Yeah, okay, so, sorry to everybody about me being such a huge spoilsport.
Checking over the thread, I have realised that DK escaped answering a, which is disappointing. The whole point of it was to do it with minimal discussion though, and with chk's huge rant, getting an answer from DK now would be useless. So, thanks for that, chk.
Got a few more questions for specific people.
Only the people I am asking should answer.
@ jilynne - What makes you think Quilford not confirming is null?
@ chk - You're clearly very suspicious of me, so why no vote?
@ DK:
DeityKabuto wrote:Hopster town credits drained
What did you mean by this?
@ moratorium:
Moratorium wrote:e. N (assuming we're thinking along the same lines)
What lines were you thinking along (
wait until jilynne has answered her question
, ta)?
chkflip wrote:So... still waiting on that.
On which bit exactly?
I never called for a Policy Lynch. DK was simply the first non-Hoppster non-Quilford wagon I saw.
Okay, hypo-doc'ing.
Basically, I believe we should go in a circle (as previously mentioned), with nobody being hypo-doc'd more than once, because it greatly narrows down the possibilities if only one person claims to hypo-doc each person.
Otherwise, 2 people hypo-doc 1 person. That person does not die. This tells us
nothing
, essentially. There are so many possibilities.
1 could be CPR, 1 could be quack.
1 could be a paranoid doc, 1 could be a normal doc.
1 could be a paranoid doc, 1 could be a naive doc.
1 could be a paranoid doc, 1 could be a weak doc.
1 could be a naive doc, 1 could be a normal doc.
1 could be a naive doc, 1 could be a weak doc.
1 could be normal doc, 1 could be quack.
1 could be a normal doc, 1 could be a weak doc.
1 could be nurse, 1 could be normal doc.
1 could be nurse, 1 could be naive doc.
1 could be nurse, 1 could be paranoid doc.
1 could be nurse, 1 could be weak doc.
Both could be scum who chose to NK somebody else.
One could be scum who chose to NK that person, the other could be a normal doc.
One could be scum who chose to NK that person, the other could be a paranoid doc.
One could be scum who chose to NK that person, the other could be a CPR doc.
One could be scum who chose to NK somebody else, the other could be a normal doc.
One could be scum who chose to NK somebody else, the other could be a naive doc.
One could be scum who chose to NK somebody else, the other could be a weak doc.
One could be scum who chose to NK somebody else, the other could be a paranoid doc.
One could be scum who chose to NK somebody else, the other could be a nurse.
There's probably more that I've missed. But you get the idea.
There are
probably
even more possibilities with 3 people hypo-doc'ing.
And then this leads onto the idea of just straight up claiming results post-flip. If Person X says he doc'd Person Y, and Person Y is still alive, all scum have to do is say they also doc'd Person Y. Because that opens up the multitude of possibilities as shown above.
I have mixed feelings on the nurse claiming. What chk said is true, I would expect the Nurse to die N1. However, this will be informative, because it will tell us more information about the person who ended up hypo-doc'ing the nurse and what sanity they could be.
It also prevents nasty lylo situations where somebody claims nurse. If the nurse is still alive, they CC. If it
is
the nurse, scum could CC. This puts us in a horrible 50/50, which I really want to avoid. Thus I think it better for nurse to claim now (scum are also less likely to CC now, I would expect, but if they do we catch one scum).
Reminder: Nurse should not claim yet while we're still discussing this.
So, plenty to discuss, everybody.
Benmage: First, for the sake of irony. I'm going to illustrate how completely idiotic and hypocritical scumhunter is.
I shall protect you!! 