Moderator: Community Team
Still waiting for something to add to the discussion.jdean1 wrote:I am confirming the message.


Exactly.Iron Butterfly wrote:With 16 players one can not be surprised if one or several players go inactive. I have never heard of this guy nor played with him before. I would go for a replacement.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
To be honest with you, it is a rare Day One when a sure case shows up.crasp wrote:just had a prod from Jonty. Sorry guys didnt realize how much time had passed. Still looking in but nothing to contribute so far.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
Lootifer wrote:Heh. I've just come from a couple of games over at mafiascum. They're much more liberal with their votes over there (I was going to ask why the hell anark was fosing and ib/edoc not doing anything with their votes lol).
Commander9 wrote:Trust Edoc, as I know he's VERY good.
zimmah wrote:Mind like a brick.
Just an add on to what Edocsil said. Keep in mind this is not mafiascum. Its a different culture. Here at CC there is a formed core base of players who overtime have gotten a feel for how each other play. That does not mean everyone is predictable. Its always good when new players arrive and stay.edocsil wrote:Lootifer wrote:Heh. I've just come from a couple of games over at mafiascum. They're much more liberal with their votes over there (I was going to ask why the hell anark was fosing and ib/edoc not doing anything with their votes lol).
But i want to lynch a rookie for completely unjustified reasons.
In seriousness I didn't throw my vote due to the new lynch mechanism. I want to get a feel for how people will react to it day one, and I really don't intend on placing my vote until run-off so we can learn how people react to it.
Also Unvote

I second this. We have Metsfanmax waiting...nagerous wrote:I'd go for a prod or find a replacement.
This was the funniest post I've read today. Let's name 5 random players and state the obvious...you're cracking me up. I'm just hoping it was in jest, and not a serious post of where to start scum hunting.kgb007 wrote:i actually don't find nosurv's double post to be suspicious after reading through the exchange a few times but i could see where people would want to jump on itNoSurvivors wrote:Eh.. now my post looks scummy tooNoSurvivors wrote:Oohhh.. yeah, that was a bad slip up on D-1 especially... when no one really knows what's going on yet...Lootifer wrote:Do you have something to be worried about if you do end up there?Anarkistsdream wrote:Unvote vote benga
I am not gonna be on the chopping block if I can help it.
Unvote vote Anark
i'll shift the focus to game setup, 16 players, no VTs, how many mafia can we fairly expect? 3? 4? and a SK? or 3rd party?
purely speculation but perhaps this little exchange between nosurv/lootifer/IB/anark/edoc is a bit of misdirection by mafia, i mean i just listed 1/3 of the players so odds are one of them aren't town!!
Interestingly I would have interpreted edocs plan (when considered by itself) as anti-town: not only does a vote apply pressure with in turn leads to reactions/reads, but how you react to wagons, what wagons you join, etc, is hugely valuable later on; to avoid putting your vote down is as though you are trying to avoid leaving evidence that may later be used against you, the run-off excuse notwithstanding.Iron Butterfly wrote:Just an add on to what Edocsil said. Keep in mind this is not mafiascum. Its a different culture. Here at CC there is a formed core base of players who overtime have gotten a feel for how each other play. That does not mean everyone is predictable. Its always good when new players arrive and stay.edocsil wrote:But i want to lynch a rookie for completely unjustified reasons.
In seriousness I didn't throw my vote due to the new lynch mechanism. I want to get a feel for how people will react to it day one, and I really don't intend on placing my vote until run-off so we can learn how people react to it.
Also Unvote
One does not need to vote every time one puts pressure on. I asked a legitimate question with some follow up.

Unvotejonty125 wrote:Vote Count
Benga (3) - benga; virus90; Anarkistsdream;
jdean1 (2) - kgb007; safariguy5
Anarkistsdream (1) - crasp;
virus90 (1) - Iron Butterfly;
Nebuchadnezer (1) - Nebuchadnezer
NoSurvivors (1) - Lootifer
With 16 alive, it takes 9 to lynch. Deadline is Monday, 24th February @ 1800 GMT. If the vote count were to remain as so at deadline a 24-hour runoff period would be enforced.
Definitely a good callNebuchadnezer wrote:Unvotejonty125 wrote:Vote Count
Benga (3) - benga; virus90; Anarkistsdream;
jdean1 (2) - kgb007; safariguy5
Anarkistsdream (1) - crasp;
virus90 (1) - Iron Butterfly;
Nebuchadnezer (1) - Nebuchadnezer
NoSurvivors (1) - Lootifer
With 16 alive, it takes 9 to lynch. Deadline is Monday, 24th February @ 1800 GMT. If the vote count were to remain as so at deadline a 24-hour runoff period would be enforced.
