I tried to make it simple.Thank you. But I do have to admit having some problems following it.
What exactly do you not understand?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
[WW] Friend... or foe? : GAME OVER WOLVES WIN
- Thread starter ravenvii
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What exactly do you not understand?
thx guys. but really 'news' - so nothing to write home about for now. Funny that you are the first to hear it, but since I don't know you guys it's ok. Don't tell my mom, ok?
See, I really have difficulties to do that since for now I stick to my 'Seer-theory', unless there is some reasonable doubt coming up because of some info or event. For example Moyank comes up as a baddie today - then I'd question DP for example, although his partner is still alive. Theory might be wrong but I haven't really read any good case made by others as well tbh.
See, I really have difficulties to do that since for now I stick to my 'Seer-theory', unless there is some reasonable doubt coming up because of some info or event. For example Moyank comes up as a baddie today - then I'd question DP for example, although his partner is still alive. Theory might be wrong but I haven't really read any good case made by others as well tbh.
new tally:
scepticalscribe: 3 (dontpanic, sythas, queenofspades)
moyank: 3 (meister, twietee, melrose)
back to the Raven Games...
I'm off now but maybe one word to ravenvii, our beloved GG:
Is it possible to set the deadlines, if we get one that is, a bit more 'balanced'? I'm not complaining but I think it is in everybody's interest that everybody can potentially participate at these crucial moments. If that would be possible: great. If not: not so great.
I'd rather have an odd number of hours instead of 12, 24h for example but a more accessible timeframe. Only if that works within your personal boundaries of course.
Is it possible to set the deadlines, if we get one that is, a bit more 'balanced'? I'm not complaining but I think it is in everybody's interest that everybody can potentially participate at these crucial moments. If that would be possible: great. If not: not so great.
I'd rather have an odd number of hours instead of 12, 24h for example but a more accessible timeframe. Only if that works within your personal boundaries of course.
This is getting to be a bit like a refined version of Chinese water torture .
At times such as this, you almost long for the uncomplicated and slightly crude savagery of the honest-to-God kamikaze 'wolk' to finish you off.
i actually LOLLED, like them younglings say.
----------
Maybe Meister can change is vote to himself again, and bring back balance to the force
What did you call me?
The more time we have, the more posts people make, the more we have to analyze, the better our chances.
We should have a loophole where in the case of a tie, if we get enough consecutive majority of votes for one non-tied member we go with him.
I mean, we've all agreed neither Moyank or Sceptical are believed to be wolves.
Ok. I change to Meisteri actually LOLLED, like them younglings say.
----------
Maybe Meister can change is vote to himself again, and bring back balance to the force
Ok. I change to Meister
I would follow you with that switcheroo in no time if I'd still be on..
Please, not a draw again. Scepticalscribe's going to bite my head off.
I'm flexible with deadlines, if you guys want the pattern changed, just let me know. The only rule is that the "overtime" period should be shorter than the 'normal' voting period.
I'm off now but maybe one word to ravenvii, our beloved GG:
Is it possible to set the deadlines, if we get one that is, a bit more 'balanced'? I'm not complaining but I think it is in everybody's interest that everybody can potentially participate at these crucial moments. If that would be possible: great. If not: not so great.
I'd rather have an odd number of hours instead of 12, 24h for example but a more accessible timeframe. Only if that works within your personal boundaries of course.
I'm flexible with deadlines, if you guys want the pattern changed, just let me know. The only rule is that the "overtime" period should be shorter than the 'normal' voting period.
wouldn't make a difference.
a lock is majority, which would also mean a win without a lock.
the lock introduces the chance of making in shorter, but it does not resolve ties.
yes, in that case it would.
or, we could use a mechanism where if the voters are an even number, the last valid vote does not count, without lock of any kind. at the deadline, the last valid vote is discarded, and the survivor is determined. that would trigger some interesting dynamics
or, the two voted 'eliminate' each one of the people who voted for them, and we keep going until the tie is broken.
or, after the deadline is reached, we are stuck in this rot until someone changes their vote.
obviously any change in format should only apply from tomorrow, not today's.
last game we determine we need one more than parrity 50+1, not 50-50. I think it was a nice idea the overtime, it's just that since we don't have much to defend, it's could be a bit pointless, but last game could have been a game changer.
