LXXVIII: Politicus Lupus (GAME OVER!! SEE POST #2593 FOR RESULTS)

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by mccollins

I can't wait to hear what your constituents have to say about you voting for our super liberal bill

I fail to see how allowing a member of our esteemed governemnt to PRTECT himeslf from evil wolfs is a bad thing!
FURTHERMORE I feel that we could continue in this strain and REQUIRE all memebr of govenrment (and clergy) to cary firearms for their own protection! LEts so those wolves come at me and my WK111 (wolfkiller)

[Chubby]

I will be working tomorrow 6am-4pm EST. If you have ideas for my bill please post here or let your liason know (if you are repub). I have an idea already that both sides should like but it's not set in stone.

I plan on signing both bills into law as the wolves are going to put riders on our bills no matter what. I don't think we can risk not having a bodyguard just because of the rider.

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I will be working tomorrow 6am-4pm EST. If you have ideas for my bill please post here or let your liason know (if you are repub). I have an idea already that both sides should like but it's not set in stone.

I plan on signing both bills into law as the wolves are going to put riders on our bills no matter what. I don't think we can risk not having a bodyguard just because of the rider.

great out speaker is singing wolf bills!

Thats what happens when you elect a democrat! hippies!

[claphamsa]

so we get 3 bills every day, just strike down the ONE that the wolves put a rider on! why give them roles! i mean, who are thye gonna kill? none of us have rolls so who isnt exendable!

DONT SING THE BG BILL!!!!!!!!!!

[PackerFanatic]

Clap, they are just going to keep adding riders, we can't just not sign a bill because it has a rider. We will never get any roles then.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

I fail to see how allowing a member of our esteemed governemnt to PRTECT himeslf from evil wolfs is a bad thing!

Don't forget we're not just playing werewolf, we're also playing congress:

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The Political Spectrum and Werewolf

...

Here are some traditional roles, ranked from most Republican to most Democrat. My definition for them follows in parentheses.

Seer (standard seer)
Spy/Witness (follows a target)
Psychic (sees what target sees at night)
Examiner (can review the files of a dead player to learn what he knew)
Vigilante (can one time per game kill another player, at usual cost of self)
Hunter (can take one other player with him when he is lynched)

***Roles above lean toward Repeblican

Brothers/Lovers (two players can PM each other, usually die together) ***Centrist

***Roles below lean toward Democrat

Duke (standard duke)
Soothsayer (can pick a post to determine if what the poster is bring truthful)
Thief (can block another player's actions)
Impervious (can protect himself from any special role action taken against him)
Healer/Herbalist (can heal a person attacked by the wolves)
Bodyguard (standard bodyguard)

..

We all know this is a buddy club and I wouldn't want anyone to be voted out of their office for going against their constituents....

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

How could any god fearing AMERICAN suport that hippy PF?

I mean look what a hash he made of the first bit of legislation for his party! a WOLF rider!!

I also feel that his signautre is insulting and disrespectful of a respected member of conress! DISPICABLE!

Furthermore I have it on good word that he does not display a mauled wolf belt next to his american flag!!! does he support werewolves? this failure to show proper anti wolf feelings is very disturbing ot me!

Someone call the NRA!

Typical right wing retoric. Everyone knows it was a Republican who added the rider. That side of the aisle is probably loaded with wolves.

PF is an excellent choice. We democats have already shown that we are looking out for our people with wisdom and common sense. We didn't allow wolves to run the show and propose a bill that had no chance of passing the courts. We didn't need someone other than our own leadership to come to the rescue to propose a bill that could actually pass the courts. We are actively trying to make this a better country without trying to trample the constitution.

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

Clap, they are just going to keep adding riders, we can't just not sign a bill because it has a rider. We will never get any roles then.

sure we will! we get 3 bills every day! they only get oen rider! let them esentially veto one roll every day! but they NEVER get a thign!!!!!

[Tyrith]

If you don't have a gun, I don't trust you.

[claphamsa]

serioulsy, dont sign it! imagine gaining 2 rolls every day, and they get nothing

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

If you don't have a gun, I don't trust you.

I drive an M1A to work every day!

[EagleFan]

If the wolves can place one rider each year, why not veto the BG bill tonight? It we put together three good bills tomorrow they will have to pick one to put a rider on. Maybe we can put together two different types of body guard bills. If they put a rider on one we veto that one and use the other. It's a crap shoot for them for their first night anyway so what are we really risking? That first night the BG most likely guards himself so it's not like we're losing seer protection for a night.

[Chubby]

In addition to the fact that it's the Democratic bill, I feel like I'd be doing my constituents, my party, and my nation if I didn't sign the BG bill into law.

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

If the wolves can place one rider each year, why not veto the BG bill tonight? It we put together three good bills tomorrow they will have to pick one to put a rider on. Maybe we can put together two different types of body guard bills. If they put a rider on one we veto that one and use the other. It's a crap shoot for them for their first night anyway so what are we really risking? That first night the BG most likely guards himself so it's not like we're losing seer protection for a night.

