I don't need to explain myself to you
@Hector, because it's other people who I need to convince (rightly or wrongly; correctly, incorrectly or even as a diversion), but for the sake of openness I will do anyway.
@everybodyelse: Make of it what you will. I could be wrong (mistaken/misspeaking), but it's what I'm saying.
@Tomasque: Yeah, I normally give you this level of analysis (or an interpretation of it) in private. Decided not to fill up your Inbox so much, as well as the problems I had.
@all: Yeah, it's long. But it's in response to a long multi-part question (from the person who doesn't like complicated posts!) who will doubtless require that I immediately address any point that I missed mentioning.
Fallacy - Willing to believe has the suggested skill. Willing to believe that (if not in a two-Evils scenario) this exonerates them from being the Evil one.
Why, on both counts?
The suggested skill: because the results of its action meshed with what only I knew, when first told, letting me confirm it with a statement (that nobody is obliged to take at face value) that all is so.. Had I actually Guarded someone (not an unreasonable thing to consider) I could have disproven a fakeclaim in this regard. At least to myself. So, on balance, it seems reasonable to consider the declaration true (as far as it goes), rather than a fabrication.
The exoneration: If we aren't stacked to the gills with Evil roles (both in the initial distribution and their prospective lynch-replacements), the chances of the aforementioned probably-not-outright-lying Fallacy being Evil as well reduces even further.
Really has to be compared to all other opinions of other roles (e.g. if everyone else was
definitely a good-guy, then least-unscummy would be likely scum), but with the benefit of already knowing what I think about the rest of the cast-list I can declare that scuminess is well below mean
or median averages...
(Were I
not willing to confirm the situation - or even could wish to rubbish Fallacy - it would have also been easy. If, from my POV, it's 90% chance that Fallacy is both correct and not scum, then everyone who is not me/Fallacy has now to consider the possibility that we are in evil alliance. 25% chance of that means that I'm 25% likely-evil, whilst Fallacy is 25%+(75%*10%)=32.5% likely-evil. But those figures are plucked out of nowhere, does not include the very low possibilities that I'm Evil but am helping a non-Evil, instead of being non-Evil but inadvertently assisting the (or 'an') Evil.)
Moonlit - Willing to believe that you are not now human. Willing to believe that this means that you are not Evil.
And again, why? There are evil monsters in the game, cha know.
Yes, but from whose perspective? Also (rightly or wrongly) I have been influenced by the precise wording of the Mod message. If I'm wrong, I shall rightly blame the Mod at the end. But the one thing I do know is the humanity (or lack thereof) of now!Moonlit.
Actual relative scuminess assessment hovers around the 'neutral' level, barring some actual useful revelation that might change my mind.
Hector - Seems almost deliberately 'no read' in nature, but still seems intent on stirring up dissent. If not Chara (and real Chara wasn't originally inclined to argue?) then definitely something funny going on there. I'm voting Hector, but everyone else needs to consider their own information (and personal (current) motivations), of course.
Not sure what you mean by "deliberately no read". I've said I'm scum reading both you and FoU, and that given Moonlit's wipe, he's not the Evil role. Seems like reads to me.
Also, what "dissent" am I stirring up?
Moonlit also claimed Chara, post-lynch, so why would there be copies of the same role in the game?
[/quote]Last point first:
Originally I thought you were correctly claiming Chara (before retracting), and that was part of my original assessment.
Now I know think your replacement claim is either correct (the character who is notoriously bloodthirsty, a SOUL stealer, teams up with humans,
one of whom is known to be Evil, etc, etc, etc)
or else it is yet another fakeclaim, in which case
whoknows?...
As for 'no read', I've done it myself (for various reasons), and I'll do it again no doubt and your sense of "Oi! I don't like all these questions!" goes far enough to appear to want to suppress all enquiry. Not to a sensible amount
1, but in a general refusal to partake in a democratic sharing of information. Given how little information I had given out, myself, and yet had at least
tried to join in (external actions aside), your trying to suppress all current/future discussions of this sort looks more like a motive.
But you're the only person allowed to scum-read, naturally, by listening to what information we spill. And I've now spilled far more information than should be necessary.
And I was doing a
lot of 'scum-reading', whilst Scum myself, last round. Not everything I thought (or 'thought up') was said out loud, but I had a whole lot of 'reading' on why it was... Moonlit, I think... who I 'thought' was the more likely villain on the Spaceship. And barely anyone read
me at all! I even nearly replied to one too-casual mention
by yourself that it was possible that I was Evil... I even saved the post I never actually ended up posting...
Starver isn't clear. Starver could be scum.
You couldn't discount it, certainly, if you didn't have the absolute knowledge that only I have about myself. But as far as I'm concerned, we've probably got a Neutral hiding in plain sight amongst you lot, as well as the real Evil. Such that they'd find it hard (but not impossible!) to 'fess up and perhaps save themselves...
You also can't (by open game knowledge) say that Moonlit's not Evil because of the lynch-replace. The first lynch-replace created an Evil role. My own best guess, Night 2, was that the second lynch-replace would do something similar.
I could be wrong about the non-Evilness - but I know I'm not wrong about this one not being Human...1 Off-round analysis, for general information only:
You're right about the Driver reveal being useful to me, in the Car Journey round. I can't actually remember whether it changed where I was heading for, but it gave me the opportunity to realise what it was I was
supposed to do, to actually win that game.
The Astigmatism one in the Spaceship round certainly helped me stay sneaky, although I was very wary about that one, I
was expecting it as a trap by a non-weak character trying to lure me into revealing myself - perhaps even with the aid of a Bulletproofness skill. (Actually, I recall being suspicious that the Driver claim, above, was also a deliberate misdirection for my benefit.)
I also thought that learning who the Captain was in the Spaceship round was useful, at the time, but it
looks like it actually wasn't. (Mod knows for sure, but my reading of it is still leaning that way.)
@Hector: I was actually the Evil role - I was Chara. That's how I know you aren't. Yes, I did the Nightkill, and my auto was that I couldn't vote for you as long as you were Asriel.
Two points here. How does Moonlit claiming the NK fit into FoU's narrative that I performed the NK and am obvscum?
It doesn't, but that's not my (current) narrative.
How does Moonlit's claim to have performed the NK and confirmed my role as Asriel fit into Starver's narrative that I'm obvscum?
Your being confirmed as Asriel doesn't even help your own case. It hurts it. At least for me, from what little I do know of the Lore - should Lore actually count for anything.
But you're also
moreobvthananyoneelsescum because of other things.