Posted October 16, 2015
drealmer7: I was asking if the value of a no-lynch potentially had more value NOW than it did AT THE BEGINNING.
JMich: Twice as much. Too bad its value started at 0. JMich: 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.
Okay, but you do seem to have an issue with my uncertainty about the topic, which is why I'm trying to discuss it. Am I not allowed to be uncertain in my position/not have it fully solidified yet? I believe all ideas are worth discussing, and probably re-discussing. It's a way to be thorough, especially since not everyone contributed to the topic. 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.
JMich: 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 didn't see anything specific that made me think it was more viable now, if I did, I would have said so, definitely. I simply thought it MIGHT be, simply because more time had gone by and more "stuff" had happened, people had voted, and because I am completely new to all of this and so my position isn't as solid as yours. I wasn't meaning to propose no-lynch, which is possibly why we are having contention now, simple misunderstanding (though, I don't know how you misunderstood that, really, and, makes me think you're taunting/baiting/messing with me trying to make me seem suspicious or whatever else, and I find this intruder-like, so my vote for you stays.)
I can provide a lot of hypothesizing, but they are not solidified thoughts.
If we do a no-lynch now (which, again, I am NOT proposing we do with this line of thought, it's simply a line of thought, not a call for action), I think we might be able to analyze why the person was killed overnight moreso than we could have analyzed it if the no-lynch came wayyy earlier in the day, based on who voted for who, who tried to "push what wagon" etc. I really don't know that it would be more helpful, or, even if it were more helpful than it would have been previously, if it is still enough help to warrant doing.
Do you think at this point we are more likely to vote for a real intruder than we were at the beginning? I think so, and so think we should probably try and figure out who to vote for.
dedoporno: 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.
I did try to contribute all I had to offer. I'm sorry it wasn't more helpful to the situation, I knew it wouldn't be very contributory because of how back and forth I was with my thoughts, which is why I asked for others input who have more experience. I thought all of that was clear. drealmer7: 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.
dedoporno: 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. Thanks for your input that it hasn't become more viable to any degree. I appreciate it.