A wild catch-up post appears!
voidedmafia wrote:I would also suggest that, should a cop and doc have the same night, they should both claim (or at least make their claims easy for each other to deduce, and then the doc auto-protects the cop. Do note this ONLY applies if a cop and doc share the same night, as that should garauntee an investigation. If the doc in question shows him/herself to be particularly townie I suppose it's not bad to risk them not shooting the cop.
This . . . doesn't work. Part of me wants to call you out as scum rolefishing here . . . but honestly, I just don't think you see the flaw in your plan yet.
Venmar wrote:- Don't see why we would want everyone that works on a specific night to claim, the chances aren't in our favor really. There's also the chance that a N1 cop would claim and a scum would claim N1 doc and the cop would end up dead, or a N1 cop would claim and no N1 doc would claim because there wasn't one. These are things we should consider, and that scum can always potentially lie themselves into the claim. Maybe not as a doctor because then a dead cop would put them to the noose, but a claimed cop maybe, and claim that a innocent townie turned up as mafia. Really, this will be a interesting game because claims will probably run rampant at one point or another. ( This is my prediction. )
- That said, i disagree with the theory that cop and doc from a specific night should claim. Odds are not in their favor in my opinion, and pulling it off correctly and at the right time are also factors to consider.
This post pings my gut. I can't exactly explain why . . . if I had to analyze why my gut finds this scummy, it would probably be because it doesn't directly interact with any of the players in thread, but spouts off theory/setup discussion in an effort to appear active.
Ser Arthur Dayne wrote:Also
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Voided
Bandwagoning, pressuring, pushing a lynch, etc etc...
Pressuring doesn't work if you label it as pressure. >.>
Venmar wrote:- Read the thread. This whole claiming thing is the only thing we are talking about.
Again, I'm getting a "helpful" scum vibe.
--------------------------------------------
Om of the Nom's refusal to read the thread is unfortunate and anti-town, but not scummy.
IceGuy wrote:I don't have a problem with bad plans. I have a problems with bad plans coming from people who should know better. Especially when those plans have a glaring mistake and are based on hoping people read it, don't realize the flaw, and claim fast. Even more so when, after the plan being ripped to shreds, they keep posting stuff like "if you're not an N1 cop, don't claim", implying they want N1 cops to claim so they can just kill them off immediately.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: Voidedmafia
This is the most convincing case for voidedmafia being scum that has been laid out thus far. That being said, I still think a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Disagreements in a theory argument can happen just as much in an MD thread as they can in a game thread. If you were discussing this strategy for this setup in MD, you wouldn't find voidedmafia scummy for stating it.
Which is also why I dislike too much theory discussion in game threads, period, because it clogs up the thread with content that is mostly non-indicative of alignment.
venmar wrote:- I disagree. Read my previous posts why, but Voided was not exactly "hugely pushing" an anti-town idea. Even if he was, is this good enough of a reason to ACTUALLY vote for Voided without any other evidence? I understand voting for Voided based on this reason to put down pressure and squeeze more content out of the person, but this is not the vibe i am getting from this post, it sounds more like " this is a perfectly good enough of a reason to lynch Voided ". Perhaps you do mean it in the way i proposed, i don't know, i just disagree that Voided should be the prime target right now.
BEFORE ANYONE ASKS, no, i do not have a prime target in mind yet.
Why so afraid of being asked who you suspect?
That addition to your post feels like you want your posts to be made on your terms, not on the terms of others (who would be questioning you), which makes me think that for whatever reason you don't want to name a suspect. While "careful" play is not something I find inherently scummy (though I disagree with it), the gut read I've gotten from your posts coupled with this makes me suspicious of you.
DeltaWave wrote:Oh shizzle my nizzle, forgot about this game. reading up
I LOL'd.
-------------------------------------------
I'm not seeing the 2b1s case. Especially after the bandwagon built up that quickly. (Though voided looks especially Town among the voters.)
I've gotta
VOTE: Venmar. Even though the game has just seven pages, he's already prodded other players to post more three times (I find that scum tend to do this as a way to add an appearance of protowniness to their posts without actually adding content, and three times in seven pages is a bit ridiculous, especially given that the game's been open for four days.) In addition to that, his earlier posts read a lot like trying to appease the Town and appear "helpful." It's also interesting to note how reluctant he was to vote voidedmafia and Scott Brosius in comparison to how quickly he voted 2birds1stone. Tbh, this is the best case so far.
