Quote:
Originally Posted by
C'nor
He was a Seer-claimant, who had a reasonable story about Night 1, since Ramsus is a good enough scry target to make it plausible that there would have been interference on him.
Since the evidence against him was fairly weak (basically, only things that could be either newbie mistakes or wolf arguments, and little to make a case for them being either, since this is only his second game), I was opposed to killing him with no counter-claim, since if he had turned out to be the Seer, it wouldn't have been good at all.
to me, that sounds like the 50/50 chance I spoke of...
Quote:
Also, Ramsus's reasoning sounded screwy to me, and still does. Call me insufficiently paranoid, but the fact that someone who claims Seer on Day Two has a good reason for not having any scries doesn't make them seem more suspicious to me, which is what he was arguing.
claiming seer at the last moment after getting sufficient votes to get lynched and having nothing he can tell us other than a convenient and not impossible interference and having derped his chance to scry night 0 is hardly what I'd have done if I was the seer in his place.
Quote:
Ramsus is also trying to obfuscate matters today, since knowing FE's role would have been required for the fact that I tried to stop us from lynching him to matter,
you don't have to have a role proven to you in order to be able to make an educated guess about it and act on it.
since no one starts off knowing anything about anyone, it'll take the seers a damn long time to get networks of any decent size together. instead, we've got to depend on logic and guesswork and reading people's voting patterns and logic. The latter is the one from you I find suspicious.
Quote:
meaning that the following has to occur:
it is obfuscating, however, to declare that only one possible path of logic could have been taken to reach a certain behavior. Give human creativity more credit than that.
Quote:
FE scries a wolf (me, for this hypothetical, but it could be anyone) Night One.
Possible, I'll grant you, but see my arguments below for why this step isn't actually required.
Quote:
In the space of less than a full day phase, they convince me that I should trust them.
OR, perhaps, he did nothing of the sort and you instead came to the same general conclusion I did.
Quote:
Rather than throwing me under the bus to get reasonably confirmed as a Seer (which just about anyone who has some experience with the games, including me, would have advised him to do) he says he got interference.
to me, this sounds like a very good argument for why he didn't scry a wolf, which only means he didn't scry a wolf. If I had been playing devil and knew I hadn't scried any wolves they could use for a seer test, I'd have claimed interference instead of either A) revealing a role to the town, thereby helping town or B) lying about someone and giving them an opportunity to counter-claim and inform town.
Since this is MY second game as well, it's not unreasonable at all to assume this was FE's logic.
Quote:
Considering just how improbable all of that happening together is, it makes his current argument seem more like an attempt to make me seem wolfish without any good evidence, or at best not very good reasoning for killing me, yes?
no.
This argument above sounds like, to me, a wolf doing their best to show off how illogical it is to analyze voting patterns to establish facts this early on. Discouraging town from thinking doesn't sound like a good idea for townies to do.
you gave one possible interpretation, not the only one.