With nine players alive, five votes are required to lynch.
Deadline falls on Saturday June 5 at 17:14 UTC.
Why? There have been plenty of times that I've voted without explanation, so I completely disagree with what you're saying here. And I know plenty of other players who feel the same way I do, so I'm gonna need a bit more than this because honestly, voting without explanation is not a scum-tell at all.Post 99, remouk wrote:There's nothing more scummy than voting without explanation (except when there are none at the begining of the game).
The point of my vote wasn't to change anyone's minds about anyone at that point - it was to obtain reactions from both the person I voted, and the other people in the game. Votes can serve multiple purposes; they don't necessarilyPost 99, remouk wrote:The game is about poiting things. If no one voted XXX when you decided to vote him with no explanation, I don't get how it can change someone's mind to the point that he sees the same thing as you.
That's just silly. If I was really voting someone just to try to get a mislynch, wouldn't it make more sense for me to actually provide the reasons that I'm voting the person since that would probably me more likely to help me persuade the other people in this game to join the same wagon as me? Especially if, as you say, I'm an experienced player who would likely know how to do such a thing?Post 99, remouk wrote:I see it as a "let's vote XXX, maybe someone will vote him too, I'll agree with his explanations and won't be seen as a follower/scum jumping on a wagon".
Oh whoops. You're right. I just assumed Earlder1 was an SE too because his join date's in February, and he has "Mafia Scum" as a title. But yeah, the mod's post does seem to indicate differently.Post 102, LordChronos wrote:I thought Leech and I were SEs. Do we have more than two?
Yes. That's why I keep my vote there. I do understand the strategy but I still find this scummy for the reasons I explained in my last post.LordChronos wrote:@remouk
Do you still find Incognito most suspicious after his reply to your case on him
I questioned him about this before - what did you think about his explanation?Post 111, Coach Travis wrote: I don't like how he's saying he suspects Remouk even when earlier he didn't, with no reason to really become suspicious of Remouk during that time(this happened before Remouk's weak vote)