EBWOP: Vote RandomActs. It's nothing really, just a personal rule I follow that makes me vote for people who claim they follow personal rules, so they have an excuse to vote someone else.
That's good! But I think your rule needs to consider the validity of my rule. Mine has worked for me very well. Check any game where the claimant was fuzzy about the pm. Most times they're lying.
Why wouldn't the mutiny want to destroy the ship? The commies want it cus its a commy ship...
Vote: LFR
Actually each side has motivation to sink the ship if they are about to lose.
I agree with *** that it would be a ballsy gambit to be the first to claim mutineer. But the loyalist commies may have more info about the setup in their pm's than the rest of us. So it may not be as much of a gambit as it appears. And if it confirms him being on our side, then so much the better.
But the real reason for my vote is a personal rule I follow. My rule is: vote for anyone who claims his pm is unclear. More often than not, that's the excuse to cover a faulty claim.
I am Vasivik, Manifest Keeper. I am able to check once per night what roles are in the game.
Do the roles change daily that you have to check each night? Or do you check for one particular role each night? I think you need to explain the mechanics because this doesn't make sense to me.
I'm Ivan Ulanski, a vanillia sailor and pro-mutiny. I missed the meeting of the conspirators and do not know who shares my sentiments. But I'm getting a good idea now! I have no NK ability, and no one to talk to at night. This leads me to believe that the mafia is really the town in this game. Why else would we have masons and a cop? Good call, guys.
I think Ande is trying to blow smoke, hoping that folks will see smoke and suspect a fire. I think he was prolonging the argument with Cyan/LFR in hopes of starting a wagon, and reacted negetively when people were suggesting we drop it. As noted, others were wanting to move on other things, not just me. And the fact that I did not suggest a topic at the time was due to time constraint, and not having time to do a re-read. I believe I mentionied a lack of time in the post. But his determinination to find something sinister in an obviously innocent post smacks of over-play to me, and a desire to generate a wagon at any cost. Perhaps it's just aggressive play, but even aggresive play requires some plausibility. I find none in his arguments.
I think the second question is slightly more relevant in this case. It's one thing to desire a new topic, and bring up a new topic. Its another to desire a new topic, and have someone else do it. While you may believe the Cyan/LfR debate isn't going anywhere, not bringing up a new topic to discuss doesn't get us anywhere either. It makes it seem like you have an interest in either Cyan or LfR getting out of the spotlight quickly.
By suggesting we move on, I'm not trying to stiffle debate at all. If you think some fruit will come of it, by all means continue. I just happen to disagree. If you read into this that I am somehow trying to distract the town from the argument, I can at the same time surmise that you are trying to prolong us in a probably fruitless debate. But because I know you're wrong about my intent, I suspect I'm wrong about yours as well.
I don't see a valid tell on either side of this argument. Let's have another topic. (I'd offer one myself but don't have time at the moment to find one. Perhaps later.)
I agree. We're spending alot of effort on something that will likely be pointless anyway. Let's do the deed and move on to something (hopefully) more fruitful.
Not only does the rank claim risk our power roles, they also give clue to alignment. I see no benefit at all. Name claims also won't give any alignment leads, but the risk is far less.
I'll go along with a soft name claim, but I doubt it will be helpful. I think rank claim is riskier for our power roles, so you'll have to convince me more on that.
Vote: LFR
Actually each side has motivation to sink the ship if they are about to lose.
I agree with *** that it would be a ballsy gambit to be the first to claim mutineer. But the loyalist commies may have more info about the setup in their pm's than the rest of us. So it may not be as much of a gambit as it appears. And if it confirms him being on our side, then so much the better.
But the real reason for my vote is a personal rule I follow. My rule is: vote for anyone who claims his pm is unclear. More often than not, that's the excuse to cover a faulty claim.
Do the roles change daily that you have to check each night? Or do you check for one particular role each night? I think you need to explain the mechanics because this doesn't make sense to me.
I'm Ivan Ulanski, a vanillia sailor and pro-mutiny. I missed the meeting of the conspirators and do not know who shares my sentiments. But I'm getting a good idea now! I have no NK ability, and no one to talk to at night. This leads me to believe that the mafia is really the town in this game. Why else would we have masons and a cop? Good call, guys.
Vote: Nom_Anor
I think Ande is trying to blow smoke, hoping that folks will see smoke and suspect a fire. I think he was prolonging the argument with Cyan/LFR in hopes of starting a wagon, and reacted negetively when people were suggesting we drop it. As noted, others were wanting to move on other things, not just me. And the fact that I did not suggest a topic at the time was due to time constraint, and not having time to do a re-read. I believe I mentionied a lack of time in the post. But his determinination to find something sinister in an obviously innocent post smacks of over-play to me, and a desire to generate a wagon at any cost. Perhaps it's just aggressive play, but even aggresive play requires some plausibility. I find none in his arguments.
vote andelijah
By suggesting we move on, I'm not trying to stiffle debate at all. If you think some fruit will come of it, by all means continue. I just happen to disagree. If you read into this that I am somehow trying to distract the town from the argument, I can at the same time surmise that you are trying to prolong us in a probably fruitless debate. But because I know you're wrong about my intent, I suspect I'm wrong about yours as well.