Deary, these statements are a direct contradiction of one another. Again, this is simple game theory. By numbers, with an even number of players alive, eventually you are going to need a no-lynch. Thus, no-lynching cost us nothing. Let us compare:In post 4098, vettrock wrote:The No Lynch didn't get us anywhere other than Rach killed. The Rach kill did provide us with some info, as I had no idea she was a cop, or about her crumbs.
The actual scenario that happened was a no-lynch, with Rach's death.
This means we make a more informed lynch today.
If necessary, this means we make a more informed lynch the next day.
And if necessary, this means we make a more informed lynch the day after that.
Now in contrast, let us look at the counterpart:
We make a blind lynch at 8 players alive.
Rach dies.
We have 6 players alive instead of 7 with the information of Rach's death. (This is sub-optimal, as that is a lost voice to give input. Particularly since the most likely candidates would be you and I, and we two are some of the only ones who have given said input ON her death.)
The lynch is more informative than it would be, but less informative than it could be.
With four players alive, we then no-lynch.
Then in lylo, we have virtually no information to make an informed lynch.
Tell me my logic is wrong and if so, where. Because I know a thing or two about mafia theory, deary, and I know that my decision was the correct one--not only in principle, but also in execution for this specific game. I am rather certain that my logic holds. No-lynching yesterday was the strategically best move for the town, particularly given the division we had. We lost nothing. We gained plenty. In the latter scenario, each lynch is broken and disjointed from the previous one, lacking cohesion. This is what you would have had us do. In the former scenario which we have now locked ourselves into, each lynch builds off of the previous lynch, gaining momentum and evidence as we progress.
And you dearies wonder why I think Zexxy may be sour, if there are two scum or if vezzy is somehow sweet.In post 4099, ZZZX wrote:I am just standing here.. well ill post more in 3 days
but anyway this game is so pointless I am not even caring to read anymore.
If you don't mean it, I am calling your bluff for what it is: an intimidation tactic, as you lack the ability to get a lynch on me by any reasonable method.In post 4096, vezokpiraka wrote:If I see another aj post and no hammer when I get back home I will replace out.
If you're actually serious, then I am calling you out, for this post is a despicable one your alignment regardless. This is obviously in the realm of moderator ruling, and thus my opinion is not the important one, but were I a moderator, I would give you at least a warning if not a forced ejection from the game for this post, as it violates the universal rule of not bringing outside influences into the game. By threatening to replace out if you do not have your way, you are doing precisely that.
