07-23-2022, 05:54:50 AM
Trust me, this is a good idea.
Also there's no confusion here. Someone needs to die for us to have the highest chance of success as town, ESPECIALLY in a completely blind and unilluminatable scenario like this one, where we don't know anyone's role abilities beyond a guess. Otherwise initiative is lost.
So obviously we should eliminate the people most likely to bear some obnoxious tampersome role. Such as something called "compromise" which sounds like a role that could only possibly make things worse by either tampering with voting or doing something else entirely.
As for the opening bandwagon, I have to say, that's actually a theoretically good idea, as is the excuse of "eliminate someone with a vaguely defined role" first, though the argument does fall apart when thinking about "wait the role names are unconnected to what side the person ends up on."
Nonetheless I think we have a compelling argument to start eliminating people with names that are VERY easy to interpret as a role that could undermine everything, like one that implies "voting fuckery". Mr. Somebody is hardly a name that implies anything other than "vanilla townie" or possibly a wise stump or something. Or maybe something like an identity thief style role. Either way, it seems less potentially annoying than "compromise", in the uncompromising world of mafia where the options are "execute or don't."
Also, Matthew, you implied you know something about Nebula. You heavily breadcrummed. It was blindingly obvious. Elaborate, do not dodge the question. (I think you also implied you might be a miller-type role? Not sure.)
Also there's no confusion here. Someone needs to die for us to have the highest chance of success as town, ESPECIALLY in a completely blind and unilluminatable scenario like this one, where we don't know anyone's role abilities beyond a guess. Otherwise initiative is lost.
So obviously we should eliminate the people most likely to bear some obnoxious tampersome role. Such as something called "compromise" which sounds like a role that could only possibly make things worse by either tampering with voting or doing something else entirely.
As for the opening bandwagon, I have to say, that's actually a theoretically good idea, as is the excuse of "eliminate someone with a vaguely defined role" first, though the argument does fall apart when thinking about "wait the role names are unconnected to what side the person ends up on."
Nonetheless I think we have a compelling argument to start eliminating people with names that are VERY easy to interpret as a role that could undermine everything, like one that implies "voting fuckery". Mr. Somebody is hardly a name that implies anything other than "vanilla townie" or possibly a wise stump or something. Or maybe something like an identity thief style role. Either way, it seems less potentially annoying than "compromise", in the uncompromising world of mafia where the options are "execute or don't."
Also, Matthew, you implied you know something about Nebula. You heavily breadcrummed. It was blindingly obvious. Elaborate, do not dodge the question. (I think you also implied you might be a miller-type role? Not sure.)
I am the They who says it!