the only thing it does is make sure we wouldnt elect a scum king
but the risk of electing a scum king to make sure we elect a town king is worth
I mean, itās better than a scum king, thatās for sure.
I donāt think theyād really be āforcedā to work with us. Itās not super likely thereās another role that can kill a Lord, and weāre not going to waste a day on them.
Itās still way better if we can make a villager into a Lord.
1 Like
Actually skipped that post.
Electing Oneiromancer as King is literally -EV both for us and for them?
-They canāt guard themselves;
-They are neutral and therefore can scumside;
-They have no reason to fully cooperate with us.
Yeah but it doesnāt fully negate the risk of this neutral king deciding to eventually scumside.
Which are pretty similar in the end.
for example these posts
theyāre making a read but at same time it really isnt
usually this is scum behavior because they are less willing to take strong stances on people
2 Likes
all of us out here debating whether we should elect a noot for king in an election we dont know will happen while Emilia out here solving
2 Likes
I mean healing kinda works as guards. They are neutral yes, but like I said, they are bound to have a townie in their droom ball meaning they canāt really side scum without giving up the town. They do have a reason since 1. we can threaten (though this is not preferable and I would like to work with Arete for town sakes) 2. we know they are important and will probably have some healers on them, meaning they have some reason to cooperate
DI and healing are quite different.
Also we might not even have protectives/healers, while electing someone as King grants them charges of Guards.
āGiving up townā doesnāt really matter since scum will be aiming to kill off town anyway ā so if they put main TRās into the sphere, they should expect that some of them are probably going to be attacked.
To be fair I already gave most of my thoughts today.
Not to mention that Iād prefer for this theoretical election discussion to happen now as opposed to during actual election, because scum can probably take advantage of chaos and fearmonger/pressure us into splitting votes.
How about
We shut up about King shit
We dont poison Seth - because more likely then not they are just being a stupid townie
And we deal with that when it happens
Sound good?
Sounds good
Glad weāre in agreement
Yeh Chloe is right, probably better to keep Seth around, I trust them anyways, and was only kinda jumping the idea of poisoning King if we got a confirmed person there to clear all doubt
Except unlike the āwhy did you lie about Alliesā āI didnāt lie in Allies!ā talk, this one is actually useful instead of being a distraction.
Because like I literally just said:
if the poison actually happens.
Also if arete scumread me
Why would they out that
Why would they not just
Allow me to continue being townread, and add me to bubble - if they think im scum
It makes no sense and i dont get it
ā¦Because at that time they were still masquerading as a Commoner and felt the need to contribute as we were questioning them numerous times?
Keyword being āstillā.
Either way Iāll let them answer this question as well, since I cannot read their mind.
1 Like
I just know if i were in that situation
I wouldnt call out someone you view as scummy (who other people dont) as scummy
And i would instead just
Add them to the sphere
So you have a higher chance of winning with both sides
And that scummy person wont kill you
Idk if im explaining this well
But i just dont get what arete did
You said it yourself.
My short time in WoW BfA.
I did not have time to really read you then, I do now.
Comparing them is crazy.
1 Like
I just feel like you would know that you cant use insurgency as a solid basis
Because last time it didnt work out
But yes, you were in the game for a short amt of time