Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN]

:(

saddest pagetop

Hmm, no night kill?

Surprising.

well we're all 1x killproof right? tho b/c of the wording idk if its this or that

i think we gotta wait to see if someone got a gun or not

and if they'll tell us (which probs not) i mean idk its probs that and not this

well, that was expected. everyone gets either a lawyer or a bulletproof vest right? so, it makes sense no one died.

however the phrasing is interesting to me there. It didn't say no one died, it says no one was targeted, so does that mean the BEARS decided not to try and maul someone or? I'm leaning towards no one being targeted based on that wording, but why.

hmn.

"Nobody was targeted" seems to imply that mafia didn't pick someone for the night kill. I haven't been on this forum in a while so I'm not sure if this is a reasonable strategy or if mafia simply forgot. ;v; But umm! If Kiyoko could clarify, that would be nice, please? ;v;

If someone is targeted for a kill but survives, their name will appear in rollover, e.g. "Kiyoko was targeted for a kill, but it failed!" A few people have already asked me via PM so I figure might as well clarify in thread.

Maybe mafia want to try and go after the first person that is 'lynch'. This game is going to be hard on the mafia side because they are going to have choose their targets based off peoples proofs.

vote: Ezz until they posted.

Through looking at the rules I can see how mafia could abuse them to gain guns. Therefore I'm stating up front now, if you don't vote, then I will VOTE against you.

I guess this is an "information control" move by pawfia, then?

Edit: snaked by rasei

Interesting... I wonder why the bears decided not to make any targets? It's not like the vests are just gonna fall off or something. I would've figured they would've targeted someone to at least get them vulnerable.

Rasei, I actually wonder if we should have a small nonzero (ideally one) NV. It's still early on, and we might have a better chance of netting a town-owned gun.

The risk might not be worth it, but it's going to be less worth it later in the game. Actually, if we elected one player as "probably town," we could all NV except that player, to ensure they get a gun. Though I guess mafia would know who got the gun... and if we picked maf by mistake, that would also be bad. maybe not worth it.

Yeaaahhh... If we were to do something like that, it'd have to be SUPER carefully planned and organized because otherwise, yeah if maf got a gun we'd all be very sad.

If we do something like that, then the person that gets the gun must not have been a target before. Another thought I had was, what if mafia picked one of their own people early on to make it seem like they are in the clear.

I actually think there is some merit to drandahl's idea! I don't know if we would have the kind of coordination to make it happen, but if even if mafia were to get the gun with that plan, they couldn't fire it without us knowing they were the one who fired it, since there would only be one gun in play.

I think it's less risky to have everyone except one person no vote than it is to have everyone try to vote, since someone might be inactive or intentionally not vote, and then we won't know who has the gun unless they say so in thread. At least with drandahl's plan, we would be able to keep people accountable. ;v;