RE: The Wander Island Incident - Day Three: A Bloody Mystery [17/21]
09-11-2018, 07:47 PM
Well. I've been mulling things over in a very incorrect possibility space it seems then. Apparently some things never change. I guess I can roll back my worries about the probability of a delayed-death scenario or coldblooded pulling something super sneaky.
I guess I was treating the conversation bits between Jacquerel and Coldblooded as more fluff than substance. If that's not the case, and what happened did count as a kill in some regard, well, some of my other assumptions are out the window and need major review. It also means that, assuming Airey was lying, whatever attack killed scum night 1 could have even been a one-shot power. That said, the odds of Airey lying about role but having bulletproof have also risen substantially.
@Coldblooded, gotcha, I recognized your avatar but hadn't put it together without the matching name. On one hand, I suspect you ARE the sort who could pull off a scum gambit like that, but with the mechanical handshake with jacquerel it seems far less likely than I'd previously considered.
As for the Blazer/Lordy claim thing being bad for scum. In general, yes. In a vacuum, yes. But a gambit like they claimed could work out just fine if we never get around to testing or confirming it, and well, I don't think they actually gained more than one vote from that before things move from Blazer vs aC (admittedly somewhat one-sided) to just aC with a lot of mechanical discussion. And Blazer could have been planning to change their claim under the guise of provoking reactions later as well, but never had to. I've seen both town and scum pull similar tricks in other games, although I can't speak to the success rate of either.
I guess maybe that's just my own theories and feelings about these sorts of games coming out. I have a tendency to be suspect of most claims, contested or not, when they don't come with immediate information that influences the town's decision making regarding players other than the claimant. Hence why, despite my paranoia earlier, I feel much better about coldblooded's claim now than about the vengeful claim from yesterday.
@Jacquerel I suppose it's possible but it just looks WEIRD to me that we now have multiple people postulating 0 or 1 scum on what was functionally a d1 townie lynch as far as votals go. Definitely possible, but just seems weird. I'm leaning scum on tehpilot and very slightly scum on robust laser, but you could very well be right.
@Airey You're claiming 3rd party. With powers. And a not-completely-town agenda. Yes, killing a serial killer (if there is one, I'm still not totally convinced) is technically pro-town but... that's the sort of claim that scum could hide behind. Especially if you, like legendaryQ, had a one-shot bulletproof. Do you have... well, anything else to convince the town that you shouldn't be today's lynch? I don't want to be presumptuous, but unless something major changes you're getting lynched today. Even if you're telling the truth, removing a 3p is still a net positive for town. And that un-retracted bomb claim actually somehow managed to sound worse with clarification.
I guess I was treating the conversation bits between Jacquerel and Coldblooded as more fluff than substance. If that's not the case, and what happened did count as a kill in some regard, well, some of my other assumptions are out the window and need major review. It also means that, assuming Airey was lying, whatever attack killed scum night 1 could have even been a one-shot power. That said, the odds of Airey lying about role but having bulletproof have also risen substantially.
@Coldblooded, gotcha, I recognized your avatar but hadn't put it together without the matching name. On one hand, I suspect you ARE the sort who could pull off a scum gambit like that, but with the mechanical handshake with jacquerel it seems far less likely than I'd previously considered.
As for the Blazer/Lordy claim thing being bad for scum. In general, yes. In a vacuum, yes. But a gambit like they claimed could work out just fine if we never get around to testing or confirming it, and well, I don't think they actually gained more than one vote from that before things move from Blazer vs aC (admittedly somewhat one-sided) to just aC with a lot of mechanical discussion. And Blazer could have been planning to change their claim under the guise of provoking reactions later as well, but never had to. I've seen both town and scum pull similar tricks in other games, although I can't speak to the success rate of either.
I guess maybe that's just my own theories and feelings about these sorts of games coming out. I have a tendency to be suspect of most claims, contested or not, when they don't come with immediate information that influences the town's decision making regarding players other than the claimant. Hence why, despite my paranoia earlier, I feel much better about coldblooded's claim now than about the vengeful claim from yesterday.
@Jacquerel I suppose it's possible but it just looks WEIRD to me that we now have multiple people postulating 0 or 1 scum on what was functionally a d1 townie lynch as far as votals go. Definitely possible, but just seems weird. I'm leaning scum on tehpilot and very slightly scum on robust laser, but you could very well be right.
@Airey You're claiming 3rd party. With powers. And a not-completely-town agenda. Yes, killing a serial killer (if there is one, I'm still not totally convinced) is technically pro-town but... that's the sort of claim that scum could hide behind. Especially if you, like legendaryQ, had a one-shot bulletproof. Do you have... well, anything else to convince the town that you shouldn't be today's lynch? I don't want to be presumptuous, but unless something major changes you're getting lynched today. Even if you're telling the truth, removing a 3p is still a net positive for town. And that un-retracted bomb claim actually somehow managed to sound worse with clarification.