set VT\{Silver}

I don't know that math thing.  But if you mean if all three VTs want to lynch him then there is a guarantee of at least one scum in those three, then yes.

That's what I'm saying, yes.  The point of my original observation being:  (1) Silver is scum and his partner needs to get on the cred wagon, (2) Silver is not scum and the team is happy for a quick mislynch.

[Witherweaver]

Sorry, there's an implied "or" there.

[ashersky]

And, scum that wants to lynch him is just a fact.  There has to be at least one scum in the set VT\{Silver}

I don't know that math thing.  But if you mean if all three VTs want to lynch him then there is a guarantee of at least one scum in those three, then yes.

That's what I'm saying, yes.  The point of my original observation being:  (1) Silver is scum and his partner needs to get on the cred wagon, (2) Silver is not scum and the team is happy for a quick mislynch.

Fairly certain this is how it ends up playing out for any lynch candidate.

[silverspawn]

Now, firstly

That is despicable. Now this is an insult.

Sorry, I'm not insulted.  You should call me despicable (instead of my post) if that's your intention.

I agree, that wasn't actually an insult

Now let's list some facts (if you're interested to hear them)

- I called Joseph the least experienced VT (that is out of {Joseph, ashersky, WW, silver, Awaclus})
- ash said I was insulting Joseph
- I snapped, pointing out that I was not insulting Joseph
- ash didn't bother to respond and instead called me a liar (I'm yet to hear what I lied about ...). He still didn't admit that I wasn't insulting joseph
- I voted for ash
- ash voted for Joseph and got a mislynch through. Now this is neither here nor there since Joseph was also my second choice.

The biggest piece of evidence we have is still the fact that scum screwed up by claiming VT twice. Ash is still the simplest explanation for this since he claimed really early.

vote: ash

[Awaclus]

Ash is still the simplest explanation for this since he claimed really early.

That is actually a really good point.

[Awaclus]

No wait, it still requires his partner screwing up as well.

[Witherweaver]

This is not a great argument, because it's not a mistake if you can use it to mislynch all the VTs.

[Awaclus]

Yeah, that's not an explanation at all. Only Joseph claimed VT before ash, so ash being drunk and claiming early, regardless of his alignment, doesn't explain why there were two scum VT claims.

[silverspawn]

This is not a great argument, because it's not a mistake if you can use it to mislynch all the VTs.

that's pure WIFOM. Every stupid ever is good if you can use it to convince town that you''re not scum. That doesn't make the argument invalid, but it does weaken it.

[silverspawn]

Yeah, that's not an explanation at all. Only Joseph claimed VT before ash, so ash being drunk and claiming early, regardless of his alignment, doesn't explain why there were two scum VT claims.

It makes it easier, because now we need 1 scum screwing up and not two.

[Witherweaver]

What was the claiming order?

Joseph
Ash
Me
Silver
Awaclus?

Pretty convenient if Ash is town, because you and Awaclus can run this argument to the end.

Even if scum!Ash did claim VT, the late-claiming partner still made the "mistake" of claiming VT after getting all the facts.  I don't think we should be giving out the town/scum points we are for late/early claiming.

[iguanaiguana]

I'm VLA. Don't lynch until Sunday please. I have info.

[Awaclus]

Yeah, that's not an explanation at all. Only Joseph claimed VT before ash, so ash being drunk and claiming early, regardless of his alignment, doesn't explain why there were two scum VT claims.

It makes it easier, because now we need 1 scum screwing up and not two.

We only ever needed 1 scum screwing up (the one who claimed VT after the first one already had). It sounds like a pretty reasonable play for scum to claim PR and VT, respectively.

[Awaclus]

I'm VLA. Don't lynch until Sunday please. I have info.

Great!

[silverspawn]

Yeah, that's not an explanation at all. Only Joseph claimed VT before ash, so ash being drunk and claiming early, regardless of his alignment, doesn't explain why there were two scum VT claims.