If we do that they rider the third bill. Although I don't think vetoing this bill is the worst idea ever, as night 2 is going to be the least productive BG night. We'd just need a better plan than that for what to do tomorrow.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

If the wolves can place one rider each year, why not veto the BG bill tonight? It we put together three good bills tomorrow they will have to pick one to put a rider on. Maybe we can put together two different types of body guard bills. If they put a rider on one we veto that one and use the other. It's a crap shoot for them for their first night anyway so what are we really risking? That first night the BG most likely guards himself so it's not like we're losing seer protection for a night.

Why would the BG guard himself when no one knows who he is?

[EagleFan]

As much as I hate to admit this I have to completely agree with clap on this one!!! We need to think about us versus the wolves most importantly, especially when the idea of keeping the wolves from a role helps all of our constituants without sacrificing much.

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

If the wolves can place one rider each year, why not veto the BG bill tonight? It we put together three good bills tomorrow they will have to pick one to put a rider on. Maybe we can put together two different types of body guard bills. If they put a rider on one we veto that one and use the other. It's a crap shoot for them for their first night anyway so what are we really risking? That first night the BG most likely guards himself so it's not like we're losing seer protection for a night.

Exactly! ill send you that intern.....

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by Chubby

In addition to the fact that it's the Democratic bill, I feel like I'd be doing my constituents, my party, and my nation if I didn't sign the BG bill into law.

I can assure you the NRA will be leting your constituents know that you have been passing stealth secrets to the wolves!

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Why would the BG guard himself when no one knows who he is?

Because he's the most valuable good guy he knows of. The only good guy he knows of, for sure.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Why would the BG guard himself when no one knows who he is?

Because he also would not know who to guard so why risk wasting a night guard by potentially guarding a wolf?

[claphamsa]

so tommorow we pass another BG bill and maybe another seer bill (if were creative who knwos what CR will let us do) and a hunter bill or somethign......

[Chubby]

thank goodness I'm only acting president. Someone else can deal with this soon enough

If we veto this one, you don't think the wolves will simply keep attaching it to any BG bill we pass?

I'm not saying we should never not sign a passed bill but it should be very extreme circumstances IMO. The BG is just too important to not implement.

[claphamsa]

I think the BG is an important possitiong.... but no wherenear as important as a seer! they picked the wrong bill to rider! their loss. hopefully they pick wrong toommrow too!

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by Chubby

thank goodness I'm only acting president. Someone else can deal with this soon enough

If we veto this one, you don't think the wolves will simply keep attaching it to any BG bill we pass?

I'm not saying we should never not sign a passed bill but it should be very extreme circumstances IMO. The BG is just too important to not implement.

That is kind of how I feel, although I can see the reasoning behind vetoing this one, especially with the fact that we get 3 cracks at it tomorrow (and I didn't realize the wolves only get 1 rider)

[claphamsa]

I woudl like to comment that the banner abover is for jackyl albums!

I AFFECT YOUR ADS!

[EagleFan]

If we veto today than we get a seer and hey get nothing. Tomorrow we pass two BG type bills and either they rider one or they rider the third bill. If they rider one we veto that and get a body guard. If they rider the third bill be veto that one and get two body guard roles which means they almost have to rider one of the BG bills.

We just found a HUGE advantage and need to take care of it. If we start doing this we get the eolvs on the run. The more they are on the run the easier it becomes to weed them out.

[Tyrith]

Well, if we veto a BG bill tonight we have to be prepared to veto another one tomorrow. Which means we need two BG bills tomorrow. But if we do that they can just rider the other bill, which means one of the BG bills will rot - do you really think CR will let us have two? - and we'll have a third bill that we'll be back in this same situation with.

This scenario is NO GOOD - we will have two roles after tomorrow night at best. We should suck up the cunning rider, consider some way to trump it with future legislation, and then pass more roles tomorrow. The cunning thing sucks but it's no worse than normal.

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

If we veto today than we get a seer and hey get nothing. Tomorrow we pass two BG type bills and either they rider one or they rider the third bill. If they rider one we veto that and get a body guard. If they rider the third bill be veto that one and get two body guard roles which means they almost have to rider one of the BG bills.

We just found a HUGE advantage and need to take care of it. If we start doing this we get the eolvs on the run. The more they are on the run the easier it becomes to weed them out.

This is making a big, big, big assumption that both BG bills will stick. If they would both stick I agree with you.

[chesapeake]

I agree with EF's logic. We can keep adding special abilities without ever giving them one. I don't see a downside.

[Tyrith]

The alternative is in a only one BG world that we can veto this BG bill, then pass only one tomorrow, two other good roles; if they rider the BG bill then veto it again, and just suck up not having a BG and using that bill to keep their attention for a while.

[RendeR]

I must ad my opposition to signing the Protection act. It is unnecessary to hand the wolves a prime role while gaining a typical BG role in return. We can use our 3 bills tomorrow to garner the roles we need and veto anytihng with a wolf party rider attached.

getting 2 out of 3 solid and clean bills passed each day is a fantastic trade off for keeping roles away from the wolves.

VETO THE WOLF NATIONAL PROTECTION ACT.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

This is making a big, big, big assumption that both BG bills will stick. If they would both stick I agree with you.

