Apologies for my absence, turns out staying awake all night when you've already been pushing 4-5 hours sleep a night for the week prior results in rather extended periods of sleep when you get back to a bed.
Seems to be working out, at least
Quite interesting how Rowain has absolutely nothing to say about pindicator's idea, despite claiming his last minute vote to save Fenn yesterday was designed to force a no-lynch.
Not sure voting no lynch is a good idea. Even if the GM is a bastard and everyone out there is scum, there does have to be a reason for the lack of kills.
Option a) kills are failing. We know of two protective roles; one of those is dead and the other is in the possession of someone known to self-protect unless given *very* good reasons not to. Thus we must assume that there are others out there. Anyone willing to claim to help support this option?
Option b) scum are not capable of conventional kills. Take a cult, for instance. They don't kill at all - merely silently convert another player to their team each night. Or a delayed kill of some variety - iirc there was a Tasunke-suggested Arsonist who instead of merely being a different flavour SK instead prepped someone each night, and could opt to torch them all at once?
Option c) scum are trolling. With rather a lot of coordination between the multiple assumed teams, to ensure none of them killed, multiple nights running.
Option d) the GM is trolling.
The first option, a no lynch is actually a decent idea if we assume that the non-scum players are more likely to have protection than the scum, feasible if we're in the minority compared to several factions. Otherwise, it's neutral at best, as we're not really gaining much information from no-one at all showing up dead - while the scum are, learning who has protection (or is being protected).
The second option, no lynching is actively bad. We're discarding our kill, our only possible measure of defence against a threat that is either building itself, or biding time to strike.
Third, it's probably acceptable to do once, for the lulz, but as soon as they get serious we'll have to return the favour.
Lastly, we're then relying on that being the specific win condition of a game that has been proven to contain at least one member of a faction we should reasonably identify as scum. While 'they have to vote to not lynch, huehuehue' is an actual win-con for bastard games, it's universally accompanied by no scum factions existing. So, no.
(March 21st, 2015, 04:36)zakalwe Wrote: Mattimeo, who did you target?Self again; hadn't seen anything that indicated there was much else of value to attempt to save.
Seems to be working out, at least
Quite interesting how Rowain has absolutely nothing to say about pindicator's idea, despite claiming his last minute vote to save Fenn yesterday was designed to force a no-lynch.
Not sure voting no lynch is a good idea. Even if the GM is a bastard and everyone out there is scum, there does have to be a reason for the lack of kills.
Option a) kills are failing. We know of two protective roles; one of those is dead and the other is in the possession of someone known to self-protect unless given *very* good reasons not to. Thus we must assume that there are others out there. Anyone willing to claim to help support this option?
Option b) scum are not capable of conventional kills. Take a cult, for instance. They don't kill at all - merely silently convert another player to their team each night. Or a delayed kill of some variety - iirc there was a Tasunke-suggested Arsonist who instead of merely being a different flavour SK instead prepped someone each night, and could opt to torch them all at once?
Option c) scum are trolling. With rather a lot of coordination between the multiple assumed teams, to ensure none of them killed, multiple nights running.
Option d) the GM is trolling.
The first option, a no lynch is actually a decent idea if we assume that the non-scum players are more likely to have protection than the scum, feasible if we're in the minority compared to several factions. Otherwise, it's neutral at best, as we're not really gaining much information from no-one at all showing up dead - while the scum are, learning who has protection (or is being protected).
The second option, no lynching is actively bad. We're discarding our kill, our only possible measure of defence against a threat that is either building itself, or biding time to strike.
Third, it's probably acceptable to do once, for the lulz, but as soon as they get serious we'll have to return the favour.
Lastly, we're then relying on that being the specific win condition of a game that has been proven to contain at least one member of a faction we should reasonably identify as scum. While 'they have to vote to not lynch, huehuehue' is an actual win-con for bastard games, it's universally accompanied by no scum factions existing. So, no.
-- Don’t forget.
Always, somewhere,
someone is fighting for you.
-- As long as you remember her,
you are not alone.
Always, somewhere,
someone is fighting for you.
-- As long as you remember her,
you are not alone.
