degaston wrote:Do you have some alternate explanation for what went on after I said "Bye bye, Mitch"?
Yes: you never sent a PM to anyone. Not saying I necessarily believe this is more likely than the scenario you've given, but it could entirely have been a bluff to see who would would pop out of the woodwork and respond to it. Let's examine a little closer what actually happened. You posted:
What do you do with a jester? Leave him? If there's a vig, should he kill him?
At which point Storr responded 4 minutes later saying "yes and no." 10 minutes after that, you said "bye bye, mitch." 11 minutes after that Storr says "I'd you of used it to force a claim out of whatsausage :/," and then 15 minutes after that, you said you had deleted the PM. Now, let's review. You claim now that you were shooting at mitch because he's a jester and therefore dangerous to town (dubious, as described earlier and repeated again later in this post). If the case for doing that was as solid as you think it is, why did you suddenly up and change your mind after virtually no counterargument? (Storr's post had nothing to do with it, since you didn't follow his lead to use it on Whatsausage.) Instead you eventually just changed the 'setting' you were using on mitch. Of course, this makes zero sense in the world in which you think he's jester and that your shot will actually kill him, because the jester doesn't have a specific role for you to 'block' or stop, the jester only has a vote. So either you just weren't thinking very carefully about who you were shooting at -- in which case you're bad for town; or, you're scum and realized that maybe shooting at mitch was a bad idea from the perspective of maybe getting caught; or, you were lying about the whole thing and never shot to begin with. None of these scenarios look especially good for you. But at any rate I wanted to make it clear that if you're sticking now to the story that shooting at mitch was a good idea, then it doesn't make any sense that you'd send the PM to do so and then take it back half an hour later with no good reason for it. Your story just does not add up, which is why I'm questioning it. At the end of the day, the foundation of your case that you are town is the alleged 30 minute period where you had "decided" to kill mitch, before you changed your mind and
didn't do that. It's almost a laughably bad argument, and the fact that you believe it's reasonable is almost giving you rebound town points in my mind.
Almost.
Did you learn nothing from the HP game, where a 3P put the final nail in town's coffin? A third party is only interested in their own win condition, not town's.
I would not grant that third parties are universally harmful to town for this reason. They are just as likely to side with town as with scum -- whichever way the wind blows to get to end game. On average this is not a sound argument for saying that they are dangerous to town, and perhaps it is a lack of experience leading you to make this claim. However even if we accept this statement, third parties are not nearly as dangerous to town as, well, scum are. So why would you take a perfectly good kill shot and shoot at the most inconsequential player in the game instead of saving it until you find a suspected mafia to shoot at?
degaston wrote:My argument is the straightforward one. Yours is nothing but circular reasoning: Mitch claims Jester because he is town; I tried to kill a 3P because I'm scum. I suppose failing at it somehow makes me even more scummy.
Circular reasoning
is exactly how WIFOM works. The whole point is that we can't resolve the logic of the situation, because we can always go up a meta-level in trying to explain the motivation for your action. But ignore the semantics, just focus on the specifics of the situation. To put it simply, if you are scum, and even if you really believe that mitch is a 3P Jester, killing him is a perfectly sensible move to the extent that it's much better than killing your partner(s) and doesn't risk you getting lynched for shooting a townie. It's pretty damn hard to argue that this is a poorer explanation for your actions than you being town and doing the same thing.
(So you should be noting that whether or not we believe mitch's claim is orthogonal to the situation at hand. I am skeptical of it, but you obviously say that you believe it, which is all that I need to know in trying to assess your behavior. I'd still argue that a townie claiming to be jester is not less believable than a
jester claiming to be jester, but let's not get sidetracked on this issue.)
By your logic, I could have killed scum, and you would say that I had done it just to build town cred.
This tactic exists and is quite commonly used, it's called "bussing." It's when scum intentionally help get their partners killed to build town cred. Most often you do it when you think that your scum buddy is going to get lynched anyway, as a way to at least get something out of that.
Now of course, outright killing your mafia partner this way is probably a net bad idea unless there's something weird going on, so in most cases I wouldn't think it was the
most likely explanation for the scenario. In that situation I would grant that you had credibly established a pro-town persona. But even then it is certainly a
possibility that you did this as scum, and to suggest otherwise just demonstrates a lack of mafia experience. Plus it's mitch.
I would kill mitch to build town cred if he was my scum buddy, that kid is annoying as f*ck.
Your entire post boils down to nothing but implying that I'm scummy because my actions were pro-town.
Nonsense. My post boils down to implying that your actions of questionable town value (jailing mitch the "jester"? lol) could just as easily be interpreted as scum tactics, thereby defeating your claim that you have established a solid pro-town persona. There are things you could have done that are legitimately pro-town that would make it much more likely that you are actually town than mafia,
but you didn't do any of them.
