Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 20:39:08 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jul 26, 2010 20:39:08 GMT -5
Idle Thoughts, yes, I am a role on your list. But I think you have seriously overrated the usefullness of your list, both in the abstract and as a means of proving your townieness. And now you are driving my bonkers, so I'm starting to quit caring whether you are on my side (Town's side). Vote Idle ThoughtsReally? Really?Self-preservation votes can actually make sense (in an "I know I'm Town, I'm not sure about you" way), but voting someone that you don't think is scum* just because you disagree with the usefulness of their posts is pretty damn anti-Town. Vote eureka*Because if you thought he was scum, I would assume you'd say so.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 20:46:07 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 20:46:07 GMT -5
Vote Idle Thoughts*
By my count, there is a three way tie for most votes. Bufftabby, Sept, and I all have four votes each.
*If I die, my list will eventually be confirmed as I'll show up as Town.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 21:31:45 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jul 26, 2010 21:31:45 GMT -5
Ok. Vote: Eureka Sorry, but you can't go around voting for people just because they're the leader or saying you don't care about people's alignment without getting a vote from me. Vote Idle Thoughts By my count, there is a three way tie for most votes. Bufftabby, Sept, and I all have four votes each. *If I die, my list will eventually be confirmed as I'll show up as Town. You realize that nobody is lynched unless they gather 13 votes, right? Pleo even says at the end of vote count post who, if anyone, will be lynched. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 21:46:52 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jul 26, 2010 21:46:52 GMT -5
Vote: vote eureka
I understand you're frustrated and all the rest of it, but wildly voting people for being, essentially, annoying is not pro-Town. Idle's insistence that people out themselves as not being on his list (if anyone is, but that's a whole nother argument) is irksome, yeah, but it's definitely Idle-like play.
Do I think the list is accurate? Probably. But Idle and everyone who's played with me before knows that I don't like role-fishing, and I don't like coming out and saying "thing X is true or is not true" this early in the game. Even though more information is good for Town. And, yeah, it's something I'm probably oversensitive about, but giving up what I thought was a less-than-risky amount of information has come back and bitten me in the ass before.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 22:34:05 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 26, 2010 22:34:05 GMT -5
[/color] Sorry, but you can't go around voting for people just because they're the leader or saying you don't care about people's alignment without getting a vote from me. Vote Idle Thoughts By my count, there is a three way tie for most votes. Bufftabby, Sept, and I all have four votes each. *If I die, my list will eventually be confirmed as I'll show up as Town. You realize that nobody is lynched unless they gather 13 votes, right? Pleo even says at the end of vote count post who, if anyone, will be lynched. --FCOD[/quote] No, I didn't. Guess I must be scum because I missed that rule, huh? I seem to remember in all past Conspiracy games the one with the most votes getting lynch regardless of if a set number is reached. Ah well.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 23:00:56 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jul 26, 2010 23:00:56 GMT -5
No, I didn't. Guess I must be scum because I missed that rule, huh? I seem to remember in all past Conspiracy games the one with the most votes getting lynch regardless of if a set number is reached. Ah well. Oooh, touchy! ;D I'm not the one haphazardly throwing scum accusations around toDay... --FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 23:09:40 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Jul 26, 2010 23:09:40 GMT -5
I'm composing this post in the middle of a reread so bear with me if it follows strange thought paths. I hadn't realized the thread had jumped to so many pages in length. (Is there a way to up the number of posts it defaults to for a given page. I like my 200 post pages. Makes threads seem smaller and more manageable. ) I still don't like Sach's plan. It bothers me both from a metagame level but at the same time I feel like it's too variable. So I don't know which feeling is stronger: that it will yield right answers but unethically or will yield wrong answers due to methodology flaws. Sach's metagame theory is a valid hypothesis, but can only be proven by those on the list being dead. What I don't like about this theory is that it takes the focus off of everyone else. Indeed. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Idle's list. Man oh man, that list. Idle's histrionics aside, I'm willing to go with the list and see what happens. If a lynch occurs that disproves it, well then I think we know what will happen. If we lynch a lot and nothing is counter to the list, it will gain credibility. I see little reason to lynch Idle for it at this point. Although I do hope that he will cut down on the dramatics a smidge. I think I will Vote: Eureka There was just a little too much 'I'm so town I can barely stand my towny self" in the posts. Plus, you know, the whole voting for people because of their playstyle. Is it a scummy playstyle or just a frustrating one, hmm? And I think I will vote a second time: Vote: Mister Blockey because I think he misrepresented his case against sach with the discussion control remark. I don't think that Sach has been controlling the discussion. He is passionate, yes but who wouldn't be if they felt they had an almost sure thing?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 26, 2010 23:41:11 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Jul 26, 2010 23:41:11 GMT -5
I don't think sachertorte is controlling the discussion, I think he tried to. There's a difference and you're not listening.
