As
@PMJ says "we have time" (Lele's lynch) its not the end of the world if there are a few miss lynches.
It doesn't have to be today but I don't like the idea of lynching all the active players just because they post.
I didn't say it was fine that we mislynched a few times.
We wouldn't have to worry about lynching "all the active players" if everyone would goddamn play the game they signed up for.
It's getting later in the day and now that you've been revealed to have a double vote you need to get it off gekki and put it on bbninjas because right now gekki is in the lead since he got to 2 votes first (I think).
PMJ is convinced that I was trying to stop Lele from being lynched, passively or actively. ... This is completely false - I never advocated against lynching Lele (in fact, I advocated the opposite - saying that "
Lele should definitely be lynched today"),
Yeah, no kidding. This means nothing because no one is going to actually say the words "don't lynch Tapu Lele" or something to that effect. Clearly.
and my uncertainty over the real role only cropped up much later in the day (far from this entire day idea that PMJ has been pushing). In fact, it is my
speculative post* - my last post of the day - that has been taken as the basis for my apparent motive, that is, to get people
off the Lele wagon (see: "
Yepperdoodles"; the idea is that I was sowing doubt). This, however, does not make sense. How could I be advocating for Lele to be lynched, yet still trying to get people off the wagon?
Because the extent to which you advocated for Lele's lynch was that one post where you said he should definitely be lynched. But of course you said that, because you are obviously not going to directly tell the town not to lynch host-confirmed scum.
Other than a couple unrelated posts, you spent the remainder of the day entertaining Tapu Lele's defense instead of telling him to take a long walk off a short pier. This includes the staged interaction between you and him in the thread; it was all you could do to try and get people to believe what he was saying.
That would have been heavily counterproductive to my motive, and would render my apparent last-ditch attempt unbelievably ineffective and meaningless - it's not going to cause people to move their vote. Even if we were to go with this theory, we would have to also assume the following things - and that would be radically unprecedented (in the spoiler):
- Saying Lele should be lynched, but trying to get people off the wagon anyway would have been incredibly and obviously inconsistent. To have made such an error, you would have to assume that I had either a) forgotten what I said earlier (very unlikely, considering I said or implied it on multiple occasions) OR b) that I'm incapable of recognising such an obvious error in thinking (i.e. that I'm incompetent).
You've been playing ultra careful this whole game. By entertaining Lele's defense and later suggesting ways that the flip might not be true, you're leaving room for people to change their votes while simultaneously covering your ass for his inevitable scum flip, because, again, you're not dumb enough to directly ask the town to not lynch confirmed scum. But you can't just sit there and let your team go down a member on day two, so you do what you can while staying ambiguous enough to look innocent once he flips.
- I think there was ~6 votes on the Lele wagon when I posted my uncertainty about how they might flip. Moving that many votes, that late into the day, would be near-impossible. Why didn't I "cast doubt" earlier, when there was little support for the wagon (and conversely,
placed pressure on Lele)? I can't think of any reason as to why this would happen for anyone, aside from a) incompetency.
Crunch time. Subtlety wasn't working so you had to start bringing out the extra-strength bullshit instead of the regular dosage. Actually suggesting someone else to lynch wouldn't do because there was no way Tapu Lele was realistically gonna not be lynched, and if he flipped scum then you would look really bad for directly suggesting we change our votes off of host-confirmed scum. But if someone
else suggests it, then you're absolved of sin and you can accuse them of exactly what I'm accusing you of.
- Any votes that fell from the wagon would have had to go elsewhere, yet I never provided an alternative. You'd have to assume that I either was a) hoping that someone else would lead a convincing wagon (which does not make sense, because I would have put myself out there for no reason) OR b) incompetency.
You didn't provide an alternative because it would be suicide to do so; you simply cast the seeds of doubt and hoped to Buddha that someone else would agree with you and say something.
RE: Point 2: "bbninjas has been playing in a scum mindset / has scum motives."
Main Evidence: I'm caring too much about how I appear. Specifically; Justifying questions that could be perceived as anti-town or otherwise problematic. (When meta is invoked, PMJ says that meta is insubstantial as a defense.)
Well, there's not too much to defend here because the point boils down to subjective beliefs over what are tells, and what are not. PMJ reckons that only mafians should care about how they appear, and I disagree.
Townies aren't so worried that they might look scummy that they pre-emptively defend themselves against everything they say that might be perceived as scummy. It shows you're afraid of being pressured.
