Well, as I mentioned, it was my suspicion of Kronin that led to you, I was examining his actions and noticed you, not the other way around. Currently it's my opinion that if we kill one of you then we'll probably have a DF, and we'll also probably get two, if one is innocent, then the other may still be guilty but it probably not lynchable from a practical standpoint, I'm trying to decide who is more clearly guilty, or who is more likely if they die to prove/disprove the other's guilt.




They think I'm acting normally, which I am, the dilemma is that my 'normal' is 50% Evil Overlord and 50% Ruthless Inquisitor, so my behavior is fairly consistent regardless of my alignment. FT benefits from this even more, since he's tended to be 20% Evil Overlord and 80% Even More Ruthless Inquisitor. No, not hiding behind you and Hobo, technically I'd be hiding behind Hobo and Kylia anyway, since she claims your question. Had I wanted no lynch to have happened, I could have stayed silent or just posted a few 'Why isn't anyone talking?' empty posts expressing my irritation (quite genuine) at this unprecedented lack of participation. Core to my game is never waste opportunities, which is why so many of my questions have additional motives, and also that I believe one can only legitimately claim victory if one clearer hand a strong hand in the outcome. I'd not pass a chance to lynch someone were I a bad guy, both because I'd view it as a wasted opportunity and a forfeiture by inaction. Anyway, FT and I weren't really discussing 'Is No Lynch a good or awful idea?', we were discussing whether or not there is any scenario where it might make sense and potential negative feedback effects of having it as an ironclad policy. It also was something of bait, as was the pledge, but that's another story and another example of making everything you can multi-function and natural, I do believe there are conceivable scenarios where it might be useful, but in virtually all circumstances I'd view the option as one or more of the following 1) Anti-game, 2) tactically unwise, 3) Guessing at a scenario you have little reason to believe is in play (most of the theoretical cases I have where it might be tactically wise you also wouldn't likely know it was), 4) The byproduct of player laziness, if we're in a no-lynch scenario, it means people aren't doing what they are supposed to and probing and questioning, in such a case it might be tactically wise to no lynch, but I'd rather lop off a lazy players head as an example, even if they were town, to encourage active participation. This is why I said I would be very unlikely to ever vote for a no lynch... also I was trying to prod ranagrande into moving up the deadline, to get people talking, deadlines placed for this reason can and usually do get pushed back if people start talking again.Basically about the only case I'd do this in was if everyone had been playing well (not necessarily very active individually) and we'd also somehow not found some evidence, IMHO 'everyone lives' serves as a small player reward for good behavior. I sincerely hope, and decidedly doubt, that this should happen at some point




Only about half of them had seen the chair title before, it was a year ago IIRC, and there was no advocate, it was a position elected on day 1 that served till either killed or voted out, not daily rotated by default.



Impeach dates back to then, it was sort of distinguishing the alternate mode of removing someone from office - killing them - anyway its a bizarre word in definition and in etymological roots, I've heard some amazingly long blathering on the matter back during the Clinton Years. Originally - and it never made it into play in 8, it would have simply suppressed that persons ability to use the double vote that day, but I decided it was just easier to go with stripping.