CR said in the rules that we can be creative. If we don't make these roles too powerful (aka your uber seer attempt) we can get two BG type of roles passed.

The only limit we have now is our own creativity and getting too greedy. We can, and should, work this to our advantage.

[RendeR]

Oh and I do apologize for my hiatus. I had a 'family emergency' that required my presense in Tahiti for a few weeks....

[Tyrith]

I'm for this, we just have to be committed to the fact that this is the way it's going to be -- we're going to have to veto a bill pretty much every day from here on out. There might be certain emergency circumstances that will interfere -- like having to save a scanned good guy from losing their district by passing some horribly partisan piece of crap -- but if we're gonna do this, we have to be prepared all the way.

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

CR said in the rules that we can be creative. If we don't make these roles too powerful (aka your uber seer attempt) we can get two BG type of roles passed.

The only limit we have now is our own creativity and getting too greedy. We can, and should, work this to our advantage.

Two BGs is not particularly creative and seems pretty greedy to me :P

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

Two BGs is not particularly creative and seems pretty greedy to me :P

I've been in a game with multiple BG's, or multiple BG type roles.

At worst we only get one bill passe tomorrow but we will be in a position with a BG and seer and the wolves will have nothing yet. From that point forward we work on getting 3 solid pieces of legislation passed each day and we get two of them to the wolves none.

[path12]

Originally Posted by henry296

I've got 11 votes for the Discovery Bill including Chubby, Packer and myself crossing over to support the bill.

Originally Posted by EagleFan

I can't even get recognition in my own party?

Man, me either. Tough crowd.

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

I've been in a game with multiple BG's, or multiple BG type roles.

At worst we only get one bill passe tomorrow but we will be in a position with a BG and seer and the wolves will have nothing yet. From that point forward we work on getting 3 solid pieces of legislation passed each day and we get two of them to the wolves none.

Well, ultimately, would you rather have a BG or both a witness and a duke? If we can get the non-random wolf selection attached to both of those roles I'd rather have the combo. However, we can make that choice tomorrow.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

Two BGs is not particularly creative and seems pretty greedy to me :P

My good man, it doesn't require two BG bills, it could be a hunter and a BG and a duke type role bill, the wolves then attach a rider to one of them, we get it vetoed and we gain two for the price of 3. The wolves gain nothing and we gain a huge advantage.

Might I suggest that the only thing to really worry about with this plan is having a wolf party member in the position to control that veto........

[EagleFan]

True, but if the wolf is in veto position and does not veto it pretty much outs them.

[RendeR]

Have you all met my "bangin' hot wife" Clarisse? Isn't she a darling? She's my rock and my sheltering harbor in a sea of difficulties.

We need to support the working man, we have got to get control of this government and keep those vile WOLF party members at bay!

[henry296]

I see the logic of my good friend from across the aisle Mr. Clap. We can afford to not have a bodyguard for one night in order to prevent the cunning wolf. Once I figure out who added this atrocity to our great bodyguard bill, there will be repurcusions. I support a veto of the bodyguard bill.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

True, but if the wolf is in veto position and does not veto it pretty much outs them.

Indeed, quite the predicament for such a person, don;t you agree? I know for certain that many of my silver tongued compatriots here in Congress are quite adept at talking their way out of trouble. Let us hope for everyone's sake that Congressmen Chubby is not only forthright with his verbage, but stallwart in his ACTIONS as takes the suggestion of so many of we fine members of Congress and vetos this troublesome bit of legislation.

[path12]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

I woudl like to comment that the banner abover is for jackyl albums!

I AFFECT YOUR ADS!

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!!

[path12]

I find myself agreeing with my thick-fingered friend from across the aisle. Cunning is about as bad as it gets. I'd rather veto the BG bill (despite my co-sponsorship) with such a security breach added onto it.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Indeed, quite the predicament for such a person, don;t you agree? I know for certain that many of my silver tongued compatriots here in Congress are quite adept at talking their way out of trouble. Let us hope for everyone's sake that Congressmen Chubby is not only forthright with his verbage, but stallwart in his ACTIONS as takes the suggestion of so many of we fine members of Congress and vetos this troublesome bit of legislation.

I would hope the person in such a position is all about integrity and not about sellin their services to the highest bidder and lying about it afterwards. I feel comfortable with the person who is currently in that position but hopefully those that follow will be equally honorable.

[RendeR]

I couldn't agree with you more Mr. Eaglefan. Tomorrow shall be an interesting day, don't you think?

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I couldn't agree with you more Mr. Eaglefan. Tomorrow shall be an interesting day, don't you think?

Yes I do. Perhaps we can get a picture of us with our smoking hot wives together to demonstrate that we can work together for the common good.

I will risk upsetting my constituants a little with my next move(s) if the obvious, and correct, choice is not made tonight. Hopefully this does not label me a rogue to my party.


I am quite concerned that some seem to be trying to justify giving the wolves a role by the "loss of the BG role" arguement. We are losing it for one night if we do this, not for the entire game.

[Tyrith]

Apparently my wife looks like a mule. Anyone want to trade?

[chesapeake]

Again, I agree with EF. The BG bill should be vetoed.