The Werewolves of Millers Hollow (Game Over)

[Yosarian2]

1.

The Power is not the Mayors, its Towns. The Mayor simply has a double vote which is pretty useless at this stage of the game.

(shakes head) An extra vote can make a big dfference. In any case, there is absolutly no advantage to giving an extra vote to someone you think is scummy. Zero. Zilch. Nothing. We don't need to make someone mayor in order to keep an eye on them; if you think someone is scummy, then you should keep an eye on him and on who he votes for anyway.

This whole plan of yours is kind of crazy. "Let's take someone we think is scummy, and give him more power, so we get more paranoid about the person." If the mayor is town, then that paranoia you're pushing is just more likely to screw us over, and if the mayor is scum, then giving him power is a bad idea.

And remember, the mayor has two powers. One is the double vote, the other is the power to pick the next mayor if they die. Those are BOTH powers we REALLY don't want the scum to have, at all, ever, at any point in the game.

2.

The fact is there's 21 people alive, not 10. which makes it alot

HARDER

for scum to do what your saying.

Meh. An extra vote still matters.

3.

Exactly. If scum gain control of Mayorship late in the game, then that is disastrous.

If scum get control of the mayorship at ANY point of the game, it's bad. And the town can never really get it back; the scum would either be able to give it to another scum, or give it to a townie he wants to WIFOM the rest of the town into lynch, preferably a townie that he knows will give the mayorship to his scumbuddy.

The whole thing is just a bad, bad idea. The obvious stratagy of "We give the mayorship to someone who looks really, really townie, and try to keep it out of the hands of the scum" just seems much, much better, from every point of view.

[Firestarter]

Hm... Firestarter seems abnormally dense today.

Unvote: Vote for Lynch: Firestarter

As opposed to.. ?

All Im hearing is WIFOM from both of you, and that scum will get extra power... however useless it is right now.

But.. cannot the same thing happen voting in a player who seems pro-town?

If my method is not to be used, thats ok.
You asked questions, and I answered them.
Giving this "supposed" power to someone seeming scummy will draw some heat, I fully expected that.
But your WIFOM arguments are nothing but mere... WIFOM.
Voting me to lynch is a an easy thing to do, and too simplistic.
You both do not understand where Im coming from, thats fine.
If the rest of Town see the same picture, thats also fine.

VOTE 4 LYNCH: Dingoatemybaby

Enough info for me.
Nice coat-tailing Zwet...

[dingoatemybaby]

You both do not understand where Im coming from, thats fine.
If the rest of Town see the same picture, thats also fine.

VOTE 4 LYNCH: Dingoatemybaby

Enough info for me.
Nice coat-tailing Zwet...

I understand your argument. Your argument is wrong. I expect scum to make understandable, incorrect, arguments.

And your OMGUS vote is, well, just OMGUS.

[Yosarian2]

All Im hearing is WIFOM from both of you, and that scum will get extra power... however useless it is right now.

If there are 5 scum, then giving one an extra vote increases the scum's day power by 20%. That is bloody HUGE. Why you keep trying to say it's useless?

A lot of people underestimate the power of the scum voting block, but it's very significant even early game, since they have information and CAN work together when townies can't. Increasing that power, even on day 2, would be a very bad thing.

But.. cannot the same thing happen voting in a player who seems pro-town?

"Hey, you know, if we lynch a player who looks scummy, we might be wrong. Why not lynch someone who looks pro-town instead!"

<-------this is what you are arguing here.

If we try to nominate someone who looks pro-town to be mayor, we may be right, or we may be wrong. If we try to nominate someone who is pro-town but screw up and nominate someone who is scum instead, then later, we can look back and see who was trying to argue that that person is pro-town and if they had good logic, ect ect. It's useful infromation, but not if we do it your way.

Anyway, I certanly would hope that us trying to nominate pro-town people to be mayor would have better odds of actually getting a pro-town mayor then if we try to nominate a scum for mayor; that seems pretty obvious to me.

But your WIFOM arguments are nothing but mere... WIFOM.

No, dude.

"Giving scum more power is bad" is NOT a wifom argument, at all. Not even a little bit.

Voting me to lynch is a an easy thing to do, and too simplistic.
You both do not understand where Im coming from, thats fine.

