Newbie 848 - The Bunny Mafia Family - over finally!

[Bwian]

At this point when we much lynch mafia every time we lynch, do you think it's a good idea to look at possible partnerships? In order to win we need to lynch those two that are in cahoots.

[Netopalis]

I am extremely convinced of Haylen's guilt now. We have seen nothing but excuses from her...Excuses for her play day 1, excuses for her lack of posting, excuses for her failure to analyze...We simply can't allow that. I feel confident in voting now.

Vote: Haylen

[Bwian]

@Haylen
Regarding the text mentioned in 524. Please provide what you've written so far.

@Jase
In 528 you were against a no lynch and in 535 you belive there is no cop alive. Yet, in 545 you're in favor of a no lynch referring to "it would give a potential cop an opportunity to get in an extra investigation" which was posted in 534, before 535.
What is your stance on a no lynch and why?

@Vel-Rahn Koon
Please comment on the issue raised in 539 and further explained in 543.

@Nachomamma8
Please comment on the issue raised in 539 and further explained in 543.
Please answer the question raised in 537.

I would support it. Honestly, there's not a single player left in this game that I can really rule out, and it would give a potential cop an opportunity to get in an extra investigation. Additionally, although it's generally frowned upon, I do think that hte identity of the deceased could be useful as well.

Not a single player? Better watch your words, because you're saying you're not even sure about your own alignment.

Have you gotten any useful information from the death of Yamijoey and MichelSableHeart?

[Netopalis]

Oh, please. Don't be so nitpicky. Of course I know my own alignment. Honestly.

No real additional information from YamiJoey because I replaced after he died and that information was incorporated into my initial reading. No real information from Michel because it was obvious that was going to happen.

[Jase]

@Jase
In 528 you were against a no lynch and in 535 you belive there is no cop alive. Yet, in 545 you're in favor of a no lynch referring to "it would give a potential cop an opportunity to get in an extra investigation" which was posted in 534, before 535.
What is your stance on a no lynch and why?

Well, for one I didn't say we should no lynch because of a potential cop. I just think we should probably no lynch today or tomorrow, because once we lynch haylen there isn't anyone who really sticks out, so we should then narrow our lynch pool.

[Incognito]

Vote Count #3 of Day 3

Haylen (1) <-~ Netopalis

Not voting (5) <-~ Bwian, Haylen, Jase, Vel-Rahn Koon, Nachomamma8

With 6 alive, 4 votes will do it.

Monday, December 7th at 4 P.M. EST.

[Bwian]

although it's generally frowned upon, I do think that hte identity of the deceased could be useful as well.

Have you gotten any useful information from the death of Yamijoey and MichelSableHeart?

No real additional information from YamiJoey because I replaced after he died and that information was incorporated into my initial reading. No real information from Michel because it was obvious that was going to happen.

In short, the prior deaths have provided no useful information. Why do you expect the next nightkill to give us any valuable information?

Looking at your actions I don't have any records of you ever voting for anyone but Haylen. And to my notes it seems that for every suspect you've had you've later or prior also called them pro-town. Who else do you suspect at the moment? Why is that?

[Netopalis]

I suspected VRK for reasons I stated earlier. Right now, I don't have any other serious suspicions, although I have lighter, gut reads against you and Jase. I expect the next nightkill to give us valuable information because none of us are looking particularly good as town, and thus we won't be in a situation like yesterday, where Michel was an obvious choice whose death would give us no information.

[Nachomamma8]

Thanks Neto.

Nacho, since you suggested it, what information do you think will be gained from a No Lynch today? Do you think that it will significantly help the Town's chances tomorrow of catching scum if we narrow the field from 6 to 5?

Does anyone besides Jase and Nacho have an opinion on this?

Right now, there is no extremely pro-town player. I can see every one of us being scum.

Looking at it statistically-wise, if we no lynch today, we'll have a 50% chance of hitting scum on a random lynch. If that random lynch is successful, we have a 2 town versus 1 scum situation, which is the best chance we have right now. If we lynch and manage to hit scum, we'll still be in MyLo, and we'll have 3 townies versus one scum instead.

I have full confidence that a no-lynch today will improve the town's chances dramatically

, regardless of who the scum decides to kill.

How can you possibly reconcile the two bolded statements?

If you can't find a pro-town player today, how are you going to find one tomorrow? A No Lynch today means that we're down to LyLo tomorrow. If you can see any one of us being scum, how is getting rid of only one person going to dramatically improve our chances tomorrow?

