I don't know why people were focused on Trilt when the kills haven't happened where she has been. I think those votes are odd. Especially with lynch ending early
For my part I voted for her because I felt her game play / comments thus far have been sketchy. I understand the point about where kills occurred, but I don't think there's any reason to think all the wolves were/are/had to be there, so it didn't bother me to go hunting for one of the other wolves.
If I actually die from this and got lynched as a villager for the first time in my WW history while running around dealing with a ****ing borderline abuse case and things literally dying during presentation I am going to be very, very angry at the people pushing my lynch.
*shrug*
I'm sorry we lost a villager, but I'm not going to apologize for lynching you. You acted in a way I thought was sketchy, so I voted it. It was wrong. Ok, that happens all the time to literally everybody who plays.
1) If you have literally never voted to lynch a villager, then fine, I'll apologize. Otherwise - it just is what it is, and you've made wrong lynch votes too. We all vote to lynch villagers frequently - more than we vote to lynch wolves.
2) I'm not going to hesitate to lynch someone who is absent. If we start only lynching people who are present, then it becomes an obvious wolf ploy to just stay silent and "be busy." I don't even factor in whether someone is "around to defend."
It sucks you got lynched as a villager, but I just don't see it as any bigger deal than any other villager - including me - who has gotten lynched in the past.
I don't think people are necessarily questioning your noobiness. But if you were a wolf and a more veteran player was telling you to jump, you would do so. Aka, it doesn't need to be that difficult for you to be a wolf.
I am really curious as to
@LetItSnow though. Votes trilt without reasoning, very shortly before lynch ends in a tie. The no explanation made me do a side eye, the ramifications afterwards makes me want to look more into LIS
Does anyone want to take credit for ending lynch early?
That's not really a fair characterization. I've said all along I thought Trilt's play was sketchy. My vote shouldn't have been all that surprising. So even though I didn't say anything in the post where I specifically voted, I had highlighted my feelings earlier. It's not like it was out of nowhere.
I don't really know how "shortly before lynch ends in a tie" my vote was, but I see DVMD said it was 45 minutes. Calling it "shortly before" seems like overstating. I came on, threw my vote so I had one in place (with intent to come back and re-assess later). Came back, lynch had closed prematurely. *shrug*
I guess my question to you would be: Why are you mischaracterizing my vote (it didn't come out of nowhere), and why are you mischaracterizing the timeframe (it apparently wasn't "shortly before")?