[Chocolate Rabbit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chocolate Rabbit, it has nothing to do with whether those arguments are correct or logically sound, it has everything to do with what kind of conclusions that wolves will come to (the right ones) and the kind of conclusions villagers will come to.

[/ QUOTE ]

But villagers would come to those conclusions. The one about the vote buyer is self evident.

[/ QUOTE ]
The thing is, it isn't self-evident. A ton of villagers didn't come to that conclusion, which makes them villagers. Villagers are stupid.

And hey, if you think grindhouse might be JaredL, why not vote him off with me?

[/ QUOTE ]

A villager could come to that conclusion as easily as a wolf with a little thought.

The #2 bandwagon - a power evil - was lynched. In a game with a vote buyer for the evils. There's exactly three ways the evil seer dies there
1. Good vote buyer moves a vote, as does evil vote buyer, coin flip
2. Good vote buyer moves a vote, evil vote buyer does not, due to AFK, whatever
3. Evil vote buyer is grindhouse, he moves the vote to save himself, knowing that, if he doesn't, the evil seer just goes next anyway.

#3 is a very valid conclusion, and not that difficult for a villager to come up with, if he wants to.

My question for you is: how would you know if it's correct?

Do I want to vote grindhouse? No. Personally, I favour the second option, as it is the most likely occurence. I will not call someone a wolf for coming up with a pretty logical conclusion.

It's not like he's assuming that the wolves got no night kill, or that the wolves killed X over Y. <--- That's wolfy.