Yes my vote post was poorly formed, because I honestly didn't know if I'd have the time to catch up/post a vote later. I got back from my trip with much more spare time than I expected, but I still stand by the actual vote.
Picking out three people and saying we should pick among them, especially on day one is different than picking out aspects of one person because you are trying to funnel the discussion into just a choice between the three characters. I could certainly be wrong about him, but it's the best I've got at the moment. I haven't had the time to sit around and go through the thread three times like others here, and I haven't been around to read it as it's been going.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure if I trust Idle's list completely, and I'm certainly not sure if I trust Idle, but going down that road is a mile long buffet of WIFOM and I'm not going to even try to reason through it.
I will say that my role is on the list that Idle put out.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 0:10:47 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2010 0:10:47 GMT -5
[oog] I am glad your friend is uninjured and horrified for her family. Please tell her some random stranger on the internet is thinking good thoughts their way.[/oog] Thank you. After several pitchers of beer, an assortment of shots that I can't recall the names of, and some really bad 80s music, the words of a middle ages Christian whose name escapes me: All will be well All will be well and all manner of things will be well.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 0:12:36 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2010 0:12:36 GMT -5
Peaches Christ! What's with the UK folks this game? Erm... this UK player really hasn't said anything against you, you know. Of course, now that you put it that way... Your idea is pants. Really pants. Seriously, you're a very bad person and should be ashamed of yourself for even coming up with it. I could make a whole list of things that are wrong with it... and since I have nothing better to do with my time right now, I will.* 1) It doesn't take into account the roles the mentioned players actually got in the previous game. For example, I tend to not want to be scum twice in a row, because I find it fairly stressful. If someone wanted to be a particular role, and got it in the last game, would they necessarily want the same role again in this one? 2) It doesn't take into account any changes of mind the players might have had in the meantime. A player might have thought "Oh I'd like to be a witchdoctor" in the previous game, seen it in action and thought "Wait, this doesn't look much fun" and chosen something completely different. 3) It also doesn't take into account other factors - for example, if I'm in other games on other boards, I will prefer not to have the same role in both games. 4) It doesn't take into account the fact that these players might not even have expressed a preference this time out. 5) It creates a "watch list", not IMO grounds for suspicion, based on nothing more than some seriously dubious metagaming, that seems to have accomplished nothing more than focussing attention on your own motives. I mean, has anybody made a single serious case / grounds for suspicion out of the list? Has there been a single post like this? Anyway, moving on from kicking Sachertorte (which is fun enough, but feels a bit too much like stealing a cane from a blind man) I'd like to put to you guys a possible scenario involving Idle Thoughts. I call it: Idle's Great Cabal Game-Winning Strategem, by Moley. So let's say that you're Idle Thoughts, a member of the Cabal. Your team is somewhat disadvantaged in numbers, although does have powers that haven't been publicly revealed. One of those powers is that you and your two allies know exactly how many players there are of each role in the game. You also know that nobody else has access to this information, or knows that the Cabal are the ones who have it. (Yeah, I know how many assumptions there are in that paragraph, but this is me throwing out a theory. Deal with it.) So... you have this lovely juicy info, but how to use it? Well perhaps you give yourself an ace in the hole. You tell the truth about every role except one. You reduce the numbers of Cabal by one, and you put in an extra player, probably a wolf or freemason; because who's going to contradict you? The other freemasons can expose you but they'd have to know who to expose first, and the wolves can hardly claim publicly. Now I'm not saying this is so. I think it's most likely NOT so. But should Idle be killed** and flip Cabal, I think it's a possibility that needs to be remembered. Ok, not much else to say, because Special Ed and Redskeez seem to have said it all. It's a bit alarming how much concensus there seems to be this early on about certain things. I agree with them that there've been a couple of odd votes floating around that I'm keeping in mind. For the moment I will keep my (only) vote where it is, and see what happens. *Don't bother replying point by point, Red, it's late and I'm tired otherwise I probably wouldn't even be writing it.
