Not a good idea.

Yeah, that will help.

You know guys, I want to try something. I've had the desire lately to be strange in my mafias, so I want to do something radical. Instead of continuing our pressure on Gil, let's take his word for it that it's not a good idea to pressure him. Instead we randomly go for someone else.

We pressure Gil, he is a powerful town we, we should've listened to him
We pressure Gil, random vote was a success in getting a weird claim
We pressure X, random vote was a success in getting a weird claim
We pressure X, the claim is satisfactory

In other words, we might as well pressure someone else. Gil, I do think you for helping me develop my radical "Dangerous Pressure Theorem."

Unvote

What the hell was that? How do you expect to be getting a claim out of anybody if all they have to do is say: "It's not a good idea to pressure me"?

I don't know whether you have a point or not, cause that did not make any sense at all. Radical it may be, but that looks radically illogical coming from you.

Well, the theorem is not yet fully developed. I'll work out the kinks and write up my thesis later. It sounded cool when I first wrote it.

Yeah, I know the feeling.

Back to pressuring Gil then or you want to spring a few more surprises first?

Here is my argument on the usefulness of the Dangerous Pressure Thereom:

The name of the game, no pun intended, in the mafias found at Heavengames is to evaluate role-claims. As such, the ability to successfully analyze assertions and logically arrive at arguments based on the words of others is so well-developed for the players, that making a strategy which utilizes this skill for maximum output is dire and completely necessary. To identify what exactly this strategy is to be, we must first discover the illogical assumptions made in the games.

The most fundamental of these is the assumption that when someone argues the notion that they are an important role and that it would not be a good idea for them to claim, further examination and pressure is needed. This is illogical when concerning random votes. If someone says they are a powerful role, why not take their word for it, and randomly pressure someone else? Granted, this can easily become problematic as all pressured players can simply say they are an important role. In such a case, all players in question should be entered in random.org, which will subsequently determine who must claim. I call this the "law of logical random-conservation."

The basic, fundamental aspect of this whole situation is that the players are pursuing a random vote. As such, the result of who claims should be always random. In identifying a player who does not say they are an important role, this is achieved randomly no matter what through the "law of logical random conservation." Either through randomly pursuing an individual player who is not important, or determining from a web of so-called "important" players, this ensures a random result is indeed always at play.

A second argument can be made about the usefulness of the law of logical random conservation. It keeps in check all of the players that would, under normal circumstances, lie about their importance as not to claim. This is because they always have a chance of claiming because they will be entered in random.org which, depite their instance on their important, increases their chances of having to claim anyway. Therefore, players who truly are important will say so, and those who aren't are likely to be truthful.

In conclusion, taking a player's word for it that they should not claim in the event of a random vote ensures that the town will have a higher likelihood of surviving, as long as they follow the correct protocol.

Ash
I've had the desire lately to be strange in my mafias,

Lately? I've always known you to be as such.

Although you thoery has some merit I'm not sure it will work in this particular scenario, as you metioned most everybody would claim to be as such and eventuality of random.org comming to fruition would be inevidable.

Ultimately the theory would likely be the demise of games for would invite inactivity in it's own right.

I personally would prefer a no vote, get more information from tonight and see if we can make an informed decision vs. a random and risky vote.