Doesn’t the second point disadvantage some players? As we’ve seen, a player can make their point, then at the end vote to prevent anyone else saying anything. That’s hugely powerful and goes against the rest of the game being relatively asynchronous. Some sort of formalised system would be beneficial, so you don’t feel you need to watch the thread constantly in case defence and votes hit in close succession.
And on the opposite side, it makes starting a vote another weird bit of information to base accusations upon that wouldn’t be in a real time game. If a players a threat to you, start votes before they can say anything.
It makes sense that either everyone should have a chance to speak between the defence and voting, or no one should. The latter makes a lot more sense in ensuring nominations and voting don’t take any longer than they already do. It’s also more interesting from a gameplay perspective IMO - preventing any argument except the defence from influencing votes stops hivemind cross-analysis of the defence that’s more in the spirit of the game. All arguments should be during the day, making players ‘isolated from communication’ during nominations and voting.
Not a complaint (I’ve posted this here so it doesn’t intrude on the current game), but I think it’s a point of discussion for future games. I’m interested to hear others’ thoughts? (Spectators and players alike)