In GYard you said, "If a member makes a half-hearted attempt to discredit a case,
that is a compelling scumteam argument,
because scumteams generally don't want to lynch each other,
so a half-hearted attempt actually argues a case of Dormio/Zak."
Sign me up for the same thing as Bard.
For me, I was disillusioned after I failed to convince anybody to vote Dormio after he had been at L-1. I gave up. Players were town clearing him all over the place.
I don't know how to do it, Bard. After I fail to persuade people what I feel is the natural way, I have to try to artificially do it using some kind of data. I understand your criticism.
I think I'll keep my analysis out of the thread from now, and at least until I can get some accurate scum picks under my belt, try to resist from saying what is and isn't scummy. I'm happy I picked Dormio day 1 and was on the right lynch day 2, but there was never any reason to hammer day 3 when I was sleep deprived. I was just impatient. It was a pretty retarded thing. I'm unhappy with the result because if I had just slept on it and re-read Zak's post, I probalby would have gotten there.
Instead I ignored my own advice, my own feelings, and my own logic to come to the wrong conclusion. I'm pretty demoralized. I was even strongly considering gambiting confirm guilty on Dormio day 2 but I thought "That would be throwing the game for a jerk reason." After the last game, where I picked Urist/Birds from interactions on day 1 and day 2, and the masons pair, I thought, you know, I thought I was on to something good. I tried so hard but I was just wasting my time for most of it. I think next game, well, I'm not gonna afk, but wall posts aren't effective at getting a message across, and I spend so much time for nothing...I don't know.
Congratulations to the scum team for your victory. You earned it.