**I should probably clarify here that I'm not threatening to kill Idle. Srsly. Vote: Idle Thoughts maybe as well find out, eh? Plus, damn you all. Is it really true that our leading vote getter only has 7 vote? I'm too wasted alcoholically and emotionally to figure out how much time is left in the day, but let's not give up on our lynch which has a maybe 50% or so chance of getting Scum for the Scum Night Kills which don't have as good a percentage.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 0:19:27 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2010 0:19:27 GMT -5
Idle Thoughts, yes, I am a role on your list. But I think you have seriously overrated the usefullness of your list, both in the abstract and as a means of proving your townieness. And now you are driving my bonkers, so I'm starting to quit caring whether you are on my side (Town's side). Vote Idle ThoughtsI don't know how anyone picks out someone as acting scummy in this game, but we need someone to have thirteen votes and I'd rather it isn't me, so I'll vote for the person I think it the current vote-leader as well. vote Bufftabbywait? You agree with Idle's list and vote for him anyway? So you think he's Cabal and lying? or..what..what do you think? Can I vote for you again?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 0:21:07 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2010 0:21:07 GMT -5
Vote Idle Thoughts* By my count, there is a three way tie for most votes. Bufftabby, Sept, and I all have four votes each. *If I die, my list will eventually be confirmed as I'll show up as Town. never mind Unvote: Idle thoughts crap, I am drunk. I'm going to have to check my coding when I'm fully caught up.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 0:26:28 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Jul 27, 2010 0:26:28 GMT -5
I'm composing this post in the middle of a reread so bear with me if it follows strange thought paths. I hadn't realized the thread had jumped to so many pages in length. (Is there a way to up the number of posts it defaults to for a given page. I like my 200 post pages. Makes threads seem smaller and more manageable. ) I still don't like Sach's plan. It bothers me both from a metagame level but at the same time I feel like it's too variable. So I don't know which feeling is stronger: that it will yield right answers but unethically or will yield wrong answers due to methodology flaws. Sach's metagame theory is a valid hypothesis, but can only be proven by those on the list being dead. What I don't like about this theory is that it takes the focus off of everyone else. Indeed. I agree with this wholeheartedly. And I think I will vote a second time: Vote: Mister Blockey because I think he misrepresented his case against sach with the discussion control remark. I don't think that Sach has been controlling the discussion. He is passionate, yes but who wouldn't be if they felt they had an almost sure thing? I just reread this. Seriously my objection to sachertorte is the exact same thing as BillMC said. You agree with him wholeheartedly, but I'm misleading and should be lynched..... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh also as I'm looking through the posts since I was gone, the case against Eureka seems about as straightforward as it can be on day one. As much as I'm loath to scare off a newb with day one death in a new game I'd be stupid not to be incredibly suspicious, so Vote Eureka
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 1:44:36 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jul 27, 2010 1:44:36 GMT -5
If I get a "yes" from everyone, that accounts for every single role on my list, exact..don't you see? This statement I have to take issue with. It is false. I've already said that if you falsified the list, the single most likely change is that you increased the number of a solo Town role and decreased the number of a non-Town faction. Now, your list contains three Detectives, and the Detective is a solo role. Therefore you could have raised the number of Detectives to hide the true numbers of the Wolves or Cabal. (You could also manipulate the numbers of Undead roles, come to that.) The Wolves don't need to know how many of each role there are, but the Cabal do need to know how many Wolves and Undead there are to manipulate the Town into voting badly. Everyone could say "yes" honestly, and the list still be false. I was inclined to accept the list as a working document even given the doubts above, to be checked as the game evolved and players roles were revealed. The way you're pushing it makes me think that you're trying to get it "proved" now so that later in the game we all take it as read, and don't check the veracity, and that does not sit well with me. Vote: Idle Thoughts PS My role is on the list.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 1:47:56 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Jul 27, 2010 1:47:56 GMT -5
