Mafia After Dark - Night 1: The Godfather

[CorneliusMurdock]

Yes, I misspoke. Let's all give a great guffaw and move on.

Who's trying to twist words? What I advocate is actually trying to play. Not sit around saying, "ho hum, nothing we can do the first day". Did I miss where you actually gave a plan of action, Shane? Or was it just the plan of inaction?

[Shadows]

Yes, I misspoke. Let's all give a great guffaw and move on.

Did you? Damn, that was the first plan I've seen today that wasn't the equivalent of metagaming based on roleplay.

Who's trying to twist words? What I advocate is actually trying to play. Not sit around saying, "ho hum, nothing we can do the first day". Did I miss where you actually gave a plan of action, Shane? Or was it just the plan of inaction?

What you advocate will, in all likelihood, get someone innocent killed and we won't learn anything from it because everyone can just say "oops" and move on. If you want to call not putting everyone in a room, turning off the light and shooting someone randomly "inaction", so be it. If you can honestly tell me how that aids the family, I'll be all for it.

So, to pose the same question to you, did I miss where you actually gave a plan of action or was it just posturing to look helpful when you aren't actually helping, and are, in fact, pushing people into thinking that the only correct decision is to kill a member of the family in the name of action? That's actually pretty damn suspicious, now that I think about it. Maybe all this talking is helping.

[def]

sometimes I wonder if those who try to jump on any little strain of evidence they can find are the ferrari gang members themselves. But then again...they are more likely to hide in the shadows.

Now, this is unhelpful. Scum will try to lynch, and scum will hide in the shadows. I hereby proclaim Penelope as waffly.

[Captain Nemo]

I'm not sure how that's going to help, but I'm up for it, as long as the job is in the hands of professionals. Hey Candy, want to help me out here?

Ooooh! Sorry it took me so long to get my hands over here--so un-lady like! I was just busy with a long sausage. Anywho,

While I may have dosed off there for a while, it seems the topic has shiffted to the pros/cons of a lynch today tonight, on the basis that it would most likely lead to a dead Malone. While I'm normally all for Lynching, since lynching is one of the town's best assets, I don't see anything good of day one lynches; basically ever. I mean, for the most part it's just a shot in the dark, that gives no future leads on scum. I find it really hard to cast a vote day one (Well generally), since it seems like we are firing into a crowd of friends. Although that doesn't mean I don't have suspicions or I think we should just sit on our bums until we are all killed.

Now, where is Terrence with my money?!

[Purpearljellyblob]

There is potentially some information to be gained from voting patterns, if we were to policy lynch. I guess the question is whether the additional information gained is worth a Malone's life. On balance, I doubt it will.

What information can we gain from the voting patterns if we were to policy lynch tonight?

What is your stance on the policy lynch?

I think the keyword here is 'policy' which I am not a great fan of. Policy lynching will lead us nowhere, because we will be back to the same situation the next night with nothing to go on. I am definitely all for lynching tonight because it sets us up for vote and behavioural analysis in the future.

[CorneliusMurdock]

My plan was to try to get everyone to at least talk a bit. You already poo-poo'd that notion saying we'd get nothing from it. But what does it hurt anyone.

No one is advocating a random lynch. That would be crazy. And turning off the lights and someone dying is what's going to happen when the scum get their turn tonight but that won't be random. One of us, a townie, is gaurenteed to die.

We try to gather information, let everyone vote for who they think is most suspicious. There's at least a chance scum'll fall. We don't get a chance for that otherwise.

If you don't want to vote, don't. No one is forcing you. Just like you can't force others to do nothing.

In the mean time, if any of you hasn't been real talkative today, get talkin'. It's your life people but we need to get a feel for you or you're probably not going to be feeling much any more.

Even if we don't vote out a quiet one, who do you think a possible SK is gonna go after? Someone they think we won't miss.

[jimmynick]

I was going to add that, if the policy lynch has an upside, it's that analyzing the voting patterns therein can be a good jumping-off point on the next day.

There is potentially some information to be gained from voting patterns, if we were to policy lynch.