It's not that people "don't understand where you're coming from", it's that you are proposing a plan that is very anti-town, period. I'm not surprised you're drawing votes for it; suggesting plans that would hurt the town and help the scum if put into effect will tend to make people suspicious of your motives, for obvious reasons.

VOTE 4 LYNCH: Dingoatemybaby
Enough info for me.

Why?

[Firestarter]

@ Yos..

Thank you, its the first real post that has countered my method.

Im fully aware of what may happen when and if scum get control of Mayorship.
Im also more inclined to believe that more townies will be lynched if we opt to elect them to Mayorship. This is of course, assuming they are Town.

Im thinking out loud now..

Mayorship is elected by who is most Pro-Town.

Mayor 1 gets elected, and a player is targetted for lynch.
Town mis-lynches, and another Townie gets NK'd.
Mayor 1 is kept on, as the general concensus is he did not play a huge part on the 1st mis-lynch.
2nd day lynch is also a mis-lynch.
2nd NK'd townie dies.
Mayor 1 gets the bullet, as he fucked up too many times. This can be pressured into by scum and town alike.
Next Mayor is elected, and a scumbag is given Mayorship.
At this stage, its 5 townies lynched, with 16 players alive and 9 to lynch.
Im thinking there may be 5/6 scumbags in the set-up at this time.
Now all scum need to mislynch is 3/4 townies on board.
Mislynch occurs, and another townie is NK'd.

Of course, things might happen differently, but this is the worst case scenario that was in my head after I voted 2 players as the most pro-town yesterday in my mega-post.

I wanted to take a look at a different angle in electing Mayorship, and hence came up with my alternate method of choosing the scummiest player. The rest is history.

As I stated in an earlier post, this is my 1st werewolf game and the set-up is not something Im used to.

I dont class it as crazy or stupid...
So far, no-one has shown me this method being used elsewhere in these type games.
Maybe its because no-one had the balls to suggest it as they may come off sounding scummy. I think thats bollox tbh.

Scum reading my plan will see this differently I imagine, and Im pretty sure at least one of the detractors of this method is scum.

Scum will want townies to have the Mayor role first, because if they are part of a mislynch or 2, then they can easily rally to discredit the Pro-town player that was elected in the first place, ably assisted by pissed off townies.

Think about it, scum want the mayor role as late as possible.
I think its highly unlikely that scum want the Mayor role this early.

And they wouldn't mind several mis-lynches along the way to make it easier for them.
Lynching townies, then replacing them increases the chances of scum getting Mayorship late in the game.

[Firestarter]

I understand your argument. Your argument is wrong. I expect scum to make understandable, incorrect, arguments.

Its not an argument...

Its a method of choosing who to elect as scum.
It was turned into something other than that when others totally ignored my points, ignored what I'd written beforehand, and ignored my questions.

[dingoatemybaby]

So far, no-one has shown me this method being used elsewhere in these type games.
Maybe its because no-one had the balls to suggest it as they may come off sounding scummy. I think thats bollox tbh.

Maybe the reason no one does this is because it does not make sense to do it.

Its not an argument...

Its a method of choosing who to elect as scum.
It was turned into something other than that when others totally ignored my points, ignored what I'd written beforehand, and ignored my questions.

By "argument", I don't mean "fight". I mean "a series of statements which lead logically to a conclusion". Your "argument" is flawed in ways I personally think are obvious.

[Firestarter]

Maybe the reason no one does this is because it does not make sense to do it.

By "argument", I don't mean "fight". I mean "a series of statements which lead logically to a conclusion". Your "argument" is flawed in ways I personally think are obvious.

Maybe, but if it hasn't been tested before.. you know how it goes..

I know what you meant by argument, but a better word would be debate.

In fairness, I'd like to hear the rest of the players thoughts regarding this.
And its the obvious nature I want to get away from with the method I proposed..

[Yosarian2]

Im also more inclined to believe that more townies will be lynched if we opt to elect them to Mayorship. This is of course, assuming they are Town.

Only if we're dumb and let paranoia rather then sense dictate our actions.

There is absolutly no reason we should assume that a mayor making a bad vote is any more scummy then anyone else making that same vote would be; we need to evaluate the mayor just like we'd evaluate anyone else.