Ya know, I really don't like having to do this. I don't have any idea why Eureka didn't do this himself. Frustration with the way this game has gone I guess. This is why we so rarely get new blood in these games. When we do, we jump on them like sharks at a feeding frenzy. There are 12 hoursish til Dusk, and as it stands right now Eureka will be lynched. This cannot be allowed to stand, and I have no idea if he's going to back to do what needs to be done to stop it.
That post I made earlier about Eureka not giving off scum vibes? That it was new player power role issues instead? Yeah, I know that because Eureka is a Witch. And yes, the only way I could know that is exactly how I know that. I didn't get it last time, so I asked for it again.
And before you ask, no I don't know why Eureka didn't claim himself. And no I don't really understand some of the comments he's made, other than new power role jitters. And yes, I know that this severely cripples our powers, and will likely lead to one of us being dead Tonight. Better we get scum killed than lynched however.
Looking at the most recent vote count, I don't seem to have much choice but to make what is basically a defense vote by proxy.
Vote: Bufftabby
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 1:52:46 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Jul 27, 2010 1:52:46 GMT -5
It seems that I cross posted with Mhaye, and there's another option in Idle. I don't know that I'm willing to vote him though. He's being Idle in this game, which doesn't scream scum to me. It seems to me there's better ways to test his list's accuracy without lynching him on Day 1.
And with that, I'm off to bed. I'll try to be on before the Day ends.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 1:54:29 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 27, 2010 1:54:29 GMT -5
Unvote: Eureka
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 2:03:10 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jul 27, 2010 2:03:10 GMT -5
I agree that in large part Idle is being Idle. It's also a fact that Idle plays very similar games whatever his alignment; in fact he has been known to deliberately replicate plays he made as Town in a later game when he was not Town. (See Monkgate - he admitted going the large-font route to emulate his style when Town in Treasure Island.) So Idle being Idle is a null tell.
My vote is for his trying to "prove" his list when it essentially cannot be proven.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 2:28:00 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 27, 2010 2:28:00 GMT -5
If I get a "yes" from everyone, that accounts for every single role on my list, exact..don't you see? This statement I have to take issue with. It is false. I've already said that if you falsified the list, the single most likely change is that you increased the number of a solo Town role and decreased the number of a non-Town faction. Now, your list contains three Detectives, and the Detective is a solo role. Therefore you could have raised the number of Detectives to hide the true numbers of the Wolves or Cabal. (You could also manipulate the numbers of Undead roles, come to that.) The Wolves don't need to know how many of each role there are, but the Cabal do need to know how many Wolves and Undead there are to manipulate the Town into voting badly. Everyone could say "yes" honestly, and the list still be false. I was inclined to accept the list as a working document even given the doubts above, to be checked as the game evolved and players roles were revealed. The way you're pushing it makes me think that you're trying to get it "proved" now so that later in the game we all take it as read, and don't check the veracity, and that does not sit well with me. Vote: Idle Thoughts [/color] PS My role is on the list. [/quote] Very well and good then. When I die, you'll see how wrong you are. The list is exact, true, and not tampered with, changed, or falsified. Even if I were lying and what you say is true..then I'd have just changed one of the things, right? That means all the rest of it is true and the only made up role would be my own....to which, of course, I'd say "Oh yes, that's my role!" So any way you cut it.... All the roles on the list would be accounted for if everyone confirmed they were on itPeople who have either said their role is on my list or expressed belief that I'm telling the truth about the list have been CROSSED OUT: 01. moodymitchy 02. bufftabby03. Merestil Haye04. Pollux Oil 05. storyteller 06. eureka07. Special Ed 08. BillMc 09. MentalGuy10. metallicsquink 11. Honest Moley 12. Inner Stickler13. stanislaus 14. Captain Pinkies 15. Mister Blockey 16. Sister Coyote18. septimus 19. sachertorte 20. nphase 21. FlyingCowOfDoom22. duvsie 24. Kat!25. Nanook What say the rest of you? Nanook, are you on it?