Well, I guess I was jumping the gun a bit with the serious phase thing, but then again, from my experience? It never hurts to kill the joke phase early. And since there wasn't really much joking going on anyway, I didn't seem to be ruining anyone's fun.
The votes made, as I did indicate, feel like they were just getting the ball rolling. But at the same time, I just can't get myself to vote on "he hasn't said anything!" unless I truly feel they're lurking. To note an example of a case where I considered someone lurking?
Otter in Random Mafia. He was clearly active in chat, and yet hadn't posted anything in Mafia. I stated he was doing that and why I was suspicious that he truly was lurking.
Now granted, I was lucky there, as Otter later came in, blatantly lied about something, and was eventually called out on it. FLIPSIDE, Zenny did the same thing following round, called out on it...flipped Town.
2 Votes on someone felt like enough to get the ball rolling. I didn't want to jump on someone like that, especially since it could be seen as an easy train.
Maybe I'm being too lenient; I tend to be that way when it comes to people not posting, at least for people I don't know. Again, I reference Otter again where if he's not speaking, something is up (be it real life situation of him not existing, or he's actually lurking), given he always talks. For someone I don't know like GTAU, or in a different game, IHateMyCPU in Not Ranked Mafia, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for some time.
In any event...
He essentially said 'we're in the serious phase' which is a good way to stunt banter, and we barely had any going.
True, we didn't have much banter going...
But we still had...what? Nearly an entire 24 hours of no actual substance either. El Cid and your posts, especially after we had our first vote count, felt like as good a time as any to say "ok, lets get serious, we have a case, if shaky, on someone, lets roll with it."
Be it 24 hours of banter, or 24 hours of lack of posting the end result is the same:
24 hours of NO SUBSTANCE.
Something has to start somewhere, and while the joke phase was short on content (...odd term, I know), it had plenty of time. from my experience, Joke phases don't really last much longer than one Real Life day. I'll admit that perhaps the whole "We have infinite time!" made people feel less need to post a lot, but eh, why prolong the game further?
It'd be one thing if we had actually started discussion...
In any event...
Alex should probably start speaking soon, so I'd like to hear from him. Betting he's still tired from graduating and all that, so understandable.
Andrew, though, is weird. Hasn't said much, unlike GTAU, we know he knows how to play and he has indicated he existed. Similarly, he lacks Alex's "I am graduating!" excuse. Also, unlike GTAU, I think voting Andrew MIGHT actually provoke him, since I think GTAU just doesn't have a clue, and if that's the case, should be replaced/Mod killed.
MECHANICS QUESTION: Is there a rule about not posting with no warning in a specific amount of time yielding a Mod Kill or Forced Replacement? A bit unsure, as I can see a reasonable argument on both sides.
Other people at the moment?
Well, Carth and Excal are furthering discussion. Rat is calling me out...and Eviltom called him out (well, probably a bit of a strong term for what he did, but still) for stifling discussion. Excal's more observing, and saying his thoughts, and agreeing and such.
Excal's got a neutral read; usual Day 1 "ho-hum, lets see what's going on so far" situation. Trying to contribute with what little there is...yeah, not much to say about him.
Rat is getting a Town Read. Why? He's *NOT* stifling discussion in the least. His argument is valid, even if against me; he's saying "Meeple tried to get the ball rolling, but wasn't aggressive enough about it!" or something along those lines. I can see where he's coming from; its true, I probably could have been more pro-active there (is that the right word?) This isn't stifling discussion...its the reverse.
He's trying to form a DIFFERENT discussion based on something that seems like a more serious case from someone who got the ball rolling. He didn't sweep my points under the rug anyway; he just stated why he disagrees with it, and why he's going to vote that way, and then made a new case.
If anything, he's been pro discussion. Seems fair to me, even if I am one of the targets at the moment.
Ciato has brought up a good point, but leaves with little substance. Yes, GTAU is being non-existent, and Andrew and Alex are too. However, as I said, Alex actually stated he wouldn't be around, and gave a good reason too (I can't see lying about "I'm graduating college!" If he did that just for a game, I'd have lost a lot of respect for him as a person, so yeah, perfectly fine there.) So it comes down to Andrew and GTAU, which is only 2/9 people playing. Andrew feels worse of the two, as I said, since he hasn't given a good reason to be gone.
So with regards to Ciato, can't say I see much into her. Same ballpark as Excal at the moment; been bringing up points, but they don't really give us much about her.
HOWEVER, my eyes are looking at Eviltom at the moment.
He called Rat out on something he wasn't doing. I don't see Rat being against serious discussion at all, as I said. Eviltom felt like he wasn't paying a lot of attention to Rat's points, and he voted Andrew.
Why does that feel off? Andrew lurking while looks bad, also makes him look like an easy target...much like GTAU, except as I said before, Andrew being familiar with the game makes him look even worse, so it makes him further an easy target. Eviltom, avoiding one train, tries to start another, and then ponders whether Rat, who is the only one I'm getting any sort of Town vibes from, as stifling discussion, which as I said, he's clearly not.
As such, only one I'm getting any sort of scum vibes from, even if minor, and its more than lurking at the moment, so...
##Vote: Eviltom
