Kitaman's thoughts on using our knowledge of our role-receivers is smart. The responsibility should lie with each individual role-creator, at first. Bear in mind that once a few of us have died, this becomes less reliable ( a guy may be alive and his role-creator could be dead) but it is nonetheless an excellent idea.

Blazinghand

United States25557 Posts

February 13 2013 00:32 GMT

#222

I've already signaled my role-reciever that I'm his role-creator, if he's smart enough to pick up on it. If he's not, well, that's pretty typical of him. But it's okay.

Blazinghand

United States25557 Posts

February 13 2013 00:33 GMT

#224

I can't really pass up an opportunity to insult someone who is utterly defenseless and unable to retort.

Blazinghand

United States25557 Posts

February 13 2013 00:37 GMT

#226

always

Blazinghand

United States25557 Posts

February 13 2013 00:59 GMT

#232

you can find the voting thread here.

Blazinghand

United States25557 Posts

February 13 2013 03:03 GMT

#251

On February 13 2013 11:12 Oatsmaster wrote:

Show nested quote +

why would you want to do that?

nice try

Blazinghand

United States25557 Posts

February 13 2013 03:04 GMT

#252

On February 13 2013 12:01 Oatsmaster wrote:
Well, I dont think mayor is necessarily good because its not worth the risk IMO.
If we vote in scum, We will defiantly not get a scum lynch tomorrow, and also, it basically kills discussion.

your reasons are bad

you are scum

##unvote
##vote Oatsmaster

Blazinghand

United States25557 Posts

February 13 2013 03:20 GMT

#260

On February 13 2013 12:05 Oatsmaster wrote:
And we are gonna get trolly BH this game.
Thats totally great. And awesome.

the idea that the reason we should choose instant majority over mayoral based on the "risk of electing scum" is preposterous, as is the idea that mayoral would kill discussion. You posted something that appeared townie and "part of the herd" but was nothing but smoke and mirrors. These conclusions are not conclusions a townie would come to. there is no trolling happening here. simply put: you are scum.

Blazinghand

United States25557 Posts

February 13 2013 03:20 GMT

#261

On February 13 2013 12:16 gonzaw wrote:
Well basically (from what I remember in other games) nobody votes at all and keep discussing stuff until they have the balls to lynch someone, just so they don't hammer too soon.

and from what I remember from hosting plenty of instant majority lynch games, this scenario works out really well for town and really poorly for scum

Blazinghand

United States25557 Posts

February 13 2013 03:25 GMT

#263

I'm not saying mayoral lynch is better. I'm saying that the reasoning you gave for instant majority being better (and note, instant majority is in fact better), is fallacious and springs from a scum mindset. The issue isn't that you disagree with me, but rather, that your agreeing with me is done in a scummy way.

Blazinghand

United States25557 Posts

February 13 2013 03:25 GMT

#264

Also, the fact that you haven't taken a moment to read my filter and realize my own reasoning for instant majority lynch is not helping your case in the slightest.

Blazinghand

United States25557 Posts

February 13 2013 03:28 GMT

#266

zZz

Blazinghand

United States25557 Posts

February 13 2013 03:29 GMT

#268

Nice try moving goalposts mr oats

unless you have something more to say I think my case stands for itself

Blazinghand

United States25557 Posts

February 13 2013 03:40 GMT

#276

On February 13 2013 12:33 jcarlsoniv wrote:

Show nested quote +

I don't really...see a case?

His reasoning isn't necessarily bad, it just differs from yours.

Look, think about your thought process as a townie when you evaluated the three options. You probably rejected the Secret Ballot out of hand barring some weird circumstances because it takes information away from town, then you thought about Mayoral and Instant Majority. Thinking about the strengths and drawbacks of both, you'd note that Mayoral elections produce a different kind of discussion than lynch votes (not necessarily better or worse) and the actual vote itself tends to be about who says they'll use the lynch on whom and who you have a town-read on. Instant Majority sounds dangerous but actually buts the scum under a lot of pressure assuming nobody gets dumb and jumps the gun on the hammer.

But what you don't think about, and I'm certain nobody town aligned thinks about as a main reason not to use mayoral, is the possibility of making a scum player mayor. It's a risk of mayoral, but it's not the reason you wouldn't run it-- after all, if what the mayor does is pick who gets lynched, picking a scum player to be mayor isn't a huge risk. We're not giving powers to the scumteam, and in fact, having a scum under that spotlight could be very helpful to town. From a townie perspective, which any townie will have, you probably want instant majority because it's simple and lets you lynch someone. You want your vote to do something and you want to put pressure on the scum. You don't reject mayoral because a scum might get elected-- this might actually be the best outcome short of a townie get elected and lynching scum. You reject mayoral because instant majority is better and gives you more power to hunt scum.

Oats came into this giving reasoning that comes from a mindset not of townie scumhunting, but of scum shirking responsibility and blending in, and thinking fearfully.

I thought this was pretty obvious, guys