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 3:00:21 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Jul 27, 2010 3:00:21 GMT -5
Very well and good then. When I die, you'll see how wrong you are. The list is exact, true, and not tampered with, changed, or falsified. Even if I were lying and what you say is true..then I'd have just changed one of the things, right? That means all the rest of it is true and the only made up role would be my own....to which, of course, I'd say "Oh yes, that's my role!" So any way you cut it.... All the roles on the list would be accounted for if everyone confirmed they were on itunless of course someone is lying....
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 4:42:19 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 27, 2010 4:42:19 GMT -5
Ya know, I really don't like having to do this. I don't have any idea why Eureka didn't do this himself. Frustration with the way this game has gone I guess. This is why we so rarely get new blood in these games. When we do, we jump on them like sharks at a feeding frenzy. There are 12 hoursish til Dusk, and as it stands right now Eureka will be lynched. This cannot be allowed to stand, and I have no idea if he's going to back to do what needs to be done to stop it. That post I made earlier about Eureka not giving off scum vibes? That it was new player power role issues instead? Yeah, I know that because Eureka is a Witch. And yes, the only way I could know that is exactly how I know that. I didn't get it last time, so I asked for it again. And before you ask, no I don't know why Eureka didn't claim himself. And no I don't really understand some of the comments he's made, other than new power role jitters. And yes, I know that this severely cripples our powers, and will likely lead to one of us being dead Tonight. Better we get scum killed than lynched however. Looking at the most recent vote count, I don't seem to have much choice but to make what is basically a defense vote by proxy. Vote: Bufftabby [/color][/quote] Awwww bollocks. So that's why Eureka's first game was compared to mine. (I was a mason - not a freemason, an actual mason, like the witches are here - too.) Unvote Eureka. Hopefully I have enough time to analyze this properly and make another vote for someone to be exiled when I get back from work tonight. Don't think it should be Idle though.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 4:53:32 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jul 27, 2010 4:53:32 GMT -5
Also my role is on the list.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 5:18:54 GMT -5
Post by Duvsie on Jul 27, 2010 5:18:54 GMT -5
Hoopy Frood has become a Zombie. <snipped> [/quote] If I recall correctly, all three previous versions of Conspiracy have been won by Town. I expect the modifications to favor the other factions and make the game more difficult for Town. The opening zombie supports this thesis since previously, the first zombie could not be created until after Night Two. Furthermore, the previous version attempted to mitigate Vampire on Necromancer killing by informing each Vampire who one of the Necromancers were. Despite this, there was still Vampire violence on Necromancers (I think). Undead is very swingy in this regard. They have the potential to be the greatest threat and the capacity to nullify themselves. I'm hoping that the bonus zombie is all Pleonast did to beef up the undead, because if Vampires can't accidentally take out a Necromancer, then Undead are in the best position to win. I believe Undead can meet their win condition the fastest, but they can also lose the capacity to win the fastest as well. First of all I'm going to vote the one person who I know threatens my wincon before coming back with probably more votes and thoughts. Vote: Hoopy Frood
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 5:42:28 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Jul 27, 2010 5:42:28 GMT -5
Woah, that's not how it works.
