The Syndicate

LittleTiger wrote:

insertnamehere wrote: You aren't actually giving any reasons why you randomized, just that you wish people to shut up about it.

What? Are you being serious?

LittleTiger wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

LittleTiger wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

Kate wrote:My whole point about the randomizing is that if you randomize, there is nothing to go back to later. If you vote a weak ping, or a bad fakes a weak ping, those are in the thread as evidence later in the game. Randomizing tells everyone nothing, and if you are bad, that is a good thing. So the argument about "its just as likely to lynch a civ as is voting on weak pings" may be true but it leaves something to be analyzed later, which randomizing doesn't.

This.

As a thought experiment, if we all randomized every lynch the baddies would be nearly guaranteed to win, right? Because even though they're outnumbered they get kills every night and start with a 75% chance of lynching civvies daily. I strongly dislike Roxy's argument, and agree with llama, that her aggression is pinging me.

But she's not on the poll, so as it is I'm trying to decide whether boo's willingness to lynch no-shows (which is at best no better than randomizing) of LT's early randomization was worse. Leaning boo because he hasn't defended his reasoning since he pinged people, and I do feel a little bad lynching LT on her bday

But we wouldn't randomize every lynch! The randomizer is perfectly okay for a day 1 if there is nothing else to go on. I really, really wish I had not mistaken the poll end time, tbqh!

See above for a multitude of reasons why a Day 1 randomization is not perfectly okay.

I SAY IT IS! I am so sick of this discussion time after time after time. If someone wants to randomize on D1, so what? Ugh! Everyone has different ways of approaching D1 and I wish we could just stop having this debate. I have played hundreds of games by now, and really.... it gets old seeing the same shit over and over.

Consider that baddies might SAY they are randomizing and actually do not. You can then go back later and add it to other information you might have gathered and add it to the pile of "evidence". So, there you go... an opposing view. I say, let people play the way they want to play...

linki: IF YOU ARE READING THE THREAD you will see that I voted early BY ACCIDENT, INH!

LittleTiger wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

Kate wrote:My whole point about the randomizing is that if you randomize, there is nothing to go back to later. If you vote a weak ping, or a bad fakes a weak ping, those are in the thread as evidence later in the game. Randomizing tells everyone nothing, and if you are bad, that is a good thing. So the argument about "its just as likely to lynch a civ as is voting on weak pings" may be true but it leaves something to be analyzed later, which randomizing doesn't.

This.

As a thought experiment, if we all randomized every lynch the baddies would be nearly guaranteed to win, right? Because even though they're outnumbered they get kills every night and start with a 75% chance of lynching civvies daily. I strongly dislike Roxy's argument, and agree with llama, that her aggression is pinging me.

But she's not on the poll, so as it is I'm trying to decide whether boo's willingness to lynch no-shows (which is at best no better than randomizing) of LT's early randomization was worse. Leaning boo because he hasn't defended his reasoning since he pinged people, and I do feel a little bad lynching LT on her bday

But we wouldn't randomize every lynch! The randomizer is perfectly okay for a day 1 if there is nothing else to go on. I really, really wish I had not mistaken the poll end time, tbqh!

Kate wrote: I'm going to vote for Boo. I think that his suggesting to vote BWT early in the day for not having checked in is suspect. I also think he is too good of a player to think that way.

*votes Boo*

MovingPictures07 wrote:I keep reading those posts in a sarcastic tone.