WW United -- GAME OVER

[Alan T]

I'm not opposed to a vote for Goldeneagle. He's on my list of folks I'd consider voting for. I don't think I'll vote there today myself though.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by J23

I apologized for no vote yesterday, but I did warn folks beforehand that the deadline could be problematic for me. Work has been hectic, and I didn't log in at all yesterday until after 6pm EST. If you still want to hold it against me and vote for me because of it, I guess that is up to you.

As far as score goes, yeah, mine sucked as striker. That doesn't have any bearing on my other positions however. If we're voting the people with the lowest scores, wouldn't GoldenEagle be a better choice since he has the lowest known average score? (That is what the bench score is, correct?)

For now, I'm going to vote no lynch. I'm not sure we really need to kill anyone to win games and thus, the game.

I'm NOT going to count this vote. I just this morning asked people to put their vote on its own line.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

FWIW, we don't have averages for the starters, so it's possible that the bench players are actually not too bad.

Right, but since we don't have the information we would assume they would average 50 points as the numbers were random. We already know some players who are below that. Tomorrow we'll be able to make an even better judgment.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by JAG

If we lynch today and tomorrow, we will have 12 players left (assuming the wolves get two NK's in). After that, we would need 72 points across each starter position to win a game, which seems unlikely.

My problem is if we try to play it both ways, we'll likely lose both. Lets say we don't lynch the next two days and the wolves do kill the next four days, it means we'll have two free days for soccer right?

I am realistically thinking winning 2 of those 4 games is best case, and we still would not be at the 10 points needed even with best case. At that point it would seem very unlikely to win again, the wolves can give us -2 sanction points to keep us further away and we then will be against the wall needing to at that point find the wolves without any vote history to go on at all.

That then means the entire game would depend on if our seer stays alive that long AND finds a wolf during that time? We don't know if the wolves have some kind of seer hunter role either or anything else that could decrease our odds right? What would we do in 2-3 days if we end up with our best scorer turning up to being a wolf? We need them to try to get the wins, but we need to kill him as well.

I think we have to just play this like WW and not let the side show distract us too much. We can have lynches in a way that it will cause the least harm to our team from a numbers standpoint by not voting for the highest scorers at least for now.

[Passacaglia]

Vote count:

Chief Rum 1 -- LoneStarGirl (387)
No Lynch 3 -- Kwhit (423) Chief Rum (425) PurdueBrad (430)
GoldenEagle 2 -- claphamsa (433) Lathum (450)
The Jackal 1 -- GoldenEagle (441)

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I am realistically thinking winning 2 of those 4 games is best case, and we still would not be at the 10 points needed even with best case.

I'm still mulling over the rest of your post, but this isn't accurate. A win is 3 points, we got a tie yesterday which is worth 1, so we need 3 wins to win the game.

Originally Posted by Alan T

At that point it would seem very unlikely to win again, the wolves can give us -2 sanction points to keep us further away

But then they aren't killing villagers, so it somewhat makes up for the villagers that were killed earlier. If we have a winning team, they can't keep giving us -2 points because the amount of players on the team won't change, KWhit will keep the lineup the same, and we'll still be getting 3 points per game. You're still correct about the lost voting history though.

[J23]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I'm NOT going to count this vote. I just this morning asked people to put their vote on its own line.

Sorry Pass, my bad.

vote no lynch

I'm still trying to figure out if lynching is a better option, but in case I get pulled away, I'm sticking with not lynching for today.

[Passacaglia]

No problem! New vote count:

Chief Rum 1 -- LoneStarGirl (387)
No Lynch 4 -- Kwhit (423) Chief Rum (425) PurdueBrad (430) J23 (457)
GoldenEagle 2 -- claphamsa (433) Lathum (450)
The Jackal 1 -- GoldenEagle (441)

[GoldenEagle]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Why do you say that?

It is just going to be tough for us to get the 800 points three times, IMO. The wolves will probably start picking off our best players and they can also hit us the point deduction if we get close. So, essentially we would need to win four matches.

I just don't want us to get caught up in the whole he/she is a good player so we can't lynch them. We might get lucky and have one of our best players be the seer (or unlucky if the wolves get to him) or one of our best players might be a wolf and gets a free pass because of his/her skills.

The math adding up for us to get four wins is not probable, IMO. We need to play this like a regular WW game and consider it lucky if we get the 10 points to win the league.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I think we have to just play this like WW and not let the side show distract us too much. We can have lynches in a way that it will cause the least harm to our team from a numbers standpoint by not voting for the highest scorers at least for now.

