Oh, finally,we get something happening around here in time that I could get on.
Right, so... to the people still worrying about Jabber, I'm very confident that he'll get cleared (and maybe stronger) if the scum see it fit to kill me for the stunt I pulled today, derailing what should have been an oh-so-easy lynch. Sorry, scum
And if Jabber gets killed instead (thus rendering me vanilla), well... His role and alignment will flip and he'll obviously be town, and we can be even more suspicious of those who'd pushed for his lynch because it was obviously a wagon guided by scum. But as we saw from his claim that he'd managed to show with scattered's case, all he can do is pass out an additional vote weight, so all you other town power roles are going to be safe with our sacrifice. Don't let it go to waste on apathetic town lynches.
Speaking of making an effort, PMJ's got a point on his case, I agree. These posts:
Right now, I'm keeping the vote on Jabber. I want a vote in play from me and Jabber is the player that most warrants a vote on them.
It is nearly always beneficial to have a vote in play at all time because votes are in no way permanent; I can switch my vote at any time during the day. This community just isn't used to that novel idea yet.
Your vote is the main form of your voice, not your post. By always having a vote in play, I can ensure that my voice is being heard.
People that decide "I don't want to vote yet" or "I'll vote later" are people that I think don't understand the purpose of a vote. If you're delaying your vote in the interest of avoiding a scum hammer, nine times out of ten the scum team avoids the hammer because they don't want to appear scummy (I've been scum in like 4 of the last 5 games I've been in and this has been the case EVERY time).
Ergo, I want my vote on Jabber right now because even though I think he's barely scummy, he's still my top scum read which warrants having a vote on him.
There's some sort of reverse psychology in play here but simply put, scum want to avoid being on town wagons too much for fear of a pattern developing against them, so that they won't get called out for having pushed or voted a player who turned out to be town (which they'll know of course since they know their teammates). In fact, this is how I got hinted as scum in Order in the Court as I recall, as I barely even placed votes. Scum tend to play passively, letting the town vote each other, so they won't get accused of having pushed or voted a town lynch, reminiscent of what the scum team did in the previous game.
So then, these posts of PP seem scum-like in that they're trying to showcase in a flashy manner that "Hey, I got a vote" or "I'm not playing passively" and that he's participating and voting. And since he himself has stated that a hammer is believed to be a scum sign and that scum would purposely avoid being accused of it, then he himself is doing that exact thing by having his vote placed early on and making an unreliable promise to remove or switch it later so that it's not a hammer vote.
But you don't vote for the sake of having a vote put on the board. You don't vote just so that the other players could see your name as a voter. You vote because of the
person you're voting, and you believe they will flip scum.
And town don't delay their vote solely because of the fear of a scum hammer which is easy to see coming by counting. It's because town know how precious their vote is as the main weapon to defeat scum and thus are more careful with it, and want it to be placed on the best candidate to flip scum as much as possible. And the best candidate often is someone who'll only come up after a long day of discussion and analysis --- in that scenario, it's only natural that a vote won't be placed immediately and will only be done close to the end of the day. Well, I can't speak for everyone but that's what I do.
Planting a vote, especially on someone that he has stated in his own words that he doesn't even think is highly scummy, means your intention for voting isn't to eliminate scum. You're voting just for ensuring a lynch will occur. Not that that's a bad thing, we here at PB preach that lynch > no lynch. But we vote looking at the person we're lynching and the info we'll obtain from the lynch. In short, the
quality and result of the lynch is what matters when you vote. You don't vote for the lynch itself. But you just want a lynch to happen, irregardless of whether the person you're voting for is highly likely or unlikely to flip scum. When you plant a vote... just so that it's there? That's what your priority thought appears to be.
And do you know who has a thought process like that?
It's scum.
##ACCUSE: Professor Palutena