JDodge wrote:Think about it.
There's nothing to lose for us because we've, in a way, already lost; the people who'll get nominated are those who have given a reason to be nominated.
We haven't "already lost", we've been randomly chosen. The 3 nominees who don't get lynched today are less likely to be nominated tomorrow, if anything.
JDodge wrote:And the only people who we need to get a lot of info out of are the ones who we can get rid of. So, with a lack of info on those who aren't in trouble at the moment, people will resort to others.
Disagree. We need to get roughly the same amount of info from everyone, but unfortunately have to lynch one of us four. There's no need to be so short sighted.
JDodge wrote:The town has everything to lose due to the simple fact that they could, even without noticing, play out a scenario in which the only who are in danger are those who start in danger.
I really don't see this ever happening, especially given the very high activity level we seem to have here.
JDodge wrote:This can be avoided by just playing normally, ignoring the special mechanics except for voting and nominations.
There's no need to ignore possible extra information. Also, the special mechanics
are
voting and nominations.
Jack wrote:Listing the nominations probably won't help us today. But it will prevent the mafia from voting en mass. If there is a discrepancy today we can't show anything, but if there is one tomorrow we can ask everyone why they nominated who they did, which means the mafia have to lie even more and may be forced to take an unconvincing pose.
Agreed. Also, Skruffs seems to have a few tricks up his sleeve, so maybe it'll be helpful today as well.
Jack wrote:Forgot to add, if we don't think any of the 4 are particularly suspicious, we should just pick one to lynch, not vote for him yet, and discuss who to nominate. That way the other 8 people don't get ignored.
I think we everyone should be discussing tommorow's nominations regardless of whether or not we random lynch, since forcing everyone to state their nominations in advance will make it significantly harder for scum to lie about them.
Jack wrote:I don't understand this vote. What is skruffs supposed to be warning his scumbuddies not to fall for? Why would he suggest sharing nominations if he thought they would reveal something?
Not really getting it either.
Skruffs wrote:The only people who are town who have reason be worried would be... maybe a mason group who voted together.
That is such a minor concern it shouldn't even be taken into account imo.
Ghyrt wrote:Game-breaking strategy (maybe): If we ever need to completely bypass the nomination process, we can decide everyone's nominations the day before so that everyone is on the block. I think that this can work for any number of people; everyone would get exactly two votes. Don't know if its useful, but it makes scum nominate who we want them to and gives us a way to turn this into a normal game.
If I understand you correctly, that's the same idea I had in my response to Jack. Wouldn't call it game-breaking though, it's very arrogant for us to assume the mod didn't think of it. Also the mafia can still lie about their nominations even if we do force them to state them in advance since we have no way of knowing who was being untruthful other than possible power roles. Forcing everyone to state nominations in advance just leaves them less space for lying and forces them to come up with good explanations for every false nomination.
MM wrote:Did you even read the second sentence of my post? Revealing nominations seems to me like a tool which scum could use to orchestrate a mislynch based on nominatory overlap. I'm pretty sure I made that really, really obvious.
I read it alright, it just didn't make any sense. Honestly, just how stupid do you think this town is? Scum could only ever do that if everyone else were a bunch of retards.
MM wrote:Besides, losing a townie is always something to lose, as is playing into scumgambits. Unvote, Vote: Raging Rabbit
Look who's talking about playing into the mafia's hands... Just tell us your nominations already,
it doesn't hurt the town in any way.
MM wrote:@Jack: I meant it in the sense that he was cueing his scumbuddies to distance so they could then implement what I mentioned above.
That's extremely far fetched.
Ghyrt wrote:Goodposting
Very bad posting, actually. Weren't you the one who just suggested forcing people to state
future
nominations? Why would you disagree with your own logic about
past
ones?
Jack wrote:I see. But I give the town a bit more credit than that, it's not like we're going to jump on the first person to post a nomination that belies the results.
:goodposting:
Jack wrote:Don't think so, the scum can nominate whoever and then claim they nominated the chosen two.
True, but but forcing them to say everything in advance would still annoy them considerably.
Ghyrt wrote:Yeah, I forgot to account for the fact that we would know who would have messed it up. Come to think of it, this wouldn't even work if there were only one scum becuase everyone has two nominations.
It's not gamebreaking, but still a good strategy imo.
Ghyrt wrote:In fact, if you look at this way, scum has a very high chance of making only townies get nominated. Looks like it makes sense to vote on nominations during the day
Must've misunderstood you somewhere, I thought "voting" on nominations was exactly your suggestion from before. If you were talking about intentional ties, that's indeed terribly easy for scum to fuck up.
Skruffs wrote:As far as I can see, and for my own reasons that will remain suspiciously clandestine until I get roman and yellow's nominateoins, so far, everyone who's nominated today looks pretty clear. So I'll probably be offering myself up to be lynched But that can wait.
That's the second time you suggested sacrifising yourself for the town now. Normally I wouldn't mind that all that much, but you obviously have the best grasp of the game mechanic so far and are therefore somewhat of an asset to the town. Having yourself randomly lynched is generally downright stupid since you're only sure of your own innocence, but given the circumstaces it's even stupider. You're either being unnecessarily altruistic or trying to give us the illusion you're willing to sacrifice yourself for the town to further prove your innocence since you know we won't let that happen.
MM wrote:Seriously, people. Look at RR's posts closely; he's just not RIGHT.
I
strongly
dislike this kind of unexplained ad hominem. You are thus far clearly the scummiest person as far as I'm concerned and I sincerely regret not being able to vote you.
Confim IGMEOY: MM.
In other news, the so far very high level of activity and everyone's annoying tendency to keep saying interesting things are making it extremely difficult for me to keep up my habit of replying to anything I consider noteworthy. I may have to stop this in the future.
But that can wait.
