I also was in favor of having the votes spread out. Near nightfall, when UN pulled his shenanigans, I was actually thinking of a 3 way tie (AAF, Zaffy, and UN). Dag was reading my mind and switched to UN right before I made the move. Then voting chaos ensued and we ended up with everyone on 2 candidates with a tie. I pushed for the tie probably about as much as Ice did and I will own my actions. Things changed before nightfall which consolidated the votes, that's what happens in these games when people do scummy things to draw votes to themselves.
The end result leaves us with one less scum, and a PR scum at that. Do you have a problem with that result?
The thing is, this game is different since the scum team wasn't communicating from the start and is likely working on building their team. Worst case scenario after this past nightfall is that 3 scum are communicating. Only two could have communicated prior to nightfall in worst case scenario and I wouldn't expect them to do too much to draw attention to themselves by manipulating the vote. So your push from 4-5 players doesn't hold for them working together as communicating scum.
Not keen on multi-color coding right now, so I'll extract parts from above.
1.
"I also was in favor of having the votes spread out." Yes you were, which is why I asked you to comment about Ice doing the same thing. Wanted to see what kind of answer I would get from you or if you'd dodge it.
So basically...... Ice gets a pass on contradicting himself just because you did it too. And that being a fairly reasonable scum-tell is excusable (this time) because... um, because you had... a good reason. Sure.
So tell me, your original vote was on Chill. Any comment from you about the way he showed up toward the end, asked where to vote to reestablish a tie, then decided to follow the instruction he was given? What do you think about Chill as a result of that?
2.
"Near nightfall, when UN pulled his shenanigans, I was actually thinking of a 3 way tie (AAF, Zaffy, and UN)." Okay. Would you mind telling me why having a 2- or 3-way tie was such a good idea for the town?
That's the part I didn't understand from the start. Before nightfall, we had one don and one mayor, each holding only one invest result. They both had (almost) a 50-50 chance of finding an enemy to kill later on or finding a teammate they could chat with.
Wouldn't forcing the scum to "save" a scummate also be just as likely to force a communicating innocent (or even the mayor themself) to "save" their teammate? The strategy behind these ties escapes me. The same pressure applied to the scum side could as easily have back-fired against the town side, particularly since no one (almost no one, that is) would've known the outcome ahead of time.
Why was having a tie at all so dang important? Especially after it had been discussed already and agreed upon too that the opposite strategy was better for the
town.
3.
"I pushed for the tie probably about as much as Ice did and I will own my actions." Happy to hear that. Thank you.
4.
"The end result leaves us with one less scum, and a PR scum at that. Do you have a problem with that result?" Of course not. (Stupid question.... and a twisty one too I noticed.) Pssst, remember where I voted? lmao.
What I do have a problem with are good players who consistently offer the town bad advice.
5.
"Only two could have communicated prior to nightfall in worst case scenario and I wouldn't expect them to do too much to draw attention to themselves by manipulating the vote." Bingo! There it is.
Let me ask this, yet again:
Labby, if you wouldn't expect them to do too much to draw attention to themselves by manipulating the vote......... why the hell did you work so hard to force ties for the lynch????
also i dont expect anyone to forget me just bc UN turned out scum, but hopefully i can do better now. id like to see what chill has to say avout the wanting to spread out the votes and then wanting to tie it up.
