If there is no counterclaim to a role block, there is little reason not to assume it's true. If it's false and that player is using it as a mafia trick (and the RB was either held or put on the nightkill), we'll figure that out in time. I feel like that's one of a few things where we rush to judgment when we could actually be using it as leverage to either confirm the RBed player as town-aligned through questioning and interrogation or try to figure out what the mafia saw in them that made them use their RB on them. That leads back to individual mafia players.
I think bussing is very important to look at. It's something we've become accustomed to doing in the last three games. We have seen two games now where guak has bussed the living shit out of people, and if we don't take it seriously, it's going to keep happening. As far as I'm concerned, the two ways bussing usually happens is either with a single unexplained (or vaguely explained) vote or with a single vote where it seems the person is just trying way too hard to justify putting their vote on said player. If they flip scum, those kind of votes are immediately suspect. It's hard to deduce bussing otherwise, but I also don't think that the first person on a wagon should be soft-cleared once the player flips scum.
Voting in general is tough to use in my opinion. Townies lynch townies and scum lynch townies. Scum lynch scum and townies lynch scum. Trends can develop over the course of a game, but even then, it's hardly conclusive unless you go to the effort of bringing back their arguments surrounding their voting and trying to fit that into the pattern as well. I don't think many players here go to that kind of effort. Those that do should keep it up, because that's the only way voting can be at all conclusive when scumhunting.
Scumhunters should take reactions into account a hell of a lot more than we currently do. We should employ tests and expect others to know that these are tests. If they don't, explain it. You can know a test is coming as scum and still fail miserably.
If there is anything I find town-indicative, it's desperation. I have no idea why sammitch got lynched this game. He should have been your confirmed townie early on. He played brilliantly under pressure and got rewarded with an invitation to the god thread, and I think that's stupid. Players that resign to their bandwagons are players that are looking to take the attention off themselves and let it drift elsewhere. Scum will pull acts in desperation to survive, but they'll typically pair that desperation up with something like a fake claim, which in my mind gives them away. A PR should be playing better than to have themselves lined up for a bandwagon lynch anyway, but it's not harmful for the town to have scum fakeclaiming anyway, so when that happens, wait a day, question the player, and see what happens.
I was surprised that WD didn't get lynched this past game basically immediately. He was scummy as hell, especially early on. He kept trying to defend himself when no one asked and simultaneously shifting potential blame for mislynches away from himself. It's just not necessary to do that.
We also need to take lurkers out. The GM can only do so much by upping the post requirements - when someone is lurking, look for connections they've made, look for ways they have shifted the conversation away from themselves so that they can hide again, and try to deduce whether they're a) new and stupid, b) actually busy, or c) watching the game as it goes on but staying quiet. If it's a) or c), take a good look at them on the basis of their lurking alone.
End rant.
)
Learnt something new about the Dip Rules yesterday...Spaces with 2 Coasts
)
)
)
)