@TM Case-
(1) Claimed that players voting for their suspects was infeasible (Q1). Later changed this to claim voting should be done. Much later claimed that his initial statement meant players should not be prohibited from rogue behavior (Q4). Two objective direct contradictions.
(2) Was in favor of actions being in thread. Change his position to non-attack actions should be okay to PM. Objective indirect contradiction.
Both points have subjective supporting points.
-First post was changed in response to a CC disagreeing with his post (placing him in a clear minority).
-Second post was changed after town consensus was to not punish people for sending actions by PM.
-Repeatedly avoided or refused to clarify.
-Repeatedly uses ad hom, out-of-context quotes, and blatant misrepresentations to avoid questions and sidetrack discussion.
-He is avoiding ruffling feathers as much as possible.
-When I didn't let him get away with this, he started being a jerk in response.
@Yosarian2-
-To be clear, I prefer a deadline. What I dislike is town getting screwed by sudden rule change. For fairness, we should get an extension of Discussion Phase 1. This lets players who put off posting under the old ruleset a chance to post final thoughts before the first combat.
It's not like we hid the idea of waiting and suddenly sprung it on TSQ.
@Stark-
Welcome.
@Mod-
-I won't be around for the weekend.
Conditional orders:
-I want to attack the first player to reach a majority of votes.
-If there is no majority of votes, then the first player to reach a plurality of votes.
-I will not attack myself.
-If I am either the majority or the plurality, I will attack TM.
If you won't take conditional orders:
-Take no action.
@All-
-I prefer if everyone attacks the MC. We want to prevent MC from attacking as well as any rogues.
Something we haven't discussed:
-MC may want to claim. All roles are equally likely to be scum or town and we won't see any counterclaims. However, losing some PRs may have a worse effect on town than losing others.
