drealmer7: I thought we had a 4 man team alive and likely that Ix was on it, I should have gone for him instead of mussing with bler.
Bookwyrm627: A quick run of the numbers should have told you that if there is a 4 man team, everyone else HAD to gang up on them.
still, if bler hadn't suddenly thrown up his hands when I voted him and played it cool I would have switched back to Ix before bler got hammered. But when he reacted the way he did I became uncertain what he was doing and thought he must have been trying to pull off a win and was on the 4-man team? And then it devolved and it all felt too late to actually continue playing the game and then before I was back the two final votes were on him. Which is why I don't like this auto-lynch mechanic that just seems to be how it always is.
It doesn't really make sense. Once someone gets the majority vote to be lynched, the moderator should stop all discussion/action, make a call for a final vote from EVERYONE and make EVERYONE check in within a certain amount of time and make sure their vote is staying where it is (even if it they are not voting) before the lynch can proceed to make sure it
should proceed and that the vote count is a final vote count. Especially with the concept of it being a "town" having a
discussion and deciding on someone
to kill, they wouldn't just jump into doing it without making sure everyone was where they wanted their vote to be.
I feel like this is a crucial element to the game that should be implemented in order for it to really have full integrity/full consistency.
No more "hammering." No more "wait, what? we killed someone? it's night? you did this while I was away? I wanted to change my vote! especially now reading how things went down, had I been able to "see" it going down, I would have had things to say, changed my vote", etc. It's kind of bogus I think to be that way.
It's simply not a sensible, good, fair, way for the game to be played.