I agree, but at the same time, if one of the high scorers is a wolf, he or she would be as safe as can be to do whatever they want.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally Posted by Lathum

gotta get a vote in

Vote GoldenEagle

mostly a gut feeling here

Your gut would be wrong. I would invite the seer to scan me tonight (I have a feeling I might be on the block soon) but that would be a waste of a scan. Plus it might out the seer, which would be no good for us of course.

[JAG]

lol, sorry Alan, I failed at reading comprehension...you think we realistically can only win 2 of the next 4 games and yes, that would not be enough to get us to 10.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by JAG

I'm still mulling over the rest of your post, but this isn't accurate. A win is 3 points, we got a tie yesterday which is worth 1, so we need 3 wins to win the game.

I don't understand how my statement is not accurate? We have 1 point now. If we win 2 of the next 4 games, that would be a total of 7 points. 2 additional ties and that is 9 points, so short of the 10 points needed.

I think anyone assuming we'll win 3 of the 4 or all four of our next games is overly optimistic to the case of suspiciously optimistic.

[Schmidty]

Ok, I don't want a no lynch, so I'm going to vote for the person with the most votes thus far. If things change, I'm willing to look at it again.

VOTE GOLDENEAGLE

(I also kind of got a weird vibe from him, like Lathum said. He's been hilarious and entertaining, but I almost felt like that could have been a distraction to make everyone look at him in a softer light. I hope that doesn't make people not want to roleplay though. )

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Alan T

My problem is if we try to play it both ways, we'll likely lose both. Lets say we don't lynch the next two days and the wolves do kill the next four days, it means we'll have two free days for soccer right?

I'm not against switching to a lynch, but I wanted to point this out.

This is the second time in the last two days that a "Lynch supporter" has used more than one day of No Lynches as their baseline for an argument against it, never mind the almost certain likelihood that no one thinks more than one day of No Lynch is a good idea.

Yesterday, Lathum did it, and took it out to four days, and that led me to considering him for a vote for an illogical argument (hyperbole). Alan, you're in the clear, but starting from that baseline argument is just as bad.

If I'm going to switch to a Lynch, it's not going to be because of arguments that include anything about more than one day of "No Lynches". I don't think that will ever be considered. When I hear a convincing argument that even one day of No Lynch hurts us in this case, that is the argument I wil consider.

[Alan T]

I think it is pointless to have player vs no lynch again. It is a tool wolves can use to hide, especially if the one player is a good guy like yesterday. I don't think Chief is a good target for a vote today, so will vote for the only other person with a vote that also fits in the list of people I don't mind voting for in hopes that we have a good two person race from it to apply pressure on who people vote for.


Vote TheJackal

[The Jackal]

I still don't think no lynch is the way to go.

Even if KWhit makes good decisions in player replacements (as I'm sure I'll be on the bench, but that doesn't mean switching people around will absolutely end in a better result) - we should treat this like normal WW.

At the very least we can have some competition between no lynch and someone who has pinged a few radars:

Vote GE

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I'm not against switching to a lynch, but I wanted to point this out.

This is the second time in the last two days that a "Lynch supporter" has used more than one day of No Lynches as their baseline for an argument against it, never mind the almost certain likelihood that no one thinks more than one day of No Lynch is a good idea.

Yesterday, Lathum did it, and took it out to four days, and that led me to considering him for a vote for an illogical argument (hyperbole). Alan, you're in the clear, but starting from that baseline argument is just as bad.

If I'm going to switch to a Lynch, it's not going to be because of arguments that include anything about more than one day of "No Lynches". I don't think that will ever be considered. When I hear a convincing argument that even one day of No Lynch hurts us in this case, that is the argument I wil consider.

Don't look at me. JAG was the one suggesting 2 days play with lynches equaling a certain score. I was giving the same example with the 4 days if we had no lynches to show why his argument was bad.

Not sure why you are singling me out when I'm just replying back.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

(I also kind of got a weird vibe from him, like Lathum said. He's been hilarious and entertaining, but I almost felt like that could have been a distraction to make everyone look at him in a softer light. I hope that doesn't make people not want to roleplay though. )

You are the master of roleplaying because of the Hulk character.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Yesterday, Lathum did it, and took it out to four days, and that led me to considering him for a vote for an illogical argument (hyperbole). Alan, you're in the clear, but starting from that baseline argument is just as bad.

now see, this is just flat out incorrect.

