Don't I love this discussion...
Legate, you are saying basically exactly the same as I am, but leaving out the same vital and obvious fact: that we can get a wolf through the maniac if we leave him/her alone, if s/he reveals, we can't count on getting a wolf. (But we do get an innocent.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Legate
3b. We don't lynch them, but we keep them both around until some more convenient time. Which simply might be a tactical tool to use later during the game, but might also create dangerous confusion by pulling too much attention to itself, causing controversy ("to lynch or not to lynch", "I want to lynch XY because they suggest lynching this one or that one of the two revealed 'Maniacs'" etc...), simply too much chaos. Personally I would be fond of 3a if it came to such decicion. But not to get ahead of ourselves...
|
...what?? We should definitely NOT do this.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Legate
...the bottom line being, I think if we want to do it, might be better to do it in a bigger village than in smaller village. So it might be good.
|
Agreed. Although, if I understood
Sally right, she had a fair point in saying that the further the game goes, the bigger a threat the maniac is to the wolves, so maybe we want to keep him/her around to keep the wolves on their toes.
Also, if *I* was the maniac, I probably wouldn't reveal because being a known innocent is kind of boring.
edit: xed with everything after Legate's abc post