We wouldn't have time to lynch townies four times in a row. We'd be dead by then except we'd probably have used the daygame to take care of scum.
I like how you forgot that point.
Huh? This is exactly the point I was making. Under normal circumstances, we can't make 4 mistakes.
Look, let me spell it out to you numerically.
10 townies, 3 mafia is most likely (yes it could be some other number but my argument still stands for any amount of scum. And yes there could be lylo breakers or something but again my argument still stands. No matter how you change the scenario it's still the same and my plan is still better).
Let's say we follow your plan and don't kill. Let's charitably assume that all three killers are town (unlikely) so they won't try to break lylo as scum. That means we can lynch incorrectly 3 times before entering lylo (after the first time there'd be 8 town v 3 mafia, then 6 town v 3 mafia, then 4 town v 3 mafia which is lylo). So out of 6 shots, we'd have to get 3 right. In other words, we'd need to be 50% accurate to win.
Now let's say we kill 3 people either today or tomorrow, having voted as a town on who to kill. That means we'd be able to incorrectly pick up to 5 people while still only having to get 3 right (we get 4 shots today (or tomorrow if we don't have the time to pick the targets), then another tomorrow, then lylo). That means we only have to be right 37.5% of the time. In other words, we get more chances to be wrong. We as a town get a grand total of 8 shots in which to kill 3 mafia instead of 6.
The only counter argument you seem to be bringing to the table is repeating (without reasoning) your assertion that
The only reason I can think of to kill people is if the mafia are all confirmed mafia.
And this rather nonsensical "comparison":
In a supernatural mafia I watched, a similar deal to this went off near the end of the game. A deal with the devil ended in three people vanishing, a kill being used, and that made the SK win. They thought it could all work out and that killing everyone would inevitably kill all the threats. So they tried. And they failed. And even then that was end the endgame with considerably more information and with (I think) less resistance being put up to the plan.
As the devil in that game, I can see that you're horribly butchering the situation that went down there. The problem with the devil deal was that the town had the wrong targets in mind. If the town had just suspected Solifuge of being a demon and lynched him then they could well have won on the last day (afterall, the Devil Deal eradicated most of their false leads and the Vampire Lord).
Another difference between this and the devil deal is that this time the town can just choose, by votes, exactly who is going to die, wheras the Devil Deal killed off some random people. So this is like just having extra lynches, full stop. No cost.
The fact that you're trying to push a massacre N1 with plenty of reasoning against it makes me very suspicious of you Leafsnail.
You've provided no reasoning against it, just a "I DON'T WANT TO WASTE MY KILL" repeated again and again along with one completely invalid analogy, and you seem to have a double standard between lynches and kills that has gone completely unexplained. Also don't keep FoSing me, just vote me if you suspect me, although maybe you're just being logically consistent and proposing that we shouldn't lynch anyone unless they're absolutely 100% mafia (good luck with that).