Category 5 Hurricane

I only think he needs to be eliminated if he doesn't show. There is no reason to be in a hurry about it, and certainly no reason to use a limited resource to do it. An inactive player's alignment needs to be resolved on way or another, or the mere fact that they exist causes problems. And at this point the argument over Coolrock is big enough that we're literally trying to kill ourselves over it. Which I think just reinforces my original point. Inactives hurt us. I just wanted to throw that up as an option if we couldn't find something better. I didn't think we needed to get into a firefight over it.

If I absolutely had to use my weapon and Orange was not an option, Coolrock.

I don't know if I want to. But if I did, it would probably be Orange.

Well, that would fall back to "Why Anon_Kat?" Why scout an ability from a player unlikely to use one?

How did I counterattack? Is that normal?

Oh my goodness, Shade, does this mean that something unlikely to occur, did? Wow, that's impossible.

In the scumdoc?

Do you mean the weapon stats or the Darky thing?

I'm a Dark Eldar Sybarite. Whatever that means. And I've got a table of weapon stats that I don't understand. That appears to be it.

Yeah, I've noticed your flair for the dramatic when you have previously killed people before allowing them to role claim when you were scum.

I'm apparently the only one who wanted to lynch Coolrock for being inactive. I would say everybody was on the other side of that.

And why did you need to take that shot now? Why risk killing a town before you know anything about me? No warning, just bam, I want you dead.

You open fire the first moment you think you can get away with it. In this case you see everyone against me, so it's a safe shot.

Congrats, Orange, you have convinced me on a better lynch target! ##vote OrangeP47

Orange opening fire early on is deep within his scum meta.

The number 1 goal for putting the fire under an inactive is to make him active. Number 2 is to draw out who might want to protect him. Which is everyone, apparently.

People don't become more likely at being scum because they use words!

That's true literally for every player. Don't misuse statistics.

I'm taking offense to this "You should know better" bullshit. Inactive players are basically dead. If you don't do anything to verify them, they drag you down for the rest of the game. They don't count as players. They don't do actions, they don't vote, the don't talk. I've previously investigated Anon_Kat just so that I could write him off from Day 2 on since I know he'll never contribute anything helpful. Don't forget an inactive determined the result of the last game.

Welcome to Mafia.

Ok, I'll make another variant. Player 1 "You lynched Cat5 and he was town, and you knew that!" Player 2 "Yeah, well, we all agreed that wanting to lynch an inactive was scummy" Coolrock "..."

Right. And then this is how the argument goes on Day 3. Player 1 "You lynched Cat5 for wanting to lynch an inactive, that makes you scum!" Player 2 "Yeah, well, that's not really a strong argument now is it" Coolrock "..."

This isn't the first time you guys have incorrectly labeled my play as outside the norm. I really don't care so much about what you guys think of it. It seems at the very least that the majority of you want to avoid lynching Coolrock for one reason or another. So then I ask those of you who feel that way to present an alternative.

There is something that dead players and inactive players have in common. They won't answer questions.

That's totally fair, but if we're looking at effectively an RNG lynch, I'd rather remove the inactive. Otherwise we're asking the same question next phase.