[Shinnen_no_Me]

Hmmm... Let me say a my opinion on this four-man fight. I really don't agree with giving scum the mayorship, because it is, as other has said, give more power to the scum. Let's say we elect a scum mayor. First day, townie mislynch. Second day, the mayor bus one of his partners, the most scummiest of all, and lynches him. So far, one mislynch, one good lynch. Average. Next day, the mayor mislynches again. With the excuse that he lynched a scumbag, it's possible that he retains his role for yet another day, when he commits the last mislynch. Too many townie deaths. Not good. It's true that giving the mayorship to a pro-town player would probably make us lose such player, but at least I think he or she would do better than an anti-town one.

But, I don't believe Firestarter is scum for giving this plan. He had his reasons, which can be partially true, but in the end it's better to elect a pro-town player.

Regarding X's claim issue:

Submitting for the record some Xtoxm meta:

He was town and claimed mafia.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 951#858951

He was scum and claimed mafia

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 475#980475

He was scum and claimed scum

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 53#1067853

He claimed mason relatively early w/ a preplanned gambit (see second link)

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=212
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=215

This was a shoot-style game...I replaced out and don't remember the exact context but I remember he claimed something different about his gun early...he was SK

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10997


So, this is why I say he likes to gambit and he likes to claim. I think I am forgetting one but can't recall the game. Maybe the UPick in marathon that never gained traction?

My guess is he wanted to be lynched for some reason. I don't know what that reason is though? That is where I am not experienced enough to judge.

Taking into account that meta, I agree with you that X is probably trying to get lynched. I say (yet once again) that we bury this matter and let that, hopefully, N1 will solve this problem.

Oh, and finally, I liked the two candidates for mayor idea. So, here are mine:

Elect: Shadow Knight and The Fonz

(I know that Fonz doesn't want, but well, I still thinks he's very pro-town)

[Barrylocke]

What mainly concerns me about Firestarter's proposal is how to decide to lynch the scummy mayor when they are found to be suspicious.

The whole point of this idea is keep an eye out for potential scum, and if the potential scum IS scum, hoping that we can either catch them and lynch them, or force them to play more pro-townie that they originally wanted to.

When it comes to lynching the scummy mayor, I see one of two things happening: either it'll be done based on little information gathered, which could result in a mislynch, or waiting to gather more from their final votes and day actions, which, if they ARE scum, leaves the scum in power for longer.

Since the mayor was voted on for scummyness, I also see there being some negative bias to their thoughts, which isn't that great if the player isn't scum after all. Of course, this can happen mayor or not, and many people would say that it means the player needs to learn to play better, and its not the town's fault.

I agree with Shinnon that I dont think Firestarter is actually scum, and I think he really is looking at this an alternative way. But I also agree with shinon, Yosa, etc. That this probably isn't the way to go.

[The Fonz]

OK, I'm going to post my thoughts up until the end of p11, because this is turning into an unreadable WoT, and I hate those.

___________________________

Fonz answers Shinnen on the previous game all 3 of us were involved in, War in Heaven II...
He says that he was not the leading aggressive townie, and this was true.
But the aggresion used early on was too much to contain late on in the game, and as a result, town lynched town after town after town. And The Fonz was one of the main contributers of Over-Aggression in that game. Over-aggression throughout a game is not good imo. Blame WILL be afforded to an over-aggressive townie, and a mis-lynch will more than likely ensue.

Check again, FS. I hurt four players. One was mafia, one was SK, and one was a punishment for hurting without any backing. Oh, and the other we had a majority in favour of killing. In fact, I should have been more aggressive. It just so happened that the player most inclined to defying the town was also doing double damage, and the worst scumhunter.

I would like to hear peoples thoughts on this please. Possible Pros & Cons.

My thought is this. Alignment is a complete red herring. We want to elect someone, whom the extra vote will make easier to read. Whether that's a town read or a scum read is secondary.

I think we should elect a mayor based on everyone putting up 2 candidates.

Why? Don't we already have a system for electing a Mayor? What is the advantage of everyone fake voting for two people instead of people just actually voting for the person they think should be Mayor?

Use of the dual vote system forces people to show a preference for an alternative to self-voting, for a start.

Except that self-voting is extremely scummy, deprives the town of information, and no one should be doing it at all.

Uh, ANYONE who is town and not a mason or role with a night action should want to be nightkilled. Duh.

Wat.
I think what you're assuming is that his only power is unlynchable.

Well, YES, of course I'm assuming that. An unlynchable power role is over-powered. Not only that, but the last thing in the world an unlynchable power role should do is claim.

