Seems poor reasoning to me as well. If two watchmen claim there's a 50% chance one of them will be killed that night (only one doc).
Also, he voted me :p
You have any past games to back that up? I'm guessing yes but I'd like to be sure you're not just making that up as an excuse to put the 4th vote on.Green Crayons wrote:Unvote: trabony. Curious how that read through is taking forever, though.
Vote: StallingChamp. I always vote people who say that they're scum. Always. I can't count the number of times scum have done it, and it has become a golden rule for me to put my vote on whomever does it. Congradulations, there's your conversation starter.
bah, I don't see that at all. You seem in an awful hurry to get this day over.CoolBot wrote:Where did I say voting SC was proof of innocence. All I said was that a vote was not scummy by itself. And there is no point to delaying the lynch, since scum will be laying low by now, waiting for the inevitable to happen. SC's stunt basically ended any usefulness to be had from this day.
Well that would be pretty awesome wouldn't it? Lynching a scum is easily worth lynching a watchman, and we'd only have a 50 percent chance of lynching watchman anyway.Echo419 wrote:I don't think scum would be particularly more scared of a confirmed power role than a secret one- they both have an equal chance of finding the scum, right? It would simply narrow down the possibilities for the doc.
And another thing- how CAN we confirm the watchman? He's the only investigative role, so he can't be confirmed that way, and we have no other power roles than could reveal something like that. Even if thw watchman does come out, he'd be counterclaimed by scum, likely resulting in the deaths of both, or at least a good deal of confusion.