|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 13:17:52 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Sept 11, 2007 13:17:52 GMT -5
I'm going to have to agree with storyteller and Spaceman Blam about Roosh's behavior. I consider what you are doing to be anti-town. If you have something to say, say it. If you don't, don't say anything. If I know you're hiding something intentionally, it makes me think you're scummy.
FOS Roosh
(Is orange the FOS color? I don't know)
--FCOD
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 13:24:24 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 11, 2007 13:24:24 GMT -5
I say, let's cross that bridge when we get to it. In most games the first couple of Days were clustered around two players, anyhow. So my guess would be, around day 8 we should abandon those candidates who have non-significant minority votes (say 1 or 2 votes) and around day 9 we should start talking about who of those remaining should get lynched. In other words, treat day 8 as a first "deadline" and the next couple of days like a run-off 'twixt the leading candidates. Right, I wasn't saying do it all today. I do think waiting until the eighth day (not Day) is too long. The reason I said half was because most first Days about about 5 days long. We'll need more than 24-48 hours, I think, to whittle down our candidates with 28 people throwing in opinions. I don't really care if exactly what the deadline(s) are. I just want to ensure we have some kind of process in place, so we're not sitting here a week from now with votes spread all over the place, and no way to force people to drop votes that are going no-where in favor of ensuring we have a lynching majority.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 13:25:52 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 11, 2007 13:25:52 GMT -5
(Is orange the FOS color? I don't know) I think it's the defacto standard at this point.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 13:27:21 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 11, 2007 13:27:21 GMT -5
<snip> First off, I think it will help generate discussion, which will lead to us finding reads. Second, I don't want to wait to figure it out later, because then we have people potentially manipulating reasoning to get a specific person lynched or save another person. If we do it now, we don't have any alterior motives except for the generic scum ones that are always present, and they would be hard pressed to support an illogical method when they're not even sure if it will help or hurt them. I think you're over thinking it. I guess it's just pretty obvious to me, based on past experience, and like diggit said, that it's usually between two and three people, anyway. As much as I hate the idea of imposting an artificial deadline like he suggests, it may be necessary to get the second half of the process started, which is what I assume you're getting at. In that case, instead of having the "deadline" be, on say, day 8, I think the deadline should be when x% of the votes are in. IOW, let the votes drive the "deadline", not the clock. Unless, of course, we're within a couple days of the end of the Day. At that point, we can all begin our runoff. I guess my point is that the scum can't really drive this discussion too much, because all we're basically arguing is when we should drop our one off votes and focus on the leading candidates. Again, I think imposing an artificial deadline before we know what the situation will shape up is not necessarily a good idea.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 13:36:32 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 11, 2007 13:36:32 GMT -5
I think you're over thinking it. I guess it's just pretty obvious to me, based on past experience, and like diggit said, that it's usually 'twixt two and three people, anyway. As much as I hate the idea of imposting an artificial deadline like he suggests, it may be necessary to get the second half of the process started, which is what I assume you're getting at. In that case, instead of having the "deadline" be, on say, day 8, I think the deadline should be when x% of the votes are in. IOW, let the votes drive the "deadline", not the clock. Unless, of course, we're within a couple days of the end of the Day. At that point, we can all begin our runoff. I guess my point is that the scum can't really drive this discussion too much, because all we're basically arguing is when we should drop our one off votes and focus on the leading candidates. Again, I think imposing an artificial deadline before we know what the situation will shape up is not necessarily a good idea. I agree, I think it will come down to about 2 or 3 major candidates between whom one will definitely get lynched. That is, I don't think we'll have a problem picking out who should be in a run-off, I'm more concerned with making sure we get the run-off started with enough time for further analysis and perhaps a second run-off (say, we get three candidates, and the top two tie, or no single one gets a majority). I had considered a vote percentage, but then you get to a point where someone might be afraid to cast a vote because they'll kick in the next stage of the voting before they want to, and I certainly don't want to discourage people from voting, because that leaves a trail.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 13:41:39 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 11, 2007 13:41:39 GMT -5
