Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

[WW] Bloodlust GAME OVER - WEREWOLVES WIN

SilentPanda said:
Personally and primarily because I don't suspect anybody at all yet. Publicly because since I'm one of the top 3, it makes me look just as guilty to switch now from a no-vote to one of the other contenders. I have no reason to suspect them other than swaying votes towards them. Sure since I'm a villager then the odds are *slightly better* that they're a baddie but the odds are also slightly better that they're a super-goodie.

Basically... I don't think it would matter. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

At this point I'm hoping it's a stalemate which I stated several times in the last thread that I thought was a better option for first day voting anyway (I know you and I have gone round and round on it so I won't get into that again). I didn't give much thoughts to vamps since they weren't in last game and I forgot they even existed.
Click to expand...

i understand your reasoning behind the no-vote (and as you know i disagree, but that's beyond the point), but as the rules stand now, we don't have a 'tie-breaker' for stalemates, so 'someone' is eventually going to be lynched on day one, more likely than not one of the villagers.

if you are a villager as you claim, than you are contrasting (from your perspective) the 'certainty' of a judicial error to the 'possibility' of one. A possibility that is high, but not crazy: excluding you, there are currently 5 baddies out of 19 people. that's 26% chance that your vote will nail one of the monsters (i am including the goths in this) and give your fellow villagers a head start. not too bad and while You have no reason to suspect chris or ibook, you also have no reason to NOT suspect them
.
 
chrmjenkins said:
No, it's a vote for the secret mystery prize, valued between 0.26 and 5,432.68 USD, right...right?
Click to expand...

I regret to inform you, no. :)

I still say watch for those “villagers” wanting this to go to a quick lynching by selecting the 3 who have the most votes. It’s just a WW thing to do and I should know having been a WW a few times. So, if I were you guys, I’d not vote for any of those three and select the ones doing the push.
 
-aggie- said:
I'd say anyone pushing for only three people to vote on could be a WW. No one is even half way there, except SP and he's still far off.
Click to expand...

With the current spread of votes, no one could reach the half way point. Hence my 'let's-vote-for-the-top-three' suggestion.

-aggie- said:
I regret to inform you, no. :)

I still say watch for those “villagers” wanting this to go to a quick lynching by selecting the 3 who have the most votes. It’s just a WW thing to do and I should know having been a WW a few times. So, if I were you guys, I’d not vote for any of those three and select the ones doing the push.
Click to expand...

The only reason I recommended that the top three vote getters be selected as possible lynching candidates is because I think that it is extremely unlikely that any of the players with one vote apiece might suddenly rise to the same level of votes as the top three.

What piece of 'evidence' might suddenly present itself to cause so many players to switch to a player with only one vote?

I only stated what I think is logical of this situation.

If you see something different in these conditions, by all means, enlighten me.
 
So what's the rule for if we don't get to a majority? I'm guessing nobody get's lynched but when do we say "no more changing, let's move on"? Is it based on time-limit or something? I don't really care what the rule is, just curious if there is one as I didn't see anything in the rules.
 
@Nathan: I was just saying it's some information to use later in the game. I also think it's too early to rush to lynch. Spend a few days in the simple game and you know it's going on too long :)
 
SilentPanda said:
So what's the rule for if we don't get to a majority? I'm guessing nobody get's lynched but when do we say "no more changing, let's move on"? Is it based on time-limit or something? I don't really care what the rule is, just curious if there is one as I didn't see anything in the rules.
Click to expand...

There's no time limit to get a majority to lynch someone. A majority must form to lynch someone or to not lynch someone. Otherwise 'today' can go on indefinitely.
 
-aggie- said:
@Nathan: I was just saying it's some information to use later in the game. I also think it's too early to rush to lynch. Spend a few days in the simple game and you know it's going on too long :)
Click to expand...

Well, the wolves put me out of my misery in the simple game just now. :D
 
Well heck... in that case I'll change my vote.

Screen shot 2010-09-08 at 1.07.42 PM.png

Guess that's a vote for -aggie-. Sorry but what can ya do? The RNG has spoken.
 
-aggie- said:
Do you want people to vote for you? :). I write not to rush to lynch and you to change your vote? Weird.
Click to expand...

Not really. But people will infer things from anything we do or don't do. I'd rather just get the game moving on the first day even if it means my death. Only 2 people in this game have information that's worthwhile and those are the werewolves. Why not get the random number game overwith then... I'm not going to vote for myself and to be honest I enjoyed Chrmjenkins' late game analysis last game so I'm not going to vote for him (yet).

Which means anybody else really... I doubt we're going to go to a no-lynch. If people start going that way I'll happily go back to that. I suppose iBookG4user would be the best vote to get the game moving but now you and he are only 1 vote difference... sure I'm probably wrong (which is why I went no-lynch) but none of us know jack except the 2 WW's at this point anyway.

I just want things to go. It's very very boring sitting around on day one twiddling your thumbs with absolutely no evidence.
 
I'm thinking SilentPanda isn't exhibiting very wolfish behaviour so I'm changing my vote from teh Panda to the sometimes eerily clever chrmjenkins, who gives nothing away by post-language. :eek: Plus he's had many games and is a fab puppetmaster of the simple game so I feel like I'm not wrecking anything for him if he goes this round.

(vote changed to iBookG4user in post 414)
 
I change my vote to iBookG4User, no reason besides the fact I like Intel based machines and I believe chrmjenkins is just asking for it too much (no pun) for him to be a wolf or vampire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back