The Manor: Chzo Mafia (Game Over!)

[Alabaska J]

I dislike LaMont's buddying with hohum and Devastation

FoS: LaMont Cranston

yeah that quote about your stance is old hohum.

i hate how LaMont thinking something is anti-town makes more than half the people on this game think it too

people need to stop letting lamont lead the town

in fact, i'm gonna agree with stephescope, if this is how wee are gonna do it and

vote: LaMont Cranston

to drink the decanter

[Shadow Knight]

Uh pump the brakes, I have never in my life been in favor of no lynching on day one.

[Lamont_Cranston]

OK. Maybe you CAN do it randomly. I will drink it then.

My apologies Pyro. You are correct, your "volunteering" was only if it came up randomly.

I'm sorry.

[Lamont_Cranston]

I dislike LaMont's buddying with hohum and Devastation

FoS: LaMont Cranston

yeah that quote about your stance is old hohum.

i hate how LaMont thinking something is anti-town makes more than half the people on this game think it too

people need to stop letting lamont lead the town

in fact, i'm gonna agree with stephescope, if this is how wee are gonna do it and

vote: LaMont Cranston

to drink the decanter

Actually I've "buddied up" with you, Xtoxm & Tajo now because I see the wisdom of your argument about the "battle of the items".

Me and Devastation have parted ways at this point. I see his position now as anti-town and will need a better explanation which directly explains why the "battle of the items" does not need to be explored now when the risk is at its least. I do not buy his excuse that "the items have to be more frequent".

In fact, officially note my assertion that his position is now +scum.

[Lamont_Cranston]

Uh pump the brakes, I have never in my life been in favor of no lynching on day one.

Please update the elixir vote count

[Devestation]

dude. There is one item today. It vanishes at the end of the day. If we have 1 item tonight and that vanishes too, and proceed ad infinium, we wont HAVE any 2 items at the same time to do battle with

[Lamont_Cranston]

Ok good point -- EXCEPT, that's not what Xtoxm was referring to.

His theory is that the Day items are for the village to gain an advantage whereas the night items are for the MAFI to gain an advantage.

So, if the village passes up THIER item then they lose the potential power they should of had whereas the Mafi still get their item and can benefit from it.

The major clincher to this argument is that we can go a long way to verify it NOW when the harm to the village will be at its minimum since there are so many of us and their is the smallest chance of harming a PR.

[Devestation]

"His theory is that the Day items are for the village to gain an advantage whereas the night items are for the MAFI to gain an advantage."

And how can we prove this without performing the irresponsible and not-conservative action of USING it?

[Xtoxm]

So far according to my memory there have only been two people that advocated d1-no-lynch as go poof:

Xtoxm & Sironi

I don't think there is a 3rd person...

And btw what do you think about random assignment vs. town-wide voting?

Would you accept a two-phase voting where the two top town chosen people are identified and then everyone votes on A or B?

What the hell?? I never advocated a D1 No Lynch, and wouldn't.

[Devestation]

yeah Lamont... reference it or dont say at all.

[Sironigous]

No, I'm saying that we can then, move on to more important matters.

...what are the more important matters?

[Lamont_Cranston]

So far according to my memory there have only been two people that advocated d1-no-lynch as go poof:

Xtoxm & SAJIN

I don't think there is a 3rd person...

And btw what do you think about random assignment vs. town-wide voting?

Would you accept a two-phase voting where the two top town chosen people are identified and then everyone votes on A or B?

What the hell?? I never advocated a D1 No Lynch, and wouldn't.

Both Xtoxm and SAJIN have said that not using the elixir is like advocating NL D1.

Hohum has said that he thinks there is a connection between those who say that and those that volunteer to consume the elixir.

In other words he is positing the theory that people are trying to force the elixir to be used on themselves with this argument.

I only posted the two people who said this from my recollection. I'm not saying I am agreeing with his theory but just posting data to help explore his theory.

[Amished]

>_> I believe Lamont is referring to the people that said not using items was like a no-lynch D1.

