mvnForum Homepage

Print at Jan 22, 2021 9:47:36 PM

Posted by Furare at May 26, 2012 3:09:07 PM
riku743 wrote: 
Your point would be valid if we weren't just talking about not lynching Day 1.

After last game, who knows how many no-lynches we're talking about. :P

But seriously, saying "we shouldn't lynch Day 1 because there's not enough information" is one thing (and meets with a completely different objection from me) but saying "we shouldn't lynch Day 1 because we might hit a roleholder" is another thing entirely. Because every time we vote for someone in a game like this, we could be pushing a roleholder closer to the gallows. I don't think the probability goes down as time goes on, particularly. And given that roled innocent = innocent with something to hide, the probability might even go up.

The whole thing just kinda smacks of "It's too dangerous to try to lynch rogues", really.

@Lyaka: I was reading "Gang" as just being what the rogues are called this game. I mean, it says the game can end with a town or a gang victory, which I think supports that interpretation.

Meh, anyway, I would make a real post but I'm tired so tomorrow will have to do.

Preview @Nalanthi: If town can't win a game without roleholders, it doesn't deserve to win games. Rogues always make mistakes. Always. I have never seen a game played where the rogues didn't slip up somewhere. I'm now remembering Riku saying last game that he doesn't like role games as much because there's the feeling that some innocents are worth more than others. I see what he means. Prioritising roleholders' safety over the one way we can actually win the game is kinda rubbish, to be honest. And there's actually a remarkable amount of info out there for Day 1. I don't think a vote placed now would necessarily be a random one at all.

And I didn't pick Smiley to vote, he (unwittingly) picked himself. Talking about voting abstain =/= voting abstain. And I'm not going after him. I have actually explained what I don't like about the attitude. It's not "I think you're suspicious", it's "I think you're wrong". I didn't call anyone on their intention to vote abstain without actually doing it because (a) other people had already talked about it and (b) I really don't think choosing to vote abstain or saying you probably will vote abstain or even saying that abstaining is the best or only idea on Day 1 is a suspicious circumstance. It's wrong, wrong, wrong and I hate it but it's not suspicious. I figured a vote on the first person to vote Abstain for realz, followed by an explanation of why I don't like the attitude at all, would be sufficient to press my point. Which despite the inevitably specific nature of my vote, is a general one.
Amonet on Obsidian. Dracina everywhere else.

Now only mostly retired.

Avatar by PokeMe.

Puzzle Pirates™ © 2001-2020 Grey Havens, LLC All Rights Reserved.   Terms · Privacy · Affiliates