I took it to 4 days because Jag made a comment about getting down to 15 players before we lynch, which would be 4 days ( actually 3 since I mistakenly counted KWhit). So explain to me how my statement was incorrect or illogical?

[Passacaglia]

Vote count:

Chief Rum 1 -- LoneStarGirl (387)
No Lynch 4 -- Kwhit (423) Chief Rum (425) PurdueBrad (430) J23 (457)
GoldenEagle 4 -- claphamsa (433) Lathum (450) Schmidty (464) The Jackal (467)
The Jackal 2 -- GoldenEagle (441) Alan T (466)

[JAG]

Alright, I'm going to lynch. Going to take a look back through the post first though.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I think it is pointless to have player vs no lynch again. It is a tool wolves can use to hide, especially if the one player is a good guy like yesterday. I don't think Chief is a good target for a vote today, so will vote for the only other person with a vote that also fits in the list of people I don't mind voting for in hopes that we have a good two person race from it to apply pressure on who people vote for.


Vote TheJackal

I think we owe it to AlanT at this time to give him another shot at picking of a wolf. He could very well be in the zone right now. I know it is not much to go off of, but its our best shot.

The wolves are likely trying to influence us to do a no lynch. The more players we have, the more combinations we have to comb through to find a winning side. The wolves are laughing at us right now for wanting to vote a no lynch.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JAG

At that later point, we can start lynching, but with superior odds (if there are 4 wolves for example, 4 out of 11 chance instead of 4 out of 14 chance) and more information about player skills. All things being equal, why would we kill our superstar goalie? How do you know today's lynch won't kill that person?
.

Dola- my comments were based off this suggestion by Jag that we get down to 15 players before lynching, or 4 night kills ( I later admitted I was wrong in counting KWhit). So please get your facts straight before putting words in my mouth CR.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally Posted by The Jackal

I still don't think no lynch is the way to go.

Even if KWhit makes good decisions in player replacements (as I'm sure I'll be on the bench, but that doesn't mean switching people around will absolutely end in a better result) - we should treat this like normal WW.

At the very least we can have some competition between no lynch and someone who has pinged a few radars:

Vote GE

Mate, it is obvious your a poor footballer and also a poor lack of character judgment. The goal that you let in yesterday was shite, mate. No offense, but I could have saved that bent over backwards with my eyes closed, yea?

[Lathum]

Time to go pick up the folks from the airport so my vote stands.

What are we doing about weekend play?

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

You are the master of roleplaying because of the Hulk character.

Why thank you. I think that's pretty much the only meaningful contribution to WW. I'm the WW equivalent of a one-hit-wonder that everyone still listens to for some reason.

[Passacaglia]

Next deadline will be 2 Central, Monday.

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Why thank you. I think that's pretty much the only meaningful contribution to WW. I'm the WW equivalent of a one-hit-wonder that everyone still listens to for some reason.

are you cold as ice?

[Passacaglia]

Foreigner was not a one-hit wonder, fool!

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Foreigner was not a one-hit wonder, fool!

i was thinking the vanilla kind! one of his albums was cold as ice!

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

are you cold as ice?

No, but I'm walkin' on sunshine!!!!

[J23]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I think it is pointless to have player vs no lynch again. It is a tool wolves can use to hide, especially if the one player is a good guy like yesterday. I don't think Chief is a good target for a vote today, so will vote for the only other person with a vote that also fits in the list of people I don't mind voting for in hopes that we have a good two person race from it to apply pressure on who people vote for.

Alan,
Why do you think the Jackal is a better target for a vote today? Given the back and forth this afternoon, I'd almost lean to the opposite.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

I think we owe it to AlanT at this time to give him another shot at picking of a wolf. He could very well be in the zone right now. I know it is not much to go off of, but its our best shot.

The wolves are likely trying to influence us to do a no lynch. The more players we have, the more combinations we have to comb through to find a winning side. The wolves are laughing at us right now for wanting to vote a no lynch.

Don't use me to protect yourself. I already said I was ok with you as a vote today too.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

I think we owe it to AlanT at this time to give him another shot at picking of a wolf. He could very well be in the zone right now. I know it is not much to go off of, but its our best shot.

The wolves are likely trying to influence us to do a no lynch. The more players we have, the more combinations we have to comb through to find a winning side. The wolves are laughing at us right now for wanting to vote a no lynch.

