Like, you understand that there is no way that Dylan and Jimmmmm are both scum town, right?
*sigh* EBWOP
I think both statements are true. But with 3 scum alive, someone only needs 2 town votes on them to be hammered. So you and Swan voting makes a quickhammer possible, Jimmmm's vote notwithstanding.
Both statements are definitely not true. It is totally plausible for Dylan and Jimmmmmm to both be scum.
Is it? I mean, sure, scum accuses scum of being scum with the idea being that we lynch one and that "ICs" the other. But why do that at MyLo? You're really cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The fact that you are making this argument is the very reason to do it.
You and Jim both really like this nonargument, which can be used to respond to any argument based on the premise “why would scum do X”?
It’s annoying because it ignores the substance of the argument. Yes, scum can do any crazy thing for the reason that “scum would never do this crazy thing”. Sure.
That said, scum are still rational players trying to maximize their win condition. Arguments that say “I think scum is less likely to do X because X makes them less likely to win than Y” are still worthwhile.
Here’s the situation: scum had this game in the bag. All they needed today was a mislynch and we had basically no idea who they were. That’s how today started. So what is more likely: that scum decided to throw away the game with a high risk, high reward fake cop claim, or that we rolled the unlikely-but-possible setup that had a cop and he got lucky with an unorthodox investigation choice? I think it’s the second one.
By the same token, “scum makes a fake cop claim and accuses themselves in order to guarantee the game that they’ve basically won drags on two more turns” strikes me as absurdly implausible.