Pretty sure D1 is instant majority too, but we only have 48hrs to decide on a lynch as opposed to the open-ended limit of subsequent days.

Lazer can I clarify a couple of things about your policy post?

1) 24 hours from when? Someone giving intent to hammer? I'm not sure what this limit is designed to accomplish, given your second point.
2) This is basically stating the obvious. Are you going to find anyone who hammers instantly scummy?

VisceraEyes

United States21170 Posts

April 01 2013 22:30 GMT

#107

Okay, but policy-lynching them? That seems a little over-the-top in a 9 player game. Policy-lynching anyone in a 9 player game just seems like a bad idea. It's certainly something to factor in, but not killing someone over. In my experience, townies are more likely to lolhammer than scum are. Scum are generally much more careful in how they vote and if they hammer someone are much more likely to explain why thoroughly.

I don't support your policy.

VisceraEyes

United States21170 Posts

April 01 2013 23:27 GMT

#114

On April 02 2013 07:36 Lazermonkey wrote:

Show nested quote +

My problem is this: if we don't establish a HARD policy then we might end up in a really hairy situation where someone hammers a guy in a completely retarded way, and everyone will start defending him using the argument "but scum wouldn't be THAT dumb and suspicious". If everyone simply agrees with the policy then we will avoid stuff like that.

I still don't support your policy. For my part I don't intend to defend anyone who hammers using that logic. Hammering without explanation is a scummy move no matter who does it, especially considering the silencing effect it has on the town - but I will not agree with making it policy to lynch someone for hammering someone else. That just smacks of trying to make town afraid to be decisive, and I'll have no part of it.

VisceraEyes

United States21170 Posts

April 01 2013 23:37 GMT

#118

I would much rather not make it a policy and let scum try and hammer "like a retard" or whatever. It's going to be horrifically suspicious if anyone does it regardless of whether you make it a "policy" to lynch them or not.

VisceraEyes

United States21170 Posts

April 01 2013 23:57 GMT

#125

I'm not even spamming wtf?

VisceraEyes

United States21170 Posts

April 02 2013 00:16 GMT

#128

On April 02 2013 09:10 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:

Show nested quote +

Not yet but I'm sure it will happen. Just taking precautions.

I hate you so much. Like it could be argued that your style of play (popping in once a cycle to provide reads and fucking off the rest of the time) is IMPOSSIBLE without people like me actively engaging others to PUT the information you use IN the thread in the first place.

But whatever if you want to policy lynch me for being me, go right ahead. I'm confident that others in town will disagree with your limited view of my play.

VisceraEyes

United States21170 Posts

April 02 2013 00:20 GMT

#131

On April 02 2013 09:19 risk.nuke wrote:
Think RoL just set of the old kenpachi trap.

Elaborate. There are so many "rules" and "traps" that I can't keep them all straight.

VisceraEyes

United States21170 Posts

April 02 2013 00:33 GMT

#133

On April 02 2013 09:25 risk.nuke wrote:

Show nested quote +

The legend goes...+ Show Spoiler +

Kenpachi claims vanilla townie and the first person to contest it is mafia.

Ah I see. So does this make RoL scum to you?

VisceraEyes

United States21170 Posts

April 02 2013 00:45 GMT

#135

I'm not assuming people think I'm indispensable I'm assuming people will realize that your policy is garbage when I DON'T flood the game to unreadability and AM still forthcoming with meaningful contributions to the thread.

VisceraEyes

United States21170 Posts

April 02 2013 00:47 GMT

#137

On April 02 2013 09:45 risk.nuke wrote:
VE, RoL. If you're going to tunnel-bitch-argue in the thread atleast argue about something remotely relevant.

If you're going to criticize me for anything, you should answer questions posed of you first. Do you think RoL is scum for "contesting" my "claim" a la Kenpachi Rule?

VisceraEyes

United States21170 Posts

April 02 2013 01:15 GMT

#141

I had a similar thought regarding risk.nuke. Why bring up the Kenpachi Rule at all if he had no intention of following it? My thoughts brought me to "He's scummy". He's either:

1) Scum trying to incriminate RoL innocuously by "joking" about Kenpachi Rule.
2) Town trying to trap someone into agreeing with his assessment and voting RoL.

I ruled out 2 by asking him if he thought RoL was scum because of it, and he doesn't, which leaves 1).

##Vote: risk.nuke

Conversely I'm very null on RoL. Abhorring my play-style is very NOT alignment indicative for that guy.

VisceraEyes

United States21170 Posts

April 02 2013 01:43 GMT

#145

Can you point out where I've been talking about "the dangers of voting"? I'm pretty sure all I've talked about was how Lazer's and RoL's policies were retarded and unfair respectively.