Just as a point of curiosity, why is no logic better than bad logic? Don't take this as a FOS or anything, it's genuine curiosity.
I personally think that some logic, bad or not, is at least on the same level as no logic at all. Otherwise it just becomes a guessing game.
Well, if we can define good logic to be logic that leads us to toward identifying a mafia person, and bad logic to be the complement of good logic, then applying bad logic will increase our chances of hitting a townsperson over a random killing. I agree that the first day is often just a guessing game, unles either a) we are convinced by the mafia to follow bad logic or b) the mafia make a slip of the toungue and we nail 'em. But, hopefully, a guessing game is good for us. And if we don't believe this, then we should perhaps reconsider voting someone off the first day. It's not always the correct play (and this is easily proven) to lynch someone the first day, despite those who insist that it is.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I'm usually more suspicious of people who make faulty claims than those like MedicatedLain who react in a way different than the community standard here on mafiascum.net. This is, of course, not to say anything about the innocence or guilt of Lain. I've already confessed to having no real reason for voting Jadesmar other than trying to get something out of him, but again, I'm willing to switch if any more powerful evidence comes to bear.
Cam