If that's the case, then I agree somewhat - him being NKed is better than a powerrole getting NKed. That said, saying that a vanilla townie should wish for death is ridiculous. A vanilla townie can be so much more beneficial to the town (in the long run) than a powerrole, given the right play and the right player. One townie can be better than another. And so on.

A vanilla townie absolutely should want to be nightkilled. The scum nightkill the player whose continued participation threatens their win condition most. Every town player should want to be the guy who is the biggest threat to scum.

I think you're trying to make some sort of general rule which doesn't exist, while confusing the hell out of me and making me look scummy.

This confuses me.

I don't like how you just dropped 'mason' in there, either.

Please explain why. Do you disagree that a mason has rational reasons for wanting to avoid the NK?

This looks like I'm defending Xtomx, which is really not where I want to be. I just think that the claim had to come out, and I'm glad it came out now, and we should be looking at his playstyle rather than policy lynching him based on his claim.

I suggest you start contributing. You'll get my vote in 48 hours if you don't start scumhunting and analysing like a motherfucker.

I have an irresistable urge to lynch you right now.

The way you quoted my post made it sound like that comment was directed at you; it wasn't. I think that dropping a claim like that and then lurking throughout the rest of the day is scummy.

Uh, no it doesn't make it sound like that at all. It makes it sound like BM thinks your comment is scummy. And I agree.

Firstly, the quoted paragraphs have stuff in between, and no indication of that was made. That's why I thought it could be mistaken to be directed at BM.

And it looked fairly obvious to me that BM wasn't mistaken. But that's really irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Secondly, my comments have been echoed by other players. Examples:

You know, I'm getting tired of WIFOMing Xtoxm's stuff back and fourth here with absolutely no input from him.

Let's let him come back and answer some of the questions about him, explain his role in a little more detail, ect. If he dosn't do so in the next few days, I'll probably vote him just for lurking at this point.

How is this 'echoing' you? It's not remotely similar. But, in any case, you appear to be labouring under the impression that what I think is scummy is the idea that Xtoxm shouldn't be lynched. It clearly isn't.

So, Fonz, do you think Yosarian is as scummy as me for making his statement? How about the others I quoted? If not, why not?

Nope. Because your post was scummy and his wasn't.

True, the doublevote could be an incentive for a newbie to participate more than they normally would. However, an experienced player like Fonz or BM is more likely to use the double vote wisely. I'd rather have a town double-voter that participates as much as they normally would than a scum double-voter that participates rather than lurks (lurking being a scumtell).

You're missing the point of why lurking is scummy. Because it makes it harder to get a read on you, and getting a read on players is how scumhunting works. If a player who would otherwise lurk does not because they are mayor, that's one more read. Remember, a lurking scum has no buddies.

Yeah; Firestarters "let's try to give a scum a double vote" plan is just a terrible idea.

Well, I don't think we should deliberately target someone scummy. But i think the risk of a scum mayor early on is overstated.

I’ve seen that some people want a mayor that is experienced, active and pro town but have also seen some say they want a newer player who is pro town, active and will step up more than they usually would if given the position. I was wondering which one you all like better and why? I am more behind the idea of an experienced player as I think they will handle the pressure better and make the right decisions, though it really depends on the player themself.

The fact that the experienced players 'will handle the pressure better' is an argument against it. You get better info on players by taking them out of their comfort zones.

If we elect a townie who's acting scummy or erratic, we'll effectively have killed two townies if the scummy mayor makes even a minor slip with regards to a lynch or another player. It's pretty much a flip of the coin.

This post seems symptomatic of a wider paranoia- 'What if we elect a town mayor and they attack townies?' which may be the least desirable consequence of WiH- the loss of faith in scumhunting as a town tell, and the opposite as a scumtell.

Look, it's the same as ever. Look for sincerity.

If this option of electing Mayor is to be used, then the incoming Mayor must agree to to Towns will, and choose the next voted player in as Mayor.
Of course, any deviation from this by the outgoing Mayor has consequences.

Explain how these consequences work. So an NKed mayor chooses a new mayor against the will of the town. How are you going to hurt him? He's already dead town. Why would you hurt the new mayor, when he's got nowt to do with the decision?

It's WIFOM, Fire. That's what bothers me. For example, many think that I have an anti-town playstyle. If by your theory, you make me mayor because of it, and I mistakenly contribute to a subsequent mislynch, I would be under more suspicion than any of the other players on the wagon.

