Now, back to the game:
Prox: I do think you are being waay too overeager. I'll
I'll reread, and post something more meaningful later (maybe tomorrow).
I'd like to amend this:zwetschenwasser wrote:I would like my partner to reveal him/herself if I am lynched/NKed and if and only if they got a guilty result on my investigation ofProx.
He is changing his vote a lot, which is odd. Though it doesn't necessarily suggest much. I also hope that nobody has stopped suspecting you. We should be suspecting everyone that isn't confirmed or ourselves.Also, Prox does seem overeager to vote on small reasons, and all of you are much too quick to stop suspecting me.
Let me get this straight. You will fakeclaim as a townie?If you bother to research my meta you'll notice that I fakeclaim a lot, with equal probability as scum as town.
I don't think that makes sense at all. Why split who the doc has to guess to protect? Explain this now please.Prox wrote:That's silly. It makes sense for the other half-cop to claim now that zwet has..
It's unnecessary and just gets someone killed in the end. Claiming later has the same results except that we don't need to risk zwet or his partner getting killed off early on.Prox wrote:That's silly. It makes sense for the other half-cop to claim now that zwet has. I'm being accused of rolefishing on this, but no one has told me why this opinion is wrong.
You votehopped quickly and for little reason other that shotty unvoted a little late (Even if it was a bit late to be looked at). This is a weak reason for now though because of how early it is.Prox wrote:How am I testing the waters to see who would make a good mislynch? I'm trying to evoke responses to get the game moving.
There's plenty of stuff out there and yet you're voting people for "tunneling" (Although I provided a valid responce) and for unvoting a tad too late.This just seems to be trying to find a mislynch people will jump on to me.Prox wrote:If my vote for someone has a weak reason, shouldn't I change it anyways? And how is it scummy to do so anyway? Isn't voting at a whim the same as voting for little reason?
I think he meant "Fakeclaim as scum".Kora wrote:Let me get this straight. You will fakeclaim as a townie?
Oh, So him giving information to scum makes him scum? Doesn't explain your "lynch the power" reaction.Korashk wrote: Unsolicited claims are pointless without justification, especially semi-power roles, all it does is give the Mafia more information. This is a bad thing.
I don't like this post. It feels panicky and is like he's trying real hard to justify himself in a "Hey, I'm doing normal stuff, right? right?" type of manner.Prox wrote:How am I testing the waters to see who would make a good mislynch? I'm trying to evoke responses to get the game moving.
If my vote for someone has a weak reason, shouldn't I change it anyways? And how is it scummy to do so anyway? Isn't voting at a whim thesameas voting for little reason?
Where I usually play most of the voting is not done with the intention of lynching. It is done to get those that act suspiciously to explain themselves. I call it pressure voting.Hrezs wrote:Oh, So him giving information to scum makes him scum? Doesn't explain your "lynch the power" reaction.Korashk wrote: Unsolicited claims are pointless without justification, especially semi-power roles, all it does is give the Mafia more information. This is a bad thing.
hmm, ok. I still find it suspect that you thought softclaiming was suspicious at all. You can ask people questions without voting for them.Korashk wrote:Where I usually play most of the voting is not done with the intention of lynching. It is done to get those that act suspiciously to explain themselves. I call it pressure voting.Hrezs wrote:Oh, So him giving information to scum makes him scum? Doesn't explain your "lynch the power" reaction.Korashk wrote: Unsolicited claims are pointless without justification, especially semi-power roles, all it does is give the Mafia more information. This is a bad thing.
I voted, he explained, the explanation was satisfactory for now.
This is also a very good point. With 1 claim there's no way you can accurately guess things like that without being scumKatsuki wrote:Are you also suggesting zwek's supposed partner to claim just because you think that there may not be a doc in this game? Dunno what would give you the impression of maybe no doc already.
Terrible, TERRIBLE reason. As others have already stated, even if someone says that they're zwet's partner, that doesn't make either of them confirmed. Also, we can't just assume there is no doc unless we have reason to.Prox wrote:I thought that the confirmation of 3 roles could help us achieve a more accurate lynch, and more likely that the announcement of the scan's target would also help the town without revealing the other half cop. I don't see the Doc as a surefire role in this game.
This is either VI town play or a scum slip. Having zwet's partner claim gives us absolutely no benefit, given the fact that it could simply be two scum fake claiming. TheProx wrote:I'm only trying to reason what we should do in this situation. If zwet announces his scan target, then at least the other guy will know the deal. That way, if zwet is killed, his scan doesn't beome worthless. If the other guy claims, we'll have 3 confirmed townies or 2 and a found scum. If we do nothing, there is little benefit unless one of the three is brought to L-1 today..