Quote:
Originally Posted by Total Ulla
But it would look very strange if Scum C then start the next Day with a vote in the bank and don't spend it on Scum B.
It would not be as "accountable" as a real vote - but it would be hard to explain why the sudden change of heart in regards to Scum B.
So I still think it's only fair that we demand that players banking their votes still express how they would have voted for, if they hadn't banked the vote. We can't force players - but I will look twice at players not willing to have a faux-vote when banking...
|
Noted, but let's examine your day 2 scenario. Town A gets lynched, Scum B throws a vote on Scum C the next Day, but it would be easy for Scum B to change his vote Day 2. A claim comes up, or someone says something suspicious, or a townie who threw a late vote on Town A Day 1 gets looked at, or a host of other possibilities.
And on the other hand, let's say a townie banked his vote and made a "I would vote for Scum B" declaration Day 1, and some of the (often valid) possible reasons for voting for someone else come up Day 2. Do we really want to lock them in on a Day 2 vote?
I'm just not seeing a way to assign accountability in this scenario.