Yes. This former pacifist turned carnivore. How right you are….
[A head is going to be bitten off] With abnormally fanged teeth, sharpened to a hardness yet to be measured (the Mohs scale doesn't even come close) in this solar system. You got it right in one.
Last edited:
the tie-break would be really interesting and fun in a complex game with the vote-changing and time-changing powers.
lock has always been majority +1
ties have always been resolved so far with the "first to the goal' mechanism (at least that i can remember)
In a former life, I used to teach Russian and Soviet history, among other things.
After the Decembrist revolt (the first of the 'modern' anti-Tsarist revolts, inspired partly by the French and American revolutions, and by what modernising Russian officers had seen in Europe after the Napoleonic wars) was crushed in (December) 1825, (hence the name) most of the ring-leaders (aristocrats, army officers and poets) were sentenced to hang, although some were exiled.
Although rather good at everyday repression, and exceptionally gifted and creative at careful calibrations of sensory deprivation (yes, even in 1825), occasionally, the Tsarist regime fell short of its own high standards in actually carrying out mundane matters, such as planned public executions.
Such was the case with the planned (public) executions of the leading conspirators, when the ropes supposed to hang three of the five of them actually broke, leading to the conspirators in question crashing into a pit dug beneath the gallows, hands still tied, hanging hoods still covering their faces. Bruised, battered, and beyond disgusted, one of them, Muraviev-Apostol cried out: "You see. In Russia, they cannot even hang people properly".
After the Decembrist revolt (the first of the 'modern' anti-Tsarist revolts, inspired partly by the French and American revolutions, and by what modernising Russian officers had seen in Europe after the Napoleonic wars) was crushed in (December) 1825, (hence the name) most of the ring-leaders (aristocrats, army officers and poets) were sentenced to hang, although some were exiled.
Although rather good at everyday repression, and exceptionally gifted and creative at careful calibrations of sensory deprivation (yes, even in 1825), occasionally, the Tsarist regime fell short of its own high standards in actually carrying out mundane matters, such as planned public executions.
Such was the case with the planned (public) executions of the leading conspirators, when the ropes supposed to hang three of the five of them actually broke, leading to the conspirators in question crashing into a pit dug beneath the gallows, hands still tied, hanging hoods still covering their faces. Bruised, battered, and beyond disgusted, one of them, Muraviev-Apostol cried out: "You see. In Russia, they cannot even hang people properly".
Last edited:
Well, it looks like another draw.
even-odd time.
Scepticalscribe, you're odd. Moyank24, you're even. PM me '1' or '2' by tomorrow morning.
even-odd time.
Scepticalscribe, you're odd. Moyank24, you're even. PM me '1' or '2' by tomorrow morning.
If I lose this tiebreak you guys that are left really have to look at the 3 who voted for me.
I could have stood pat and let SS get lynched but I put myself in jeopardy to try to catch a real wolf. Obviously not something a wolf would do.
Why would I get any votes? And why did this even have to be pointed out?
I could have stood pat and let SS get lynched but I put myself in jeopardy to try to catch a real wolf. Obviously not something a wolf would do.
Why would I get any votes? And why did this even have to be pointed out?
Fair point, I can only speak for myself of course: I believe that if you were a ww, and I do have my suspicions after what went down day1 and day3 (pre-OT), you would need some kind of power-move and you are exactly the kind of person to pull it off that great. I think if you, and QoS, wouldn't have done it you would have lost the OT. No way to prove that of course. Now it's rather bad luck on your part that you didn't win the OT - my impression, and you actually said it yourself right now.
Also, I think you had just bad luck - good for me! - that not more people were around at that time since it seems most if not all think you rather innocent. Still think it's convenient to go after somebody at 03:00 AM but well, your call and of course a very legit move.
I wouldn't have needed a power move. SS was dead. And I was in the clear. There would have been no OT if I hadn't changed my vote.
So your very lengthy response is a whole lot of not really answering and makes absolutely no sense.
Last edited: