I suppose if you're one of the vigilantes/scientists and you're feeling pretty confident in your own judgment, you can sit back. But I would contend that all the scumhunting in the world means nothing unless those suspicions are directed towards a vote or a persuasive argument for others.Battle Mage wrote:You dont have to post to be scumhunting. And if nothing of value is being discussed, there isnt much point in town posting simply to avoid being called lurkers. This in itself is neither scummy not anti-town. Him posting as soon as being called out is most certainly not anti-town.
Did you rate this as an argument you think is pro NL, or just what somebody said as it was a pro of a NL?Kid Know Nothing wrote: PRO NL:
NLing today would give the PRs the only pro-town chance to preform their actions without the town having to worry about them being infected. If we lynch today, we might kill a PR thus possibly killing off the only Scientist/Guard that we have.
I posted that but it might have been stated before.Rally Vincent wrote:Did you rate this as an argument you think is pro NL, or just what somebody said as it was a pro of a NL?Kid Know Nothing wrote: PRO NL:
NLing today would give the PRs the only pro-town chance to preform their actions without the town having to worry about them being infected. If we lynch today, we might kill a PR thus possibly killing off the only Scientist/Guard that we have.
Tajo, Malthius and Kelly Chen didn't post a long time (charter at least has a reason).
Mod, what about the prods?
I'd prefer if you'd call me Kid.Battle Mage wrote:KKN- did you not consider that the reason conversation had died before was a result of the game theory discussion? We need to start playing Mafia.
BM
Actually, id rather call you Kid anyway. :pKid Know Nothing wrote:I'd prefer if you'd call me Kid.Battle Mage wrote:KKN- did you not consider that the reason conversation had died before was a result of the game theory discussion? We need to start playing Mafia.
BM
it hasnt worked before. why should it work now?Kid wrote: To an extent, discussing Lynching versus No-Lynching can start suspicions. In my opinion. If you disagree, then please do what you think is appropriate.
I meant do what you think is necessary to start discussion, if there is anything.Battle Mage wrote:Actually, id rather call you Kid anyway. :pKid Know Nothing wrote:I'd prefer if you'd call me Kid.Battle Mage wrote:KKN- did you not consider that the reason conversation had died before was a result of the game theory discussion? We need to start playing Mafia.
BM
Was just worried it might sound a lil patronising.
it hasnt worked before. why should it work now?Kid wrote: To an extent, discussing Lynching versus No-Lynching can start suspicions. In my opinion. If you disagree, then please do what you think is appropriate.
What do you mean by "do what you think is appropriate" ?
BM
I am dropping it unless we're going to push against a deadline and are no closer to lynching (like now).fallen angel wrote:When you say you are dropping it, do you mean you plan to vote, or are going to stop trying to push for a no-lynch?veerus wrote:Anti-prod... My NL theory is obviously the minority opinion so I'm dropping it for now. And no one's really pinged the radar yet.
Mokina, what made you change your mind about veerus?Mokina wrote:If the scum feel no threat of a lynch happening, they're unlikely to go out of their way to defend themselves or convince the town to off someone else. They'll be advocating the sit-back-and-relax approach, because it offers far better odds. Whether it's through a bandwagon or a misplaced argument, scum have consistently revealed themselves almost exclusively during the voting phase. Without the day game, we have no way of identifying the infected.veerus wrote:Discussion can still occur and we can lynch the most scummy player if one presents. In the case of NL, the guard will have some good info to use in determining his kill. In no way did I mean to stifle the discussion and say we should no lynch NOW. But to me, it's as logical an end to a day as lynching someone, especially later in the game.
FoS: veerusfor pushing this point. I honestly don't believe it's a protown strategy at all.
Why did you vote veerus on this post and not in the post where he first proposes his idea? Do you think that the motivation behind his plan is scummy?Rally Vincent wrote:How is a NL a "decent" back-up plan? Why would it be better then just lynching the scummiest player and thus having information by that? And again, on which other issues will we discuss if not on votes? Why don't you start a discussion to back up the decency of your back-up plan?veerus wrote:I guess I agree that NL kills off a lot of the potential discussion, but I still believe it's a decent back-up plan if there's a deadline.
Can someone tell me what the case on BM is? Besides lurking (something that could be said of many here).
vote: veerusuntil you back yourself up somehow. BM has enough votes on him for now.
Same question, Shooty. Can you find some protown motivation in veerus suggestion or do you think its more likely to come from scum?Shotty to the Body wrote:Not lynching scummy players in this game is a mistake. If we let someone who acts scummy slide they'll just kill themselves that night and we lose our chance at taking down a scum. This isn't a normal game where we could hold them in our pocket till we are ready to lynch them. The odds of shooting an infected player are exactly 1 in 6 if there are two scum and 1 in 4 if there are three scum. Those don't exactly seem like good odds to me. We need to have day time action to give the PRs something to work with instead of a shot in the dark after a NL.
FOS: Veerus
Please elaborate.BM wrote:As for a serious suspect at this point, on a reread, im pretty happy to run up Shotty to the Body, with Charter as his likely partner. Might be a bit early for distancing, but i dont see anyone else obvious at this point, and 1 of Charter's posts made me a bit wary if i recall.
What is the point on asking someone if he is softclaiming scum?fallen angel wrote:KKN, are you softclaiming scum? I agree that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, but still, your comment strikes me as quite odd. Still, BM's seeming knowledge of alignment is a bit strange too.