Right. Apologies for my extended absence.

First, about the edits - Agentcarr's seems straightforward enough, so Agentcarr has -1 to INT until the end of Day 2!

Ixam's is a little more complicated, given he's openly admitted to removing something, but as he's sent it to me I agree the tone of it may be somewhat harsh - however, I remember being in a situation of wondering "I saw a post, can I use this being deleted?" in an earlier game. Therefore, Ixamyakxim has -1 to INT until the end of Day 2, but if he wouldn't mind re-editing the post to state its general intent (though not in quite as harsh a manner), that will be the end of it. Everyone happy?

Second, a deadline. Would Tuesday 20th October, 20:30 GMT be acceptable? (It gives me time in the evening to do proper flavour writing, you see.)

Thirdly, a vote count of my own will appear either when I get a chance at work or when I get back home and can use the various scripts to help. Thanks Yogsloth for covering, even if there's at least something a little odd in there. :P

I think he can be veeeery happy with such punishment.
If he did it in my game I would modkill him on the spot without any hesitation.
Those double posts happen and are result of carelessness or sometimes buggy forum. Sure, it's often fault of the people but it is not really messing with the game and I actually find Quad's punishments perfectly sufficient.
Ix's on the other hand did exactly the thing because of which the no-edit rule is in effect, edited his post on purpose. It doesn't matter why, he did one of the most forbidden things in mafia besides copy-pasting PM in a game thread.
So I personally wouldn't hesitate at all.


Don't get this wrong. I am not saying you should do it because I say so and I am not even saying it gets me mad or something. I am just stating my own opinion.
You are mod here, it was completely up to you and I respect your decision.


I certainly have more issues with the divine intervention on mchack's behalf than this. :-)

I am the one who initially asked the question. It is you who are failing to provide any speculative answer on it, which is all I have been asking for, speculations, not "answers." If you have nothing to contribute to the idea, then just be silent like you have been.
I DON'T KNOW! That's why I posed the question in the first place. Have anything to share on the subject?

No, I didn't propose a plan. I am discussing an option that is available to us, asking about its viability and value. Okay, you don't see any benefit, we have your input about the subject now, same as it ever was. Got it. Thanks.

Does anyone else have any input?

Me saying I don't have any experience in these situations is not an excuse. I'm simply stating a fact as to why I'm uncertain (which is what I clearly said, that I'm uncertain about a no-lynch at this point) and why I am wanting feedback from others. You aren't playing devil's advocate, again, you're just posing my own question back at me and giving me grief for talking about it. This is very suspicious.

I certainly don't mean to post fluff, I was just posting my thoughts, which I even admitted were varied and back and forth.

I have been finding your behaviors rather suspicious, and the fact that you are entirely trying to confuse this exchange is even more suspect.

You're not contributing, you are simply criticizing me for what I am trying to contribute and for me trying to simply have a discussion.

What wiggling? You want me to have a definitive answer what would happen if we went no-lynch? The only way I could have that is if I were QuadrAlien. Right...I almost did this before when you replied with a non-response that seemed fishy to me, but I was giving you more of a chance to contribute something to the idea. All you've done is try to cause problems rather than help try to solve one.

Unvote Vitek

Vote JMich

Oh My God You Suck.

Post 198 explains why no lynch is a bad idea. Post 350 explains what we gain from a mislynch. Those two posts explain my views on no lynch, as well as why it is a very bad idea to suggest it.

You already know the downsides a no lynch has. A no lynch is viable if there are multiple investigative roles (claimed, confirmed or suspected) that can investigate during the night and give us more information during the next day, so we keep a person alive to increase the times they can investigate (by prolonging the game). At this time, we only know of 1 possible investigative role (tracker), which is not enough to warrant a no lynch. So why put the no lynch plan back on the table? How does that plan benefit us? What has changed in the week since we told you why no lynch is a bad idea?

Again, what has changed since the last time you said we could go for a no lynch? Why is it now a better option than it was a week ago?

Saying you didn't answer because you thought the question was bait is though.

