Open 474 - Friends and Enemies - Game Over!

[Docteur Gudsight]

It makes sense if you consider the implications of it. No mason should cc the day of another mason claim unless mylo/lylo.

If 8 hours isn't enough then that's your problem. You can compromise to jen. Compromise is a fancy word for who budges first loses the lynch they want.

~M

[ArcAngel9]

CD, Firstly, Its not my wagon. Too sad that you don't see how i see it but GM has done nothing but randomly calling people scum with no hard evidence, i given myself multiple times a chance to see her as townie but each time she pushed it away and refused every fact that was shown, for me she is been nothing but a scum who is trying hard to frame someone so that she can just survive.

You're the first vote on it, therefore the one you're pushing. Currently I'm seeing no hard evidence from you about why GM is scum either, as such why I am picking on you for explanations.
I also reject previous arguments when it appears you're grabbing random newer posts and shotung "OMG THIS IS SCUMMY SCUM SCUM SCUM!!!", with no reasoning to why is it so scummy.
This response doesn't actually explain why her calling herself a defensive player is scummy.

Seriously?? i am not going to go in circles with you on this because i have already explained myself on this topic over and over again.... can you just spare this talk and get to the point? so you don't want to see GM as scum.. so its fine.. you do how you want to do it... i never asked you to do anything.

[Cheery Dog]

I'm asking about your new posts that supposedly add to the point - I don't care about your previous reasons at the moment.

ohwait I seem to have read 623 instead of 622. Revising question.
Disagreeing with one post is framing someone? She hasn't even voted Jacob, and if I'm understanding correctly from posts after that, she still finds him town?

[serrapaladin]

If scum fakeclaims mason, of course he should be CCed. If there's already a non-CCed mason, he can just CC the fakeclaim. "Let's a wait a night and see if he gets killed" is a horrible strategy, as it allows scum too much room for using their NK to their advantage.

Mehdi, how is it not your problem if we end up no-lynching? Of course compromise involves some people not getting what they want, but that doesn't mean we should be stubborn and risk an NL.

[Cheery Dog]

If scum fakeclaims mason, of course he should be CCed. If there's already a non-CCed mason, he can just CC the fakeclaim. "Let's a wait a night and see if he gets killed" is a horrible strategy, as it allows scum too much room for using their NK to their advantage.

It's a very usable Day 1 strategy, scum will still get lynched day 2. If they want to play WIFOM with a true claim, they're still going to give themselves up.

[serrapaladin]

How does scum give themselves up by their choice of NK? Scum don't NK a true claim and town lynches their own Mason (or another mason is revealed to save him). Two dead masons is as bad as three, so it's better not to leave scum that option. It's a much better idea to CC fakeclaims as they happen.

[KX]

Still not sure on the lynch, going to be thinking about it. As for a claim, imo, Masons should only claim if a scum claims, and so to counter-claim. Say we try to lynch a mason, and they claim, then there's no counter claim. Then, the player does get killed that night because the scum decided to fake the village out. End result, next day we try to lynch a mason, and a second has to claim. The end result being that, to prevent such situation happening, if a scum claims mason, the masons should always CC. If there is a counter claim and it's debated, then a second mason should claim in addition to the first should it look like the situation is going badly. If a second or third mafia claim to try and beat it out, the village pretty much gets the rest of the game on easy mode. Yes, it means all a scum needs to do when they're about to be lynched is claim mason and then they get some masons revealed, but I think the worth outweighs the risk.

[serrapaladin]

YAY SOMEONE AGREES WITH ME THIS IS THE GREATEST DAY OF MY LIFE

[Docteur Gudsight]

No both of you are being dumb. Town should never lynch a mason without a cc. Cheery was saying delay possible cc. If a mason is alive day 2 with no cc they don't get lynched. The point is if scum fake claims that masons shouldn't cc til the day after and they'll still be considered on both sides.

~M

[Docteur Gudsight]

And adding the goal of this entire idea is to let confirmed townies live longer by letting scum have an incentive to keep them alive if they want to do cc.

~M

[serrapaladin]

Delaying CC's only gives scum more choice on how to play and basically guarantees a D1 VT lynch. I don't think that's worth potentially having a confirmed townie for a day longer.

[Cheery Dog]

How does scum give themselves up by their choice of NK? Scum don't NK a true claim and town lynches their own Mason (or another mason is revealed to save him). Two dead masons is as bad as three, so it's better not to leave scum that option. It's a much better idea to CC fakeclaims as they happen.

We can get any possible CC day 2. If we don't do it straight away then we can get better reactions out of people when there is more time in the day.

[Docteur Gudsight]

I honestly don't think fake claims will be a big worry since cheery's idea and mine can be done together and worst case it costs scum two players to out one mason for them (best case they out two masons and get one lynched while losing one goon).

~M

[Docteur Gudsight]

Actually that's a bit off with the current version of it but forcing two claims for the one the town decides is scummier as a whole allows it fine.

~M

[PJ.]

MASONS DO NOT COUNTERCLAIM

FOS:SERRA

Just stop. This is scummy non-sense. I disagree with my past comment that claims are irrelevent, but heavily disagree with any sentiment on masons counter-claiming. Going any further into this will earn you my irrevocable vote because it will hurt the town to discuss this further.

MASONS DO NOT COUNTERCLAIM

[serrapaladin]

Alright, even if we stipulate that mason's won't CC, we still need to move quickly on deciding a lynch soon. We definitely need to allow people to claim before being lynched, so we need to leave time to find a second suspect if need be. Which means my post 651 about people hurrying up and compromising (the one you've all been giving me flak for to begin with) is still valid. It's been about 6 hours since then and we're not much closer to agreement.

[PJ.]

I'm voting GM and will consider changing to Jacob

I'm 100% town

I think Jennifer is quite town and will most likely not participate in her mislynch

[serrapaladin]

KX, please vote!

[KX]

GDI, are you people really going to make me pretty much decide who the Day 1 lynch is? If yes . . . screw you, and we have three days, I'd like two use the next 6ish hours to make a choice. If no, then you should be able to debate knowing that I'd support any of the lynches without me actually voting, and if I see something to comment on, I will.

[serrapaladin]

You're not the deciding vote at all. The closest wagon at the moment is at L-3, but it would just be useful to have your vote on the table. There's been a lot of debating going on, but opinions haven't been moving much, so it's really about time to compromise rather than stubbornly try to convince others of an opinion they have been rejecting for a while.

[KX]

Alright then, good to hear.

[CityElectric]

Votecount 1.12

Jennifer (L-3):

Docteur Gudsight, Cheery Dog, JacobSavage, NicCage

goodmoring (L-4):

ArcAngel9, Panzerjager, Klick

JacobSavage (L-4):

serrapaladin, borkjerfkin, Jennifer

Panzerjager (L-5):

Human Destroyer, goodmorning

Not voting (1):

KX

With 13 alive, it's 7 to lynch. Day 1 ends in (expired on 2013-02-06 11:00:00)

[Human Destroyer]

@Mod: Panzer is at L-5, not L-4

[CityElectric]

@Mod: Panzer is at L-5, not L-4

Thanks, I can't count. Votecount will be changed

[PJ.]

Could I proposea last second NicCage wagon. He's definitely scummier then everyone who has votes beside Goodmorning.