Maybe he was just really primed from experience to look for roles, even if there wasn't direct or indirect evidence for them yet. I'm pretty sure I've also been suspected for going overboard with complicated speculation.Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Leaving aside Slaan's play and interactions, or his response to your case (which I can't help but find genuine), is the whole case against him that single D2 "night kills" paragraph?
If the case hinges on that single point, and it's such a complex and unique point, then...
You make your case, I struggle with the premise, but other townie people acknowledge or even approve the premise, so it could be a legit case. Slaan's reaction is justifiably (or relatably) confused, and voluble and rejects the premise, but that premise is still hanging, either you believe in it or not and nothing Slaan can do either way changes it's role - it's unfalsifiable because any reaction could be defined as WIFOM. How is this resolvable?
Well, let's look at this gamestate. If we lynch Slaan we are breaking POE, which you thought inadvisable earlier and I encouraged planning for. It would be a really bad decision if it's wrong, or it could be the only thing that solves the game. We are already in bedlam, and town is in danger of losing the initiative you emphasized N1 when forming your faction tents and POE.
But now, whether or not we lynch Slaan, he's kind of poisoned in that if he survives to LYLO there remains at least a seed of suspicion...
I don't think you can lynch Slaan today without planning ahead the entire game, with several different paths or contingencies.
More people other than Pizza need to weigh in on the above, though of course Pizza does as well.
Slaan was the first to challenge me on the tie. Multi-wagons are usually better than single consensus wagons in pressuring Mafia, right? It seemed like a good idea at the time. The bit that's mechanically "wrong" is verbally encouraging it rather than analyzing the existing fact of it.
Bookmarks