Mini 495 - Mafia on a Plane! GAME OVER! =)

[Gemelli]

Gemelli, I am trying to not make this into a purely number-based decision, otherwise anyone can tally up the votes and figure out what I'm to do tonight. I'd like to not have a set decision, but rather a direction to follow. Otherwise the mafia will know too much.

Again, I appreciate wanting to leave a wild-card factor in play. But from the town's perspective, surely you can also understand that there are reasons in place for us to place limits on your decisions.

And you're wrong in saying that the scum influence will get drowned out by the town votes. If one or two townies make a wrong vote the scum can jump on that and make it seem as if most of the town wants something that will end up hurting us.

But there's not much we can do about this without first knowing who they are.

Bolded for emphasis. We are operating in a situation where the town lacks perfect information. Which is why this is a game, and not a mechanical process So what I'm attempting to do here is to provide a structure here that allows us the best chance of actually allowing you to hit a scum target tonight, while ALSO giving us evidence on D3 to validate or refute your vig claim.

It is by no means a perfect plan. If the town makes generally bad decisions in making their lists, the town suffers. I still think this is preferable to a situation where the town makes generally sound decisions which are then overridden by someone who already made an anti-town decision.

I also have half a mind to shove all these probabilities into a random generator and have it spit out what I should do. That would definitely do with the unpredictable factor, but maybe it could come out stupid. What do you think?

Words fail me.

[vollkan]

I also have half a mind to shove all these probabilities into a random generator and have it spit out what I should do. That would definitely do with the unpredictable factor, but maybe it could come out stupid. What do you think?

Definitely

not

. All we need is for it to be clear that you could foreseeably NK

anybody

. The way we invoke that is simply by leaving it up to your judgment. By leaving it up to you we introduce enough uncertainty. The prospect that you could NK the scum, which would place them in a position to lose tomorrow (ie. a D2 NK, a D3 lynch and a D3 NK by you) places them under immense pressure. This is the case even if you are the SK and even if you are a mafia (ie. there is a SK somewhere else).

Of course, I am not giving you free rein here, and I expect a tremendous amount of explanation for if you do decide to kill (hence why a random thing is very stupid; it would allow scumOrig to very easily get away with a NK).

If your actions are uncertain, you are a threat. I can imagine that your likelihood of NKing is somewhere between 0 and 50%. Whilst I would hope it is nowhere near 50%, it is possible depending on how you are thinking about this.
If you do decide to NK tonight,

if we mislynch and it is 6:3, then there are 6 viable candidates for you (6 because I take out the lynchee, yourself and AlyG).

Therefore, P(you NK mafia) = 0.5 (3/6)

if we mislynch and it is 5:3:1 and you are SK, then there are 7 viable candidates for you (7 because I take out the lynchee and yourself. AlyG is a candidate for NK by you ).

Therefore, P(you NK mafia) = 0.43 (3/7)

if we mislynch and it is 5:3:1 and you are mafia, then there are 6 viable candidates for you (5 because I take out the lynchee, yourself, AlyG who is your partner and your other partner).

Therefore, P(you NK the SK) = 0.2 (1/5)

What about if we lynch scum today:

If we lynch a SK today, that proves you are mafia. Therefore, a town NK is certain.

If we lynch a mafia today and it is 6:3, you have 6 viable candidates (6 because I take out the lynchee, youself and AlyG)

Therefore, P(you NK mafia) = 0.33 (2/6)

If we lynch a mafia today and it is 5:3:1, you have 7 viable candidates for you (7 because I take out the lynchee and yourself

Therefore, P(you NK mafia) = 0.285 (2/7)

Now, simply multiply the probability of you committing a NK by any of these to work out the probability of you hitting a scum. Except, of course, for where you are scum because then there is a much higher probability of you NKing.

Hence, taking the options where you are protown,
if we mislynch the probability of you NKing mafia is 0.50.
If we lynch mafia, the probability of you NKing mafia is 0.33.

Thus, even if you are only 25% likely to commit a NK, that still means that the probability that a mafia will be NKed is 0.125 or 0.0825. Not particularly large, but a serious threat nonetheless when we are talking about them risking their whole game on it. Because, once the identity of one of them is known, our chances of determining the others skyrocket.

In short, this is a good threat for us to maintain.

[Gemelli]

All we need is for it to be clear that you could foreseeably NK

anybody

.

I'd amend this to read "clear that you could forseeably NK at least one of the mafia."

