If scum would be crazy to choose no-lynch, then that strikes me as the perfect place for scum to hide.
Meh, Mosier’s second post, I think it was, set my scumdar off. High level of pessimism? Sounds like scum gloating to me.
You mean this, specifically the underlined part? Yes, I see how you would arrive at this conclusion. I don’t think it’s enough to hang him just yet, though 
but that does put him back on my radar.
Sorry for my absence. Weekends will likely be ‘light participation days’ for me going forward, and yesterday was jut ‘one of those days’. Anyway…
I’m not at all in favor of ‘no Lynch’. It gives the Scum a ‘free kill’, plain and simple. We essentially start the game down one player. And the potential return for that sacrifice is whatever information we might get from whichever players choose to take their action on Night 1. It’s a guaranteed risk for an unknown reward.
Although I don’t know that I agree that we get **no **information from the voting record with a no-lynch; we still have the opportunity to analyze who wanted to skip the lynch and why. I don’t know how valuable that information might turn out to be, as I don’t recall ever actually playing in a game where ‘no-Lynch’ won the Day.
I’m not sure you’re understanding me here. I was responding to the idea that all of our Investigators should act on Night 1, because otherwise they risked getting killed before they could use their powers. I ask here why, if someone is going to advocate that idea, they don’t also advocate *every * player acting on Night 1? After all, the risk of getting lynched before they can use their power is not limited to Investigators only…
FTR, I’m against the idea, and thought I had made that clear…but perhaps I didn’t.
In my experience, Investigators are one of the most feared (by Scum) tools that Town has. They can cut through all of the confusion, misdirection, and whatever else the Scum has to throw at them, and come up with the simple result “Player X is Scum”. If we use up all of our Investigations on Night 1, that makes the Scum’s job much easier for the rest of the game, because they know there is no possible way that they can be found out. It’s not a quantitative advantage, but I think most of us who’ve had the opportunity to play Scum would agree that the job is a lot easier if there are no Investigators in the game. And by ‘blowing our wad’ on Night 1, that’s what we set up for the rest of the game.
I need to reread the Day before placing a vote. That should come later this afternoon.
Just wanted to address this point – yes, he will. Check it again:
[QUOTE=Squire’s Power]
Once per game, you may target any dead Town player at Night. If your target has already used his/her power, you will learn what (s)he did and what the results were. If your target has not already used his/her power, you may adopt it as your own and use it as if you had their role.
[/QUOTE]
Assuming scum hit someone who acted on Night One, The Squire wouldn’t get to use the victim’s power, but they’d know what happened.
I think **Stanislaus **is correct here. If we don’t lynch anyone on Day 1, then the Squire cannot use their power on Night 1 because there will be no “dead Town player” to use it on.
But I’m not sure why that’s such a big deal. Why does the Squire need to use their power on Night 1? Why can’t they wait until Night 2 or 3? Or are we back to the “he needs to use it before he gets killed” argument?
:smack: Statement retracted.
I agree with you SP - there’s been a whole lot of emphasis on saving our “power” roles. We’re all power roles in some fashion! Yes, town may mislynch, and thus burn one of those powers. But town’s going to lose a power role anyway tonight with the night kill. And, there’s mechanisms to get a couple of powers back, possibly. It’d be great to preserve them all, but we simply can’t. This is one of those “accept it and move on” things, and people don’t seem to be able to move on.
And thinking that town doesn’t have any investigative abilities should our investigators be killed without using their power is short-sighted, IMO. They may not reveal alignment, but town has other forms of investigations at its disposal.
And now that I think on it further, I think scum would be all for getting as many townies to use as many powers as possible N1. Way less to worry about that way.
Vote Hal Briston.
Reasons:
[ul]
[li]Earlier toDay, he seemed to me to spend a lot of time proclaiming his townieness. See post 107, post 111, and post 155. These all give me a vibe of “look how townie I am!”[/li][li]His support for no-lynch. Other than what I see as a flimsy justification for preserving a power role, I just can’t see any town reason to support no-lynch. It gets town less information and fewer chances to catch scum and does so by preying on fears of mislynching or wasting town powers. Nobody wants a mislynch, but we can’t afford to fear them either, at this point.[/li][li]He shows a bit of waffling back and forth on N1 investigations. He’s all for it (post 50), then he isn’t (post 57), then he is again (post 75), oh but maybe not (post 76), and then definitely not. Maybe (post 198).[/li][li]Post 181. “Once we get past the point where some townie powers have been put into play, then all bets are off and we start stringing them up.” What is it you want to do, Hal? Preserve town powers or get as many used as soon as possible, so that you have less to worry about? Burn though as many investigations as possible, so you don’t need to fear them later?[/li][li]Over-emphasis of saving town power roles, as seen in the rest of post 181 and post 193. We’ve all got powers, and it’s inevitable that we’re going to lose some. What’s more, town’s got a couple of ways to get one or two of them back anyway! It’s just fear-mongering, playing on fears to keep town from acting.[/li][/ul]
Hey fubbleskag, been in meetings today so I just read about what you posted this morning. Sorry, I didn’t even realize you wanted a specific response to you as I’ve been fairly clear that I’m not in favor of a no-lynch policy for D1. But I’m happy to go through a few of the issues you have. First:
These were two quotes from really early in the thread when I, as a new player, was still trying to figure out all the rules, regs, and flavor to the game. If you care to stare down the rabbit hole, be my guest, but that’s really all I meant by asking these things.
