I think the jester thing would make sense as a role, actually. Normally being a jester is a ridiculously easy role, so Pandar adding in "You must tell one person that you're a jester every day" would be a good balancing factor. I don't think it'd be a good thing to falseclaim since Org, if there's a town killing role, Org will die tonight, and if Bayer were lying, he'd get lynched too. In other words, he'd be risking half of the scumteam for... what?
Imo, we should leave Org alone to see if he dies tonight (since there's very little chance of him being town).
Is this your own opinion? </confused>
Huh? I'm trying to work out Darvi's motivation since it seems inconsistent with what he's claimed it to be more recently.
In your opinion, is there a line between trying to prevent an Org-lynch and buddying Org? If so, where is it and when was it crossed?
My point there was actually that accusing scum of buddying other scum is a nonsense accusation, since buddying = being nice to a townie to get them on your side. There's defending, but that's got a different name and a different set of tells.
As for the line... I'm kindof weary of "buddying" accusations when it's someone who's about to be lynched that's supposedly being buddied. Buddying as I've seen it is usually more subtle and against players who
aren't pretty likely to die that die.
Other than Org, my main pick is SirBayer because
1. Org is his scumbuddy and he's trying to save him.
OR
2. Org is townie, and SirBayer is defending him so when he is lynched he looks more townie.
...Other than the bizarre logic, you seem to have only voted him after he was taken off L-1. Perhaps you don't want to be seen casting the hammer vote, eh?
@leafsnail: does the wine taste good? I voted org because he wasn't contributing (which is a scumtell, no matter how you put it) and to make him actually do something.
You have no basis for claiming that it was a policy vote.
It wasn't an accusation so much as a request for a clarification, but if you're gonna be like that I'll rephrase it.
You vote him telling him to stop being stupid. In other words, you vote him based on his idiocy - this would be a
policy vote (not necessarily a bad thing blah blah blah). If you thought he was scum, you wouldn't tell him to stop (someone can't stop being scum...), you'd bring forwards an accusation.
You later claim that you're voting him
because you think he's scum. I don't see how you could've had that intent looking at your initial vote, and what you've done since seems to be an attempt at retroactively changing what you did, since presumably you don't want to be seen voting based on policy.