No no no no no! A policy lynch occurs when someone broaches one of our family's "policies". So if we lynched someone because he or she is quiet, we will not have lynched that person because they appeared scummy - trying to analyse the voting pattern from a policy lynch would only reveal who was for and against the policy lynch, not who thought and who didn't think that person was scummy.

You know, Kristina and Cap'n Rolfe, why don't you enlighten us as to what we can learn from the voting leading up to a policy lynch?

Day 1 is basically free day for the scum and I'd rather not see us play into their hands. Do you disagree?

I'd be happy not to lynch anyone today because the odds are that we will lynch a Malone. Unless someone slips up, it is unlikely that we will have anything solid on which to base our votes.

While I'm normally all for Lynching, since lynching is one of the town's best assets, I don't see anything good of day one lynches; basically ever. I mean, for the most part it's just a shot in the dark, that gives no future leads on scum.

Isn't everyone "normally all for lynching"?

The fact is, the manner in which Tam has forced us to out the Ferraris, we cannot go willy-nilly revealing secrets to whomever we want in the day or night. Unless a PR is willing to out him or herself early on in the game (please correct me if I'm wrong), I see no way that Night Two, or even Night Three, could be different from tonight. The best way to go about tonight is to choose our "best bet" for a Ferrari and find out, with certainty, his or her alignment tomorrow night. And then we'll have the bonus voting patterns and reactions that go along with lynching people.

[TrumpetKing]

Ooooh! Sorry it took me so long to get my hands over here--so un-lady like! I was just busy with a long sausage. Anywho,

While I may have dosed off there for a while, it seems the topic has shiffted to the pros/cons of a lynch today tonight, on the basis that it would most likely lead to a dead Malone. While I'm normally all for Lynching, since lynching is one of the town's best assets, I don't see anything good of day one lynches; basically ever. I mean, for the most part it's just a shot in the dark, that gives no future leads on scum. I find it really hard to cast a vote day one (Well generally), since it seems like we are firing into a crowd of friends. Although that doesn't mean I don't have suspicions or I think we should just sit on our bums until we are all killed.

There usually isn't anything scummy on Day One, but we still lynch anyways. We do get things to analyze from it (vote counts, a day if behavior, etc; behavior we CAN get from not lynching however) and it usually isn't a shot in the dark, because we can actually pick something scummy up from somebody. Now, the people we pick scummy behavior off of, usually aren't scum, but if somebody is picked up as scummy, by all means we shouldn't say that their scummy behavior is just some Day One baloney. I understand the option of a no lynch situation, but I think we learn a bit more from lynching, which is a head's up.

[Peanuts]

I'm all for a lynch. We can't just sit around and wait for the Ferraris to make the first move, we've got an advantage and we have to use it. We don't lynch, we lose a loyal member, maybe two or three, depending on the SK and the vigilante.

Lynching will do well. Some people will accuse each other, some people will just walk the middle ground, some people will fly under the radar, some will just be sheep and jump on the bandwagon. Either way, that's information. That's something we don't gain by not lynching. Granted, we only have a small chance to catch scum, but it's a chance, and usually we only lose a member who's acting weird (or drunk).

I really don't like to call it a policy lynch, as the lynchee should be someone who's slightly scummy.

[Darkdragon]

Why are you guys even discussing lynching or not?

We must vote, and if we can't decide on who to vote for each night then it's a wasted night.

Ferraris will most likely try and cause a no-lynch situation if they have a member in trouble. That's the thing to look out for. Saying it here isn't going to stop them either, and they will have a hard time covering it up when they do it. Well, they'll have a hard time if we are actually paying attention to what's happening and not arguing about stupid things like whether or not to lynch.

[Capt. Redblade]

No no no no no! A policy lynch occurs when someone broaches one of our family's "policies". So if we lynched someone because he or she is quiet, we will not have lynched that person because they appeared scummy - trying to analyse the voting pattern from a policy lynch would only reveal who was for and against the policy lynch, not who thought and who didn't think that person was scummy.

You know, Kristina and Cap'n Rolfe, why don't you enlighten us as to what we can learn from the voting leading up to a policy lynch?

