Starting this post off by saying activity dropped quite a bit today it seems... huh.
Scripten: Fair enough on all accounts there, though I do think that its usually just a break the ice kind of question on the first point.
Vote Execute. Trying to get a no lynch on day 1 can only be bad for the town, and it's the most suspicious play I've seen so far.
Deus: Alright, this is odd to me. I think most of us can agree its just a newbie misconception to go for a no lynch. And when its already been resolved, theres REALLY no need to push a vote on them unless you have something else to back it up. And considering its both your only point, and a post lacking in any questions to further your hunting, I'd say this is a pretty weak push at best. What are you trying to accomplish here?
Comrade: Sorry, wanted to get that post out and it was getting late already. Didn't have time to organize.
masked_krusader:
But if there is a counterclaim it means that someone is definitely a liar.
Comrade: There is a very simple solution to counterclaims that makes it easy to figure out. Unless its MYLO or LYLO, then we just lynch one and if the counter claim was a false claim, we lynch the other and thereby lower the mafia numbers in the end. Of course this doesn't work very well AT MYLO and LYLO, but then its a different situation and would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Also, why no follow up question here? You seem to just be stating a single hole you've found but not adding a question with it. Any reason behind this?
Sleep was the primary factor involved. It was 00:14 where I am. I wanted to go to bed. I still can't think of any question I'd ask in regards to that.
What would be your favourite mafia role? Why?
In a BM, probably the role cop. If I get blocked, my partner could still the the kill through, and I tend to lean towards the investigation roles as they let me get more information for whichever side I am a part of.
Whats the biggest scum tell you can think of and why? (Besides the annoying answer of them admitting it.) Also, why all the prodding about RVS questions with Krusader? Seriously, I don't get it when things are still somewhat in that stage. What was so suspicious of his questions?
Alright, I will give you that though, that IS a lot of throwing things off as WIFOM.
It's not that you're asking hypothetical questions. It's just that you dismiss the answers as WIFOM. I find these questions are more to find out the person's thought process. What do they think is more important? Possibly offer insight into their gameplay style. It also helps you understand how others perceive things. Also these are hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions, what did you expect? Everything that is hypothetically asked is prone to WIFOM in my opinion. There is no test you can conduct for proof. A lot of the questions are based in an ideal situation which face is rarely if ever going to happen.
I don't exactly understand the emphasized sections. First, you accuse masked_krusader of claiming WIFOM as a defense, but then later in the same paragraph, you essentially say that WIFOM is an acceptable defense because any hypothetical answer can be classified as WIFOM. What's up with that, Comrade?
Scintillant: ...I don't see this. I see a re-affirmation of what he's saying, that you should answer the hypothetical questions with hypothetical answers and not dismiss them as getting into WIFOM with only half answers accompanying them. Why interpret it like this exactly?
And this?
I was planning on holding my vote on no lynch until I felt I had enough evidence to call scum with reasonable confidence
Or until near the end of the day, at which point I would vote for the person I thought scummiest.
Votes hold power, and pressure. Use it, don't hold it back until the end.
Unvote, Vote Scintillant. Where is this line of thinking coming from?