Again, we have told you why no lynch is a bad idea. So it's up to you to explain why the usual reasons do not apply now. Or do you want us to tell you if there's any reason for no lynch to become viable, even though nothing has changed gamewise?
And the Devil's Advocate isn't giving grief, though he may be asking questions you don't want asked.

No. I want you to explain why you think voting no lynch is an idea worth discussing. Same as with any other vote. Why do you think voting me (or Vitek, or Q.U.A.D.) is the right choice?

Wow, you really are an intruder or haven't been following along, or something...

In case you didn't understand and want to try again to make yourself clear as to why you're causing all of this hub-bub:

I was asking if the value of a no-lynch potentially had more value NOW than it did AT THE BEGINNING.

I understood and heard your POV at entry 198. I was asking if your or anyone's POV had changed since early on given the fact that more time had gone by. I was simply asking for people who have more experience to give input as to whether they thought there was perhaps more value in a no-lynch NOW (even now) as opposed to way back at the beginning, or, like you, if they felt it hadn't changed.

I understand you. Your position hasn't changed. Why couldn't have you have simply said, in reply to my entry 952 "My position has not changed since the beginning."

If you're not an intruder, you have a serious issue with anyone discussing no-lynch beyond the parameters of this situation and have chosen me to take your dire with it out on. But my vote is that you're an intruder, moreso likely than Vitek at this point, anyway.

Twice as much. Too bad its value started at 0.

I do not have a problem with anyone discussing no lynch. I do have a problem with anyone who cannot explain why they think no lynch (or any other plan they bring to the table) is a good idea.
I am not voting you for suggesting no lynch. I am voting you for not saying why you think no lynch is an idea worth discussing. Just as I would vote for someone who votes for X, then does not say why he voted for X when asked.

It is quite possible that I have missed something that would make me reevaluate my stance on no lynch. I assume it is something you saw, thus why you went back to proposing no lynch. I asked for clarification. You denied clarifying, and did the equivalent of waving your arms around to make it go away. I asked again.

I do. Nothing changed drastically for the no-lynch to become viable now. The only difference from the beginning is that we have a supposed Tracker available which isn't the most useful of roles at this point. The downsides of no-lynching that have been repeated over and over again still apply.


Are you contributing, though? So far I heard mostly "no lynch" and that pretty much everyone is a suspect from you. And talking a whole lot doesn't automatically count for contributing.

No-lynch is an option. Hell, me deciding to jump off my roof for giggles is an option. Doesn't make it a good one.

And why isn't it a good one? Because this game needs to progress. If there are 4 scum and 12 town, it's a 25 percent chance.

25 percent beats the shit out of 0.

If we sit on our hands, someone gets killed, scum gets closer to winning with not even a chance of retaliation, and we can all come back here to make some dip, stare at the walls and slowly go insane as we go into Day 2 of an ultimately unproductive deja vu circlejerk.

And yes, if we pick to lynch someone, we might get the wrong person. Looks like that's part of the game. People die, the field gets narrowed down, the game goes forward.

No, not really.

Unvote no-lynch

But who's got the political will to put together a new wagon? Despite Vitek's belief, I'm not bored enough to just jump on his. Anything anyone says at this point to try and advocate a lynch target is going to (necessarily) fall under suspicion. We seem to have given free passes to all three players who had seriously rolling wagons for various reasons, some of them poor, but who wants to stand up and try to re-start one of those?

...

That said, could I convince anybody to lynch flub "kill me bitch" bucket just because? ;)

I must say you have a very good grasp of how this game works for your first time, and I agree wholeheartedly with what you just said.

I just want it to be a good game. I have no delusions of superiority, there are better players and the odds of me seeing the finish outside of a body bag are somewhere between slim and yeah right. But if everyone gets so sick of it that they stop caring at all, then the game's screwed because no one is having any fun.

Are you firm on agentcarr or is there anyone else who is tickling your scumdar?

At the moment, I've got three people who are doing that. I haven't gone point by point on it because it comes down to how they've spoken is rubbing me the wrong way, and I know I'll need more information to lay out for other people. Not expecting players to get behind taking someone out on gut feeling.