If you was paying attention, you would know I already explained (in the very post you quoted) what there is to be loined from a policy lynch. We can dissect and analyze how people behave, how they vote, and when they vote. We can see who's bandwagoning, who's flip-flopping, who's not doing anything, who's accusing whom, and who's defending or possibly colluding with whom. Behaviour analysis allows us to separate the scum from the dumb, but we can only analyze behaviour if we talk. Sometimes, as I said, an overeager scum will slip up on Day One and they can then be dealt with on Day Two.

Why are you guys even discussing lynching or not?

We must vote, and if we can't decide on who to vote for each night then it's a wasted night.

Ferraris will most likely try and cause a no-lynch situation if they have a member in trouble. That's the thing to look out for. Saying it here isn't going to stop them either, and they will have a hard time covering it up when they do it. Well, they'll have a hard time if we are actually paying attention to what's happening and not arguing about stupid things like whether or not to lynch.

The Russkie's right. We're gonna end up lynchin' someone, so why wax philosophic about why and how we do it? In fact, I'm gonna be the big man and get the ball rolling.

Vote: Jamie Kennedy (jamesn)

Why? Here's why:

We can poke at what attracts our attention. In fact, I am surprised that such an experienced mafioso as you would trot out the Day One "Well shucks, I don't know what to do" line.

In fact, I can picture the headline: "Cocaine ABS-addled Dealer Babbles Incoherently" How's that for a news story, Tam?

Jamie's first statement was made in response to Shane's "Whatever can we do?" post. Now, poking at what attracts our attention is pretty general. Lotsa stuff can attract attention on Day One, from speaking too much to not speaking at all. This statement would seem to be in favour of talking things out and seems like a pretty blank cheque for barking up various trees. This wording would almost imply Jamie's in favour of the policy lynch. However, she followed this statement with...

No no no no no! A policy lynch occurs when someone broaches one of our family's "policies". So if we lynched someone because he or she is quiet, we will not have lynched that person because they appeared scummy - trying to analyse the voting pattern from a policy lynch would only reveal who was for and against the policy lynch, not who thought and who didn't think that person was scummy.

You know, Kristina and Cap'n Rolfe, why don't you enlighten us as to what we can learn from the voting leading up to a policy lynch?

Isn't everyone "normally all for lynching"?

The fact is, the manner in which Tam has forced us to out the Ferraris, we cannot go willy-nilly revealing secrets to whomever we want in the day or night. Unless a PR is willing to out him or herself early on in the game (please correct me if I'm wrong), I see no way that Night Two, or even Night Three, could be different from tonight. The best way to go about tonight is to choose our "best bet" for a Ferrari and find out, with certainty, his or her alignment tomorrow night. And then we'll have the bonus voting patterns and reactions that go along with lynching people.

This statement contradicts itself and the previous statement in a few ways. Foist of all, it's a violent reaction against policy lynching, which seems to contradict the previous statement. Second, she says we shouldn't or can't examine the voting patterns from a policy lynch, which is BS for reasons I've already outlined. Apparently, the best way to play this thing is to lynch our most likely scum and analyze reactions and voting patterns tomorrow to find out who's on what side. Explain to me, Jamie, why wouldn't be be able to do that for a policy lynch? If we lynch someone for looking scummy, chances are one or two of their teammates will jump on that bandwagon to try and look town. If we policy lynch, scum may similarly bandwagon just to mess with us and get rid of a townie. Seems to me both situations give us clues in the voting patterns, so why can we do one and not the other?

[Kristel]

I'd be happy not to lynch anyone today because the odds are that we will lynch a Malone. Unless someone slips up, it is unlikely that we will have anything solid on which to base our votes.

There is potentially some information to be gained from voting patterns, if we were to policy lynch. I guess the question is whether the additional information gained is worth a Malone's life. On balance, I doubt it will.

What is your stance on the policy lynch?

What information can we gain from the voting patterns if we were to policy lynch tonight?

As I said in that post, I don't think there is much of value to be gained from a policy lynch. Chances are everyone will vote for the same person and then what do we have to work with? For example, we'd have information about the timing of someone's vote. But how valuable is that when it's a policy lynch?

No no no no no! A policy lynch occurs when someone broaches one of our family's "policies". So if we lynched someone because he or she is quiet, we will not have lynched that person because they appeared scummy - trying to analyse the voting pattern from a policy lynch would only reveal who was for and against the policy lynch, not who thought and who didn't think that person was scummy.