What I like about the consensus list approach is that it gives us a strong chance of getting at least one Mafioso into the top four positions. I don't think it's necessary for ALL of the Mafia to be potential targets. There simply needs to be significant odds in play that you might take out a Mafioso tonight. As Vollkan writes, if you DO NK a scum, the Mafia will be on their heels.

[originality]

Vollkan, it is a 6:3 chance of hitting mafia on a misslynch if you count shaft.ed and yourself (no biasing here, you two are the lowest ones on the lists). Without that, 4:3. It resumes to pretty much picking the least scummy of the 4 and killing anyone else besides him. The lists would definitely dictate the situation if this happens. Is this acceptable for you, Gemelli? That if we end up misslynching, I'd take out the lowest three on the lists besides myself and AlyG and kill one of the remaining? This seems to me a pretty decent way to use the info from the lists.

Disclaimer: I'm not stating this as a definite plan of action, just an example on the process of thought tonight. I still have to take no-kill and other things into consideration.

[vollkan]

I'd amend this to read "clear that you could forseeably NK at least one of the mafia."

No. I meant "anybody" in contrast to "a selected target", since a selected target may or may not be a mafia member. It needs to be entirely uncertain to accommodate for our own potential errancy.

What I like about the consensus list approach is that it gives us a strong chance of getting at least one Mafioso into the top four positions. I don't think it's necessary for ALL of the Mafia to be potential targets. There simply needs to be significant odds in play that you might take out a Mafioso tonight. As Vollkan writes, if you DO NK a scum, the Mafia will be on their heels.

The advantage of the consensus listing is that it shows Orig where the bulk of the opinion lies. That is all it should be. The whole thing is left up to Orig's judgment, but this provides very strong guidance for his judgment. I agree with the consensus list as it has been established, but it could be wrong. For that reason, I would not support a blanket limiting of Orig to the consensus.

I realise this looks like I am just playing semantics to create uncertainty, but there is a practical basis for this. If Orig NKed, say, Lucienne, shaft.ed or myself (the bottom three of the list), he would rightly come under immense suspicion regardless of what alignment came up. However, there is still room for Orig having some reason for doing so (ie. a major scumtell that nobody has yet picked up on). For that reason, Orig might well have a good justification for breaching consensus in some circumstances. That said, the onus on him will rightly be

extremely

heavy to justify this.

The way I see it, as things are now, they are fine. We have not demanded that Orig stick to the consensus, but he knows very clearly that he is

strongly

obliged to do so. This makes the probability of a person at the lower end of the list being NKed significantly less likely than if we left this to blind chance, but I think there is enough uncertainty there that the mafia are under an immense risk by allowing Orig to survive even if the list is wrong.

Something else which is

interesting

:

The outcome of this guide is, of course, my nightkill.

Which means that tonight

we're likely to lose originality

to the other scum group and me to originality.

Is there anyone unhappy with this?

Wha..!? You are clearly assuming there are two scum groups (this is consistent with your view that Orig is scum)

but

then you say that we (which, for your sake, had better mean town) are going to

lose Orig.

This is completely contradictory with you supposing there are 2 scum groups, one of which Orig is a member.

If there are 2 scum groups, Orig is scum. Therefore, we (the town) do not "lose" if Orig gets NKed.

In other words, dybeck, you are not only admitting the possibility of Orig being town but you are actually assuming it. Which kinda makes me wonder about the bolded:

Day 2, Votecount #19!

Oman (2) - Gemelli, shaft.ed

dybeck (1) - vollkan

originality (1) - dybeck

Lucienne (1) - originality

Not voting: Everyone else

Needless to say, this increases my confidence in the underlined.

[vollkan]

Vollkan, it is a 6:3 chance of hitting mafia on a misslynch if you count shaft.ed and yourself (no biasing here, you two are the lowest ones on the lists). Without that, 4:3. It resumes to pretty much picking the least scummy of the 4 and killing anyone else besides him. The lists would definitely dictate the situation if this happens. Is this acceptable for you, Gemelli? That if we end up misslynching, I'd take out the lowest three on the lists besides myself and AlyG and kill one of the remaining? This seems to me a pretty decent way to use the info from the lists.

Disclaimer: I'm not stating this as a definite plan of action, just an example on the process of thought tonight. I still have to take no-kill and other things into consideration.