Don't take this as me saying I don't think we should No Lynch. I'm not saying that at this point. What I am saying is that I think your logic is flawed and that you're not doing anything to convince me that a No Lynch is the way to go. If everyone is of the opinion that we should No Lynch, I'll go with it, but I'd feel better about it if we had solid reasons why it's going to help us. Right now, if we No Lynch we'll still be stuck with the same group of all scummy-looking players. I don't see how that's going to help us.

Not only do we gain higher chances of a correct lynch, but we gain time. We gain an entire day of scumtells, towntells, activity, or the lack of it. For example, I guarantee that if Haylen is town, she will work a little to redeem herself so she doesn't remain most of the reason why the town loses. If she doesn't, then I will be far more confident in her lynch tomorrow.

Right now, if we No Lynch, we'll be stuck with 5 scummy players as opposed to 6, which is one suspect gone from 3 townie's lists. It is also a confirmed innocent, so we can look at those who bandwagon and push for lynches based on yet another connection.

[Haylen]

Why why WHY are we not no lynching?

6 players
4 townies, 2 scum.
Mislynch today and we go to night with 3 townies and 2 scum.
Scum kill during the night and it's 2 townie and 2 scum.
That means we lose.
If we want a better chance of winning, we NEED to no lynch today.

The fact that VRK is an experienced player and should know this, but is pushing for a lynch does not escape me.

I also would like to know how he can be so convinced about my alignment when he can't know my role. It is ridiculous to for a person to suggest that they are 100% certain a person is scum, a person can only have confirmed guilt or innocence in a newbie game if they are dead; didnt hammer in 3 player lylo or there is a cop result on them. An IC SHOULD know that.

Bwian: There could be multiple reasons why a person hasn't been posting. I've been lurking site wide for ages. Also, however counterproductive a defence mechanism may be, it's a psychological thing and difficult to change. People tend to need cognitive therapy to change any kind of defence mech.

Also, it is NOT cool to suggest that a single person is the reason why an alignment lose. What about the other people who pushed that person?

Yeah, anyway. I do have reasons for being a particular bad townie and I'm going to try not to beat myself up over that game anymore. Haylen's back. Now lets play.

Neto: How are you extremely convinced of my guilt?

[Bwian]

I suspected VRK for reasons I stated earlier.

For the sake of convincing me, could you please repeat the resons?

Unless I missed something you dropped the case on broncofaninmd and seemed to be pretty content with Vehl-Ran Koon until 494, your first post of D3.

[Bwian]

Why why WHY are we not no lynching?

6 players
4 townies, 2 scum.
Mislynch today and we go to night with 3 townies and 2 scum.
Scum kill during the night and it's 2 townie and 2 scum.
That means we lose.
If we want a better chance of winning, we NEED to no lynch today.

Are you an experienced player? The reasoning above is jibberish!

It's correct that we lose if we mislynch today but the fact that we lose if we mislynch isn't going to change if we no lynch today.

Regardless if we no lynch today or not we're now so few that all town must agree and vote for a mafia player in order for us to lynch a mafia player. If we don't lynch today we reduce the number of town players that must agree to 3, but at the same time we reduce the number of town players that can vote for the wrong player without the mafia hammering a mislynch. When reducing our numbers we also lose the inerta that saves us from losing the game at a single bad vote.

A single vote that isn't fully thought through will lose the game in a 3 vs 2 situation. If we are to no lynch today people must be aware of this and avoid mistakes due to voting without knowing the vote status.

I'm torn when it comes to not lynching. With the above in mind I am worried it might be a bad idea. On the other hand I am curious about the analysis Netopalis promised.

[Bwian]

Not only do we gain higher chances of a correct lynch, but we gain time. We gain an entire day of scumtells, towntells, activity, or the lack of it. [..]

Right now, if we No Lynch, we'll be stuck with 5 scummy players as opposed to 6, which is one suspect gone from 3 townie's lists. It is also a confirmed innocent, so we can look at those who bandwagon and push for lynches based on yet another connection.

If we want to gain time it's a bad idea to vote for a no lynch since that would end the day. If we want to use the time we should not vote today.

Why on earth would anyone town or mafia form or join a bandwagon if we decide it's best not to lynch anyone today?


Focus now should not be on how many we are. Because we will always need a majority to vote someone and from this point on that majority will need to be all town players or we lose. What we need to remember is that the share of town of players is rather insignificant when compared to the arguments for who to lynch.

