##Vote Vashta

@Vashta ... no one has advocated for the hammer. That's probably the only thing worse to do than not to lynch on day one.

@OB_Gyn_Kenobi
I'm not too fond of the chances of Vashta being scum. I don't think it's particularly more likely than anyone else. On the other hand, getting the voting started up is necessary.

@Vashta:
What would you have us talk about if not to lynch?
I agree 100% with what the people arguing for a lynch are saying.

@OB: Actually, yeah, that kind of is the plan.
@phil: Well, if everyone was very anti-lynch. But there are going to be plenty of pro-lynchers putting pressure on. If they have a change of heart at the end then we get all your discussion and reads, and we do not kill one of our own.

@Vashta
Then join the discussion, instead of raising an issue which brings us away from the discussion of players and roles.

@bo: OB mentioned it as a flanderization of my plan.

Ahh, nevermind. You answered the question.
But that type of discussion is much much worse in terms of getting associative tells down the road.

@bo_sox
But hammering does take his logic to the absurd end.

No lynch = aliens keep quiet = no real enlightening discussion = may as well hammer to avoid townies inadvertently incriminating themselves

Lol, these cross posts.

@Vashta
What's your read on the uclabb proposal and defense? Is the proposal a useful thing to do? Is the defense town-y?

@OB ...

"No lynch = aliens keep quiet = no real enlightening discussion = may as well hammer to avoid townies inadvertently incriminating themselves"

I don't see him advocating for the hammer, I see him suggesting it as an example of a rash decision that hurts the town. Where his logic fails is that not lynching on day one is another example of a decision that hurts the town, but he doesn't actually seem to be advocating for the hammer; quite the opposite, actually.

@Vashta ... so he did, my fault. Regardless, we aren't going to hammer on day one. That is far, far out of the question.

@phil
So let me get this straight, a lot of votes have been thrown around already (uclabb, maniac, etc.) Vashta is really noisy, and as soon as I vote Vashta, phil immediately jumps in to deflect that vote. No one else tonight said explicitly, hey, so-and-so isn't scum. And your evidence that he's not scum is that he has the same chance of being scum as anyone else? Weak.

put only one #

^ignore, accidental

@bo_sox
Sorry, I am not trying to say he is advocating a hammer, I am just saying if you argue for a no-lynch vote, it is counter-productive to real discussion about a real lynching. If we a priori know we won't lynch, what value is the discussion?

Can we just avoid the octothorpe unless we're voting? Chaqa will probably just use control/command+F to find and count votes, so adding extra ones for him to scroll through is annoying.

No, not deflecting a vote. I said I didn't specifically like Vashta as a candidate only based on what he was saying.

Maniac voted as a placeholder, and qualified it as such. Thanks for making me notice uclabb, he's been fidgeting quite a bit, hasn't he? ghug voted with a pretty clear reasoning, though I don't agree with it.

I'd like to look at uclabb a bit. uclabb, why have you been throwing around votes, completely without accompaniment? Also, still waiting for your defense to ghug's thing.

I'll try to get back tonight. For now I'm leaving with this.
##Vote Uclabb

People who want to pressure him, join the bandwagon. It's how to get the discussion rolling.

Eh, he's now at 3, well ahead of the others, who are at 1, and don't have people pushing for lynch, really. I'd like to watch and see a bit before voting.

"If we a priori know we won't lynch, what value is the discussion?"

According to Vashta, it gives us enough information to make an educated decision on day two while ensuring that we don't lynch a townie on day one, but that makes no sense. If we're going to gain all of that information on day one, why can't we make that same educated decision on day one? We have a 14:4 ratio of town to mafia, but if we can make clear reads and keep everyone talking, as he advocates for, why can't we actually use that information today instead of waiting around and letting the mafia have a free kill? We could at least take a shot at mafia, and if our collective vote happens to flip town, we have even more information to go off of and we took our best shot.

Townies shouldn't be afraid to die. Your death will benefit us on the whole, and you still win if town wins even if you die. Mafia, on the other hand, want to live as long as possible, because the odds are stacked against them until the numbers are closer. I'm not saying that we shouldn't worry about whether or not we kill townspeople, but on day one, it doesn't have nearly the same adverse effects as it would later on. If we mislynch now, we're still okay, but if we don't get ourselves as much information as we possibly can immediately, we are more likely to mislynch later when it could be absolutely devastating, as we saw in M4.

At this point, advocating against a lynch today is just redundant, just as advocating for the hammer would be.

Sorry phil, I think you didn't like Vashta based solely on my vote for him.

Ok, going to sign off for a bit.

Still don't know what to think of uclabb, though the pressure on him will last a while, so no problem.
Vashta, since a lynching discussion is productive whether or not lynch happens, could you please contribute your thoughts say, on the uclabb proposition, defense and lynch?

Wow phil, don't hide your feelings or anything about shifting attention away from Vashta onto uclabb. Have you considered a professional poker career?

@OB: Trust me, using slippery slope reasoning is no way to go about argumentation.

@phil: A lot can be learned by who goes lynch vs no-lynch, but I will join the other discussions. Provide reads and who I would hypothetically vote for, though I will probably try to convince you guys to not lynch YET.

@bo: I simply want to prevent a SENSELESS death. Sure, we shouldn't be afraid to die, but that doesn't mean we should just kill off one our own on shaky reasoning. "Why can't we make the same educated decision on day 1?"
Lack of context, which can be partially be provided by the nightkills. There is more info at the beginning of day 2 than the end of day 1, so we won't be making the same educated guess either day. We will be making a more educated one on day 2 regardless of lynch or no-lynch.

Also, give me a minute to comment on the molehill of evidence against uclabb, after I look at it again, of course.

Vashta, if you want to prevent a SENSELESS death, allow the death to mean something. If the day 1 lynching death means something, players will have meaningful discussions. Arguing for a no-lynch day 1 ENSURES that the nightkill is senseless, because you can't conclude anything from it.

@Vash ...

"Sure, we shouldn't be afraid to die, but that doesn't mean we should just kill off one our own on shaky reasoning."

Okay, fine. In that case, present your idea for a no-lynch day one when it becomes obvious to you that there are no good cases and that the only thing we have to go on is shaky reasoning. Instead, you come out immediately and try to convince us all not to even bother thinking about lynching anyone. Why didn't you wait? How do you know we aren't going to have suspects? Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that we can't gather good suspects on day one when, in fact, that's not out of the question. Be, as I said before, flexible. The more you harp on this, the more I question your motives, so be flexible, and once you actually have an argument as opposed to hypotheticals, present it.