You know, Kristina and Cap'n Rolfe, why don't you enlighten us as to what we can learn from the voting leading up to a policy lynch?

See above and your own answer. We're already learning who's for and against a policy lynch.

Isn't everyone "normally all for lynching"?

The fact is, the manner in which Tam has forced us to out the Ferraris, we cannot go willy-nilly revealing secrets to whomever we want in the day or night. Unless a PR is willing to out him or herself early on in the game (please correct me if I'm wrong), I see no way that Night Two, or even Night Three, could be different from tonight. The best way to go about tonight is to choose our "best bet" for a Ferrari and find out, with certainty, his or her alignment tomorrow night. And then we'll have the bonus voting patterns and reactions that go along with lynching people.

"Best bet" based on what? That's what I see as the problem here - there is no "best bet", at least not to me anyway. Given the lack of votes up to this point, I'd hazard a guess and say that no-one else has anyone that they would like to offer up as the "best bet".

I'm all for a lynch. We can't just sit around and wait for the Ferraris to make the first move, we've got an advantage and we have to use it. We don't lynch, we lose a loyal member, maybe two or three, depending on the SK and the vigilante.

Unless we lynch the vig or SK, we could start Night Two with up to four Malones gone (lynchee + up to three others). If we don't lynch, we could start Night Two with up to 3 Malones gone (0 lynchees + up to three others). That part I bolded is not dependent on what happens with the lynch, unless we happen to lynch the SK or Vig.

Lynching will do well. Some people will accuse each other, some people will just walk the middle ground, some people will fly under the radar, some will just be sheep and jump on the bandwagon. Either way, that's information. That's something we don't gain by not lynching. Granted, we only have a small chance to catch scum, but it's a chance, and usually we only lose a member who's acting weird (or drunk).

I really don't like to call it a policy lynch, as the lynchee should be someone who's slightly scummy.

It's not a policy lynch if we have a reason for the vote, and then the voting patterns and discussions can potentially give us something to work with later on.

There's a big difference between voting because we think someone is scummy versus voting for someone just because they were the quietest during the last X hours. I will be the first to post a vote if I have a good reason to think someone is scummy. I'm trying to learn from past mistakes.

Given the lack of votes up to this point, I'd hazard a guess and say that no-one else has anyone that they would like to offer up as the "best bet".

I should have checked for new posts first.

[jimmynick]

If you was paying attention, you would know I already explained (in the very post you quoted) what there is to be loined from a policy lynch. We can dissect and analyze how people behave, how they vote, and when they vote. We can see who's bandwagoning, who's flip-flopping, who's not doing anything, who's accusing whom, and who's defending or possibly colluding with whom. Behaviour analysis allows us to separate the scum from the dumb, but we can only analyze behaviour if we talk. Sometimes, as I said, an overeager scum will slip up on Day One and they can then be dealt with on Day Two.

And I disagree - when there's a policy lynch there's nothing like that going on - it's a matter of rule-breaking. Only when we want to lynch someone for being scummy do we pull out of the station with flip-flopping, bandwagoning and all that other nice stuff you talk about.

Jamie's first statement was made in response to Shane's "Whatever can we do?" post. This wording would almost imply Jamie's in favour of the policy lynch.

Why? My statement merely pointed out that Shane was saying stupid things, and that caught my attention. I think you're twisting my words there, Rolfie.

Foist of all, it's a violent reaction against policy lynching

Yes.

which seems to contradict the previous statement

No.

Explain to me, Jamie, why wouldn't be be able to do that for a policy lynch?

Let's write a play about Byron the Magician, Henry the Hairbrush, Cat and Hat.

Byron: I think Henry the Hairbrush is too quiet! Let's policy lynch him for being quiet!

Cat: OK! Lynching quiet people is easy to do and doesn't attract suspicion.

Hat: Well, I can't think of anything better to do, so let's lynch Henry!

Byron: Yeah! Way to go!

So poor Henry the Hairbrush was lynched, because it was easy for everyone to vote for the quiet person. The town has nothing to go on on Day two.

