LOL, not at all, I assume everyone is trying to think logically and believes their logic is valid. Valid doens't mean right or perfect, nor does it mean that they think only one logical interpretation is available. You can get two or three equally valid conclusions from the same info.

This always comes down to salad. If I see someone eating salad, I can say "He likes salad." or "He must be trying to watch his weight" or "It came with the meal" or "He's making a point of being seen eating salad in a public place, because it's a small town and he's worried someone will tell his wife or doctor if he's seen eating a big steak".

This last is your intro to WIFOM, because now the man has a motive for wanting to effect how others regard his consumption, same as the girl who orders the cheapest thing off the menu on a first date. Did she order it because she likes it or because she wants to effect how you regard her?

Now, any of those may be right, they are logically valid conclusions, they may all so be wrong, or, not being mutually contradictory, more than one may be right.

Alternatively - and I think this is what screws people trying to think about WIFOMs - I can not say the same thing about a huge slab of pork. If you see someone eating ribs, you basically have two logical high-prob scenarios "HE likes ribs" or "He's trying them out" and since most people who eat ribs eat them any times, the random odds of somoeone trying them out compared to eating them because they like them are significantly lower, so gun to your head, you'd be best to guess "He likes them" as the motive. However, looking at the chalkboard by the cash register, you see "Today's Special: All you can eat ribs" and this alters the equation. No matter you you cut it though, "He's watching his weight" is not a significant probability, as it is for salad, to make it worth singificant contemplation as a motive.

As with the salad ordering gal, you can WIFOM of her reasons for ordering the sald, but you can not introduce absurdity, you can not say she ordered the sald in hopes of convincing her date she liked Lobster, because even though that is a possiiblity, it is simply too small for contemplation. FT did not RC miller, in all likelihood, because he wanted to be lynched, therefore that was not likely to be his primary motivation.

As motives go "I killed Napoleon because it's so obvious a move for me as a DF that no one would believe I'd do it" isn't logically valid as a significant probability because it doesn't make me less suspcicious and killing basically anyone else would make more sense, alternatively, the frame up angle does make sense, see? It represents a better than random reason to target him.

Take this scenario... this is some logic to a bomb pretending to be a miller on day 1, or a jester doing so. Not a great plan but workable. This doesn't WIFOM though as 'Ah, but they might be a vanilla hoping to trick the DFs into thiking they're a bomb/jester in hopes of avoiding a lynch or NK', because while possible, it simply doesn't represent the WIFOMs 'each further iteration is equally plausible' standard.

It is also inherent in a WIFOM (and why I like to discourage them) that they blind you. While trying to decide which glass holds the poison, you overlook not just that they both might, or neither will, but that the bad guy might simply be using it as a distraction while a bowmen gets a good bead on you because you're sitting still pondering your cup. For this reason, when you see a WIFOM, you should always assume whoever introduced it, except when it was blatantly obvious, had an ulterior motive for bringing it up.



I would tend to assume you raised it because people usually look less suspicious, or believe they do, when they raise an accusation against themselves as opposed to someone else doing it. Even if you're town, that's a pretty logical thing to do. One of the first rules of debate is to blunt an argument by raising it yourself first, and I doubt you do not know this.



Oh, I always approve of people stirring the pot, I do it a lot myself, doesn't mean I don't dish out a ladle full of broth for the opposition and skim something with lots of meat and veggies for me.



Raising it was an accusation, like I said, this is a subtle game and we all know that trick, doesn't mean you necessarily were using it, or that you had nefarious anti-town motives if you were, but both read as accusations to me, and I doubt many will disagree.



See, that's an accusation



No, I was the driving force behind pointing out the various flaws and advantages of the situation, the lynch proceeded from that. I repeat, FT was doing everything in his power to make it look like I was nailing him to a cross, up to and including pushing back on my points so I had to defend and clarify them in depth, which made it look like I was on a major offensive. Trust me, he knew what he was doing, an accusation is only as credible as the person prosecuting it, he wanted it to be attached to me, fresh from a game as a DF. Not hard either, as he knows I will present lengthy arguments for and against pretty much everything. Townie or not, that was his motive.