People suspecting you because you're antitown has nothing to do with you being mayor, and a lot to do with you being antitown. Also, that's a good reason why you have little chance of being elected.

Not to mention that mayorizing the scummiest player makes them act more protown and makes it harder for us to decide whether he's scum trying to fit in with his new role or just a wishy washy confused townie. Overall, I think we should just do the normal mayor electing method of pro-towniness.

If scum act protown, then they're acting against their interests. That's fine by me.

It's why DGB-style crying bus at every opportunity is stupid. It just means scum don't bus. And that's a worse scenario for the town.

BTW, for everyone else...

Has this method been used before in a Kingmaker type set-up?
The "Vote scummy players in as King/Mayor first" method...
I'd like to see how it panned out if it was.

The problem with comparing this to KM, is... the King has 100% responsibility for a lynch. The king's reign ends at the end of every day. Here, we have a somewhat more influential than normal player, who holds the role unto death.

Then what if a town mayor accidentally chooses scum? Then the scum has a free pass for a while.

Why would it mean a free pass? We're not going to ignore the mayor. All that says is that choosing 'pro-town looking' players is fallible because the town is uninformed.

Your posts have a wring of 'we shouldn't do anything because we might be WRONG' about them.

Nope. If one of their own is elected mayor, then they can gain townie points by bussing them. The bussing would be more effective, and harder to confirm as bussing, because of the pedestal placed underneath the mayor.

BUT SCUM WOULD BE DEAD!

Your thought process seems to be this:

Well, if we elect a town mayor, and he's wrong a couple of times, he's likely to be lynched.
If we elect a scum mayor, he will use his influence to get townies lynched, and we won't lynch him because he's the mayor.
If we elect a scum mayor, he will bus, and this will be bad because he'll be basically confirmed.

Zwet, this isn't Kingmaker. Every wagon will have half the players on it, even with the double vote.

[The Fonz]

The whole thing is just a bad, bad idea. The obvious stratagy of "We give the mayorship to someone who looks really, really townie, and try to keep it out of the hands of the scum" just seems much, much better, from every point of view.

Except that 'looking townie' when no-one has been lynched yet just leads you to give it to someone fairly reasonable sounding, leading to the RTP. Let's face it, scum are going to get it at some point. Rather than agonising infinitely over whether someone's scum, let's look at how they are likely to use it, and how much them being mayor might help us read 'em.

You both do not understand where Im coming from, thats fine.
If the rest of Town see the same picture, thats also fine.

VOTE 4 LYNCH: Dingoatemybaby

Enough info for me.
Nice coat-tailing Zwet...

I understand your argument. Your argument is wrong. I expect scum to make understandable, incorrect, arguments.

And your OMGUS vote is, well, just OMGUS.

Well, you look scummy from a 'voting for game theory disagreement' perspective. But the countervote does look weak.

[Yosarian2]

The whole thing is just a bad, bad idea. The obvious stratagy of "We give the mayorship to someone who looks really, really townie, and try to keep it out of the hands of the scum" just seems much, much better, from every point of view.

Except that 'looking townie' when no-one has been lynched yet just leads you to give it to someone fairly reasonable sounding, leading to the RTP. Let's face it, scum are going to get it at some point.

(shrug) That's ok, though. I think we get the best information when we try as hard as we can to try to give it to someone who's town; then, if we fail and give it to a scum anyway, the whole wagon and all the people who argued that person looked town and why they did should be very interesting.

Besides...I donno, I often get a town read on someone day 1, and it's usually pretty accurate. Not always, of course, but I bet we can do better then random, unless the scum try to really push hard to elect on of their own, and if they do that could give us information later.

Rather than agonising infinitely over whether someone's scum, let's look at how they are likely to use it, and how much them being mayor might help us read 'em.

I still don't think that someone being mayor will make them easier to read...it might put a little more focus on them, but that's about it. I'd think the mayor would still vote just like anyone else does, would still react the same way anyone else does.

[The Fonz]

Yos, can I ask you this... would you LIKE to be mayor?

[Yosarian2]

Yos, can I ask you this... would you LIKE to be mayor?

(shrug) I'd vote myself, just on the general "I know I'm town" principle, but of course if we all do that we get nowhere.

That being said; meh, I wouldn't mind being mayor, but it dosn't really matter. I don't expect it would affect my play much.

