kuribo in Wonderland - [Game Over]

[Axelrod]

So, sorry to be the fuddy-duddy/party pooper here, but could we express our desire for who should be executed in ways other than pissing on them or giving them Aids? That would be great.

OR MAYBE!
I had a thought.. we all state

WHO WE WILL EXECUTE

.. and lobby votes from there.
Like- Fate.. if we vote you in who will you kill?
Kats?
Then the votes have more meaning.
Like- a vote for Fate is a vote for Katsuki Dying.

This is a bad idea. You say it gives the votes more meaning, but I think it's less. You're basically just voting for who you want lynched. Whereas the other (regular) way you are on the record twice, first for who you vote for, and then for who you lobby they should execute.

Really, we ought to just be telling whoever it is who gets elected who we want executed like a regular lynch. That may not be as fun, but it makes a lot more sense.

Hi everyone! I like the idea of using "piss locusts on" to tell the king who to execute.

Camn's plan for kings running for playing death sounds like the best way to play this setup, but giving kings more will would certainly be more entertaining and in the spirit of the game; it seems like she's worried about not having any idea of who will die but transparency is trust and a good King will be trusted at least.

I prefer this method.

I for one promise to execute my biggest scumread or the nearest lurker. This is also probably why I haven't received any votes.

All you people should feel bad for thinking this is good.

I get that Kings can veto whoever the town might be demanding if they've got really strong personal feelings about it, but that's fine. They're on the record that way too.

[implosion]

As for zombie posts i'm not convinced that they eliminate information for scum to speculate on.
For example anyone who claims a guilty result and a not-guilty result can no longer be a paranoid/naive cop. Essentially the scum may be able to poe some amount of information.
That said I'm willing to try it out. When I saw the "there are multiple cops in this setup" I was wondering if we were gonna try massclaiming and/or if there's something built into the setup to prevent that from being useful. But I'm willing to see how it goes.

[Axelrod]

And, I realize that the thread gets locked when the King gets elected, so I'm more talking about the "presumptive" king, and we should be a little careful about the votes.

[Kagami]

hypocopping is clearly a good idea.

[kuribo]

I'm down with hypocopping

Though I still feel with Random being a possible cop sanity, it's not exactly the be-all end-all breaking strategy

[Kagami]

It's not breaking, it's just obviously good.

[implosion]

If someone flips sane/insane then it's useful.

Although i wouldn't be surprised at all if there are no sane/insane cops.

[Brian Skies]

You're basically just voting for who you want lynched. Whereas the other (regular) way you are on the record twice, first for who you vote for, and then for who you lobby they should execute.

Why would I ever want to elect someone that will lynch someone I don't want to die?

[Kagami]

There are probably 5 cops, one of each sanity.

[Kagami]

I also anticipate supersaint(s), which is why a katsuki vote is better than a kagami vote.

[kuribo]

If someone flips sane/insane then it's useful.

Although i wouldn't be surprised at all if there are no sane/insane cops.

Is your avatar the Me you got as a role? And if so did you change it?

[KittyMo]

There's a big difference in that the thread gets locked here once the king is elected.

oh I misread and thought that was only a thing when the king gets plurality voted at deadline. That's annoying.

Did you change your avatar to try to get elected?

I support hypocop. I recently read an article off site suggesting that waiting till ~d3/d4 to start doing so in large open setups with sane cops is optimal because in theory people faking results should have better reads then and it keeps scum from being able to narrow down the cop before they have accumulated many useful results. Not sure it is here though?

[Katsuki]

I like camn's idea RE: ZOMBIES.

At this point I'll be thoroughly amused if I outmaneuver Fate to forge my own destiny.

I RUN ON THE PLATFORM OF FREE CUPCAKES FOR ALL
AND FLASKS OF BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

[implosion]

If someone flips sane/insane then it's useful.

Although i wouldn't be surprised at all if there are no sane/insane cops.

Is your avatar the Me you got as a role? And if so did you change it?

