kentucky_mcgiygas: (OBEY)
Kentucky McGiygas ([personal profile] kentucky_mcgiygas) wrote in [community profile] the_newlydead_game2017-03-03 06:22 pm
Entry tags:

Day 3

[ A bright new day has dawned, maybe. It's not like you can see the outside world. But the tablets keep diligent track of time, and promptly at 6am they provide something for you: A new immunity challenge. ]

((Game navigation
Private posts
Vote thread. Again, DO NOT FORGET TO VOTE. I will actually idle people this week!))
partcompany: (071)

[personal profile] partcompany 2017-03-05 08:53 am (UTC)(link)
I mean. It matters a little if there's a voting block working on killing people. I'm pretty sure it wasn't me or Fiona who made anyone do it.
robosb4bros: (veridis quo)

[personal profile] robosb4bros 2017-03-05 09:00 pm (UTC)(link)
A little, maybe. We have a murder block of 3 people, one of which you say you can account for. Given that the whole group had publicly organized to vote for one person, it was easy enough for one or two people to affect the results. If people are--at least publicly--left to vote for whoever they like next time, it will be much more difficult for the group of randomizers to get enough votes to kill someone. I doubt that three people will be enough to make a difference with this many people still in the game.
partcompany: (044)

[personal profile] partcompany 2017-03-06 07:49 am (UTC)(link)
It doesn't take that many votes to kill someone! Apparently! I mean. If people are genuinely just picking whoever they want then the votes would be more evenly distributed, right? So it might be everyone only gets two or there votes. In which case three people is plenty.

Also I'm pretty sure no one wants it to come down to that this quickly. It'll be chaos. We'll have to try for some public agreement again.