Talking about a no lynch or not is a track that leads nowhere. We need to focus on who is scum.

[Bwian]

EBWOP: Because we will always need a majority to

lynch

someone and from this point on that majority will need to be all town players or we lose.

[Haylen]

Bronco/VRK

Bronco

Post 0 - Accused Michel of not being consistant.

why didn't you do what you believe in? I see no scumhunting.

He says that Michel isn't scumhunting when he clearly is to get conversation started. This is scummy because he is using crap logic and it can easily be proven what he is saying is false. Scum points.

Post 1 - Again, he suggests that Teh isn't posting information.

You want information posted, but you have not posted any

He may not have been posting information, but at least he was trying to gain some from asking questions. This is strawmanning, which is a scumtell. Scum points.

Post 3 - He tries to make out that Teh is false with what he said about making cases, when really he is just repeating what he said in a different way.

Anything at all no matter how minute it is, can be used as a "case". It is good to put pressure on people to get there reactions, stances, who comes to there defense, whats said or not said.

This is misrepresenting another player and is also scummy because it can be used to create mislynches. Scum points.

Post 8 - His vote on Jase was not explained. How can he know of another players intentions when they post?

Your intentions of this post is very misleading.

When he tries to further this point in post 9 and post 10, his accusation still does not make any sense.

It seems a bit early to vote me for "not answering questions"...this seems a bit suspicious

Its a lie, and the way he uses the quotation marks he clearly means "for not answering questions" He even reiterates it in the same post

Seems like he is just trying to push a false case.

Post 18 - He puts a player at L-1, with the only reason being that TBB was lurking.

Once again i agree with Nacho. He is here and the TBB has not even made an attempt

This is anti-town because a player should not be lynched based on lurking alone, there should be other reasons. It's never a good idea, especially in a newbie game, because you get newbies who don't really know what to do and need to watch others for a while. It isn't a good idea anyway. Again, it looks like he's trying to push for a mislynch.

- Tries to scumhunt but it seems rather...constipated...

VRK

- I've made my case against him. If anyone wants me to go over them again, I would be more than happy too. But added to Bronco's actions on Day One, just adds to the likelyhood of VRK being scum in my opinion.

In fact, if you work out the statistics of standard deviation, VRK has the highest negative deviation from the mean, and the lowest amount of posts, this is combined with Bronco's posts. And he actually accuses me of lurking?

~ Disclaimer - These statistics were correct when I was writing that post I was on about earlier.

Conclusion: Scummy, I would be willing to vote and hammer.

------------------------------------

Tehstefan/Bwian

Starts to scumhunt from his second post:

Still, does anyone perhaps have any reads on anyone? Any inkling at all is something that should be said, information is good for the town after all.

This is good because it starts discussion and is a protown thing to do. I agree with him when he says that not posting in the RVS is not a big deal because people are still trying to get into the game. It took quite a while for most of my newbie games to start properly.

broncofaninmd, however, is giving off far more scummy vibes to me. He seems to be drilling in on one player, and completely ignoring everything else. He seems to me to be trying to start a bandwagon, and I simply don't like how he's going about it. The bit about ignoring the post concerns me too.

This is a logial reason to vote for somebody. Tunnelling is something scum do a lot to get a mislynch. He was right to vote for the reasons he gave. Town points.

- Gives good reasons for changing his vote, there is no vote hoppery there.


I have the same read with Bwian. Scumhunts well ect.

Conclusion = Not scummy.

I plan on doing this in installments because of how easily distracted I am.

[Haylen]

Vote No lynch

I refuse to lynch any player today.

[Bwian]

Vote No lynch

I refuse to lynch any player today.

With regard to 562 and 561 I'd appreciate if you could explain why you take this stand at this point. I fail to see why that is a good idea.

Please put it aside for the time being. Do not let it distract you. The analysis is much more anticipated.

[Bwian]

I also would like to know how he can be so convinced about my alignment when he can't know my role. It is ridiculous to for a person to suggest that they are 100% certain a person is scum, a person can only have confirmed guilt or innocence in a newbie game if they are dead; didnt hammer in 3 player lylo or there is a cop result on them. An IC SHOULD know that.

This part confuse me. If one chose not to hammer, would not that have the same meaning in any even number player lylo situation? Such as 5 players of which 2 are mafia.

Being a person that risk being called nitpicky I reacted to "100%" as well, but read the intended meaning as being certain. I chose to consider it poor writing (which is a bad thing and he is usually well spoken so it's worth noticing) rather than a logical error.