But your thoughts are noted on the matter, CatInASuit. PanamaJack, you mentioned my name. I dislike name dropping randomly. Ok, so you drop my name and then say you dislike name dropping. Shady point #1. See, here's the thing BM. There are multiple killing groups (The Mods said if there was 28 peep, there would be an additional killing group, so I'm assuming a min. of 2 killers at night). For the Mafia people, they actually benefit from No-lynches AND Lynches. Your plan of Co-ordinating the town creates just a lot of delays and worries over something that any scummy person could easily get along with. because in the early stages the chances of us hitting scum are lower, so Mafia could easily play the odds by going joining in on the townie killing. in fact, they'd know when we ARE NOT Lynching scum, which would make them even MORE Eager to lynch said townies in chance that it might be the 2nd killing group. And this is shady point #2. From the mod's posts, I will agree that it is likely there are at least 2 night killers. However, you are making it sound as though there are 2 sets of adversaries for the town to contend with. Why would you use the term " 2nd Killing Group" when it is more likely that the town has a killer on their side? Also, if anyone starts acting anti-town, my personal feeling is that they should be lynched, regardless of their affiliation. Others may disagree.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 13:46:20 GMT -5
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Sept 11, 2007 13:46:20 GMT -5
FTR, I'm also suspicious of Diomedes, but it is largely because of the tone of his posts, and thus it is unsubstantiable. Yeah, I'm sorry about last night. I was getting a little frustrated. The light of day brings me a clearer (if still confused) mind. Lemme go back to where I was: Vote: WTF
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 13:52:23 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Sept 11, 2007 13:52:23 GMT -5
Also, if anyone starts acting anti-town, my personal feeling is that they should be lynched, regardless of their affiliation. I agree with this. I, for one, assume that any affiliation different than my own is bad. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 14:05:50 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 11, 2007 14:05:50 GMT -5
That raises a point actually, given a player roster of 28 people, anyone (the old hands I'm looking at you) have any insight into how many scum that would normally mean are in the game? Assuming a vanilla set up? Mind you it's only a guess, but I'd wager to say around five, possibly six. There might be, however four or five but with a scum aligned role that is independant (like Dick Deadeye or Sneaky Sam were). Note to selfIf they look like scum they are probably town. If they look like town they are probably scum. The point of the game is for the scum to hide amongst the townies and so think and act like townies. The point of the townies is to root out the scum and the best way to do this is to think like scum. This may come out in their posts. Try and find a reason other than just "they look scummy". Well you look like town. So you're probably...? Note to self:Post quicker or preview. But on preview the posts start from the first and don't get to the latest ones. Is there a way to toggle that? They DO show the latest ones. But not on preview. You have to hit reply on the page number you want to see the preview on to see it to the end. Oh and listen people, for the sake of since the random debate seem to have started again, I'll say: I don't care what you say. If you're scum it is NOT random for you at all. Every play IS coordinated. Even if you vote for one of your own teamates, that's doing it just for the sake of throwing people off, thus is has a point, thus it is not random. The only way of it being truly random is if you're scum but you didn't read the PM or go to the secret scum boards, which I can understand getting by on that for awhile possibly, but not for long because, as far as I know, the mods require you to check into the scum boards before long. So unless you want to cover the screen up constantly or squint to the point where you can never see who your fellow baddies are, it's not random in the least. It's only random if YOU choose it to be random (a la the 30 sided dice) but even that is CHOOSING..it's not originally random. And so I begin with an FoS on both Greedy and Idle, for trying to get everyone to accept as commonly-known fact a statement - that Day One is "essentially all about random voting" - that is both untrue and beneficial to the scum. Have you been reading my posts? I'm saying what YOU'RE saying. That it's NOT "random" for everyone and that putting it out there and saying that it's "random" is a scummy and suspicious move to me.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 14:06:43 GMT -5
Post by Caerie on Sept 11, 2007 14:06:43 GMT -5
Also, if anyone starts acting anti-town, my personal feeling is that they should be lynched, regardless of their affiliation. I agree with this. I, for one, assume that any affiliation different than my own is bad. --FCOD While I agree that any affiliation other than town (or in this case, crew?) is bad, I've seen the town tear each other apart over disagreements and the assumption that having different viewpoints equals one is scum and one isn't. "A and B are fighting. Lynch A and if he turns out town, B must be scum!" is a trap I'd like to see avoided. So let us remember that differing theories and viewpoints != differing affiliations.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 14:19:12 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 11, 2007 14:19:12 GMT -5
More importantly, the voting must be a majority to even have a lynch. This means that at the end of toDay, 15 of us are going to be voting for one person. I just asked this earlier and I got the answer back that it will not take fifteen people on one person but only one person having the majority of all the votes cast. Am I wrong?