In conclusion: I do not want to policy-lynch anyone and I think that Cap'n Rolfe is reading too much into what I've said to make it appear that I do want to policy-lynch someone.

"Best bet" based on what? That's what I see as the problem here - there is no "best bet", at least not to me anyway. Given the lack of votes up to this point, I'd hazard a guess and say that no-one else has anyone that they would like to offer up as the "best bet".

The person we think is scummiest, of course. You're right that we don't have a "best bet" yet, but as more people talk and argue, one will probably appear.

[Peanuts]

As I said in that post, I don't think there is much of value to be gained from a policy lynch. Chances are everyone will vote for the same person and then what do we have to work with? For example, we'd have information about the timing of someone's vote. But how valuable is that when it's a policy lynch?

See above and your own answer. We're already learning who's for and against a policy lynch.

"Best bet" based on what? That's what I see as the problem here - there is no "best bet", at least not to me anyway. Given the lack of votes up to this point, I'd hazard a guess and say that no-one else has anyone that they would like to offer up as the "best bet".

Unless we lynch the vig or SK, we could start Night Two with up to four Malones gone (lynchee + up to three others). If we don't lynch, we could start Night Two with up to 3 Malones gone (0 lynchees + up to three others). That part I bolded is not dependent on what happens with the lynch, unless we happen to lynch the SK or Vig.

It's not a policy lynch if we have a reason for the vote, and then the voting patterns and discussions can potentially give us something to work with later on.

There's a big difference between voting because we think someone is scummy versus voting for someone just because they were the quietest during the last X hours. I will be the first to post a vote if I have a good reason to think someone is scummy. I'm trying to learn from past mistakes.

I should have checked for new posts first.

Alright, I can agree with that, policy lynches are a bad idea if that's how you define them. Voting just based on someone being quiet is a bad idea, because it's impossible to make an educated guess about someone's affiliation based on how much they post on day one (many people just talk less because there's generally less to talk about). Lynching just based on low activity comes awfully close to a random lynch, and that yields us nothing.

But I don't think that we'll have to choose between a pure policy lynch and no lynch at all, there's always some players acting odd on day one.

[Pandora]

Isn't everyone "normally all for lynching"?

Not necessarily, no. These situations can be subtly different each time. Our lynch is our strongest weapon, but not necessarily always on the first day; it will be in days to come.

People have said this before, and I agree, that if there is someone deemed suspicious then that is not a random lynch (or policy lynch as people seem to want to call it), but just picking someone who's said less than someone else is not particularly helpful, and in that circumstance we have a greater chance of hurting our own numbers.

we've got an advantage and we have to use it.

I'm going to make an assumption here that the advantage to which you're referring is our number vs the Ferraris. A number which will reduce if we lynch someone for just being quiet. I'm happy to be corrected if you can think of another advantage.

Why are you guys even discussing lynching or not?

We must vote, and if we can't decide on who to vote for each night then it's a wasted night.

Ferraris will most likely try and cause a no-lynch situation if they have a member in trouble. That's the thing to look out for. Saying it here isn't going to stop them either, and they will have a hard time covering it up when they do it. Well, they'll have a hard time if we are actually paying attention to what's happening and not arguing about stupid things like whether or not to lynch.

Discussing whether or not to lynch is probably better than not discussing anything. I believe that talking is much more informative than lynching at this point.

Additionally, if you check the rules, voting (and thus lynching) is not mandatory, so "We must vote" is incorrect.

If people were/are currently discussing whether or not to lynch before anyone had been accused, how is discussing a no-lynch situation an indication of scum? There is (or was, a little while ago when you posted) no-one accused and no team-member in trouble, so I don't follow your logic there. I will add the caveat that I refer only to today, where we have no information to work with. I will agree that in future days trying to cause a no-lynch situation may well be deemed scummy, but it might be best to focus on today rather than try to look to far ahead in the future.

If there's a good reason to vote for someone then I will, as I have on the first days of these ordeals before, but I don't see the point in just deciding that no matter what happens we should be lynching on day one in a situation where voting isn't mandatory.

[Darkdragon]

Additionally, if you check the rules, voting (and thus lynching) is not mandatory, so "We must vote" is incorrect.

You're right.

If people were/are currently discussing whether or not to lynch before anyone had been accused, how is discussing a no-lynch situation an indication of scum? There is (or was, a little while ago when you posted) no-one accused and no team-member in trouble, so I don't follow your logic there.

Don't put words into my mouth. I never said anything even remotely indicating that discussing whether or not to lynch was indicative of being scum.

[Pandora]

Don't put words into my mouth. I never said anything even remotely indicating that discussing whether or not to lynch was indicative of being scum.

I apologise if I did, but in my eyes you had discussed why people were talking about whether or not to lynch, you stated "we must vote", and then you went on to say that scum would try and cause a no-lynch situation. It seemed logical to me that you were indicating that everyone should vote with the intention of lynching because only scum wouldn't want to lynch, but if I have misinterpreted your intention there than I apologise.

To follow up, then, where did the statement of:

Ferraris will most likely try and cause a no-lynch situation if they have a member in trouble. That's the thing to look out for. Saying it here isn't going to stop them either, and they will have a hard time covering it up when they do it. Well, they'll have a hard time if we are actually paying attention to what's happening and not arguing about stupid things like whether or not to lynch.

come from? What was it that made you feel the need to say this right now?

[Adam]

So you are not for policy lynch but is willing to do it anyway?

What? No, I'm very much against policy lynching and refuse to do it. What I said was that there are plenty of people who mistakenly feel that policy lynching is a good idea on the first day.

Apparently, the best way to play this thing is to lynch our most likely scum and analyze reactions and voting patterns tomorrow to find out who's on what side. Explain to me, Jamie, why wouldn't be be able to do that for a policy lynch? If we lynch someone for looking scummy, chances are one or two of their teammates will jump on that bandwagon to try and look town. If we policy lynch, scum may similarly bandwagon just to mess with us and get rid of a townie. Seems to me both situations give us clues in the voting patterns, so why can we do one and not the other?

There's a big difference between voting because we think someone is scummy versus voting for someone just because they were the quietest during the last X hours. I will be the first to post a vote if I have a good reason to think someone is scummy. I'm trying to learn from past mistakes.

Just in case there's any confusion about the term "policy lynch", it's a term that means lynching someone for arbitrary reasons. In our games... of life, policy lynching generally refers to lynching people just because they're quiet. The only reason I say this is because I've seen some people advocating the benefits of a policy lynch, then talking about how they're promoting the lynch of somebody who looks scummy.

By the way Cap'n Rolfe (Capt. Redblade), I agree that voting is very important in this particular game... of life because of our inability to talk privately, which seriously inhibits PR's (I wonder if the Ferrari's are also unable to talk to one another? The rules don't really specify that...). That said, policy lynching sucks for the mere reason that it prevents the town from lynching somebody who could legitimately be scum. You've voted for Jamie (jamesn) apparently because you think he's scummy, and you've outlined your reasons why, which is the kind of action that the town should be taking, not policy lynching.

Discussing whether or not to lynch is probably better than not discussing anything. I believe that talking is much more informative than lynching at this point.

I think this is a good point. Personally I find people who are irrationally hostile to opponents of well debated concepts, like policy lynching, to be more suspicious than those who reasonably suggest such concepts, like a lynchless first day- er, night.

Now if you'll excuse me for a moment, I have to make sure that Baby is listening to music during his nap. They say that babies- er, monkeys become more intelligent if they listen to the Backstreet Boys when they're taking naps!

[Peanuts]

I'm going to make an assumption here that the advantage to which you're referring is our number vs the Ferraris. A number which will reduce if we lynch someone for just being quiet. I'm happy to be corrected if you can think of another advantage.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. The advantage is that there's more of us. And as I said, I'm against lynching someone just for being quiet. I don't think that will be necessary.

[Darkdragon]

I apologise if I did, but in my eyes you had discussed why people were talking about whether or not to lynch, you stated "we must vote", and then you went on to say that scum would try and cause a no-lynch situation. It seemed logical to me that you were indicating that everyone should vote with the intention of lynching because only scum wouldn't want to lynch, but if I have misinterpreted your intention there than I apologise.

To follow up, then, where did the statement of:

[...]

come from? What was it that made you feel the need to say this right now?

Appology accepted.