Zombies aren't players. You can't vote for them. The Necromancer role has the power to make zombies from the corpses of people lynched or Night-Killed. Hoopy was never a player. All that his being a zombie means is that the Undead start the game with a slight headstart on achieving their win-condition. There is nothing we can do to destroy zombies once made. This is why the Undead are such a threat.
Check the player list in the game forum to see who you can vote for.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 5:50:31 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Jul 27, 2010 5:50:31 GMT -5
Actually, you know what?
Vote Duvsie
You haven't got a vote to make at this stage, and you don't even know who's playing and who's not. Players who don't actually play are at least as harmful to town as scum are.
Yes, this is a policy vote.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 5:51:15 GMT -5
Post by Duvsie on Jul 27, 2010 5:51:15 GMT -5
yes, I know who I can vote for...and intend to too. I was unaware (as it's not stated anywhere that I can see) that you cannot vote for them (zombies), hence why I voted
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 6:04:39 GMT -5
Post by Duvsie on Jul 27, 2010 6:04:39 GMT -5
Actually, you know what? Vote DuvsieYou haven't got a vote to make at this stage, and you don't even know who's playing and who's not. Players who don't actually play are at least as harmful to town as scum are. Yes, this is a policy vote. Of course I know who's playing. I also know that it's not written in the rules that you cannot vote for zombies, it's stated that they cannot "participate in the game, since you are a mindless slave of a Necromancer. However, an intense craving for brains and pompoms may prompt you to make meaningless, crude remarks at Night.", they count towards the undead wincon, and are therefore a threat to mine. You also appear to have skimmed my post where I stated that I shall come back with more thoughts and votes.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 6:57:12 GMT -5
Post by MentalGuy on Jul 27, 2010 6:57:12 GMT -5
Unvote Eureka
|
|
Gir!
FGM
EVIL Demon Goddess Mod
What? Kat is sweet and innocent!
Posts: 691
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 6:59:48 GMT -5
Post by Gir! on Jul 27, 2010 6:59:48 GMT -5
Unvote eureka
Sorry, that's all I have time for. I'm off to work.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 7:07:24 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 27, 2010 7:07:24 GMT -5
Sometimes playing this game makes me want to stab my eyeballs. Clearly wanting to stab eyeballs is scummy No. Just No. What you propose here is wrong on so many levels. How shall I begin? (1) If you had evidence that a particular player prefers to play as scum for whatever reason (more fun, a challenge, likes being the 'bad' guy) don't you think that becomes relevant in a game where people can choose their own alignment? If I could point to a post from 2008 where player X states "I much prefer playing scum than town; town is so boring." Don't you think that bit of information is interesting and relevant here? (2) Historical role choice is in no way equivalent to the examples you propose. Firstly, a group of people coordinating their roles would be cheating. Second, a group of people coordinating their roles gives no indication of alignment. They could just as well be Witches and Masons. Thirdly, I know of no studies that show a correlation between Dr. Pepper and propensity for choosing scum. In contrast, I'm quite certain that a propensity to choose scum roles is good evidence for a propensity to choose scum roles. Firstly, a choice did not have to be made - your theory rests on folk making a choice to be scum in this game. Secondly, the fact that someone said "I enjoy being scum" in some thread at some point in history isn't conclusive evidence and irks me as much as folk saying the are scottish/irish because their great great great great great grand pappy was. Thirdly, we can look at various post game analysis/comments were folk have said "i'd really like to be scum with you" or "i'd like to be a mason with you" - so obviously anyone who has ever suggested that they like to be scum with someone else is coordinating/cheating, and must obviously be scum. not. And I'm sure I could dig through posts and find at least one where you have expressed an opinion on what roles you like. Yes, folk may have asked for scum roles in previous games, but folks roles in this game are completely independent events. Just because the coin flipped heads 49 out the last 50 times does not mean it will do so again, they are total independent events.
|
|