Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pingpongsam]

Vote: witherweaver

I'll hammer the no lynch if needed.

[Witherweaver]

...

[faust]

Vote: witherweaver

I'll hammer the no lynch if needed.

Glad to see you come around

Still think the no lynch is safer.

[Witherweaver]

This is terrible.

[faust]

This is terrible.

No lynch?

Will you follow my plan if we no lynch?

[pingpongsam]

This is terrible.

If you are town then labeling an astute observation as scum hedging is terrible. If you're scum, well, that wasn't the brightest play, either.
Of either alignment, when you flip me town you likely get nailed next, again not so great. So, I agree, this is terrible depending on what exactly it is we are qualifying as "this".

[Witherweaver]

This is terrible.

No lynch?

Will you follow my plan if we no lynch?

The way the day going is terrible.  Voting for me or BA at all is terrible, and trying to convince people to do so is terrible.  It's only hurting us.

Yes, I'll use my ability and coordinate with Hydrad and BA.  I'm more or less operating under the assumption that Hydrad is town, though that could be somewhat dangerous.

I prefer not to no lynch, the large reason being that I don't trust you at all right now.  And I'm sure one of {You, PPS, Ash} is scum, so I want to lynch there.  And everyone else should, too.

[Witherweaver]

This is terrible.

If you are town then labeling an astute observation as scum hedging is terrible. If you're scum, well, that wasn't the brightest play, either.
Of either alignment, when you flip me town you likely get nailed next, again not so great. So, I agree, this is terrible depending on what exactly it is we are qualifying as "this".

It was not an astute observation, and it was very hedgey.

[pingpongsam]

The only people sure of anyone else's alignment are scum. People unsure of who is what alignment seem interested in no lynch. Certainty of alignment at this point is practically a scumtell.

[Witherweaver]

It's obvious scum hedging.  Laying out a sketchy reason that makes it seem justified to judge for us in the future (and, oh, hey! you did!), while adding enough uncertainty to absolve yourself of guilt when we flip town.

[Witherweaver]

The only people sure of anyone else's alignment are scum. People unsure of who is what alignment seem interested in no lynch. Certainty of alignment at this point is practically a scumtell.

Or, hey, when I get a message from Jimmm that says this dude is town, I believe it.

[Beyond Awesome]

NO LYNCH IS NOT HAPPENING!

I am certain that Ash or PPS is scum. We have 50/50 odds just between those two players. We are going to lynch there.

PPE: 3

[Witherweaver]

Fine, Vote: PPS

[pingpongsam]

This is terrible.

If you are town then labeling an astute observation as scum hedging is terrible. If you're scum, well, that wasn't the brightest play, either.
Of either alignment, when you flip me town you likely get nailed next, again not so great. So, I agree, this is terrible depending on what exactly it is we are qualifying as "this".

It was not an astute observation, and it was very hedgey.

It was quite an accurate assessment so yes, it was astute, whether you liked it or not. The fact is BA/WW were/are resistant to no lynch, both were/are not voting despite everyone else having a vote somewhere. That there might be a link is a worthwhile notion. By opening myself up to other possibilities than the limited few I had before I am doing the exact opposite of hedging.

[Witherweaver]

This is terrible.

If you are town then labeling an astute observation as scum hedging is terrible. If you're scum, well, that wasn't the brightest play, either.
Of either alignment, when you flip me town you likely get nailed next, again not so great. So, I agree, this is terrible depending on what exactly it is we are qualifying as "this".

It was not an astute observation, and it was very hedgey.

It was quite an accurate assessment so yes, it was astute, whether you liked it or not. The fact is BA/WW were/are resistant to no lynch, both were/are not voting despite everyone else having a vote somewhere. That there might be a link is a worthwhile notion. By opening myself up to other possibilities than the limited few I had before I am doing the exact opposite of hedging.

There is a link.  We're Masons. 

[pingpongsam]

Saying scum must be within 2 or 3 people is hedging. At least in my dictionary it is defined as conditionally limiting quantities.

