In post 1384, Aristophanes wrote:You want to break up a "townblock" because you worry about their competence, not because you think they are scum.
We're doing the exact same thing at this point that I'm telling guillo is bad to do, which is get caught up in details rather than analyzing the full picture of what's going on. I believe you saw things that pinged you as abnormal and found your way to how they were scummy from there, but it doesn't paint a coherent or likely picture of my behavior.
Here's what I'm telling you happened:
Superbowl came into D1 trying to scumhunt, but immediately the thread quality started devolving. He saw that in this gamestate, competent scum would get a free pass to sit back and let town destroy itself. To stop this outcome, he decided to try and elim within those running the town into the ground, then pivot to those who were sitting back and taking advantage of the mess tomorrow.
You can pick off bits and pieces of that story and spin them as scummy, like here:
In post 1385, Aristophanes wrote:You keep asking about agenda and reason for doing it. What is your master plan. Etc. It looks to me like you want to live through D1 and also eliminate a towny. That's scummy enough as a motivation.
But I think if you step back and put all these pieces of "scumminess" you've got into one theory or timeline you'll see that it would make no sense for scum me to act in such a way. When I ask you what my overarching motivation is, the question is not "find me a way in which this action could be scum motivated", it's what do you think is the likely, sensible motivation behind my actions in context. Any week 1 player can find scum or town motivation in any game action.
Your push on me right now, for example - let's use your own words:
In post 1385, Aristophanes wrote:It looks to me like you want to live through D1 and also eliminate a towny. That's scummy enough as a motivation.
Could that explanation be valid? Sure. That's not the question we're asking here though. Does this motivation make sense given the context of your play and the game so far? Clearly it doesn't, and (I hope) everyone in the game right now could tell you that. That's what I mean by getting caught up in "well technically it's a possibility so I'm right!", you lose sight of the greater context to try and focus on "winning" one point. Take your argument above and put it back in the larger context of my play:
According to your theory, why would I post my exact scum strat in main thread instead of just doing it? Inevitably here you will fall back on WIFOM, that I made these posts because I knew they were the very posts scum would not usually make in that scenario, so I could point them out later as evidence. But you're back into the same confirmation bias pattern - "I think you're scum, and your strategy is simply pursuing an easy mislim and surviving till tomorrow" When presented evidence to the contrary, "well it could be WIFOM". I had no chance of convincing you I'm not scum, because you're not openly considering what's likely anymore, you're just finding ways to preserve your initial theory. Whenever you reach the "well it could be WIFOM" stage, it tells me your arguments ran into a contradictiom so you had to flip things around to make it work again.
Another example of you doing this:
In post 1386, Aristophanes wrote:1. The Taylor scumbuddy read.
Sure, it's not high play. We don't all make high play moves. And I'm simply noting it. If you flip town it goes out the window obviously. But it would be negligent of me to not note it
Is it possible I saw my scum buddy being attacked and just made a bad instinctive play to defend her inderectly? Sure. Is that likely what happened? Put yourself in scum's shoes there and ask yourself how many times out of 100 you think you would follow up on your buddy getting attacked like that, at that point in context of the game. We can analyze every single person-person interaction in the thread as a "possible" buddy indicator, but the useful thing to do is to look at interactions you think are LIKELY buddy indicators. You're clearly starting with your conclusion here and working backwards to fill in the evidence.
That's why at the end of the day me pulling out some checkmate logic that you seem to want to prove myself town will never happen and it's a waste of both of our times to pursue that. You need a theory on my behavior being scummy that makes more sense (has more explanatory power) than my alternative from a town perspective, which you have failed to offer. Simply trying to poke holes is no different from what a flat earther does to the globe theory. You're going to argue, "exactly! So you just explain to the flat earthers the facts as to why they're wrong, poke holes in their holes!". But there's an infinite number of holes to poke, and no one will ever be satisified, because at the end of the day
they don't have to do any of the explaining.
When you tell them how gravity actually works, they can say "nahhh, not convincing. I think it's actually electromagnetic forces, can you disprove that?" Same as you ending up in WIFOM world. Go back and look at my interactions with my explanations for my actions in mind, can you honestly say your mishmosh of scum motivations is a better explanatory theory of what was going through my head than what I've got in italics at the top?
)
