Haschel Cedricson wrote:Lastly, I am going to
Vote: Fletcher
. I am tenetively sure that Nekka_Lucifer was pro-town. In Fletcher's post 150, I think he's trying to steer us into believing that Nekka-Lucifer was scum.
I was not trying to "steer" anybody. I think I made it obvious that I was stating my opinion about Nekka and was trying to gauge other's at the same time. Thus the statement "I think it would be very helpful for us to think about whether or not Nekka-Luicifer was scum." If you don't agree with my suspicions that's fine, but I feel as if this is purely because you disagree with me.
Haschel Cedricson wrote:I noticed that Fletcher has stated that he would "be fine with a no-lynch", and as an experienced player, he should know better. I also noted that he never actually voted No Lynch; I think that he's attempting to get others on the No Lynch bus without getting on it himself.
I always consider no lynch a possiblility, but in this case I think it could very much be helpful. Let's just pretend for a second that you agree with my suspicions on Nekka. Wouldn't
you
think it would be a valid idea to no lynch too? I think he has a good chance at being scum. A no lynch would confirm that. A confirmation is very nice because it lets us observe his actions and consider his connections to other players. If we don't no lynch we go a lynch without that possible knowledge.
I am not sure that Nekka was scum, so I am not just going to vote no lynch. I'm simply saying that it is a viable option if we run out of other ideas. Tell me you at least agree with that.
Haschel Cedricson wrote:Finally, he brings up the fact that he has had a long leave of absence from Mafia several times, and I think this may be to provide an excuse for sub-optimal play under the guise of rust.
I've never brought this up in defense of my actions. I've only done so whenever I didin't understand why another did or thought something they did.
A Papaya wrote:@No Lynch:
It's a stupid idea. Because if we don't lynch anyone at all today, we're going to be in the same spot as we were, minus players from nightkills. It's lose-lose.
FOS: Everyone who voted No Lynch
This is not true. On a normal Day 1, yes, but this day is very much different from a normal day because we lost Nekka. If we no lynch we still get the ifo about Nekka.
It's odd because I'm am certainly not an outspoken advocate of no-lynch normally, but I feel you guys are being blind to the pros of a perfectly legitimate play.
McStab wrote:Sorry for being so inactive, I just generally don't post much day one, there's only minor missteps by the scum and/or townies, suspicions and random votes. Day two is much more interesting, and you can catch scum alot better, because who they kill in the night and who is lynched day one helps determine who's scum. I try to stay out of Day 1 because to me it's just a chance for a townie to be lynched quickly by a minor misstep. Now if something large happens, such as someone does a major scum tell, then I can see voting there, but until there's some evidence involving who got killed/lynched, I'm not really too active. I check the thread, I just don't see much to say.
Although this is maddening as hell, I don't understand why it warrants a vote. Anyone care to explain?
Right now I am leaning away from Xdaamno and more to TCS. I feel like he hasn't really tried to figure out anything. He is just moving from one suspicious person to the next. None of his attacks are pressing, nor are they very well thought out. Is this his normal play?
For now
Unvote: Xdaamno
[size=75]"But you know what they say. 'Too much of a good thing is an awesome thing. But too much of an awesome thing is... umm... really, really dumb and bad.'"- Strong Bad[/size]