Also note that xyem says he only just realised why pazzer was under the microscope, despite removing his vote on me to allow me/everyone to continue pressuring pazzer (which suggests to me that he was up to date with the thread at the time).
I don't have to understand something to figure out its best to not get in the way of it happening.
Yeahhh, but I have so much data on you it was always going to be a wall of text. :P If I summerised I would probably have been accused of 'twisting things' again. And if I split it all up into seperate posts it wouldn't have been a coherant argument.
Yes, it's pretty unlikely, but I still think it's possible. It's a bold move, but it's possible.
I wasn't saying it wasn't possible, I was just saying that you jumped to the unlikely possibility first with "evidence" that doesn't match up to what you are saying.
As though that is how you are hiding and you are projecting. But again, it's impossible to figure out if this is the case because of Joe's interference with the posts. My first thought is that this isn't the case because of the lack of other mason claims.. but true mason may be restricted from posting that they are the mason with the consequence of breaking it as instant mafia win
You've broken it, by the way, a few times now. Fancy being more talkative about your claim now? :D
Different post restrictions with different consequences for breaking them.
I'm a sheep and I have no flavour text. Baaa.
Question: Are you saying you don't agree with something which is pro-town? (I'm talking about D1 and 2 here, not D4, since this is MyLo and a different animal altogether.)
Not at all.
It's simple reward/punishment mechanics at play. I was very assertive about my suspicions and it got a townie killed. I attributed my failure at being too new to the game.. so I've reeled my assertiveness right back. Now I just point things out and in the case that someone else agrees that I'm on to something.. I'll start prying. As I get better at the game (i.e. more positive results), I'll be more assertive to start with.
You are trying to apply something absolute (the best way to play) to something subjective (my experiences of playing).
Second question: How do you propose we get data without lynching each other? When I say 'data' I mean truly objective stuff.
Usually it's done by what people say/do.. where they contradict. I've figured out when people are lying before using nothing more than what they've told me in a single discussion.
I have a question for you. What makes you "objective data" (vote order, hammer vote etc.) any better than anything else? You have to interpret data to use it (especially here) and that makes it subjective.. vulnerable to biases from subjective things.
"something that doesn't even make sense" = "buddying up is encouraging", right? Well, at the time yes, it was encouraging, but when you put it like that, I'm not so sure anymore... You're right, Primal noted I was probably the strongest case for town, then proceeded to buddy up.
And this is a good demonstration of what I mean. You brought something up in the case against me (despite it not making sense) because you were suspicious of me. You took something as encouraging (despite it looking blatantly like buddying up) because you were not suspicious of SPF.
You claim to be fine with lynching townies because it generates "objective data" yet completely fail to be objective. What you are saying ("I want objective data!") and what you are doing (not being objective) is one of the reasons why you are generating suspicion.
I did notice that you haven't voted for me and I hope you've noticed I haven't voted for you either. My reasoning for this is that although you are making me suspicious of you, you are also simply getting the most exposure to my attention (i.e. you're demanding it by "investigating" me).
I do think it is quite amusing that there are stark differences in our approaches.
I seek to maximise town population for each day (many eyes make all bugs shallow).
You seek to maximise "data" (which can be misinterpreted or even skewed purposely by those you claim to be trying to uncover) regardless of the townie cost.