I've already said that this is what I do, and why I think justifying myself is necessary and pro-town. I'm a self-aware person. If I am to deviate from the norm in what I ask or say,
especially if people have FoS such an action in the past, I will normally realise that and notice it. If people are probably going to have qualms, I will explain or justify myself to save everyone's time, and in some cases, so people can't just deflect answering by saying "that's scummy". (An example would be when I questioned Celever
over his position on T_E versus his position on Lele, and explained that I'm not pulling a hindsight abuse.) PMJ's response to this meta-inclined defense is again subjective and boils down to disagreeing over what is valid reasoning - PMJ says that meta-reads are ineffective, and I disagree to an extent.
This paragraph proves my point about why meta reads are 100% garbage. bbninjas spent like eight sentences explaining away his scummy behavior as what he
does and I should just ignore it. Others have established this as well, that this is just what bbninjas
does and it's non-alignment indicative as a result.
If bb's town meta is similar to his scum meta, then he can't use his town meta as an excuse for his scummy behavior because he is also acting similar to how he does as scum and should be lynched for it.
Regardless, bb is experienced enough to not act so far out of his "town meta" that he can no longer use it as a valid excuse; as I mentioned in a previous post, this results in his town meta and scum meta becoming one and the same, rendering any potential meta reads useless.
There are a few other instances where PMJ claims that I have a malicious motive, but I still believe that PMJ is twisting what I say to develop these, and is only considering the side that is mafian-indicative when facing potential WIFOM (hence why I say he's constructed this case under the assumption that I'm mafian, and not coming to that conclusion naturally). The specific instances of this I point in my defense
here.
I'll say again that I was not assuming you were scum when looking at your posts initially. Your suggestion that Tapu Lele's flip might not be real and your interactions with him during day two lead me to believe that you were in cahoots, so of course I'm going to look at the remainder of your posts in that light to see if it supports my case.
Maybe if you weren't so desperate to leave Tapu Lele alive, you would have gotten away with it. Take your own advice and cut your losses next time.
This method fo scumhunting is majorly flawed, because if you were to look at everyone's posts in a light that suggests they are mafian, then of course they will look scummy! A veteran can make virtually anything said look scummy, with the correct argument - but that doesn't make it indicative.
If you assume everyone is town then no one would ever get lynched.
Your scummy behavior is what makes me think you're scum. There is a difference between viewing scummy behavior and coming to the conclusion that the player is scum and just assuming everyone is scum and fitting your case to reflect that.
A very real example: PMJ is tunneling me (
as you admitted), and as evident by the tone of his posts, and how he is working in absolutes.
Oh no, please don't bring up the part where I openly admitted to tunneling, whatever will I do.
I speak in absolutes because I have nothing to fear and I'm not afraid of guessing wrong. People seem to think that mislynching is the end of the world when games where scum is lynched every day never happens (at least around here; I have virtually no mafia experience elsewehre). Failing guilty seer or tracker results, the town guesses wrong before it starts guessing right, so I don't get why everyone is so afraid of being called out for a mislynch.
If I was to look at this from a scum-light, then your "motive" would be to get a fairly active and experienced player mislynched (instead of, say, using that precious nightkill).
This is wifom (so business as usual for team bbninjas).
PMJ is saturating the thread with accusations against me, some highly exaggerating, and many misinformed or not indicative, to take advantage of a sheepy and quite town who will nearly always follow the most pushy and vocal player. This is a very real possibility, but isn't also very WIFOMy? In the same way, the claims made about my motives are just as WIFOMy - and would be equivalent to me taking a stab in the dark.
This couldn't be further from the truth. I haven't exaggerated anything in terms of the reasons why I want you dead. I've been very clear about my reasons, quoting the posts in question; your non-indicative argument is your own meta read and is therefore unreliable; and the fact that the town is quiet does not change the content of your posts.
tl;dr
For Point 1: (that I was trying to get people off Lele's lynch).
- I advocated FOR Lele's lynch, not against it. How could I have been casting doubt over the flip (to get people to move their vote), when I was also saying that Lele should definitely be lynched?
Because you literally made a post suggesting ways the flip could be faked. The hosts confirmed Tapu Lele as scum so directly asking the town to not lynch him would be tantamount to suicide once he flips.
For Point 2: (that my mindset is one of a mafian).
- This is a highly subjective argument, as it depends on whether or not me being self-aware actually is or should be indicative (or even anti-town).