I believe that if we’re not thinking about what the scum are thinking, we’re not doing our jobs properly as town. Trying to figure out what tools the scum have most likely chosen, and how they’ll most likely be used have to be discussion points. I know this won’t mean much, but if I were scum, the last thing I’d do is give away is optimal tool strategy if town hasn’t yet figured it out. I guarantee you they’re discussing this type of strategy at whatever board’s been set up for them. We need to do the same.
I’ll reiterate. I’m not in support of no-lynch. I’m also not in favor of a no-lynch for just D1. I wanted to discuss it to see if it would work, because if we leave a potentially strong avenue unexplored, we lose out. We explored it. It won’t work. At best, it’s a stalemate. At worst, we end up losing anyway. Neither one’s an option I care for.
Story, I think the vote count needs to be fixed.
**Tengu **is lusted as voting for Visorslash, and also voting for No Lynch. I understand that multi-voting is allowed in this game, but it seems to me that one can’t simultaneously vote to lynch *somebody *and to lynch nobody.
A snipped and bleached portion of the relevant post:
He first voted No Lynch, then voted Visorslash without first *unvoting *No Lynch. I’m not sure if an unvote is actually necesary here or if it is implied (I suspect the latter), but one of those two votes should not count.
Goddamn, Snickers…that is one massively well-timed complete shitheap of mischaracterization there. A cursory read shows not one bit of it actually hitting on my motives, and you drop that steaming load there where I see it at 4:58 on a workday when I won’t be around until tomorrow to respond to it all.
Suffice it to say, you’ve gone seriously out of your way to make having a discussion of strategy (you know…what we do in this game) seem like a bad thing. Copious amounts of bullshit there…
Well, sorry. It’s not personal. It’s just that you’ve given me a scummy vibe. And there’s still plenty of time to respond, so…
Sorry it’s got you so riled. And it’s only 4:20 here. It’s a totally different time wherever KellyCriterion has got to. You’ve got lots of time to show me why I’m wrong.
Isn’t it the same as voting to lynch somebody and to lynch somebody else?
No.
“Somebody” and “Somebody Else” are not mutually exclusive choices with multi-voting. “Somebody” and “Nobody” are.
Unfortunately the [del]jackbooted thugs who run this place[/del] Admins refuse to install the vBulletin Venn diagram plugin, so I can’t show it visually 
TexCat, if you are ignoring my post (bottom of last page) you are being very very scummy.
That’s a strange way to look at it. I think it was a pretty fair assessment of the game. Do you disagree with anything in particular that I said? Do you think town won’t have a difficult time catching scum this game? There are, in fact, several game mechanics stacked against town.
First, 100% unique roles make role revealing a worthless tactic for catching scum.
Second, investigator roles can be scum.
Third, we don’t know whether there’s a godfather, a miller, or potentially neither.
Fourth, we have to protect a seraph, who might actually be more of a liability than an asset for town, and who can’t reveal themselves for fear of the scum benefiting from their death.
Fifth, there are a few critical (damn near essential) roles that we’ll be unlikely to win unless they cooperate with each other, but we have zero sure (or even “mostly-reliable”) ways to confirm town alignment.
The above isn’t pessimism, and it’s certainly not gloating. It’s realistic. We can’t afford tiny mistakes, like overlapping investigations or voting for a no-lynch. I don’t understand how you can honestly say that pointing such out is a scum tell.
unvote Ender24w
when someone accused of being scum takes an irritated “this is bullshit” approach to their defense, is it more often because they’re a Townie frustrated by a weak case or a Scum upset that they got caught out on something silly?
Stanislaus’s table makes a good argument for lynching. Although, actually in his scenario, on D6 at 6-4, it is not LYLO. I would call that MLYLO. Mis-lynch and lose. That is the one traditional situation where a no-lynch is often employed to get you to D7 at 5-4. Of course, that traditional situation assumes a lot of other things like power roles still active, and a reason to put off the last lynch for another Day.
Our blind chances of mis-lynching Today are 15/19 or 79%. I don’t think the info gained or the hypothetical additional lynch is worth it. I think the way to get more lynches is to kill scum, and the way to do that is to wait until Tomorrow when we have more information.
Scum cannot win unless we mis-lynch, since they have a limited kills. I think the way to win is to make more intelligent lynches, not the typical Day One shot in the dark lynch.
That is not true. Scum can win if we no Lynch every day. In my first assessment, I overlooked the fact that scum have a mechanism for getting their tools back. Since then I have pointed out that scum can indeed win if we no-lynch every day.
Huh? I overlooked it too. In fact, I still don’t see it. Could explain how scum get their tools back?