You have been pinging my wolfdar all game, but this doesn't make sense at all. The wolves will be wanting us to lynch a villager. The only way they'd be pushing for a no lynch is if we had a consensus on one lynch candidate who was a wolf and versus a no lynch vote. And since we haven't had any real consensus on a lynch candidate today, I don't believe they are the ones pushing for no lynch right now.

The wolves are in a position to take out a villager through a lynch today and then a kill tonight.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by J23

Alan,
Why do you think the Jackal is a better target for a vote today? Given the back and forth this afternoon, I'd almost lean to the opposite.

I said earlier today that after considering my options I wanted to see you vs TheJackal as votes. The reason I voted him over you was that he already had a vote.

Of course when I said that earlier, Goldeneagle already had a vote and he immediately jumped on thejackal almost as if he was protecting you.

So right now I likely would feel better about a vote for you over anyone else. But that is just my gut talking again more than anything else.

[JAG]

Question Alan, if you feel like a wolf or wolves are using No Lynch to hide, why did you not turn your sights towards those who voted that way yesterday (admittedly that included me until the last minute)?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by JAG

Question Alan, if you feel like a wolf or wolves are using No Lynch to hide, why did you not turn your sights towards those who voted that way yesterday (admittedly that included me until the last minute)?

I already said yesterday that I felt with the vote being forced as a MartinD vs no lynch, it allowed the wolves to not have to go anywhere and they likely were able to spread their votes out wherever they wanted. Since I also feel Claphamsa is likely more good than bad right now (at least leaning that way), he was the only other candidate seriously getting votes.

Because of no real Vote discussion yesterday, wolves never had to commit anywhere.

[Darth Vilus]

I still say we try to track down wolves. All things considered, I'm going to

Vote GoldenEagle

His actions see iffy to me and his average was low enough that my vote should satisfy those "no lynch"ers out there. That's my take.

and on a side not what do WWIW and COT stand for?

[JAG]

I just haven't found myself agreeing with GE's take on almost anything this game so I guess I'll vote his way.

VOTE GOLDENEAGLE

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I said earlier today that after considering my options I wanted to see you vs TheJackal as votes. The reason I voted him over you was that he already had a vote.

Of course when I said that earlier, Goldeneagle already had a vote and he immediately jumped on thejackal almost as if he was protecting you.

So right now I likely would feel better about a vote for you over anyone else. But that is just my gut talking again more than anything else.

But as you see, GE is leading and if things turn out as appear to be, you're throwing your vote away if you don't want a no lynch.

I don't get it.

[claphamsa]

the run away is disappointing! but its better than no lynch.

[hoopsguy]

COT = Circle of Trust. Players that are 100% cleared or so close to that level that you are willing to make further decisions on the assumption that they are good guys.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally Posted by KWhit

You have been pinging my wolfdar all game, but this doesn't make sense at all. The wolves will be wanting us to lynch a villager. The only way they'd be pushing for a no lynch is if we had a consensus on one lynch candidate who was a wolf and versus a no lynch vote. And since we haven't had any real consensus on a lynch candidate today, I don't believe they are the ones pushing for no lynch right now.

The wolves are in a position to take out a villager through a lynch today and then a kill tonight.

Of course, the wolves would like for us to lynch a villager, esp. a villager with an important role.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

Of course, the wolves would like for us to lynch a villager, esp. a villager with an important role.

So do you have something to share? You only have 27 minutes. I'd get talkin' there bub.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I already said yesterday that I felt with the vote being forced as a MartinD vs no lynch, it allowed the wolves to not have to go anywhere and they likely were able to spread their votes out wherever they wanted. Since I also feel Claphamsa is likely more good than bad right now (at least leaning that way), he was the only other candidate seriously getting votes.

Because of no real Vote discussion yesterday, wolves never had to commit anywhere.

That and that there wasn't a wolf on the line and with the no lynch votes there's 50% less chance of there being a wolf out there, ok I get you. Sorry, I haven't played a lot of WW so what should be obvious is still a learning process for me. Well from this point on we should completely forget about no lynch votes unless we get a surprising victory by a decent margin.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

So do you have something to share? You only have 27 minutes. I'd get talkin' there bub.

I am just going to say that I am a villager. I may not be much of a footballer (we will never know, as I will probably never get to set foot on the pitch), but I am not a wolf.

[KWhit]

I'm going to submit my lineup now.

[GoldenEagle]

Gaffer,

I think now may be a good time to turn in that transfer request. It seems some of my teammates are delirious.

[claphamsa]

play me coach!