No, just no.Mastermind of Sin wrote:I would like to propose something. Not for this day, perhaps, but for future days. I propose that whoever Primate puts on the ice gets immunity from lynch. I propose it for these reasons:
a) This allows Primate more control over who gets lynched, since he doesn't have a vote. Sure, he can tell us what he thinks, but scum can still argue against him if they have to. This way, he makes some of the calls for sure.
b) This allows us to focus more on a smaller group of players and hopefully apply good pressure to force the scum out. This is not to say that we will ignore other players on the ice if they do something really scummy, but the discussion should be focused around scrutinizing the scummy players not on the ice. The players on the ice still need to actively contribute and analyze people, because they could find themselves taken off the ice the next day if they try to skate by without helping the town. This forces activity out of the players as well as putting focused pressure on scummy players to get them to shape up or ship out.
c) Most importantly, this means that we don't lynch anyone who is currently on the ice. Since I'm not sure how the mechanics work for that, I'm going to assume that it would be beneficial for us to end each day with a full number of players on the ice, in order to keep the other team from scoring. This plan allows us to not only make sure that we have all those players on the ice, but that also the people on the ice are the ones who look more innocent anyways, since Primate is putting them there for that reason.
#1: I think I covered that if I want to lynch someone and the rest of the town doesn't, I can act as king and just order the town to lynch that person. That gives me all the say I will ever need, really, and as far as self-enforced rules go, it's better than one that encourages us to ignore half the players.
#2: 'focus on players not on the ice' is another way of saying 'ignore the players on the ice' except your way actively encourages us to do less whilst my way encourages the town to do more things. And I think the 'post or you get taken off the ice' threat is there regardless of whether we're focusing on the non-icers, so that's irrelevant too. So the second part of the plan is something that's going to happen regardless, so it's a bit misleading you try and put it across as an advantage of your plan.
#3: Is BS too. If someone is sufficiently scummy we should lynch them regardless. I admit we need to consider the ice, seeing as how goals are paramount, but it's a bit stupid just saying that we're going to ignore all the people on the ice cause it could lose them the game.
Arbitrarily tying our shoelaces together is not the play.
