player 2

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-08-02

Final complete day: 2026-08-02. Attention was 0.3% — this entity appeared in 32 of 9,589 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (75 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-08-01 08:48 UTCComment

   Apologies for not being clearer in my original post, There where 3 rounds of cards drawn, Round 1 Player 1 got a 12, player 2 got a 5, Player 3 got a 13 Round 2 player 1 stayed, player 2 got a steal and stole player 1 12, player 3 got a zero Round 3 player 2 got a 5 so bust player 3 got a -8 and put it in front of player 1( who had no cards in front of them) player 3 them got 5 card on the bounce to get a flip 7 I "think" we played it wrong and player 3 shouldn't have given player 1 the minus 8 card. Hope that makes sense

2. 2026-08-01 08:04 UTCComment

   Apologies for not being clearer in my original post, There where 3 rounds of cards drawn, Round 1 Player 1 got a 12, player 2 got a 5, Player 3 got a 13 Round 2 player 1 stayed, player 2 got a steal and stole player 1 12, player 3 got a zero Round 3 player 2 got a 5 so bust player 3 got a -8 and put it in front of player 1( who had no cards in front of them) player 3 them got 5 card on the bounce to get a flip 7 I "think" we played it wrong and player 3 shouldn't have given player 1 the minus 8 card. Hope that makes sense

3. 2026-07-30 21:37 UTCComment

   So many people are confidently incorrect. Everything was played correctly, except I do agree with the one commenter that said that you can only go negative in brutal mode. But that only impacts player 2’s final score, not the outcome of the game.

4. 2026-07-30 20:49 UTCComment

   >player 2 won by proxy That doesn't make sense and i wouldnt want to play games with people who think like that

5. 2026-07-30 19:49 UTCComment

   Ya well no one expected player 2 to be an unbreakable ally, even player 1 told me they were surprised by it and expected them to betray them once they were winning, player 1 and 2 allied at the start to do a specific task and just never broke it afterwards And due to the board state, I couldn’t check player 1 myself since player 2 was stopping me And player 3 had no chance at beating player 1 or helping me fight player 2 since they just kept losing every battle and in a game like this, winning just snowballs you into winning more and vice versa, usually that’s offset by players ganging up one people but that just didn’t happen this game I played this game a few times and other similar games and almost no one creates an unbreakable alliance since it will always doom one player to losing and almost no one I play with doesn’t care about winning, this time was pretty unique