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 14:21:14 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 11, 2007 14:21:14 GMT -5
<snip> With 28 players, it takes 15 votes to lynch. When the 15th vote is cast, Day will end automatically (i.e. no countdown--it's an Insta-Lynch). If no majority is reached by Day's end, no lynch will occur.<snip>
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 14:26:13 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 11, 2007 14:26:13 GMT -5
I agree with this. I, for one, assume that any affiliation different than my own is bad. --FCOD While I agree that any affiliation other than town (or in this case, crew?) is bad, I've seen the town tear each other apart over disagreements and the assumption that having different viewpoints equals one is scum and one isn't. "A and B are fighting. Lynch A and if he turns out town, B must be scum!" is a trap I'd like to see avoided. So let us remember that differing theories and viewpoints != differing affiliations. Just based on nothing but experience and patterns, I find this post scummy. Town fights all the time with Town. That is the nature of the game since there are ultimately more Town than Mafia. It will always happen. This is just because Town doesn't know who other Town is. But I often find the ones trying to play "peacemaker" is a prime suspect for scum themselves. I know I was the one saying (when I was scum) "Don't trust anyone, not even me" and "No, don't mod kill them" even when we were hoping they'd get modkilled. Substantial? Not at all. But just something that sorta trips my meter.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 14:26:57 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 11, 2007 14:26:57 GMT -5
Have you been reading my posts? I'm saying what YOU'RE saying. That it's NOT "random" for everyone and that putting it out there and saying that it's "random" is a scummy and suspicious move to me. Sure 'nuff, I misread. I apologize and withdraw the FoS.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 14:27:51 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 11, 2007 14:27:51 GMT -5
Thank you, pygmy, but I read that already..which is what made me ask my question the first time. "Does that mean fifteen on one person or just a majority [aka, more votes than anyone else] of votes on someone?"
And it was answered by someone that it was the latter.
So consider me still confused.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 14:28:15 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 11, 2007 14:28:15 GMT -5
I'm going to have to agree with storyteller and Spaceman Blam about Roosh's behavior. I consider what you are doing to be anti-town. If you have something to say, say it. If you don't, don't say anything. If I know you're hiding something intentionally, it makes me think you're scummy. <snip> I tend to agree with your intent, but I'd like to point out that Roosh was acting the same way at the end of Crazyville. He knows this, and may be trying to use it to his advantage. I'm not going to use this, per se, against him.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 14:29:13 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 11, 2007 14:29:13 GMT -5
Have you been reading my posts? I'm saying what YOU'RE saying. That it's NOT "random" for everyone and that putting it out there and saying that it's "random" is a scummy and suspicious move to me. Sure 'nuff, I misread. I apologize and withdraw the FoS. Okay!
