|
Post by Yaw on Mar 6, 2004 18:09:01 GMT -5
Wait a second. Look at that stats list again. The statistics you are quoting are for a game with one mafia member. We have (according to the first post) three of them. So the statistics aren't relevant to our situation.
FOS: pieisgood for crap logic.
|
|
|
Post by ck on Mar 6, 2004 21:14:25 GMT -5
votes so far: Muddog [1] (Kalena Pieisgood [2] (arutha) (dingleberry12286) r8thir [1] (nonbeliever) Yaw [1] (hilly) dingleberry12286 [1] (yaw)
No lynch [1] (pieisgood)
arg i think those stats are correct so far and if i am wrong please correct me.
|
|
Kalena
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 115
|
Post by Kalena on Mar 6, 2004 21:57:08 GMT -5
I unvoted Muddog, ck.
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Mar 6, 2004 22:21:08 GMT -5
Yes muddog was not a school again so i believe he is sick. UNVOTE: r8thir PIeisgood i don't think there is any point refering to another game, leave it in the past why don't you.
And i agree that a no lynch is not a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Mar 6, 2004 23:33:30 GMT -5
*sorry, there was a power outage here and so I couldn't respond*
Alright. unvote: no lynch, although I still think it's a good idea. The point is, if we no lynch now then we still get the same number of lynches to hit scum, but each round we have a "confirmed innocent" (AKA dead).
but if the you guys don't agree....
-pie
|
|
|
Post by Arutha on Mar 7, 2004 0:27:18 GMT -5
Unvote Pieisgood Vote Yaw Crap logic isnt a good enough reason to fos someone, you saw that with me... ok bad example, and yaw has always been supsious when he has fos'ed for crap logic (theres my crap logic for the day)
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Mar 7, 2004 3:38:20 GMT -5
I agree we get the same number of lynches to hit scum. But we have the chance to take initiative here, and I think we should take it. pieisgood But what possible use is a dead confirmed innocent? If we could get live ones, at least we could narrow down the possibilities. Once a player is dead, though, they're dead. And Arutha? When I FOS'ed you in the last game, you were scum. (Although, admittedly, I was too.) That might just have been the crappiest crap logic to ever crap.
|
|
Kalena
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 115
|
Post by Kalena on Mar 7, 2004 7:47:30 GMT -5
Lol! It seems everyone is coming up with crappy logic. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Arutha on Mar 7, 2004 7:59:49 GMT -5
yea, so my crap logic is right as far as i can remember, when you HAVE fosed someone for logic you were mafia.. although admitidly so was your target
|
|
|
Post by ck on Mar 7, 2004 10:50:33 GMT -5
votes so far: Pieisgood [1] (dingleberry12286) Yaw [2] (hilly) (arutha) dingleberry12286 [1] (yaw) arg i really hope these votes are right?
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Mar 7, 2004 11:27:26 GMT -5
Yaw-- think of it this way.
if there is 3 scum among 10 people, then there are 3 scum 7 pro-town roles.
...meaning that we only have 2 lynches to hit scum before we lose. Today, we have 10 people to choose from. Tommorrow, we have 8 people to choose from and then the game is over (ignoing a doctor save). If we vote no lynch, we STILL have 2 lynches to hit scum, the first time we only have to choose from 9 people, the second time we only have to choose from 7. All previous logic still applies, it just narrows down our options for the same tries at it. The "Logic" is unaffected.
It doesn't matter how many scum there actually are, Yaw. The point is, it's more favorable for the town to have an odd number of people during the day.
FOS: Yaw for accusing me without reading the point I was trying to make.
-pie
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Mar 7, 2004 14:16:06 GMT -5
Hm, you do have a point. I probably shouldn't be making arguments early in the morning just after getting home from drinking... I still like a lynch because it means we get the first choice of who to kill, instead of the scum having a free shot at a good player. You do have a point, though. How about we carry out this day normally, but go no lynch if we determine that we need the kind of information a night kill can give us? (Or, if we get to a deadline and really don't have any ideas about who to lynch.)
|
|
|
Post by pieisgood on Mar 7, 2004 16:11:04 GMT -5
okay. I say we unvote everybody, start up discussion about who we think is scummy, then after awhile the suspicions that come out should put a night-kill to our advantage.
Something about this strikes me as funny that we're cruely forcing the mafia to kill us. You HAVE to kill me! Take that, scum!
-pie
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Mar 7, 2004 16:29:29 GMT -5
Well first of all there is already a bandwagon on Yaw and i think that should be removed, because if one more person votes for him then the mafia is open to get him killed.
|
|
|
Post by Yaw on Mar 7, 2004 17:09:40 GMT -5
pieisgood Whoa. We have nothing to go on now. First of all, we need all the players here. Second, we need to pressure people to find the scum. The only tool we have to find them is our votes. If we all unvote and just start talking based on the info we have now, we may as well talk about the weather for all the good that will do. (Currently snowing, if you must know. ) The suspicions that come out should help us determine who to lynch. I still see a no lynch as a last resort, and I expect us to at least put enough effort into today to establish some good leads before resorting to a no lynch. But the scum want to kill us. As amusing as this idea is, I'm not willing to bet on the mafia killing according to our expectations. That's part of what makes no lynching dangerous -- we're giving the scum a free shot to screw with our analysis. And I see the mini-wagon, nonbeliever. But a random vote and an OMGUS from the last game don't strike me as being much of anything. I'm trying to help the town find scum, and I trust that's showing. On the other hand, I'm wondering why some people around here are so wary of bandwagons. They're a necessary part of this game. Your point about three votes on someone being dangerous, nonbeliever, also assumes that the mafia isn't already voting for me. That's a possibility that has to be considered.
|
|