Immediate rolefishing on the dayvig gambit:
I don't agree with this reasoning. I don't really call that rolefishing, since you had revealed your role. Rolefishing is more trying to reveal ones role from nothing, gathering information that like, doesn't need to be gathered so to say, idk I'm mixed up in this sentence, but I think you know what I mean.
It's one of the first questions I would think to ask also tbh. Oh you just said your a dayvig? Well, what kind? If you're "revealed," I would say it's appropriate for town to know the details so everyone can help work together to make the best of the situation. Him saying he was ok with Auspher though is odd, but I can't make heads or tails of it, sorta null.
I see what you're saying. Let me show why it's scummy though:
Knowledge of whether I am one-shot or unlimited helps mafia way more than it helps town, especially on D1, when we are not engaging in careful Night action planning. Town can't do nearly as much with this information as scum can. If I say I'm one-shot dayvig, mafia knows I am effectively VT. If I say I'm unlimited dayvig, mafia knows that I am a very threatening power role. That is incredibly important information when deciding whom to kill.
Rolefishing is bad for exactly that reason, no? If someone tried to out the doctor, why is that scummy? Because then they know where their NK should be. Asking one-shot or not accomplishes exactly the same thing, so it should be considered an equal offence.
Sideline Commentary n jazz
I'm against you pointing out his sideline posts in this whole scum case you have for him. Someone is allowed to do all that he wants, especially considering the first one is answering someone's question. It's the lack of scumhunting as you said, but you're not really highlighting that. You're highlighting the wrong stuff.
The third post of his there on the other hand is pretty off. I hate how he says going for inactives because of him being bad. That's probably the worst thing here you've shown of him (not a bad thing though, it's a very legit point).
Lynching an inactive on D1 instead of hardcore scumhunting is something some players do, he's just so blunt about it <_<
His like for Acrostic is troublesome. If he's done nothing wrong (and didn't highlight right), it should be null, not good. If Acrostic ever flips scum that raises major flags for Gustave, and vice versa.
Umm... actually, I was highlighting the justification rather than the sidelining - read over it again? The sidelining just makes it worse, because it shows that he is here and reading, but choosing to contribute on very easy topics.
You know that Acrostic died and flipped town, right? o.o
Feighning
More inactive talk, kind of like what was brought up in the last point
Again, it's not so much that he's pressuring inactives per se. It's that he's doing so without doing anything else - that makes it look like a facade: trying to appear to be doing things without actually doing anything significant.
Contradictions
See, this is a legit point here, quite interesting, but there's one major problem here. As seen in the Side Commentary point, the line between Gustave and Acrostic has already been drawn. With this inherent liking of Teran, do you think they are one the same scumteam? But what about Acrostic? They probably aren't all on the same scum team, since I personally can't see 3 scum + indy in a 11p game, not gonna happen.
Acrostic is dead and town dammit. And you know that you replaced Teran right?
I'm not even suggesting that Gustave is scum with you because of the contradiction (although that suggestion does hold some weight and should be considered on a Gustave scum flip). My main point is the fact that there is a contradiction in the first place. It suggests that he is actually lying about the reason behind his reads (or in this case, faking his hatred for inactivity). He isn't even consistent with his own reasoning, so maybe he doesn't believe in his own reasoning. Make sense?
Number of Scum
This contradiction is interesting, though his mind could have changed tbh with around 4 days between those posts, and it being a mundane fact in a way without any hard evidence. Even though this contradiction is weird, how can you relate it exactly to knowledge of how many scum there are? Wouldn't he want 3 to be an acceptable thought to ppl if he knew there was 2? And this is with me thinking there is no more than 2 because of there being an indy.
I agree that it's pretty safe to assume we are dealing with a 2-man mafia team, but only because we have a flipped indy SK. That's why I'm questioning why Gustave seemed to know we had a 2-man mafia team before Raziek claimed indy SK.
As for how it suggests he had this knowledge, the second post is the more telling. The fact that he actually says three mafia would be overdoing it when there's absolutely no reason to believe so (Raziek hadn't been revealed yet, and 3 mafia makes sense for an 11-player game) should raise a red flag. The fact that it contradicts the first post shows that he wasn't actually thinking logically when he made the first post - the 3 comes from copying Raziek's number, and the 2 comes from him being mafia.
It's a gathering of some pretty legit points, but the problem here is that like all of this is Day 1 stuff, and some of his things like when he is doing scumhunting and stuff is day 1 dependant, and he implied/said he would be scumhunting and doing so without focusing on inactives as much on other days. So do you think this holds true? Would you mind sharing some thoughts on Gustave's day 2 play? What about ties to both Teran and Acrostic. does that sort of cancel each other out since as scum he likely only has one other teammate?
A few things you need to realize:
- His Day 2 play has been non-existent
- Acrostic is town, and dead
- You are Teran
Realize these things, and if there's anything in this you still want to ask, go for it lol
