• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Why should the people NOT breaking the tie be blamed? The people who made the tie in the first place should be the ones that are voted upon. This is a classic tactic taken by wolves: blame someone for simply being online and not breaking the tie, to shift attention from the people who actually created the tie in the first place. I intentionally pointed out that I was online, and voila, immediately people started screaming Wolf!. These people should be considered very carefully.

Through the use of ties and seeing who breaks them we catch wolves. There is nothing wrong with tied votes, except at deadline; ties are, in fact, good, until deadline - and occasionally even then. It isn't wrong to make a tie until very close to deadline, it's information gathering. But refusing to break the tie at deadline when you're aware of it? You knew it was bad, so why did you do it?

If it's a classic wolf tactic to make a tie and then blame someone who's online at deadline for it (I have never seen this done but I trust your word it was common in your day) then why did you refuse to break the tie and fall into the trap? That doesn't excuse you for not breaking the tie, it compounds the mistake!
 
Why should the people NOT breaking the tie be blamed?

Because letting a tie like that stand on day one = screwing over the village.

I intentionally pointed out that I was online, and voila, immediately people started screaming Wolf!. These people should be considered very carefully.

You're not being entirely accurate here. snoop and I, both noticing that you could be looked at on the same grounds as Athalcor, voted you first, then you admitted that you were online. Looking at you wasn't, and couldn't have been, a reaction to what you "intentionally pointed out" as you hadn't done that yet.

FWIW, I found Athalcor's behavior more suspicious at that point, but didn't want to put him way ahead.

Interesting that your idea of preventing an out of control gang is to vote someone who has almost the same votes as athalcor and could also be classified as a gang.

I agree with you here. You two were actually tied before that vote and that was with Athalcor voting himself...
 
Right, no-one seems interested in voting Bagricula... I'll make a note of that.

And Tamius once again got a few votes which disappeared. I'll make a anote of that too.

We have Tornadoli at 6 and Athalcor at 5... What I would usually do now is put the tie back, but I'm about to go back to Sengoku and we know how it went yesterday...

Oh, what the hell, let's assume Athalcor's vote for himself means he's confident he won't do what Reis did.

UNVOTE BAGRICULA
VOTE ATHALCOR
 
An official count of votes, 54 minutes until deadline.

Tornadoli -6- snoopdogg, Malurous 2.0, Vainglory, Kingepyon, Devotist, Adamus
Athalcor -6- Tornadoli, drxav, Athalcor, esemesas, tamius, Falc

tamius23 -1- Bagricula
 
Okay, it is a real problem that a very likely outcome is Athalcor just switching to Tornadoli -> we can't really hold it against him in the future because he's saving himself. The important question: was Athalcor serious about not changing it? If yes, there's no problem, if not, this has to be solved or we won't get information from the tiebreak. How do people see Athalcor's claim?

All assuming that drxav's message isn't an outing, of course.
 
Whether you're a villager or not, that stunt with the tie disbars you from the title "goodie" methinks.

The stunt with the tie? I am the only one who at least admitted that he was online. It's not like I was the only one online at the time and am solely to blame for the tie. It's funny how people cling to this as "proof" while totally forgetting about the others who most likely were online too. Very fishy Vainglory, very fishy...
 
I'm going to guess that he's just being a troll, as usual.

That's why I assumed so. ;)

EDIT: Ooh! The wink smiley looks decent again!
 
The stunt with the tie? I am the only one who at least admitted that he was online. It's not like I was the only one online at the time and am solely to blame for the tie. It's funny how people cling to this as "proof" while totally forgetting about the others who most likely were online too. Very fishy Vainglory, very fishy...

Oh yes, very fishy that I was asleep at 6AM my time... Others were online at that time: Reis, who died, and Boris, who was hunted. And then Athalcor, who has admitted to his part in the tie, and at least he concedes that for his mistake he deserves to be lynched. You, well you confessed to not breaking the tie intentionally! But now you say we shouldn't lynch you because you're being framed... so you saw a baited trap, took the bait, got trapped, and now expect us to just let it slide?

What it comes down to is that both of you didn't break the tie. At least Athalcor has something of an excuse but you said you did it deliberately. And you still won't tell us why you did that. Now Athalcor said it was an accident on his part and wants to die anyway, but then Athalcor has been known to utilize bizarre waffle tactics. Deliberately leaving the tie and now using reverse psychology is plausible. But you, you did it deliberately, you openly confessed that. You say that you saw the trap (because you said leaving a tie and blaming those around at deadline for not breaking it is a classic tactic) but walked into it anyway. This is typical veteran style whacko behavior to mask being a wolf.


Much as I hate ties, I think we should kill them both. Whichever one we kill, we're going to end up being suspicious about the other and almost certainly waste a day lynching them down the track. Too often we throw "two to three per day, new targets each day" out the window and run up the runner-up day after day after day; that sort of behavior helped me win the first Meso. I can see it happening here, going after the survivor tomorrow, and probably Tami because he's slipped away twice in a row. And God help us we'll probably see the runner up of those two get run up again.

Let's send them both to hell. It will likely bring parity closer, but the upside is that we'll waste less time on this and can start looking elsewhere. With 2 hunts per day to the 1 lynch it seems to me we'd be better off lynching them both so that we don't waste a day and incur two hunts fooling with this matter. Best case scenario they're both waffles, worse case we can start looking for real ones.
 
I guess I have no choice...

Unvote Tornadoli
Vote Athalcor