I'm not exactly in a country where watching all these shows like South park are common place (South East Asia just to be more specific), if you didn't notice throughout the thread, which I will now quote because I admit that these sort of games (South park, Futarama etc) aren't exactly things I watch and hence, I ask other players to elaborate if this is something born out of show lore. [I don't even watch much simpsons]
In addition, the townie role pm doesn't exactly provides contextual lore relevant to my character or anything, and my school has just begun again and is piling on work fast, I don't exactly have oodles of free time to read through articles on role play and lore]
RE: Underlined And Bolded Sections [Quote]
1. So basically you make an assumption that every player playing knows about the game universe (South park) [you expect it to be common knowledge], before using this "axiom" to create your argument.
2. Warman was revived unexpectedly by an unknown entity (in my perspective) [And since he was the first to be resurrected, for all I knew it could be a one shot anti-town ability {GE's resurrection changes this view}], and he did not say anything about his resurrection, would it not be expected in this drought of information to question further so that, if he was scum, there would be more possibility for analysis (in that off chance), or conversely to judge whether he is likelier to be innocent.
3. Then you tell us to "trust you" in a game where there is nothing to link you to innocence, then you wave a statistic about that doesn't make any sense that if I am lynched, there is a 50/50 chance that the town catches a mafia. So let me ask you this W&F, if by your logic lynching me results in a 50/50 chance of catching a mafia, who is your other suspect and why have you ignored him? If you have a pretty good reason for lynching me, and the chances are even, then it follows that you have a good reason for the other suspect to, for us to be comparable.
-----------------------
However, I will cautiously note that Winston has voted me for three rounds straight with no reason other than "Snarf" and stuff.
I followed earlier advice, and googled Snarf and checked the wiki and this is what I found:
From this extract, Winston shouldn't be neglecting to elaborate, only that he adds on to what he's saying with "Snarf".Snarves are known to end their sentences with the squeaking exclamation for which they are named - "snarf, snarf!"
For three rounds straight (or four?) this has continued, Winston saying nothing substantial despite seemingly not being required to only say Snarf (only just put a snarf at the end of his sentences).
This just reinforces my earlier suspicion that:
For now W&F should answer for himself.it could be just a tactic to get by the game while saying little
Vote: Winston Hughes
However I will admit with the latest write up that it is extremely likely that the revived individuals are innocent, as being able to resurrect dead townies as scums (two of them so far, on successive nights too) in a small game is way too excessive and imbalanced should they be revived as anti-town so I think its too improbable.
Bookmarks