.png){kind=avatar}
So I suppose in retrospect I should have sent leksu's name to marty and Wagon, not aedan. It all worked out in the end, I suppose.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Or, if real life allowed it, you could have sent the PM after deadline has passed but before update was made. That way the wolves wouldn't have had time to change hunt order to seer but in case the info was bad the "seer" who sent the PM would have been lynched next day even if you had been hunted.
Ideally you could have sent right at the deadline/a minute before. Perhaps I should have been more clear there, I apologise for that. I would disagree with Skob about sending it after the deadline as I don't think game-information should be passed on after the deadline.
I know people who'd disagree. Me, for one. What if the GM is delayed by half a day? Does the lynched player get to keep trading information, giving instructions etc. long after he should be dead.
As a rule, no-one should anything that really gives away information that isn't already publicly known after deadline but before update, but definitely not the person who is scheduled to get lynched in a Lite game.
I agree. Technically, you're dead at deadline. It just takes a while for the GM to write the update.
Of course not if the update is very late. I mostly think it applies to the first minutes, which normally would mean until update. I also don't think one should reveal critical information like pack members or scan results after deadline, but I would put sending that PM one minute before deadline or one minute after as the same.
I always thought the rule was "Lynched people are dead after the deadline, hunted people after the update" But I guess while not forbidden it does sound a bit gamey to send PMs after the deadline so you're untouchable
So...where's the cut-off point?
I think GMs should be allowed to use some discretion, but players should never deliberately abuse the rule: if you can't get it sent in time and you end up sending the pm a minute late that might be okay - deliberately waiting until after the deadline is not.
It is a gray zone, but a couple minutes in should be fine. Panzer has a point about lynchees and hunts though, so perhaps people lynched shouldn't send PMs after deadline.
But I said the exact same thing (about lynched people) and you gave a completely different response
Should be the most votes--it isn't always, especially early on, that a player has an absolute majority of votes. But that's pedantry.
This was fabricated evidence against me. Hax never saved me. What made you say it? I can only guess it's down to the "shallow reading".
This is a blatant lie, or another case of "shallow reading"? On that day I voted and presented a case against the arguably most active player left in the game. Nowhere did I say we should kill inactive players. How you can make that the only argument I made is beyond me. In fact it was you that proposed the opposite:
When I was dead I pointed out that using "killing inactives benefit the wolves" as a dogma would spell death for these games. My entire post was generally speaking and again; nowhere did I say that we should kill inactive players. Let me rephrase what I wrote. Maybe it will make more sense...
Active players make for easier targets due to their larger volume of text/acts providing more reasons to vote them. Anything can be (and is being) twisted in these games. The worst case inactive players are impossible targets unless their voting record can be made out to be telling. Zombies do actually benefit the bad guys by presenting ~zero information for the villagers to work out who's who. Furthermore, zombies are detrimental to the game. Imagine everyone posting their vote, and only that, for an entire game. Fun, eh?
What I am advocating is that everyone vote on those they suspect, but if ever in a situation where they are clueless... here it comes... then, yes I do suggest they chose the zombie ahead of the active player. There, I've said it. Have a go at me for saying it by all means. -But please let us bury the hatchets and smoke the peace-pipe before we start another game together. Meta-feuds are stupid and only serve our opponents ;-)
You didn't notice the part where I was indeed guilty of meta-gaming. I more or less made up a reason to vote Wagon. I was convinced that Ark was no baddie and I was frankly not comfortable going after Aedan once more after what I pulled on him in my last and first game here. I told Wagon before the deadline and I want to repeat my apology to him for my silly act that robbed him of a deserved victory.
Congrats to Marty for a most deserved victory! Active villagers close to deadline on day 1 is a fine recipe to string up a wolf on the first attempt. Your late vote-change gave me a chance to save myself, thereby bagging us a baddie. My part in it was purely self-preservation and deserve no credit. You followed up with a perfectly directed double wolf-lynching on day 2 and spot-on conclusion on day 3. Most impressive I must say! You get my vote for MVP.
I would say the baddies did a pretty good job. They were well on their way to leading us down all the wrong tracks until the outing suddenly popped up. That's just bad luck and there was no way to rebound from the Ark-PM-incident.
GG everyone.
Oy
I think it was a score draw. It was recognised "plurality" was the correct term, but that no-one cared.
Some of those Other Forums have it so voting stays open until all players have voted and someone has received a majority of all votes casted.