Okay, there could theoretically be a situation in which a Day 1 no-lynch would be valuable, but I cannot think of one right now, and I doubt that with the knowledge typically available on Day 1, we would know of it and be able to act on it.

Day 1 no-lynches are always bad because they at best give nothing and at worst are detrimental to the town. Even a townie lynch gives valuable information. Furthermore, as the goal of this game, for townies, is to eliminate all scum, a no-lynch decreases the number of chances the townies get to catch a scum by one - I've demonstrated this with a variety of town to scum ratios, with or without serial killers, and a second scum faction would in no way change this.



Don't forget the time you supported Day 1 no-lynch despite obvscum Cor Aman (or whoever it was) and Day 2 began with Darkfriend victory. I surely don't.

Sure, that game was poorly balanced, but it's ideal for demonstrating the problem. Even if we had lynched a townie, we would still have lost on Day 2, so no loss there. If we'd lynched Cor Aman, however, we would not have. Because of the no-lynch, we lost one chance at catching a Darkfriend, and in that game, that was our only chance.


Absolutely false.

Before we go anywhere else, Vote: Isaac. It doesn't help that you admitted yourself that you previously supported it because you were mod or a Darkfriend.

I note that you don't actually give any reason why you assert that no-lynch in these conditions is not only acceptable, but actually pro-town. Not only is it not, it is actually doubly harmful. In a scenario in which there are two scum factions, they will likely be trying to kill each other, therefore any information we can supply them as to the identity of the other scum is as valuable to us as it is to them. And if we no-lynch, then presumably that is because we don't have the information to find and lynch a scummer (because if we did, we'd lynch that person, right?) and so the scum don't really have any evidence as to the identity of the rival faction either. Therefore, both scum factions will be forced to night kill somewhat randomly. This, in a situation where a random death, as you yourself mentioned, is more likely to strike a townie.

Whereas on the other hand, if we random lynch then at least there's the voting record to go on, both for ourselves and for the scum trying to kill each other off. As I said, doubly important, and doubly effective.

2. A day 1 near-random lynch is less likely to get a townie than a purely random lynch is, and a purely random lynch is anti-town unless used strictly as a threat with teeth against post-slumpage and lurking.

Again, no. While I don't believe in really random voting, even lynching a townie is better than not lynching (though obviously, if you think he's a townie, you should never vote for him, force more scummie involvement in the lynch). It gives us a voting record to work on and decreases the number of people the scum can hide behind. Not lynching only wastes a chance at catching a Darkfriend.



As I pointed out above, this is completely wrong. You should always be ready to lynch any player until you have reason to suspect them innocent. Hesitation will only lead you to post a comment post game saying things like 'I knew you were guilty' or 'I should have trusted my instincts' or something.




No-lynch on Day 1 is at best futile and in all other cases (barring some thus far unknown hypothetical) anti-town.

And note if you will that Isaac never actually tells us what these circumstances might be, or what profit there is to be had in no-lynching. He just asserts it. I'll give you two very real losses that the town will incur if we don't lynch:

- Loss of number of chances to lynch the scum.
- Loss of information about players and the game.

And that for no gain.