I see. There are many justifiable methodologies for you,providing you give very due weight to No Kill and take serious consideration of the list (as well as its potential error). This particular methodology is just you using the list to exclude candidates and to work by elimination rather than selection. I don't think it is fundamentally any different. Having said that, you still need to be very mindful of error and exceedingly mindful of the strong argument for you not NKing.

[Streeflo]

Day 2, Votecount #20!

Still exactly the same as Votecount #19!

Oman (2) - Gemelli, shaft.ed
dybeck (1) - vollkan
originality (1) - dybeck
Lucienne (1) - originality

Not voting: Everyone else

With

9

alive it takes

5

to lynch!

[Gemelli]

Vollkan, it is a 6:3 chance of hitting mafia on a misslynch if you count shaft.ed and yourself (no biasing here, you two are the lowest ones on the lists). Without that, 4:3. It resumes to pretty much picking the least scummy of the 4 and killing anyone else besides him. The lists would definitely dictate the situation if this happens. Is this acceptable for you, Gemelli? That if we end up misslynching, I'd take out the lowest three on the lists besides myself and AlyG and kill one of the remaining? This seems to me a pretty decent way to use the info from the lists.

I'm not sure I follow you exactly. If you're saying that you would:

(1) Start with a list that includes ALL players in the game except for yourself and AlyG (e.g., 7 players)
(2) Remove the three players with the LOWEST number of votes from that list (leaving 4 players)
(3) Choose to NK, or any of those 4 players, based on your judgement and discretion -- keeping in mind the priorized list from the town

Then I'm OK with that. Obviously, there is no way for us to really control your actions tonight if we leave you alive. The best we can hope for is to at least arm you with tools to make your judgement easier, and to ensure that you understand how we are going to evaluate your town/anti alignment on the morning of D3.

[dybeck]

Vollkan, sorry that I gave you the impression that I think originality is town.

I thought that I'd made my position overtly clear but I do not think originality is town, I think he is scum and needs to die. If you want me to say it again, I'm happy to do so, but I do feel like I've said it a lot.

[Gemelli]

Dybeck: What is it about this game that makes you suspect there are two scum groups?

[vollkan]

Vollkan, sorry that I gave you the impression that I think originality is town.

I thought that I'd made my position overtly clear but I do not think originality is town, I think he is scum and needs to die. If you want me to say it again, I'm happy to do so, but I do feel like I've said it a lot.

Er...that's why it is a contradiction dybeck. You said we will "lost Orig". If Orig is scum, that is simply not the case. I don't get why you are apologizing for this.

[dybeck]

You seem to think you've found evidence that I've made a slip that shows I believe myself and originality to be on the same side?

Is that right?

[shaft.ed]

Vollkan, sorry that I gave you the impression that I think originality is town.

I thought that I'd made my position overtly clear but I do not think originality is town, I think he is scum and needs to die. If you want me to say it again, I'm happy to do so, but I do feel like I've said it a lot.

Nice job of totally avoiding the issue of you stating "the other scum group." Very good redirection there. I'm really torn now on voting between Oman and dybeck. But I still have this tiny voice in the back of my head screaming that dybeck is just being a very stubborn towny that is totally convinced of his own perceptions of the game. Statments like these are very much stifling that voice.

I'm maintaining my Oman vote because it seems that he is very concious of who is on his list, what order they are placed on it, and whether or not the town finds this acceptable. This was a side effect I was hoping for when suggesting the list idea.

In regards to the Orig calculating method. I strongly wish orig to abide by the town's wishes. Therefore I would personally demand that he only choses from the top candidates to NK. While I realize it's possible that we may exclude scum from our top four options, that's a risk I'm totally willing to take. The odds of us including scum on our top four (actually 3 since No Kill is included) will be 75% is we mislynch today and 58% if we hit scum with our lynch. I'd hope by now we're doing a bit better than random chance at scum-hunting.


updated list for tonight's vig'ing activity:
1. No Kill
2. Oman
3. dybeck
4. Elias

[vollkan]

You seem to think you've found evidence that I've made a slip that shows I believe myself and originality to be on the same side?

Is that right?

No dybeck.

You said we "lose Orig". Presuming by "we" you meant town then you should not have said we "lose Orig" because you are convinced (aren't you?) that Orig is scum. If by "we" you did not mean town...well, you know what

that

means.

[Streeflo]

Hey, I learned how to link to a middle of a page and make words into an url.
Now the first post is looking really rad with links to the Lynch scene for Day 1 and Night Scene for N1.

=)

[dybeck]

Vollkan... I'm confused... which of the following are you trying to prove?

