How can a loss, even minor, not be a loss? I agree that even when skewed a vote record is more of an asset then just a corpse, but both provide information, or can. But a random lynch doesn't and a near-random leaves DFs a loophole to get their guys out of fire, you skipped over my comments in that regard there and that's the flaw, one I don't think you want to see. When we've got little information people can usually find something that someone said and start pushing on it. Now, in of itself, that's good, that's how the game is played, but we get a weariness factor that combined with an assumption that 'we must always lynch' means anyone with a few votes on them gets lynched because others are pressured into voting, this would be fine, it would give us a great vote record, if the people who started the wagon rolling were DFs, but in practice, this really isn't the case, we have too many players now who approach the day 1 lynch with the same mindset as a scummer 'anyone but me', so that our day 1 vote record amounts to indicating only "Voters thought there was sufficient evidence to justify voting" not "Voters thought there was sufficient evidence to indicate scummer" and the former is a scummer mindset to voting. Our day 1 vote record does a great job telling us whose acting scummy, it just doesn't have a strong correlation to who is assigned an actual scum role.



What, 1 out 4 isn't enough you need zero out of four? No lynch goes off without townie help, ever, the idea is supposed to be that a disproportionate number of DFs vote for something, i.e. more than half of them, 3 out 4, 4 out of 4, 3/3, etc. 2/4 or even 2/3 doesn't help us much. When a day 1 lynch is certain to occur, the DFs don't have any need to vote for it, so many of them won't.

And the point on the vigilante is that a vig go loose is not a good thing, and a random vote has worse odds then he does, the vote record is better, but if a lynch is guaranteed to occur, then the DFs don't need to pile on, and odds are the ones who vote probably did it for the same reasons the various townies did, to just get the day over with. The vote record only helps if it actually shows us something, it's not very useful when everyone voting has more or less the same motive 'X did something that could conceivably be viewed as no town, therefore I have an excuse to vote for them that will hold up if they end as a townie', it's worse in a tank-f, because the DFs are hoping it's not a townie either.



You're the one defining this as anti-town behavior, I could just as easily point out that you're pursuing me on nothing but my advocating a position on no lynches is distracting us from any evidence relevant to this game, and that that is anti-town behavior. What, exactly, is anti-town about saying our current mindset toward lynching on day 1 has become so arbitrary as to be indistinguishable from the scum, and that the no-no lynch policy may be to blame? Look, go back through the vote records of recent game's day 1 and you'll see what I have, that because a day 1 lynch is now so arbitrary to most players the DFs have no need to stick their necks out. It's not that your argument is so bad, I do disagree but we still agree that random lynches are bad and that at the very least, day 1 no lynches should rarely be done. I think what you don't see is that most of players don't really follow our reasoning on this, yours or mine, they don't vote no lynch because 'people say its bad' and 'they'll think I'm a scummer', and IMO this is translate into many players approaching day 1 lynches with a 'anyone but me attitude' not a 'who is our best target?' attitude, and while many people operate under this, are record is useless because the motivations of the players, DF and town alike, are identical, and in a tank-f this is magnified because now the DFs genuinely have the same mindset as the town 'probably won't get a bad guy, but we might if we're lucky, and the important thing is it wasn't me', this is not good.



See, that's not a logical answer. I knew when I raised it that I'd be prodding a sore tooth and drawing negative attention, obviously. As for the second half, why would I think the rival faction, if I were a DF, needs any 'clues' as an excuse to kill me? Nobody needs an excuse to target either of us, we're night action magnets.



We don't get any evidence of this style of day 1 lynching, all it tells the scum is that 51% of players voted, more or less as one would have expected from those players, regardless of their alignment. We don't really have to fight for day 1 lynches like we used to, because most of the players just shrug and say 'has to be someone, and it's not me' the accused says 'damn, I'm screwed, I'm dead, what's the point?' and no one wants to defend them because if they do turn up a DF they're dead, probably from NK before the town even has a chance to lynch, and it's not worth the risk since it will probably happen anyway, and heck, its not them. The players now vote exactly like the scum do.