When you mention cop reads I came to think of how tricky it would be of VRK to urge a cop to reveal himself, if he were the cop. Maybe that's too complicated and sophisticated way of playing it being a cop, but unless he's scum that is a good way of leading the mafia into killing someone else at night. Or if he's scum it's a good way making me think that he's making himself less likely to be nightkilled. I need to think of something else for a while.

Bwian: There could be multiple reasons why a person hasn't been posting. I've been lurking site wide for ages. Also, however counterproductive a defence mechanism may be, it's a psychological thing and difficult to change. People tend to need cognitive therapy to change any kind of defence mech.

My objection was that you didn't stick to one excuse why you wasn't posting, but in the same post mentioned two reasons that stand in conflict with each other. Either you chose not to post as a defence mechanism or you didn't have time to post. Which is it? Only way to combine the two is if you chose not to have time, in which case there was time but you chose not to use it.

Though it's a valid point when you say bronco/VRK havn't been posting much and I'm looking forward to his answer you're overevaluating your own ability to answer to posts addressed to you. It's more than once you've promised sharing your analysis with us but we just have to keep waiting. How does "And he actually accuses me of lurking?" rhyme with the above defence mechanism?

[Haylen]

you're overevaluating your own ability to answer to posts addressed to you. It's more than once you've promised sharing your analysis with us but we just have to keep waiting. How does "And he actually accuses me of lurking?" rhyme with the above defence mechanism?

Dont even start. I'm trying to get back to how I used to play as town, it's difficult since the abilities been blocked for so long. And anyone saying im overestimating myself could just put me back to square one.

Didn't I just share part of an analysis post? It doesn't rhyme with it...I didn't want it to rhyme at all...this is mafia, not a song writing competition.

I like the hypocrisy in the fact that you're whining about waiting for me when your sig says 'If I'm not back in five just wait longer'.

[Bwian]

you're overevaluating your own ability to answer to posts addressed to you. It's more than once you've promised sharing your analysis with us but we just have to keep waiting. How does "And he actually accuses me of lurking?" rhyme with the above defence mechanism?

Dont even start. I'm trying to get back to how I used to play as town, it's difficult since the abilities been blocked for so long. And anyone saying im overestimating myself could just put me back to square one.

Didn't I just share part of an analysis post? It doesn't rhyme with it...I didn't want it to rhyme at all...this is mafia, not a song writing competition.

I like the hypocrisy in the fact that you're whining about waiting for me when your sig says 'If I'm not back in five just wait longer'.

Your post is very emotional. I'm sorry I put it that way. What I ment to say is that you're neglecting your own lack of activity at times. But enough about that!

As for hypocrisy you're taking irrelevant information into the comparison. My signature is as relevant for my posts in this thread as the forum title I asked you about in 280. The difference is that I asked when I didn't know. You're making a hen out of an imaginary feather. Though I use it in a modified version the herigate can be found among Memorable quotes for Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.

I didn't mean that it should rhyme literally. I asume you're aware of the expression.



As for that analysis post, so far it's the following two persons you've shared:
- VRK, which must be considered as your main target since the role card of MichelSableHeart was flipped.
- Bwian, who have been a been a pain in your ass lately.

Sadly from my point of view those two were the least interesting persons.


I'm very much looking forward to your analysis of the following:
- Jase
- Nachomamma8, voted early D3 and then unvoted.
- Netopalis, currently the only one voting.
- MichelSableHeart
- Sposh

[Nachomamma8]

Bwain: We don't really gain much from the speculation about power roles. Somebody used the possibility of an additional investigation as a reason for a no lynch today. That being said, I realized if we don't no lynch today we should do it tomorrow. May as well be today.

Jase, you do realize how badly you're fence-riding right now, right? You're not taking a firm stance on ANYTHING and you've been lurking for the past two days. I was satisfied with your play day 1, but it seems you used day 1 to establish a pro-town view on you, then you've been coasting by for the past few days. I need some content from you, now. I want your top three suspects, and I want you to provide at least three reasons each as to why you believe so, or else you will remain the top suspect on my list.

[Nachomamma8]

Regardless if we no lynch today or not we're now so few that all town must agree and vote for a mafia player in order for us to lynch a mafia player. If we don't lynch today we reduce the number of town players that must agree to 3, but at the same time we reduce the number of town players that can vote for the wrong player without the mafia hammering a mislynch. When reducing our numbers we also lose the inerta that saves us from losing the game at a single bad vote.