1) Me and orig are both town. You think that my use of the word "we" refers to only the town players in the game, and that I secretly believe originality to be town, and I'm trying to get him lynched anyway?

2) Me and orig are both scum. You think that my use of the word "we" refers to a scum group that contains me and originality, and that I'm trying to get him lynched anyway?

3) Me and originality are on different sides, but then why would I use the word "we" for any other reason that to describe the whole lot of us as a group? And what's your point?

[vollkan]

Hey, I learned how to link to a middle of a page and make words into an url.
Now the first post is looking really rad with links to the Lynch scene for Day 1 and Night Scene for N1. =)

Great. That should make navigation a little easier.

Vollkan... I'm confused... which of the following are you trying to prove?

1) Me and orig are both town. You think that my use of the word "we" refers to only the town players in the game, and that I secretly believe originality to be town, and I'm trying to get him lynched anyway?

2) Me and orig are both scum. You think that my use of the word "we" refers to a scum group that contains me and originality, and that I'm trying to get him lynched anyway?

3) Me and originality are on different sides, but then why would I use the word "we" for any other reason that to describe the whole lot of us as a group? And what's your point?

Alright, let me take you through this slowly.

You said:

The outcome of this guide is, of course, my nightkill.

Which means that tonight

we're

likely to

lose originality

to the

other scum group

and

me to originality.

Is there anyone unhappy with this?

By "we're" I assume you mean "the town are". If you include yourself in a group which is not the town, by all means tell me I am wrong.

If "we" are the town, the "we" only "lose Orig" if Orig is pro-town. If Orig is maf/SK we do not "lose" Orig. Now, all the way through this you have been adamant that Orig is scum, yet here you clearly assume (with no explanation) that Orig is town and that his NK will be a loss for the town.

Moreover, you identify Orig as being killed by the "other scum group". Well, if there is an "other" scum group, Orig is scum. Furthermore, you then say we "lose" you to "Orig", whom you presumably think is the non-other scum group.

But, your just assumed that Orig is town because you said his death is a "lose" for us. This a clear contradiction from you.

I am not talking about 1, 2 or 3.

What I see here is the possibility you have included under 3 but have sought to avoid by trying to back-pedal what you meant by "we". That is: You are mafia and Orig is town. "We" means "the town". Your post, therefore, only makes sense if it reads:

Which means that tonight

[THE TOWN ARE]

likely to

lose originality

to the

[MAFIA]

and

[ME TO THE MAFIA]

You did not use "we" as a global identifier because you then specified the "other scum group". If "we" was global, then the other scum group would be a part of we.

This post is inconsistent with your convinced vote on Orig.

I will explain this again and again until it sinks in.

[dybeck]

Yeah you might have to explain it again. I'm just not sure where you're going.

"We" just means "the remaining 9 of us". And "the other scum group" means "the one that originality is not part of".

I would have thought that the moment you found yourself trying to prove that originality and I were neither both town, both scum, nor one of each (options 1, 2, and 3 in my last post), you might have realised you were on a red herring.

[vollkan]

Yeah you might have to explain it again. I'm just not sure where you're going.

"We" just means "the remaining 9 of us". And "the other scum group" means "the one that originality is not part of".

I shall bold in the quote below and then put it in absolute simple brief at the end.

Vollkan... I'm confused... which of the following are you trying to prove?

1) Me and orig are both town. You think that my use of the word "we" refers to only the town players in the game, and that I secretly believe originality to be town, and I'm trying to get him lynched anyway?

I am not trying to prove this one. I think this is whole thing is a further cause for suspicion so it in no way makes me think you are town.

2) Me and orig are both scum. You think that my use of the word "we" refers to a scum group that contains me and originality, and that I'm trying to get him lynched anyway?

No. Remember, I don't think Orig is scum

3) Me and originality are on different sides, but then why would I use the word "we" for any other reason that to describe the whole lot of us as a group? And what's your point?

This is the problem. I think:
3A) Dybeck is mafia and Orig is a pro-town vig. Dybeck uses the word "we". "We" should mean either "the town" (unless dybeck is admitting to be mafia) or "everyone". Dybeck initially said the the quote-in-a-quote below this quote-in-a-quote. In the quote-in-a-quote I am referring to, dybeck says "we" are likely to "lose" Orig and himself at night and then asks if anyone has a problem with it. Now, the problems with this are:
1) Dybeck thinks Orig is scum. Thus, dybeck should not be saying that we "lose" Orig. In his view we "get rid of Orig" or something similar. The fact that dybeck writes about both his loss and Orig's loss as though they are negative to the town is inconsistent with him being damn convinced Orig is scum.