Nah. I changed it to this a bit before getting my role PM.

[kuribo]

I never thought my uberninja avatar could get more terrifying but there you have it

[implosion]

and @kittymo it wasn't particularly to get elected but if people want to i'm all votes.

[Axelrod]

You're basically just voting for who you want lynched. Whereas the other (regular) way you are on the record twice, first for who you vote for, and then for who you lobby they should execute.

Why would I ever want to elect someone that will lynch someone I don't want to die?

You elect someone you think is Town, yes? Then you hope they get it right. You are also, at the same time, lobbying for who you want them to execute.

I mean, that's how I'm looking at it. Not, I'm going to vote this person because he is saying he is specifically going to execute this other person.

[Katsuki]

Fate for King 2016

...Katsuki for Court Jester?

The one time I drew jester I couldn't get anyone to vote me. It sucked.

[implosion]

You're basically just voting for who you want lynched. Whereas the other (regular) way you are on the record twice, first for who you vote for, and then for who you lobby they should execute.

Why would I ever want to elect someone that will lynch someone I don't want to die?

You elect someone you think is Town, yes? Then you hope they get it right. You are also, at the same time, lobbying for who you want them to execute.

I mean, that's how I'm looking at it. Not, I'm going to vote this person because he is saying he is specifically going to execute this other person.

Not necessarily. You might be fine with electing someone regardless of their alignment if they're crusading against someone you think is scum.

[Axelrod]

You're basically just voting for who you want lynched. Whereas the other (regular) way you are on the record twice, first for who you vote for, and then for who you lobby they should execute.

Why would I ever want to elect someone that will lynch someone I don't want to die?

You elect someone you think is Town, yes? Then you hope they get it right. You are also, at the same time, lobbying for who you want them to execute.

I mean, that's how I'm looking at it. Not, I'm going to vote this person because he is saying he is specifically going to execute this other person.

Not necessarily. You might be fine with electing someone regardless of their alignment if they're crusading against someone you think is scum.

I'm not voting someone I think is scum because he's saying he's going to execute someone else I think is scum. That's more likely to make me re-evaluate my reads than anything else. I am not voting for someone I think is scum pretty much ever.

[Kagami]

Thinking someone is town is radically different than trusting their lynching judgment.

The challenge of kingmaker is that you have to do both.

katsuki for president. I have opinions on victims as inauguration approaches.

[implosion]

You're basically just voting for who you want lynched. Whereas the other (regular) way you are on the record twice, first for who you vote for, and then for who you lobby they should execute.

Why would I ever want to elect someone that will lynch someone I don't want to die?

You elect someone you think is Town, yes? Then you hope they get it right. You are also, at the same time, lobbying for who you want them to execute.

I mean, that's how I'm looking at it. Not, I'm going to vote this person because he is saying he is specifically going to execute this other person.

Not necessarily. You might be fine with electing someone regardless of their alignment if they're crusading against someone you think is scum.

I'm not voting someone I think is scum because he's saying he's going to execute someone else I think is scum. That's more likely to make me re-evaluate my reads than anything else. I am not voting for someone I think is scum pretty much ever.

People bus sometimes.

[Brian Skies]

You elect someone you think is Town, yes? Then you hope they get it right. You are also, at the same time, lobbying for who you want them to execute.

I mean, that's how I'm looking at it. Not, I'm going to vote this person because he is saying he is specifically going to execute this other person.

Or I can elect someone who will lynch my scumread, and hope that I'm right about the king's alignment.

Just because I think someone is town doesn't mean I think they will lynch correctly.

[Katsuki]

BS is there any particular reason why you're not voting me?

[camn]

Well, Katz and I think alike, so I am all for it....as long as no lol-kills.

In fact...I am back to it now.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Katsuki

I endorse a lurker kill, or Brian Skies.
Kats-...let's talk about Brian, actually. Did you see that post I mentioned?

Ha ha ninja'd.