My opinion was that it's not similar at all, and Lamont seems to agree with my viewpoint on the matter as well. That's who he was targeting with that comment I'm pretty sure.

[Amished]

EBWOP: Heh, seems like I was right.

[Stephoscope]

Amished, out of curiosity, is your name "Amish Ed", or is it "amished" like a past tense verb?

[Lamont_Cranston]

"His theory is that the Day items are for the village to gain an advantage whereas the night items are for the MAFI to gain an advantage."

And how can we prove this without performing the irresponsible and not-conservative action of USING it?

That is correct, but the true question is

"What damage would the village suffer if this was the case and since the risk to the village of using an item increases with each passing day why not try ONE item to see if the "battle of items" is actually taking place?"

His point is that if we don't use any items we will never know and

could be seriously damaging our chances of winning

.

Nothing personal, but THIS is why I hold your position to be +scum.

On day two after the recipient has ignited into a fireball and been reduced tomere ashes, your position will again be +town.

But until then you're bad bad bad!

[Knight of Cydonia]

Players are reminded that bold green text is for prod requests only.

[Lamont_Cranston]

Players apologize.

[Sajin]

I agree I did compare not using the decanter to no lynching. That does not make me want to no lynch. I am for using items.

We cannot be absolutely certain what items actually do. However, using the items can be used later to verify intents. Regardless of what the item actually does. Even mildly bad items (silenced for a day, losing vote for a day, roleblocked for a day) can be used to verify.

@Lamont: Do you agree that item usage could be used to verify people based on info received?

[Lamont_Cranston]

I agree I did compare not using the decanter to no lynching.

That does not make me want to no lynch.

I am for using items.

We cannot be absolutely certain what items actually do. However, using the items can be used later to verify intents. Regardless of what the item actually does. Even mildly bad items (silenced for a day, losing vote for a day, roleblocked for a day) can be used to verify.

@Lamont: Do you agree that item usage could be used to verify people based on info received?

Right Hohum wasn't saying that. He was saying there is a connection to that and volunteering to drink the elixir (which I don't exactly see).

I DO agree with you that usage of the elixir MIGHT actually help to verify someone but COULD also be abused which is why to me, giving it to a volunteer is a no-no.

[NuevaVida]

b]DeCanter vote Lamont Cranston[/b]

I just used random.org and well i got you. I prefer random for thingsss which I have no idea what they couuld do

[Lamont_Cranston]

b]DeCanter vote Lamont Cranston[/b]

I just used random.org and well i got you. I prefer random for thingsss which I have no idea what they couuld do

This post really rubs me the wrong way. The whole purpose of voting is to AVOID the dangers of random distribution. But you decided to use random determination anyway...

I actually find it hard to believe you actually randomized your vote and instead you are trying to avoid responsibility for it.

At least your lack of intelligent choice is minimized because you only have one vote.

[Devestation]

*posts three daykills determined by random.org, including himself*

[font color=blue]Decanter vote Decantersarenazi's[/color] or words to that effect meaning no decanter use.

[Alabaska J]

I dislike LaMont's buddying with hohum and Devastation

FoS: LaMont Cranston

yeah that quote about your stance is old hohum.

i hate how LaMont thinking something is anti-town makes more than half the people on this game think it too

people need to stop letting lamont lead the town

in fact, i'm gonna agree with stephescope, if this is how wee are gonna do it and

vote: LaMont Cranston

to drink the decanter

Actually I've "buddied up" with you, Xtoxm & Tajo now because I see the wisdom of your argument about the "battle of the items".

Me and Devastation have parted ways at this point. I see his position now as anti-town and will need a better explanation which directly explains why the "battle of the items" does not need to be explored now when the risk is at its least. I do not buy his excuse that "the items have to be more frequent".

In fact, officially note my assertion that his position is now +scum.

rereading your recent posts, i get you.

seeing as you are leading the town though, i'd still like you to be the one drinking the decanter. hopefully you understand why i feel this way.

[Lamont_Cranston]

@devastation:

Could you please respond specifically to post #615 (the bolded text)??

Because I am not understanding why you are still resisting a D1 test...