View Topic

Randomly selecting from nonvoters?  Sure, why not.

Vote: Send El Fiji Grande to the bridge.

Vote: Send El Fiji Grande to the bridge

My reasoning is that El Fiji Grande appears to have logged onto the forums while inactive here, while the others appear to be completely inactive, except for Reon. Since the El Fiji Grande account was created solely for playing werewolf, this makes him more suspicious. Reon is also suspicious, of course (and I suppose someone else could vote for him, to even things out), but I only get one vote, so yeah.

Vote: Send Tomb to the bridge

Voting for someone who hasn't been online in a while seems to a be a good way to be just noticed enough to avoid suspicion while still sneaking under the radar.

Personally I don't think that people not voting is a good sign towards their role. IMO wolves are more likely to want to vote as not voting would draw suspicion towards them.

Vote: Send no one to the bridge

As for the explanation of my absence, I've been busying myself with the defender occupation of TBR lately.

Vote: Send no one to the bridge

Isn't this against the rules?

Vote: Send no one to the bridge

Isn't this against the rules?

fter the first day phase, someone must always attempt to cross the bridge. The candidate will be determined by a majority vote, and there may be no abstention or no-lynch votes after the first day.

Yes.  There can be no "Send: no one to the bridge" votes, as they're essentially the same as an abstention/no-lynch vote.

Vote: Send no one to the bridge

Isn't this against the rules?

fter the first day phase, someone must always attempt to cross the bridge. The candidate will be determined by a majority vote, and there may be no abstention or no-lynch votes after the first day.

Yes.  There can be no "Send: no one to the bridge" votes, as they're essentially the same as an abstention/no-lynch vote.

You have the right of it.

Vote: Send Tomb to the bridge

I don't like voting for inactive players.

This is really entertaining when you're spectating as the host.

This is a reminder that you guys have until tomorrow at 10:30-ish to get those votes in.

I love some of y'all logic 

Vote: Send El Fiji Grande to the bridge

Vote: Send Tomb to the bridge

For the same reason as aternox. Will El Fiji Grande be dying anyway if he keeps his vote as is?

I could be wrong here, but at least he was active today, so I think that if he hasn't changed his vote before time runs out, I'll mark it as a rule violation instead.

Pengu, what's the standard penalty for a rule violation like that?

EDIT: If it's up to each individual host, I think I might publicly reveal his role, as this would be his second violation, so some consequences must follow...

Feedback?

Mention him and let him know first, as he may have accidentally overlooked that part of the rules.  If he doesn't respond by the end of the day phase, then take action.  You could do what I normally do and toss rule violations into a penalty roulette; have different consequences including the possible lynching of them instead of the accused person, and choose at random at the end of the day phase.  And consequences can range from mild to a bit more cruel.

I believe previously, Pengu decided to give some leeway by disregarding Day 1 and only started removing inactive players from the game starting from Day 3. As for violating Rule 1 about not being allowed to have a "no lynch" vote, that would definitely be the second rule violation but I would suggest giving a formal warning and if it happens again, go ahead with the revealing of roles or whatever you see fit for the punishment.

Okay, I'll give him time and give him a roulette type of setup tomorrow morning.

In the meantime, @El Fiji Grande, your presence is required.