I do not appreciate the emulating of VRK's style at this point, and I also believe you are not in any position whatsoever to do so. You are not able to judge someone's logic, rip on their experience, then create an entire post on invalid logic. Based on your logic, we have a better chance of lynching scum on day one than in a 2 town 1 scum scenario. Prove me wrong if you disagree.

If we want to gain time it's a bad idea to vote for a no lynch since that would end the day. If we want to use the time we should not vote today.

Why on earth would anyone town or mafia form or join a bandwagon if we decide it's best not to lynch anyone today?

Focus now should not be on how many we are. Because we will always need a majority to vote someone and from this point on that majority will need to be all town players or we lose. What we need to remember is that the share of town of players is rather insignificant when compared to the arguments for who to lynch.

Talking about a no lynch or not is a track that leads nowhere. We need to focus on who is scum.[/quote]

Pardon the language, but... Bwain, what the hell are you talking about? Where did I say that we should vote for a no lynch, anywhere? At this moment, am I voting for a no lynch?

Why do we need a bandwagon today? Why can't we have suspects and scumhunting?

No one on either side should be joining a bandwagon today because we are going to no lynch today. No lynching is the best thing to do today. What we have to remember today is that from now on, if we mislynch, we lose. The scum are extremely close to winning unless every town player steps up and gets some good scumhunting going. Without votes.

If you believe we should talk about who to lynch more instead of no lynching, you show me how lynching is the best thing to do right now.

When you mention cop reads I came to think of how tricky it would be of VRK to urge a cop to reveal himself, if he were the cop. Maybe that's too complicated and sophisticated way of playing it being a cop, but unless he's scum that is a good way of leading the mafia into killing someone else at night. Or if he's scum it's a good way making me think that he's making himself

You've confused yourself with WIFOM. If VRK is softclaiming the cop, then he is scummy. He doesn't want to no-lynch, which means he's willing to bet the game on a single lynch. If he is the cop then he better come out of hiding now and announce his results because they will do much to help the town, more so than risking for one more investigation. If he’s trying to make the town believe he has a cop result without claiming cop, then he is being extremely scummy and will be lynched. So, don’t treat ANYONE like they’re a cop unless they claimed it.

Please comment on the issue raised in 539 and further explained in 543.
Please answer the question raised in 537.

Reaction hunting, to verify a scum read on Jase. This scum read was extremely strengthened by his response.

As for the question, I will answer it. Right after you show me where I suggested lynching a random person.

I am extremely convinced of Haylen's guilt now. We have seen nothing but excuses from her...Excuses for her play day 1, excuses for her lack of posting, excuses for her failure to analyze...We simply can't allow that. I feel confident in voting now.

Vote: Haylen

Nothing but excuses? I disagree. She's made her fair bit of accusations, and as of right now, she's been posting more than you have. So if you can't allow Haylen's lack of posting, why should we allow yours? Also, why are you voting for someone based on lurking (this is the main reason for your vote, right?) when we will lose with the next mislynch?

I would support it. Honestly, there's not a single player left in this game that I can really rule out, and it would give a potential cop an opportunity to get in an extra investigation. Additionally, although it's generally frowned upon, I do think that hte identity of the deceased could be useful as well.

Not a single player? Better watch your words, because you're saying you're not even sure about your own alignment.

Have you gotten any useful information from the death of Yamijoey and MichelSableHeart?

I said the same thing; why didn't you jump on me for it? Allow me to answer your questions:

I don't believe my playing before Day 3 has been good OR protown. I realized I messed up quite a bit in a multitude of ways. However, I nor he said that we were scum. We just said there weren't any protown players. Know the difference.

As for your question of the deaths, due to foilist's NK, the only person left on my bandwagon from Day 1 is you. You voted me because of a logic disagreement, and there is a pretty good chance that someone on my bandwagon was scum, so what conclusion do you think I'm drawing here?

[Jase]

Bwain: We don't really gain much from the speculation about power roles. Somebody used the possibility of an additional investigation as a reason for a no lynch today. That being said, I realized if we don't no lynch today we should do it tomorrow. May as well be today.

Jase, you do realize how badly you're fence-riding right now, right? You're not taking a firm stance on ANYTHING and you've been lurking for the past two days. I was satisfied with your play day 1, but it seems you used day 1 to establish a pro-town view on you, then you've been coasting by for the past few days. I need some content from you, now. I want your top three suspects, and I want you to provide at least three reasons each as to why you believe so, or else you will remain the top suspect on my list.