- Other examples of mafian motives given by PMJ are the result of him looking at my posts in a mafian light, resulting in the twisting evidence or taking the mafian-indicative side when facing WIFOMy situations. (i.e. they are invalid / misinformed)
- It absolutely is anti-town regardless of whether or not that's what you
do. That's how you play? Then you play scummy and shouldn't be surprised when you get called out.
- Already explained why this is not true and it was your scummy content which made me think you were scum.
Questions for
@PMJ:
Do you think that tunneling and aggressiveness (as you have been displaying) is pro-town? Do you think that is anti-town? Sheepy town tend to follow charismatic pushes (as is the case in tunneling), so isn't tunneling misleading?
Tunneling is non-alignment indicative. Both town and scum have reasons to tunnel someone.
Tunneling is not misleading because it, by definition, cannot be. Tunneling happens when one person's lynch is pushed despite their being better cases. Well, there are no other cases, so I guess I'm not tunneling by definition, but I use the term because I will still push this lynch until one of us is dead. It's why I haven't bothered building a case on Celever yet.
- Why have you, by effect, been saying that by defending someone else, you and that player are scumbuddies? You decided that I was scumbuddies with Lele because I did not support their lynch during Day 1 (and was uncertain on the flip for Day 2).
Not supporting Tapu Lele's lynch during day one is excusable because during day one we didn't know Tapu Lele was scum. That all changed during day two but you still defended host-confirmed scum
after we knew they were scum. That is the biggest difference between that and defending someone whose alignment was unknown but later flipped scum. You could argue you didn't know in that case but we all knew Tapu Lele was scum. But you still listened to his defense and went as far as suggesting ways the flip could be faked.
You suggested that I am scumbuddies with Celever because I questioned the validity of DoS' FoS on Celever, for defending Lele when Lele's role had been posted. Do you think that the scum will only ever defend their scumbuddies, and noone else? It would be irresponsible to dismiss this as WIFOM, otherwise the scumhunt will be linear - and mafia tactics are never linear!
I think they will on day two. No scum team wants to lose a member that early, especially not to some amateur-hour horseshit like a one-shot seer that realistically had a ~20% chance of hitting scum. I think you guys got blindsided by the reveal and you did what you could to save him without making it too obvious.
- How have I been 'defending' Lele more than Celever?
I don't know. I don't believe I ever said you were. I admitted that I haven't gone through Celever's posts yet, but I planned to before the end of day three.
- Or, if you think Celever is defended more, why aren't you pursuing Celever first?
Don't know if he defended more. I think I said this earlier and this post or in a different post but there's no point in actively pushing multiple lynches. Only one person can get lynched, and I did say that I want you dead more than Celever. That could change once I look at his posts but my case on him is really just for day four in case I get killed.
Make no mistake that you are both scum of the earth and I want to see you both dead <3
Any reason for why day 5?
bb has it right; he dies today, Celever dies tomorrow, gek gets a look day 5.
I think this is not true, people could’ve giving opinions on your BB case (althought I do agree time was short)
Sure, but people could have used that time to discuss anything, not just the case on bb. It was more for day three's benefit anyway, since I never intended for bb to be lynched day two.
We have room to mislynch is true, but a very bad mindset. Every mislynch is another day that scum can use their abilities and also NK.
See above for my reasoning for this. What you're saying is explicitly true, but every mislynch gives the town more info to make more informed reads.
And don't forget that since this is a role madness game, the town is likely armed to the teeth as well.
You’re acting like bb is 100% scum, but he isn’t. You changed his behaviour to look scummy while it could be town.
No, I definitely did not change or otherwise misinterpret his behavior.
Entertaining the defense of host-confirmed scum and suggesting ways the host-given flip could be faked is not town.
Worrying about being pressured for saying something scummy, so much so that he gives a defense without being asked for it, is not town.
Role fishing is not town.
The evidence of all of it is in my case against him (
link for anyone who wants to reread). He did all of these things, none of which could possibly be viewed as pro-town.
Also, PMJ/Samwise scumteam anyone?
I am surprised it took this long for someone to suggest this. State your case.
Another question for
@PMJ: Was it just Cel and I who defended Lele?
Don't know, I haven't paid much attention to anyone else's posts. I could probably tell you definitively if I went back and checked, but so could you. You're not asking my opinion on this, this is a yes or no question. Why do you ask?