That BA/WW are united in this adamantly is plain to see and demonizing me for saying it is just silly on its face.

[pingpongsam]

This is terrible.

If you are town then labeling an astute observation as scum hedging is terrible. If you're scum, well, that wasn't the brightest play, either.
Of either alignment, when you flip me town you likely get nailed next, again not so great. So, I agree, this is terrible depending on what exactly it is we are qualifying as "this".

It was not an astute observation, and it was very hedgey.

It was quite an accurate assessment so yes, it was astute, whether you liked it or not. The fact is BA/WW were/are resistant to no lynch, both were/are not voting despite everyone else having a vote somewhere. That there might be a link is a worthwhile notion. By opening myself up to other possibilities than the limited few I had before I am doing the exact opposite of hedging.

There is a link.  We're Masons.

Masons do not by default resort to the exact same ideas of who must be scum and how the end of the day must go down.

[Witherweaver]

Saying scum must be within 2 or 3 people is hedging. At least in my dictionary it is defined as conditionally limiting quantities.

That BA/WW are united in this adamantly is plain to see and demonizing me for saying it is just silly on its face.

There are three people whose claims are unverified.  Scum has an ability that no one has claimed.  A scum must therefore lie in this set of three people.

What is your problem with this rationale?

[faust]

NO LYNCH IS NOT HAPPENING!

I am certain that Ash or PPS is scum. We have 50/50 odds just between those two players. We are going to lynch there.

PPE: 3

And 100% are worse than 50%?

[Witherweaver]

Saying scum must be within 2 or 3 people is hedging. At least in my dictionary it is defined as conditionally limiting quantities.

That BA/WW are united in this adamantly is plain to see and demonizing me for saying it is just silly on its face.

Hedging means putting yourself in a position to benefit (or mitigate damage) regardless of some unknown outcome.  Here, you don't know if I'll get lynched, but you want yourself to be in a position that looks good whether or not I do.

[faust]

Saying scum must be within 2 or 3 people is hedging. At least in my dictionary it is defined as conditionally limiting quantities.

That BA/WW are united in this adamantly is plain to see and demonizing me for saying it is just silly on its face.

There are three people whose claims are unverified.  Scum has an ability that no one has claimed.  A scum must therefore lie in this set of three people.

What is your problem with this rationale?

We can confirm who it is tomorrow. What is your problem with that rationale? 1/3 is not good enough in a MyLo situation.

[Witherweaver]

Saying scum must be within 2 or 3 people is hedging. At least in my dictionary it is defined as conditionally limiting quantities.

That BA/WW are united in this adamantly is plain to see and demonizing me for saying it is just silly on its face.

There are three people whose claims are unverified.  Scum has an ability that no one has claimed.  A scum must therefore lie in this set of three people.

What is your problem with this rationale?

We can confirm who it is tomorrow. What is your problem with that rationale? 1/3 is not good enough in a MyLo situation.

I'm not so convinced in the confirmation.  What happens if a confirming pair is the two scum?

[faust]

Saying scum must be within 2 or 3 people is hedging. At least in my dictionary it is defined as conditionally limiting quantities.

That BA/WW are united in this adamantly is plain to see and demonizing me for saying it is just silly on its face.

There are three people whose claims are unverified.  Scum has an ability that no one has claimed.  A scum must therefore lie in this set of three people.

What is your problem with this rationale?

We can confirm who it is tomorrow. What is your problem with that rationale? 1/3 is not good enough in a MyLo situation.

I'm not so convinced in the confirmation.  What happens if a confirming pair is the two scum?

This can happen, yes. But it can only happen with PPS' confirmation. And I can investigate PPS. If I die, well, you have to figure out how likely a PPS/whoever he targeted pairing is.

[Hydrad]

I think I've already found a problem with how i'm playing this.

I'm playing this game thinking how everyone should play logically. The problem is I think people are really good at tricking straight logical players.

I'm going to need to rethink from different angles and try to not only think of what logically makes sense.

[Witherweaver]

Or we can just lynch PPS today~!