strike wolf wrote:Except that scum are much more likely than town to lie about their role. So yes. Alignment indicative.
That's true for many rational players. It's not true for players who play like mitch. It was clear to see on D2 that jfm is some weird combination of dakky + mitch, not a normal player, so applying normal mafia rules to him seems strange to me.
strike wrote:There s also those who kept defending him even as his story fell more and more apart when only scum knew he wouldn't be aligned with them.
I have already said that I didn't defend him, I called out people who were voting him hastily and with poor reasoning. I had no idea how he would flip, I was just confused enough about him that I didn't think I had any useful information about his alignment.
strike wrote:Also, what made you so confident to say Day 2 that you felt a poisoner was more likely to be town than scum? It's a role that s been pretty dominantly not town aligned in the past and just because this game isn't standard doesn't mean it's gonna suddenly be town.
If you read the part where I said that, surely you read the very next sentence where I stated my reasoning:
Mets wrote:In this particular game, I see no evidence for the claim that scum are more likely to have a poisoner than town. In fact I think it's the opposite; scum have a night kill, it's OP if they also have a poisoner. Note also that town had a wiretapper which does not seem like a typical town role.
I wasn't discussing at the time the likelihood of a third party poisoner, but I believe that's also more likely than a mafia poisoner.
strike wrote:The only real reason I can see you believing the poisoner is if you specifically had a reason to believe such. Perhaps knowing that the poisoner wasn't mafia.
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. I was skeptical that there even was a poisoner at the time (in that same post, in fact):
Mets wrote:I'm surprised about how many people initially just took him at his word that he was poisoned when we don't yet have evidence that it happened. ... I'm with Ragian on not driving the speculation too far, but I'm also with dakky that you don't just take someone on their word that easily in this game.
strike wrote:Now you're claiming that you've been poisoned despite the professed poisoner being dead (actually the most believable part of all this considering JFM's wacky day 2 behavior) but it's possibly passive and you can't confirm who it is because you think you've been redirected.
Yes, I am claiming that. Why would I be stupid enough to falsely claim being poisoned after what happened with jfm? It's a stupid thing to risk claiming without being prompted if it's not the truth.