[The Fonz]

Hehe. I don't want you to be, because it would send my usually-high level of Yos-related paranoia and second guessing myself through the roof if you were mayor.

Anyway, can we get back to electing SK?

[Firestarter]

Explain how these consequences work. So an NKed mayor chooses a new mayor against the will of the town. How are you going to hurt him? He's already dead town. Why would you hurt the new mayor, when he's got nowt to do with the decision?

In the instance in your quote, Town should not hurt the incoming Mayor based on the outgoing lynched townies deviation from towns will.
But if the outgoing Mayor chooses someone else, that in itself will be more info based on the flip.

A town flip will more than likely make the deviation.. an "in the interest of town" based choice, and the incoming Mayor should only be answerable to past posts, cases built on them prior to being elected. Ive stated this several times in my previous posts.

The consequences part comes into play if the outgoing Mayor's flip is scum and deviates from towns will in choosing the incoming Mayor.

On one hand, we'll have the WIFOM such an action will create...
But on the other hand, We'll have lynched scum...

[zwetschenwasser]

Fire, FYI, Yos's post was pretty much an expansion on everything I was saying.

Fonz, this is my thought process:
Well, if we elect a town mayor, and he's wrong a couple of times, he's likely to be lynched quicker than if any other town person is wrong a couple of times.
If we elect a scum mayor, he will use his influence to get townies lynched, and we'll either let him live longer than other players, or kill him quicker because of scum bussing him more effectively.
If we elect a scum mayor, he will be bussed, and this will be bad because his scumbuddies will be basically confirmed.

[Firestarter]

If we elect a scum mayor, he will be bussed, and this will be bad because his scumbuddies will be basically confirmed.

I understand that this can happen.

Why do you think it wont happen if we elect a Pro-town player that just so happens to be scum?

Its unfair to say this can only happen with the method I proposed only.

[zwetschenwasser]

But it's less likely to happen until later in the game, as the town won't be as inclined to attack a pro-town mayor than a scum mayor. Yes, his partners can bus, but the town will kill the partners, and once they find out that both of them were scum, we'll have a confirmed bussing case and kill the mayor and win the game! Yay!

[Firestarter]

But it's less likely to happen until later in the game, as the town won't be as inclined to attack a pro-town mayor than a scum mayor. Yes, his partners can bus, but the town will kill the partners, and once they find out that both of them were scum, we'll have a confirmed bussing case and kill the mayor and win the game! Yay!

So installing a pro-town player as Mayor gives him a free pass???
WTF.
If the said pro-town player, being pro-townish prior to being elected, starts being scummy in their reign, they are less inclined to being attacked?

I dont think so..
Mayorship or not, scummy play/being anti-town deserves to be attacked.

[Yosarian2]

Firestarter: If we can please get away from theory discussion for a bit, I'd still like you to answer this question.

VOTE 4 LYNCH: Dingoatemybaby
Enough info for me.

Why?

[zwetschenwasser]

It gives him more of a free pass than anyone else in the game if he's elected on the grounds that he's the most pro-town. This happens in any normal game, e.g. cops don't usually investigate whoever they find is most beneficial to the town.

[Firestarter]

But it's less likely to happen until later in the game, as the town won't be as inclined to attack a pro-town mayor than a scum mayor. Yes, his partners can bus, but the town will kill the partners, and once they find out that both of them were scum, we'll have a confirmed bussing case and kill the mayor and win the game! Yay!

My method for electing scum is most potent the earlier its adopted.
The simple reason is the number of players in the game.
It will be much harder for scum to contrive a mislynch if one of their own is holding Mayorship, Im convinced of this.

But now you seem to be agreeing with me with this last post.

You've argued about bussing etc, etc, with my method, and Ive stated that it will more than likely happen later in the game if scum get into "office".
Now you say the same thing???

I urge you to read this method again, read all of the posts Ive made in relation to this, and take some notes.

You keep threading on old ground, concerns/questions that have already been answered.
You seem to be trying your best to put obstacles in the way of this method.
Im all for valid concerns being raised, and some have brought such up.
You however, are stalling, trying to discredit it at any opportunity.

You seem to be parroting what others are saying, and not actually reading whats been written.

UNVOTE FOR LYNCH
VOTE FOR LYNCH: zwetschenwasser

I think you are a much better candidate for lynching.