Open 23 - Masons and Monks (GAME OVER) - before 458

[The Greg]

Vote: Adel

Self voting is scummy!

[The Greg]

I'm unsure on whether I want to stay on oj or move to adel as they both are looking scummy to me.

Unvote: vote LSU Tiger Josh

[The Greg]

@LSU: My reason for voting you was because you claimed that both Adel and OJ were scummy. We're barely out of the random voting stage, no one had done anything particularly scummy. Your statement looked like you were trying to push one of the D1 random bandwagons to a quick lynch.

Be that as it may, NAR's lynch -1 vote on OJ looks scummier to me, so

Unvote; Vote: now a ranger

[The Greg]

By my count, NAR is now at lynch -1. I think that's a bit much so

Unvote
FOS: dylan41985

. NAR's lynch -1 vote on oj looks scummy, sure, but "gave himself away?" Looks to me like you're trying to find an excuse to jump on a hot bandwagon.

[The Greg]

I think ojpower is certainly worthy of suspicion, and I've got my eye on dylan and LSU as well. That was an awfully quick lynch, and none of them gave good reasons for being on the J-man bandwagon.

FOS: ojpower, LSU Tiger Josh, and dylan41985

[The Greg]

Also, I'll be leaving tonight and traveling without internet access until Saturday, June 30. I don't want to commit to a vote when I'm not here to monitor it.

[The Greg]

You voted him for metagaming. Metagaming =/= Scum. Its a bad strategy, sure, but not scummy. A pro-town player can metagame just as easily as scum. How is that a good enough reason for a lynch? It doesn't matter that it was D1, you still left your vote on someone in danger of being lynched for a relatively weak reason, the metagaming.

[The Greg]

Bah! Go town!

[The Greg]

Sweenytodd, I believe the correct play at the end would have been to vote no lynch. If the scum lynched you, they'd assure a scum draw. If not, the resulting prisoner's dilemma situation might have salvaged a town win. It'd be a long shot, but better than handing the scum a win.

[The Greg]

But, why would the scum vote for a no lynch?

They wouldn't, but the vote would be tied 2-2, with three to lynch. If a deadline comes into effect, then half the votes are needed... but since it's 2-2, there's two people, scum, who have enough for a lynch. I'm not sure if that would get both lynched, or neither, but there's really no reason to give the lynch to one team over the other.

I thought in such a case, the person on whom the final vote which has been cast the earliest goes to the gallows... right?

Its situations like this that make me prefer the rule "Tie = no-lynch" over "Tie = earliest-timestamp-lynch." Its too easy for the scum to manipulate an endgame like this using the latter.