First of all, if that quote is supposed to be an example of me fence sitting, it's a bad one. In it I say that we SHOULD no lynch which is a fairly firm stance, and

before

I took a firm stance AGAINST a no lynch. I have been lurking a fair bit, and I'll make an effort to put a stop to it. I'd actually like to know your top 3, we can exchange our suspect lists, and everyone else should chime in too while we're at it. Anyways, it's late right now, but I'll wet your appetite for tomorrow, and give you a taste of what I'm planning to say.

Morsel 1: Haylen is my top suspect, and if all things are held constant I believe she would be the best lynch. As for the reasons I suspect her, again it's late so for now I'm content to gesture wildly at the ends of D1 and D2. Though I plan to do an actual analysis tomorrow.

Morsel 2: All I have as far as other suspects is a series of nebulous gut reads on everyone. I'll sort this out and get back to you either tomorrow or the day after depending on how long it takes me to analyze haylen.

Bon Apatite.

[Bwian]

I'm having breakfast now and won't have time to answer everything at the moment before I need to be off to work. I'll start out from the top and see how far I get. Will of course continue where I need to pause.

Regardless if we no lynch today or not we're now so few that all town must agree and vote for a mafia player in order for us to lynch a mafia player. If we don't lynch today we reduce the number of town players that must agree to 3, but at the same time we reduce the number of town players that can vote for the wrong player without the mafia hammering a mislynch. When reducing our numbers we also lose the inerta that saves us from losing the game at a single bad vote.

I do not appreciate the emulating of VRK's style at this point, and I also believe you are not in any position whatsoever to do so. You are not able to judge someone's logic, rip on their experience, then create an entire post on invalid logic. Based on your logic, we have a better chance of lynching scum on day one than in a 2 town 1 scum scenario. Prove me wrong if you disagree.

It's a mystery to me in what way my reasoning is emultating another player. If you want me to answer that part I need to you explain it further. I think you read alot into the text that isn't there.

The message I'm trying to put through is that we shouldn't treat not lynching as a holy grail. You may note I didn't take stand against it. I just wanted us to pace ourselfs and consider the cons as well. Not lynching today would put us in a

different

situation, for better

and

worse.

Not lynching today wouldn't change the fact that from now an all town players need to agree in order for us to lynch scum.The difference between today and tomorrow is how many all town players are.

There is a certain safety when a townie is allowed to make a bad vote without causing his team losing the game. If a town player is fooled to vote for another town player in a 2 town 1 scum scenario it's over.

[Bwian]

If we want to gain time it's a bad idea to vote for a no lynch since that would end the day.

If we want to use the time we should not vote today.

Why on earth would anyone town or mafia form or join a bandwagon if we decide it's best not to lynch anyone today?

Focus now should not be on how many we are. Because we will always need a majority to vote someone and from this point on that majority will need to be all town players or we lose. What we need to remember is that the share of town of players is rather insignificant when compared to the arguments for who to lynch.

Talking about a no lynch or not is a track that leads nowhere. We need to focus on who is scum.

Pardon the language, but... Bwain, what the hell are you talking about? Where did I say that we should vote for a no lynch, anywhere? At this moment, am I voting for a no lynch?

[..]

If you believe we should talk about who to lynch more instead of no lynching, you show me how lynching is the best thing to do right now.

Why should I motivate a stance I havn't taken? Read the bolded part again.

What I was saying is that it's a bad idea to vote for a no lynch, which is what I thought you ment when saying no lynch. If your meaning of no lynch is not to vote today I'm happy with your stance on that issue.

No lynching is the best thing to do today. What we have to remember today is that from now on, if we mislynch, we lose. The scum are extremely close to winning unless every town player steps up and gets some good scumhunting going. Without votes.

It seems to me you're using two standards. You vouch for talking about who is scum and yet try to make me look bad for suggesting the same thing in the post you're replying to.

Right now, if we No Lynch, we'll be stuck with 5 scummy players as opposed to 6, which is one suspect gone from 3 townie's lists. It is also a confirmed innocent, so

we can look at those who bandwagon

and push for lynches based on yet another connection.

Why on earth would anyone town or mafia form or join a bandwagon if we decide it's best not to lynch anyone today?

Why do we need a bandwagon today? Why can't we have suspects and scumhunting?

Uhm... it was you who wanted to draw conclusions based on who bandwagon. If you're referring to bandwagons in the past, why wait until tomorrow to analyse those?