Okay, I realize an hour or two became half a day, but everything went well, so, here's a vote count:
Vote Count:
L-1
NONE
L-2
NONE
L-3
yabbaguy- (Charnel)
hohum- (BloodCovenant)
BloodCovenent - (hohum)
With seven alive, it is four to lynch.
This is in defiance of Occam's Razor. You've got to do way too much assuming to arrive at this conclusion. You're basically throwing multiple extensively documented cases to assume that egruntz (a newbie) wouldn't make a mistake and try to change his claim to save his own ass.Charnel wrote: why would egruntz-scum reclaim in this position?
he wouldn't. So his claim is likely true.
I don't think many of you will actually go read that link, so I'm going to summarize it for you:
I don't necessarily agree with this being a good tactic for scum. Losing one of their members for a PR isn't a great exchange because they only have two members. This is especially true of claiming doc. Say they get a counter claim on the doc and lose a member that day. That night the doc gets killed, but the second member would still be susceptible to cop investigation. It is a bad decision that could result in a perfect town win. I plan to check out your link; I just need some time today to do it.hohum wrote:This setup is unique in that it creates far more incentive for scum to claim power roles at any stage of the game. To use a baseball analogy: it's a sacrifice fly. One scum goes down in flames while the other one snipes at counterclaimed PRs. By not following procedure and lynching without a counterclaim, we effectively remove this incentive and tip the balance back into the town's favor.
A thought just crossed my mind. egruntz could be playing a very smart game here, if he is actually the doctor and BloodCovenent was telling the truth, it would cause a lot of Wifom for the mafia on whether or not to risk their night kill on a claimed doctor/vanilla townie. This proposal could have merit as both Charnel and egruntz are suspected scum so if one dies today and the other gets investigated, we go into tomorrow with an awful lot of information.yabbaguy wrote:Charnel's defense of BCgruntz is suspect. The "sorry, try again" statement is irking me.
Seeing as now we *do* have to factor in town stupidity with our claim, my suggestion, lynch Char, investigate gruntz.
Why do you object to advising the cop on a target?VP Baltar wrote:I'm not into directing the cop anywhere. But lynching Charnel isn't a bad idea. Hohum, thoughts?
I waited for a counterclaim. Till that point, I brought the point that I have given continiously about BC: he is a target, and I don't believe in a lynch on him. Call it a defense (yabba/VP)VP Baltar wrote:Actually one thing I notice upon reread was that Charnel never even made direct mention to the doc claim after it was made. Charnel, what were your feelings on it? Did you believe it? Why didn't you address it directly?