It makes it easier, because now we need 1 scum screwing up and not two.

We only ever needed 1 scum screwing up (the one who claimed VT after the first one already had). It sounds like a pretty reasonable play for scum to claim PR and VT, respectively.

mh. Okay, I have to agree. That makes the case on ashersky a lot weaker.

But he's still my favorite lynch.

[2.71828.....]

I'm VLA. Don't lynch until Sunday please. I have info.

Info....I guess Sunday isn't too far off

[silverspawn]

Yeah, that's not an explanation at all. Only Joseph claimed VT before ash, so ash being drunk and claiming early, regardless of his alignment, doesn't explain why there were two scum VT claims.

It makes it easier, because now we need 1 scum screwing up and not two.

We only ever needed 1 scum screwing up (the one who claimed VT after the first one already had). It sounds like a pretty reasonable play for scum to claim PR and VT, respectively.

mh. Okay, I have to agree. That makes the case on ashersky a lot weaker.

But he's still my favorite lynch.

However, even then you can see why I said ash - Joseph. Ash didn't do that. WW didn't do that.

[ashersky]

Now let's list some facts (if you're interested to hear them)

- I called Joseph the least experienced VT (that is out of {Joseph, ashersky, WW, silver, Awaclus})

Nice retcon.  You never said "least experienced VT."  Here's the quote:

See ash, the occurrence that requires an explanation is the fact that both scum claimed VT. You accidentally claimed early, and Joseph also claimed early and is the least experienced player. That makes you two, by far, the easiest explanation, and it is why I am currently voting for you.

Your definition of "early" is one I disagree with.
Your insult of Joseph is also one i disagree with.

You clearly say "least experienced player."  That is extremely clear.  You cannot say that says VT.  It doesn't.

Not a fact.  A lie.

[ashersky]

Yeah, that's not an explanation at all. Only Joseph claimed VT before ash, so ash being drunk and claiming early, regardless of his alignment, doesn't explain why there were two scum VT claims.

It makes it easier, because now we need 1 scum screwing up and not two.

We only ever needed 1 scum screwing up (the one who claimed VT after the first one already had). It sounds like a pretty reasonable play for scum to claim PR and VT, respectively.

mh. Okay, I have to agree. That makes the case on ashersky a lot weaker.

But he's still my favorite lynch.

However, even then you can see why I said ash - Joseph. Ash didn't do that. WW didn't do that.

Your argument is that Joseph and I are lying scum who screwed up and claimed VT on accident.

But we know Joseph didn't screw up like you say he did.

So now you have to change your story to fit.  Just admit you were wrong, or admit you are scum.

[Witherweaver]

It seems pretty clear he's only considering the set that didn't claim PRs, since we're not looking in them for scum.  Not sure why you're trying to hyperpedant this.

[ashersky]

If you want to make a case on me, you should start over.  Your entire premise was destroyed by something I like to call reality.

Look at WW.  He may be wrong, but he's making reasonable arguments based on sensible statements.  You should try that.

And while you are at it, you might try and recall that there are two scum in this game.  Joseph wasn't one, no matter how superior and smart you believe yourself to be. 

[ashersky]

It seems pretty clear he's only considering the set that didn't claim PRs, since we're not looking in them for scum.  Not sure why you're trying to hyperpedant this.

It's pretty clear to me that an argument based on a player being inexperienced and making a mistake falls apart when you look at the facts.

--He claimed first.  His partner would have to make the mistake, not him.
--He is not scum, so all theories based on Joseph being scum are invalidated.
--You can't make the argument that I'm inexperienced.
--I claimed second, which if I were scum would be first, so again, my partner and not I had to have made the mistake.
--So which of WW, SS, and Awaclus is the inexperienced player who made the idiotic mistake that SS is railing on about?  I think Awaclus started most recently, so it's him, who literally had the most time to think about it?

[Witherweaver]

I'm not saying it's a good argument, I'm just saying the whole "this is a lie" thing is silly.