Muffin 96 wrote:for example, we could have the wagon as normal but when it reaches L-3 or L-2 the next votes are just FoS such that if the person reaches lynch via those FoS votes, we organise the wagon in such a way that we can achieve this... or other similar methods of achieving the same result
it's antitown to refuse, so unless you're scum or a knobhead, you'd agree to this for the overall good of the game
I think that's wishful thinking. I'm going to be honest, I won't vote for someone I don't think is scum. Period. I don't care if you think that makes me a knobhead or what, but I won't do it. Maybe I'm overestimating how independent players are (which I have been known to do), but it seems counterintuitive to rely on people just submitting to another person's will because they claim it's for the good of the town.
---
lalala 100 wrote:Ah, I see you joined in 2008. Did you see when I joined?
What kind of exceptionally significant things do you expect from me at this point?
Gross. Come on, lalala, a newbie card? I'm not expecting anything of you except to honestly tell us what's going through your mind when you read these posts. If your best contribution to the game is "It's RVS... what does a No Lynch do???", then I argue you're not being very honest. Either you didn't take the time to actually read what Gaiden was doing with his vote, or you were giving me fake frustration.
lalala 100 wrote:but here's my take; with this strategy the power of townies is minimised. Demons get to kill whichever innocent people they like each night. Town doesn't get to lynch who they think is a demon. To me, it seems like a better option to take the chance and lynch the most suspicious candidate - at least there's a chance we'll get the right one.
Bingo. This is what I wanted to see from right off the bat, not the half-assed "what does no lynch do???" crap. I'm worried that it took my poking at you to get this out of you, but I'm glad it came out.
UNVOTE: lalaladucks
---
Sakura 105 wrote:@RC: So do you agree that mollie is likely to have replaced out from a scum role PM? I don't really understand your stance there
Eh, moreso that I can't fault someone for going that direction. I would not vote based on this personally, no. I think it's a great opening for discussion, however.
---
lalala 106 wrote:
We have slightly more than four pages. It's great if you guys can ascertain who's scum from that, but I can't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
More newbie card playing. Dislike this.
---
SXTLH 112 wrote:even if we don't do all the no lynches, i still think we should no lynch D1
it minimizes the number of sinning townies.
This is not good enough. Muffin gave you a serious retort. You should confront him as to why this is a good idea.
SXTLH 115 wrote:hahaha, i found a rules loophole that FG had to fix.
LOL
You're starting to rub me the wrong way. I don't think it's a scum thing though, just your personality is annoying me somewhat... :/
SXTLH 153 wrote:At worst, he leaves us sinners and goes with the Angel.
Why are you not addressing Muffin? At first I thought you were just goofing around and were going to get around to it eventually... but all these posts are piling up and you're not taking him seriously at all. I wouldn't care about this except for the fact that you're still pushing the idea of a no lynch today. You need to sell that and that entails arguing with Muffin because he's the foremost critic of your plan thusfar.