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 14:30:06 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 11, 2007 14:30:06 GMT -5
Thank you, pygmy, but I read that already..which is what made me ask my question the first time. "Does that mean fifteen on one person or just a majority [aka, more votes than anyone else] of votes on someone?" And it was answered by someone that it was the latter. So consider me still confused. Majority, by definition, means more than half. Half is 14. More than half is 15.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 14:36:13 GMT -5
Post by Caerie on Sept 11, 2007 14:36:13 GMT -5
Just based on nothing but experience and patterns, I find this post scummy. Town fights all the time with Town. That is the nature of the game since there are ultimately more Town than Mafia. It will always happen. This is just because Town doesn't know who other Town is. But I often find the ones trying to play "peacemaker" is a prime suspect for scum themselves. I know I was the one saying (when I was scum) "Don't trust anyone, not even me" and "No, don't mod sha them" even when we were hoping they'd get modkilled. Substantial? Not at all. But just something that sorta trips my meter. I'm not sure I'm reading this right. Are you agreeing with me or saying that my post is scummy? Because it seems like you're saying essentially what I did (disagreeing and bickering doesn't make anybody scum) but then you said you found that post scummy.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 14:57:45 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 11, 2007 14:57:45 GMT -5
Just based on nothing but experience and patterns, I find this post scummy. Town fights all the time with Town. That is the nature of the game since there are ultimately more Town than Mafia. It will always happen. This is just because Town doesn't know who other Town is. But I often find the ones trying to play "peacemaker" is a prime suspect for scum themselves. I know I was the one saying (when I was scum) "Don't trust anyone, not even me" and "No, don't mod sha them" even when we were hoping they'd get modkilled. Substantial? Not at all. But just something that sorta trips my meter. I'm not sure I'm reading this right. Are you agreeing with me or saying that my post is scummy? Because it seems like you're saying essentially what I did (disagreeing and bickering doesn't make anybody scum) but then you said you found that post scummy. I think Idle is alluding to the fact that your eminently reasonable position here - that disagreement and bickering don't make either participant scum - is often used to set up a good scum gambit: the one where the scum waits for two townies to be at one another's throats, then starts saying what you said, appearing to urge moderation and suggesting that both participants might be town. After both participants end up lynched, said scum winds up looking like the calm voice of reason (surely scum wouldn't have tried to defuse a fight between townies!). Of course, like most things, townies can take the same position, because it IS, in fact, a reasonable position to take.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 14:59:00 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Sept 11, 2007 14:59:00 GMT -5
Thank you, pygmy, but I read that already..which is what made me ask my question the first time. "Does that mean fifteen on one person or just a majority [aka, more votes than anyone else] of votes on someone?" And it was answered by someone that it was the latter. So consider me still confused. A majority requires more than half of the voters to vote for one person, not more than half of the votes to be on one person. As soon as there are 15 votes on one person, the day will end, and if there are not 15 votes on one person before the time limit, the day will end with no lynch. At least that's my interpretation. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 15:06:31 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 11, 2007 15:06:31 GMT -5
Hey, FCoD, I really like the idea of including your Mafia history in your sig. Hope you don't mind that I just stole it.
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 15:09:37 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on Sept 11, 2007 15:09:37 GMT -5
By the way, my 'ask Roosh' statement was meant as a joke (you know, about the secrecy thing). I guess sort of a poor one. If you simply object to the very mention of your name, I would hope that people who analyze posts in the future would be able to distinguish positive from negative posts, and posts that are merely neutral. Roosh, storyteller0910, sinjin, Kat, FlyingCowofDoom, CatInASuit, and Diomedes have all posted to this thread. As for my Firefly knowledge - I've seen the movie, watched most of the episodes. Right now I'm re-watching all of the episodes to catch up (and mine them for quotes).
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 15:24:19 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Sept 11, 2007 15:24:19 GMT -5
Upon re-reading the thread, I think that Roosh and later F(b)CoD raised a very good point about dnooman, who was wondering if the game was set up more as an every-man-for-himself, which according to the roles that at least some of us got, it obviously isn't.
I'd like to hear an explanation before I vote, as I can imagine there may be some scenarios in which dnooman has a role that may not be vanilla town but may be helpful to us nonetheless. But it seems relatively apparent that dnooman has a role that is different than mine, for one.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 15:43:54 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Sept 11, 2007 15:43:54 GMT -5
Okay, I'm getting confused by all this majority voting to lynch talk. Here is how I interpreted the rules for lynching.
It takes a full majority (aka more than half, therefore 15 on this Day) to create an instant lynch and end the Day right smack dab on that minute. No more discussion, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
However, if the full Day goes by without reaching 15, then if there's at least a smaller majority on one lynchee (say..8 people on one person, and the next person only has 6 people) that person gets lynched. The only time there would be no lynch is if there's a tie for the most votes (two people with 8 votes, let's say).
Now, am I the only one that interpreted the rules like that? Am I off in Never Never Land?
