Changing votes is not a bad thing at all, it's completely normal practice. Lynching someone based on that is just plain stupid.
SDS hasn't done subbing yet because those people were sending in their actions.So which inactive person are we lynching today? I don't have a preference among them and it seems to me that as leads have basically dried up, we have nothing but those being inactive. It's worth noting the ones who just come to life when we threaten to lynch too, if they don't say anything substantial. (hint hint) So if any of you have a preference go ahead and justify it. I am wondering why SDS hasn't been doing subbings yet though.
It can be a scum tell. If the flow is changing from one person to another, especially to a villager (can be both from a villager or from a mafia), then a mafia is likely to change his vote with it. Mafioso are fine with whoever is being voted, as long as it's not one of them.
I actually find this more suspicious than not posting at all; a person idles to avoid attention, yet RaRe555 has not avoided attention, he has simply not participated in discussion. I would also be less suspicious if we hadn't told him before role PMs were assigned that he was expected to be a weak-willed and not entirely competent player; it is as if he is playing that role perfectly. "Oh, I'm sorry guys, I just don't have anything interesting to say." So, I would rather see a little more from Tyranidos before voting for him, for the time being I'd prefer to lynch an idler, or perhaps fire RaRe555.First, you have already posted most, if not all, the substantial stuff.
Second, I'm not exactly an insightful person, so i don't tend to post substantial.
Since my post at the beginning of day 2, I have just given my opinion, and I just didn't have anything else substantial to say.
I acknowledged that going with the flow was a mafia tell, but changing votes really isn't.It can be a scum tell. If the flow is changing from one person to another, especially to a villager (can be both from a villager or from a mafia), then a mafia is likely to change his vote with it. Mafioso are fine with whoever is being voted, as long as it's not one of them.
I completely agree. I have been waiting for someone to say this, and I am voting tyranidosLook, we could either lynch all of the people with <100 posts, or we could actually promote discussion by accusing players who can actually defend themselves.
While RaRe555's post seems only to confirm any suspicions of him that I previously had ('I'm not mafia, and neither is the person accusing me, THIS person is mafia' is a common mafia tactic), I feel that Tyranidos or Thunda would be better proposed lynches for today.
Look, we could either lynch all of the people with <100 posts, or we could actually promote discussion by accusing players who can actually defend themselves.
While RaRe555's post seems only to confirm any suspicions of him that I previously had ('I'm not mafia, and neither is the person accusing me, THIS person is mafia' is a common mafia tactic), I feel that Tyranidos or Thunda would be better proposed lynches for today.
jumpluff said:Tyranidos, you had multiple opportunities to join in with us during our conversations before you lost computer access.
Johann said:I completely agree. I have been waiting for someone to say this, and I am voting tyranidos
Mekkah said:Well, thunda likely doesn't care about this game. He is generally either on top of games, or he just doesn't really do anything but trolling.