2) Dybeck is ignoring the fact that the outcome of the list was a No Kill. Yet. he is still fearful of the prospect of being NKed because he describes it as a loss and asks if anyone has a problem with it.

3) Dybeck is assuming that Orig is going to NK him over anybody else. Again, he is looking at this in terms of a danger to himself.

Alright, let me take you through this slowly.

You said:

The outcome of this guide is, of course, my nightkill.

No! The favoured outcome is No Kill but nothing is certain

Which means that tonight we're likely to lose originality to the other scum group and me to originality.

Is there anyone unhappy with this?

By "we're" I assume you mean "the town are".

Okay, no. You say it means "all 9 of us"

If you include yourself in a group which is not the town, by all means tell me I am wrong.

If "we" are the town,

or all of us

the "we" only "lose Orig" if Orig is pro-town.

loss implies negative consequences [/b[ If Orig is maf/SK we do not "lose" Orig.

we "eliminate" or "get rid of" Orig

Now, all the way through this you have been adamant that Orig is scum

and you still are

, yet here you clearly assume (with no explanation) that Orig is town and that his NK will be a loss for the town.

"for the town" may be removed from that sentence.

Moreover, you identify Orig as being killed by the "other scum group". Well, if there is an "other" scum group, Orig is scum. Furthermore, you then say we "lose" you to "Orig", whom you presumably think is the non-other scum group.

But, your just assumed that Orig is town because you said his death is a "lose" for us. This a clear contradiction from you.

I am not talking about 1, 2 or 3.

What I see here is the possibility you have included under 3 but have sought to avoid by trying to back-pedal what you meant by "we". That is: You are mafia and Orig is town. "We" means "the town". Your post, therefore, only makes sense if it reads:

Which means that tonight

[WE ARE]

likely to

lose (ie. sustain a negative consequence from the elimination of ) originality

to the

[MAFIA]

and

[ME TO THE MAFIA]

You did not use "we" as a global identifier because you then specified the "other scum group". If "we" was global, then the other scum group would be a part of we.

This post is inconsistent with your convinced vote on Orig.

I will explain this again and again until it sinks in.

Now, to try and make this clear.
1) Orig's death can only be called a loss if he is not scum. You call Orig's death a loss, therefore you are assuming Orig is pro-town. Yet, you are voting Orig.
2) The outcome, if the guide was followed to the letter, was a no kill. You seem to be over-emphasising the danger to yourself here.

Dybeck, this is not a killer point, despite how much I am having to write on it. It is a complicated semantic one.

[dybeck]

1) Originality is "lost" to the game regardless of his alignment. I am not assuming Orig is pro-town. Orig is scum and there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever. I'm not sure how many different ways I have to say this to you vollkan. Because short of translating it into other languages, I've stated "I'm certain that originality is scum" in about as many different ways as I know.

2) The outcome, if followed to the letter, was that orig gets to choose from a number of options. He'd made it quite clear (post 741) that he'll kill me. You need to realise exactly what it means to give originality a free hand here. It means that both me and originality die tonight. This is what everyone's voting for or against.

What I see here is the possibility you have included under 3 but have sought to avoid by trying to back-pedal what you meant by "we". That is: You are mafia and Orig is town. "We" means "the town". Your post, therefore, only makes sense if it reads:
dybeck wrote:

Which means that tonight

[WE ARE] likely to lose (ie. sustain a negative consequence from the elimination of ) originality to the [MAFIA] and [ME TO THE MAFIA]

So... you've found hard evidence that orig and I are both mafia, yet:

1) You think that it's entirely plausible that orig and I are on the same side, despite the fact that I want him lynched so much.
2) You still think it's a good idea to let orig have a free hand with his kill tonight.
3) You still wouldn't consider voting originality.

Is this basically it? You're sure this couldn't all be a red herring? You sure this isn't just a waste of everyone's time?

[vollkan]

1) Originality is "lost" to the game regardless of his alignment. I am not assuming Orig is pro-town. Orig is scum and there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever. I'm not sure how many different ways I have to say this to you vollkan. Because short of translating it into other languages, I've stated "I'm certain that originality is scum" in about as many different ways as I know.