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 15:48:53 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 11, 2007 15:48:53 GMT -5
But your thoughts are noted on the matter, CatInASuit. PanamaJack, you mentioned my name. I dislike name dropping randomly. Ok, so you drop my name and then say you dislike name dropping. Shady point #1. See, here's the thing BM. There are multiple killing groups (The Mods said if there was 28 peep, there would be an additional killing group, so I'm assuming a min. of 2 killers at night). For the Mafia people, they actually benefit from No-lynches AND Lynches. Your plan of Co-ordinating the town creates just a lot of delays and worries over something that any scummy person could easily get along with. because in the early stages the chances of us hitting scum are lower, so Mafia could easily play the odds by going joining in on the townie killing. in fact, they'd know when we ARE NOT Lynching scum, which would make them even MORE Eager to lynch said townies in chance that it might be the 2nd killing group. And this is shady point #2. From the mod's posts, I will agree that it is likely there are at least 2 night killers. However, you are making it sound as though there are 2 sets of adversaries for the town to contend with. Why would you use the term " 2nd Killing Group" when it is more likely that the town has a killer on their side? Also, if anyone starts acting anti-town, my personal feeling is that they should be lynched, regardless of their affiliation. Others may disagree. This is easy to answer. Your name wasn't "dropped". I was letting you know how I felt about your posts, CatinaSuit. However, PanamaJack did it differently. He dropped my NAME to back up his ideas (saying something to the order of "If Roosh were here, he would agree") That to me is name dropping- Because he added my name to an opinion without my consent. That's the big difference for me. If I go: CatinASuit, I think you're an okay dude. I'm watching you though. That's MUCH different then CatinASuit Probably agrees with me when I state that we should do ....[blah blah blah]. If PJack addresses me, that's fine. But I don't want him to speak for me saying what he thinks I might/might not say. ___Point 2____ That's because I did say that. I do believe there is a minimum of at least 2 killing groups. I even said "Min. 2 killing groups" there could be a Vigilante yes, but I'm more inclined to believe there are at least 2 BADGUY Killers out there as well. there could be 3 killers, one being a Vigilante too, that would still be covered by my "minimum of 2". Unless you're just asking me: do I believe there is only Scum and Vig?That situation, i do not believe is the case. What evidence do I have? None. :shrug: But it's my opinion. Anyways, back to reading this page.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 15:49:28 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 11, 2007 15:49:28 GMT -5
My view on the majority voting is as follows.
We require 15 people to lynch someone. If we get 15 people voting for a single person, they are lynched there and then and it is the end of day.
If the time limit is reached without a majority of people voting for a single person, the day ends with no lynch.
For example, for today, if the person having the most votes at the end of the time limit only has 12 votes, the day ends with no lynch.
|
|
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 15:49:59 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 11, 2007 15:49:59 GMT -5
However, if the full Day goes by without reaching 15, then if there's at least a smaller majority on one lynchee (say..8 people on one person, and the next person only has 6 people) that person gets lynched. The only time there would be no lynch is if there's a tie for the most votes (two people with 8 votes, let's say). I don't read the rules this way. Your "smaller majority" of 8 people is not a majority at all - it's a plurality. A majority, by definition, requires more than half. If there are 12 votes for the leading candidates at the deadline, there is no lynch.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 15:53:33 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 11, 2007 15:53:33 GMT -5
<snip> Unless you're just asking me: do I believe there is only Scum and Vig?That situation, i do not believe is the case. What evidence do I have? None. :shrug: But it's my opinion. Anyways, back to reading this page. So, you just have this funny feeling in your tummy that there's a serial killer, for example?
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Sept 11, 2007 15:54:31 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 11, 2007 15:54:31 GMT -5
Okay, I'm getting confused by all this majority voting to lynch talk. Here is how I interpreted the rules for lynching. It takes a full majority (aka more than half, therefore 15 on this Day) to create an instant lynch and end the Day right smack dab on that minute. No more discussion, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. However, if the full Day goes by without reaching 15, then if there's at least a smaller majority on one lynchee (say..8 people on one person, and the next person only has 6 people) that person gets lynched. The only time there would be no lynch is if there's a tie for the most votes (two people with 8 votes, let's say). Now, am I the only one that interpreted the rules like that? Am I off in Never Never Land? 13) If majority has not been reached by the deadline…there will be no lynch. This one is important so read it twice.If there are people without a MAJORITY (ie: 15 for today) of the votes, then it's no lynch. So basically: when someone gets 50% of the vote. The day ends. If that never happens, and it gets to the deadline, we lose the day with a No lynch. That's all it is.
|
|