Rhizo - We did decide last game that inactives were intolerable - especially those who played the way Rafay did.
However, D34TH was usually active, so if he's not here something's up. That said, we can't have an inactive not helping the town, IMO.
Zero posts = bad, esp on Day 1 where we muss about having fun throwing OMGUS accusations.
I don't know what game you're speaking about on last game. I've played in all the Harry Potter games, so if you're talking about that one, the last one had 3 inactives at one point. Also, the talk and "decision" about inactives being intolerable has been going on for many games, to the point many said if Rafay wasn't active he'd be voted off D1, and in fact people like Kevin still wouldn't vote him off. So this isn't something new, the tolerance of inactives and getting rid of them early has been talked about and supposedly decided way before last game. Yet no one ever does it, and lynching a complete inactive like D34th is a lot less intriguing then lynching the likes of someone like Rafay who lurked and was inactive on purpose.
Yea something could be up. So look to find a replacement. For someone like Kevin who always says "no one knows anything D1," and thus always votes NL, I don't see his need to suddenly be so quick to vote off the inactive. If he plays this game like any other, he'd be spitting out the same old stuff of there's a good chance we'd knock off a town D1 and to wait, so why now a rush to vote him off? If the same applied to how he played in other games, he'd be fearing that D34th is possibly a town, and thus he'd wait to see if he returned D2, or a replacement was found. But not this game
Zero posts are bad. But I fail to see how it's "esp" bad on D1. The day you even mentioned is throwing OMGUS accusations, and mostly fluff, for someone to not post anything, D1 would be not the best day to have someone not post then later on.
Now Kevin is pushed into the spotlight. Going to reread Rhizo last post again. But Rhizo is making a interesting move late Day 1.
I had no intention of putting Kevin in such the spotlight I have. I merely wanted to point out how Kevin is playing D1 completely opposite of how he usually does. It was simply, hmm this is different, but still felt it odd for him to change his play if he was truely a scum. But then he decided to reply and basically dispute that he's not doing a complete 180 on what he usually does on D1 which he is. Had he just replied that he's changed his thought process and his feelings on lynching D1 I would of probably dismissed it. All for people playing the game different, but he didn't say that, he instead tried to dispute that he always pushs for a lynch of inactives....which maybe the case in later days, but he's always voted NL D1, no matter how inactive a person is, so this game shouldn't be different.
Simple fact is, it's odd of Kevin to suddenly be ok lynching an inactive D1. There has been all but inactive players, the likes of Rafay posting 1 time D1 (which was of no substance) and Kevin wasn't for lynching and rather wait til D2. We've had the likes of 1ceream who never posted in games and sat there. You can sit here and dispute well Rafay posted once and D34th hasn't at all, but what is the difference of Rafay posting once early on D1 and not contributing anymore (who also did this every game) and d34th not posting once. If Kevin played this game like he has any game I've played with him, he'd still not be for lynching D1 because "no one knows anything," and "likely to knock off a town," and he'd wait til D2 for PR's to use their powers and so on. What's the big rush to lynch D34th this game? If Kevin stuck to his normal play, and D34th wasn't lynched, that would in fact give TW a few more days to find a replacement, with the rest of D1, and during the scum's night time. If you're finding waiting til D2 to lynch any other game, what does having an inactive change that?
I always look to replace rather then lynch true inactives (not lurkers), but wouldn't be against the idea depending on circumstance. This is not against the idea of lynching inactives, it's the fact Kevin is going against anything he's ever said in prior games of being bad to lynch someone D1 because "only scum no anything," he's not voted off regular inactives like Rafay D1, and him trying to argue that he's somehow pushed lynching inactives D1. That combined with the fact in past games he would write off people trying to vote off an inactive like Rafay as suspicious doing so on D1 when we don't know anything and he didn't post to give us any idea, and give "town points" to people who voted NL because that's "what a town would do." To the point I have had arguments with how he looks at D1 with him in past games. He's going completely against what he's ever said.
So then I ask everyone, why?
Why would he suddenly change his tone to be completely opposite of what he's always said for as long as I've played with him? Why this game? Why suddenly not wait til D2 to lynch an inactive person like tells people to do, and instead do it D1? Thus I start pondering this. It would be odd to change if you're scum, since you'd have someone like me point it out and draw attention....but then again it could be helpful because we could all sit here and say, "yea a scum wouldn't change his game from usual," so we let him off. Or, a smart move as a scum would be, if both Kevin and d34th were scum, and Kevin knows D34th is inactive and useless to scum, he and other scum can toss him under the bus early on to make them look townish for being on a scum vote.
I don't know if Kevin is scum, but at this point, if I had to choose my best gut feeling, it would be him.