Alright. That's fine then and is a plausible explanation for it. I initially raised this with you meaning "town" by "we". You have now clarified this matter in full.

2) The outcome, if followed to the letter, was that orig gets to choose from a number of options. He'd made it quite clear (post 741) that he'll kill me. You need to realise exactly what it means to give originality a free hand here. It means that both me and originality die tonight. This is what everyone's voting for or against.

This clarifies the second part of what you said.

Now, let's look at what Orig said:

My weighing scale isn't secret, its pretty much dybeck=not worth anything and shaft.ed=worth double. (I exaggerate of course, but its something like that. I wouldn't count someone who is scum, would I? And I don't think dybeck is missing from the top 3 of anyone's lists. ) Also whoever we happen to lynch, if the person is scum he gets nothing counted for him, and there's that.

And I see a lot of people not considering lucienne yet, such as shaft.ed. I'd like to hear from you about this.

He is going to give shaft.ed more weighting than you. Given that your list is a significant outlier, it would actually make no difference even if he did give you equal weight which, as a matter of principle, Orig

should

; though in practice it will have no effect.

I don't see where he makes it clear he is going to kill you. Indeed, if he was to follow shaft.ed more than anyone else, he would be led to a No Lynch.

Nobody is granting Orig a "free hand". We have all been clear that he is expected not to NK without a damn good reason and he must give very tremendous regard to our list.

So... you've found hard evidence that orig and I are both mafia, yet:

1) You think that it's entirely plausible that orig and I are on the same side, despite the fact that I want him lynched so much.
2) You still think it's a good idea to let orig have a free hand with his kill tonight.
3) You still wouldn't consider voting originality.

Is this basically it? You're sure this couldn't all be a red herring? You sure this isn't just a waste of everyone's time?

No. I don't think Orig is mafia.

You quoted me saying:

What I see here is the possibility you have included under 3 but have sought to avoid by trying to back-pedal what you meant by "we". That is: You are mafia and

Orig is town.

"We" means "the town". Your post, therefore, only makes sense if it reads:
dybeck wrote:

Which means that tonight [WE ARE] likely to lose (ie. sustain a negative consequence from the elimination of ) originality to the [MAFIA]

Orig is killed by mafia and is, therefore, NOT mafia) and [ME TO THE MAFIA]

[Gemelli]

OK, let's shift gears a bit.

It sounds like our active players are more or less OK with the process for how to direct originality during N2.

We still need to pick a lynch target for D2. And I would be very surprised if our lynch targets didn't overlap a bit with our orig-direction list.

So: let's assume that the person we choose to lynch is on originality's menu for N2. Do we:

(A) Allow originality to add another person to the list to replace the lynchee, or
(B) State that originality will have fewer possible "town-approved" targets to select from?

Example:

Based on the current aggregated/weighted point tally, originality's potential target list for N2 includes Dybeck, Oman, Elias, and Lucienne. Let's say we decide to lynch Oman tonight (picked purely based on the current vote count). Does this give originality the option to add vollkan (the next in line, points-wise) to the to-be-considered list?

(Obviously, the names on the list are expected to shift around as Elias and Lucienne post their preferences, and as people's opinions shift through the rest of the day. This is just a snapshot based on where we are at this moment. So please don't base your decision on the names you see in the example.)

I realize that this is getting a bit pedantic, but I'd like to ensure that we account for the variables that are likely to be in play, and that we've all had a chance to think about the best way to proceed.

For what it's worth, I favor (A).

[shaft.ed]

I would like for originality to have No Kill plus 3 players as his night choices. Fewer players limits our odds of having scum listed and defeats the purpose of allowing the NK option, more players allows him too much wiggle room should he be anti-town aligned and survive the night.

[Gemelli]

I agree wholeheartedly. Looking back at my post, I had actually intended to vote for option (B), anyway. I plead lack of sleep

Other thoughts?

[vollkan]

I agree that the "3 targets and No Kill" is the way he should approach things. However, again, to allow for every possibility, he is not restricted on penalty of auto-lynch to those options; there is simply a much higher burden of explanation.

I kind of see it as:
1) No Kill = No problem
2) Kill of High Candidate = What made him think it was a safe enough risk? If unable to explain, then begin to bandwagon/pressure/etc.
3) Kill of Low Candidate = What was the absolutely damning evidence he found? If unable to explain properly, then move to lynch.

I don't mean this as a set of rules or anything; it is just the way I am seeing it in my mind as the sorts of likely outcomes.