TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

[TWG Dora]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

Dotty

Bye inactive

[TWG Cherry]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

Every "W" is a "R" with Maple. That's all you need to know.

It's clear enough what the gimmick is but it is a horrible pain to actually read and it makes me want to stab my eyes out what what

Also I'll join on the inactive plan Dotty

Going to bed before too long so might as well get a vote down now what what

[TWG Dora]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

I dont think maples gimmick is wolfy

Sure wolf team doesnt want to be acquired more than town so they are incentivized to try harder to avoid it but doing a attention grabbing gimmick that is obvious and sure to draw attention to themselves is not something id see a wolf doing

[TWG Dora]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

Its just squeaky and annoying as heck.

[TWG Cherry]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

The main idea is that lynching inactives help wolves in this specific setup because they just need to post like 2 times or more to be fine.
It's also making the acquisitioner's life harder by reducing their pool of targets.

So, I was wondering if being pro inactive would go against the wolf agenda and motivate them to defend the stance that inactives must be gone.

I'm curious about how others approach this.

You basically say "I think this is a good plan but here's why it's also a bad plan" - there's not much substance here is my point what what

[Xiz]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

Reminder that there is a 5 post minimum

[TWG Cherry]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

I don't think maple's gimmick is wolfy either I just really hate it and wish it would stop what what

[TWG Dora]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

The main idea is that lynching inactives help wolves in this specific setup because they just need to post like 2 times or more to be fine.
It's also making the acquisitioner's life harder by reducing their pool of targets.

So, I was wondering if being pro inactive would go against the wolf agenda and motivate them to defend the stance that inactives must be gone.

I'm curious about how others approach this.

Are you actually endorsing inactivity?

Im not going to snap vote you for this but

H O L Y


Somewhat related but i really don't see why the acquisitioner would ever take over an inactive

Either they have to maintain the inactivity in which case they risk randomly getting voted and killed or they go "oh hey im back and active" and we give them the stink eye.

In other words im not killing inactives to hurt the acquisitioner (because it doesn't). I'm doing it because they hurt town.

[TWG Dora]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

Reminder that there is a 5 post minimum

Oh

Guess i can do this now [twgv]flurry[twgv] good god that post i quoted was slimy

If dotty comes back last minute and does 5 quick posts to stay alive im voting them 100%

[TWG Flurry]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

Reminder that there is a 5 post minimum

Oh dear, that's a game changer.

Molly to echo what Julian said.

[TWG Dora]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

flurry

Voting is hard

[TWG Rolf]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

I dont think maples gimmick is wolfy

I hope that this is a general statement and not trying to be a response to me, as that'd make two different people now answering for Tank and that's not a good look.

[TWG Flurry]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

flurry

Voting is hard

Voting inactives should be like a backup plan when there's nothing else.

You can vote inactives all you want, but since they're not here to talk back it's leading to nothing.

So, even voting me here would be more interesting as I am here to answer back.

[TWG Cherry]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

Oh I missed the minimum post thing what what

flurry then

[TWG Cherry]

Re: TWG 193: Animal Crossing [Game Thread]

oh hey flurry please explain your pro inactivity stance what what

it would be more interesting / should be a backup plan isn't good enough