In post 9763, farside22 wrote: In post 9742, Reasonably Rational wrote: In post 9740, farside22 wrote: In post 9737, Reasonably Rational wrote: In post 9734, farside22 wrote:
Why would i include rr as town?
No I didnt.
I have nothing to do with the gems.
I've said that multiple times as well.
And RR lies one more time and I will vote him till he is dead.
What did I lie about this time? You saying at day start that you didn't think TWIE was likely scum?
-Cerb
Your using that as fear mongering considering that at least 4 times I've stated his comments make no sense reading the OP.
But sure you can ignore that if you want to make things sound scummy to everyone about me.
I know you've said stuff since then, sure. I'm simply repeating your positions in the past.
And how is it fear mongering? I'll freely agree to fear mongering with regards to you quickhammering anyone you please, because it already happened once and im fucking sick of people in games wirh known multivotinf mechanics dumping vote all over the place in the day phase, but pointng out your previous "least likely among all my suspects" position regarding TWIE isn't fear mongering at all.
@Creature: obviously A50, myself, farside, and kraska. One scum flip in this group=3 conftown, unless there are 7+scum.
-Cerb
Says the player who demanded on day 3 I should pile as much as I can on a player for votes, then bitched when it happened.
These double standards really are awful.
No farside.
I suggested the town declare intent to vote someone, and then when the threshold was reached, you hammer them. I wanted town in complete control, along with a full voting history, while simultaneously forcing you to expend your points so as to minimize the threat you could be in the late game and thus make you play towards your claimed town win condition, rather than your third party one.
I did not want you to unilaterally decide to lynch people once they they reached 1/2 lynch -1.
@Magna: you haven't actually outlined any such flaws though? All you do is take umbrage when we suggest the gems shouldn't be blindly trusted, and then fail to understand the positions we're taking, such as trying to argue that keeping a dead conftown communicating with the game, comments filtered by you, was more important than KEEPING SCUM FROM KILLING ANOTHER.
...
Then you proceed to suggest that we lynch in a pool which, yes has approximately a 40% chance of containing scum, compared to the 25% of my proposed pool...but my pool(AND suggested lynch) establish conftown with a single scum flip, and restores to us the ability to discuss and play normally without being on the verge of a hammer constantly.
For example, assuming scum kill someone tonight, if ANY alliance chooses to both vote the same slot, farside can hammer them immediately. I'm not going to just sit around and let us keep playing in an environment like that. Hell, if she was conftown, I would strongly consider lynching her on principle(which would be a policy lynch at that point). With all the evidence showing she's likely scum? Easy choice.
-Cerb
Pedit: stop comparing this to bloodborne. The situation is WILDLY different. Nahdia's role could hammer BY ITSELF, WITH NOBODY ELSE VOTING. Farside will always require at least 2 other votes being placed, or one other individual with a double vote and expends a resource when she votes, and has NO control over gaining that resource. One of the double voting slots thst could have assisted ber, DGB, could not coordinate with her without disabling her powers, or of course happening to link up with another scum slot, thus it would take at least 3 slots coordinating for a quick hammer to occur a la Bloodborne.
It's a FAR weaker role than Nahdias.