What I was trying to get across is that instead of worrying about if we should or shouldn't lynch someone today, we should remember that scum will always want to lynch (especially early on like this) unless the person that's likely to die is scum. In that case they will do something that could cause a no-lynch situation.

I'm not trying to get anyone to stop talking, not at all. I just wanted to point out that if we are arguing about something that seems silly (to me it seems silly, just my opinion there) to argue about, it could be a means of distracting us from seeing what is really happening.

[Tamamono]

Vote Count

Jamie Neville (jamesn) - 1 (Capt. Redblade)

24 hours remain until Dawn.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Tamamono

[Pandora]

What I was trying to get across is that instead of worrying about if we should or shouldn't lynch someone today, we should remember that scum will always want to lynch (especially early on like this) unless the person that's likely to die is scum. In that case they will do something that could cause a no-lynch situation.

Oh, that seems an unexpected concern at this stage, especially saying it at a point when nobody had been accused, but again, that's just my opinion. And I didn't think you were saying that scum will always want to lynch, so thank you for clarifying that as it didn't come across in your initial post. I had thought you were indicating that scum wouldn't want to lynch, but you think they always will.

I'm not trying to get anyone to stop talking, not at all. I just wanted to point out that if we are arguing about something that seems silly (to me it seems silly, just my opinion there) to argue about, it could be a means of distracting us from seeing what is really happening.

I certainly didn't suggest I thought you were dissuading people from talking, so please don't imply that I did. So discussing whether or not to lynch is silly to you because, no matter what, you want to lynch today - am I interpreting that correctly? And what is really happening that we might miss right now by discussing this?

[Capt. Redblade]

Let's write a play about Byron the Magician, Henry the Hairbrush, Cat and Hat.

Byron: I think Henry the Hairbrush is too quiet! Let's policy lynch him for being quiet!

Cat: OK! Lynching quiet people is easy to do and doesn't attract suspicion.

Hat: Well, I can't think of anything better to do, so let's lynch Henry!

Byron: Yeah! Way to go!

So poor Henry the Hairbrush was lynched, because it was easy for everyone to vote for the quiet person. The town has nothing to go on on Day two.

It's rare that a policy lynch goes that smoothly. Usually there are a few outliers who will have:

a) voted for Byron or Cat specifically because they voted for Henry

b) voted for Henry in order to conform to the bandwagon and appear townie

c) voted for someone else entirely in order to be able to say, "I didn't vote for him! Look how town I am!" on Day Two

d) didn't vote for Henry because they don't believe in policy lynches

When this happens, we can look at the voting patterns and people's reactions just as easily as we could if we lynched our "best bet".

Even in the case that a policy lynch is unanimous, it is still possible to glean information from the voting order and the timing of people's votes. Did Player A jump on the bandwagon so early because he wanted to appear town? Did Player B wait until the last moment because he's sheepish town, or did he not want to seem too eager?

Maybe I read too much into your first post. Sorry if I did. But the fact is you still seem to be applying a double standard to vote analysis, saying one scenario can give us useful info but the other can't, even when that is demonstrably false, and I don't like that one bit..

[jimmynick]

Wait, let's go over this again.

What? No, I'm very much against policy lynching and refuse to do it.

So you have a strong feeling against policy lynching. Do you have reasons (you haven't given any), or is it just irrational and hostile?

I think this is a good point. Personally I find people who are irrationally hostile to opponents of well debated concepts, like policy lynching, to be more suspicious than those who reasonably suggest such concepts, like a lynchless first day- er, night.

So now policy lynching is a well-debated topic that deserves our attention, but you are very much against it?

You are very clearly, without any misinterpretation, spouting mixed messages. You know, that rustles my jimmies Jamies the wrong way. I think you're my "best bet" for scum now.

Vote: Adelaide Malone (Adam)

And, Rolfie, I would contend that if you have to argue about people's behaviour surrounding a "policy lynch", it devolves into an argument about the lynchee's scumminess, turning it into a normal lynch.

[Bob]

Vote: Officer Penelope Talbott \ Palathadric

She doesn't exactly sit well with me. I'm throwing this out there as a potential person that's a bit off in my opinion. Just some of the things she's said are a bit peculiar.