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

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Actually, I'd be surprised if it wasn't 2 wolves in each party. That just seems to make sense.

Agreed. I think most of us are going off that assumption as well.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Also, I'll point out that the fact the rider was put on the BG bill and not the seer bill makes me think that if it is unbalanced, there are more Republican wolves than Democrat.

Why do you think the wolves even care what Party they're on?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I guess it mostly had to do with Lathum changing his vote to you. We talked a little about why he voted (but not much, since I was very in-and-out), about how your vote seemed put there to save clap. When I got back after deadline, he told me his switch back wasn't a setup, but I'm not sure how much I believe that.

Well, I hope the fact that clap was a villager puts that theory to rest.

[PackerFanatic]

To cause the exact kind of bickering that is happening now. If we can't come together on issues, we won't get anything decent done to stop them.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Do you have reason to believe those 3 are more likely to be villagers than any other people?

Odds, for one. There are either 4 or 5 wolves in the game in my estimation. With 3 guys out, unless the odds are better than 2:1, we are better off helping them win reelection to the body so that there are more villagers.

Now, if you can make a reasonable case that any of the three are wolves, you absolutely should. That would change the odds. But to encourage the expulsion of all three is an awful idea.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Well, I hope the fact that clap was a villager puts that theory to rest.

Obviously. I'm referring to the discussion Lathum and I had last night. That's what you wanted to know about, right? What I was thinking last night?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Odds, for one. There are either 4 or 5 wolves in the game in my estimation. With 3 guys out, unless the odds are better than 2:1, we are better off helping them win reelection to the body so that there are more villagers.

Now, if you can make a reasonable case that any of the three are wolves, you absolutely should. That would change the odds. But to encourage the expulsion of all three is an awful idea.

Sorry, I should have been more clear -- I was asking about the 3 individually, not as one group.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

No no, I didn't mean that as a knock on you. Not at all.

Just that I like people, in general, in all games, to explain themselves. Ya never know when a wolf might make a goof, however minor, ya know?

Just personal preference. I hate that almost as much as I hate ties.

Not to defend Lathum, but he is a left coaster now. Your choice is probably either having KWhit chime in or leaving the allegation hanging out there for 3 hours until Lathum gets on himself.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by KWhit

How do you think it makes us feel when we should be doing much better than we are? The rider falling on our bill day one was a big blow to us, since we decided (bi-partisanly, I might add), to veto it. That veto really hurt us, but (good decision or bad) it was done for the good of the 'village' at the Dems expense.

Also, I'll point out that the fact the rider was put on the BG bill and not the seer bill makes me think that if it is unbalanced, there are more Republican wolves than Democrat.

Agreed, that rider/veto stung you guys. But I'm becoming increasingly wary in this game of people who say one thing and do another. Dems did a lot of that the first two days of this game.

Overall, I'm not trying to make this overly partisan. After all, no good guys win if the Wolves win. It's just see things like this

- Dems talk up to remind the Repubs to get re-elected, then fail to do so.

- Dems preach bi-partisanship, to the point I friggin handed you guys the Speaker position, only to see the Speakers' bill fail and Dems vote as a block to errantly vote out a non-wolf Republican


I'd like to think that a chunk of that is honest mistakes, but surely you can see where I'd be silly to blindly accept them as such.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Obviously. I'm referring to the discussion Lathum and I had last night. That's what you wanted to know about, right? What I was thinking last night?

Yes, yes. I was just pointing out for everyone's benefit that the thought that I was trying to save anyone last night is incorrect.

Just basically trying to connect the dots for anyone who might be skimming through later and picked up the "trying to save clap" comment without really thinking it through.

In other words, just covering my ass.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Not to defend Lathum, but he is a left coaster now. Your choice is probably either having KWhit chime in or leaving the allegation hanging out there for 3 hours until Lathum gets on himself.

I'm a left-coaster as well (though I work practically East Coast hours) and would've had zero problem with waiting for a response.

Like I said, I wasn't trying to knock KWhit for responding there, I get it.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Sorry, I should have been more clear -- I was asking about the 3 individually, not as one group.

Fair enough, then. I would agree that each should be considered individually. But I would also say that the inclination, absent a reasonable case to the contrary, should be to help them get reelected back to the body.

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

- Dems talk up to remind the Repubs to get re-elected, then fail to do so.

Not like we had much say in the outcome of that, to be fair.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

Not like we had much say in the outcome of that, to be fair.

Yeah, really.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

Agreed. I think most of us are going off that assumption as well.

Initially, I did too. But the more and more this game progresses, I'm seeing that the partisanship is going to interfere with things that a general 14:4 ratio when coupled with

A) CR making a move to re-balance for the wolves with the vetos and

B) CR basically saying we're getting near the precipice of how powerful the village will be

makes me think that he may have saw that in advance and adjusted accordingly. 14:4 is a pretty tight ratio in even just a "straight up" game of WW. With the complex rule set and partisan issues I wouldn't be surprised to see it as 15:3

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

Not like we had much say in the outcome of that, to be fair.

You guys could have helped yourselves out by voting for who you thought was a wolf, instead of for party lines.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

Not like we had much say in the outcome of that, to be fair.

Sure you did. If not, then why were you each bothering to tell us the rhetoric that about 4 or 5 of you spouted at me during the initial speaker vote?

I had the same choice there as you had yesterday (in the wolf vote), to go for the benefit of the party or the benefit of the constituents. I chose the constituents, you chose the party.

[Tyrith]

I concur with heinz on pretty much all those points.

[jeheinz72]

Since the Dems are still preaching bi-partisanship (conveniently as they're the trailing party) I'd love to hear from them how the move to vote generally as a block on clap was orchestrated (I presume in their party thread).

I think looking closely at who pushed that move could be a great start to finding Wolf #1.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Fair enough, then. I would agree that each should be considered individually. But I would also say that the inclination, absent a reasonable case to the contrary, should be to help them get reelected back to the body.

I agree with this -- just trying to separate the rhetoric from the sensibility.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Ya know, I find it downright hilarious that all game long the Dems have warned us Repubs about how we have to worry about getting re-elected, how we shouldn't go against their ideas because our constituents won't like it, how our bills are horribly unconstitutional and what happens?

3 dems lose their seats and the bill proposed by the Democratic Speaker gets ruled unconstitutional.

I'm not trying to play a partisan game here, but since frankly the tone of you Dems up to this point aggrivated me to the point of barely caring about the game yesterday, this deserves pointing out.

If nothing, since I think a 14:4 starting ratio would be too strong, it makes me think that if we're facing 3 wolves, 2 of them are Dems.

Wow. This is a very important post.

1) Dems, including myself, urged GOP members to OPPOSE democratic bills if they were on the far end of the spectrum, like Clap and Tyrith, to better ensure their reelection.
2)CR's writeup makes it pretty clear that the veto and Clap's lynching, not our voting records, was responsible for the butt-kicking we took.
3) CR also made it abundantly clear that the bill was vetoed -- not because it was unconstitutional -- but because we passed 3 bills and he felt 2 was enough. He also went out of his way to state that he had, in fact, told Dems that the bill was constitutional before we submitted it.
4) 3 wolves? That seems extremely light to me, and minimizing the wolf threat always strikes me the wrong way.

That is a lot of factual errors all knotted up into one post. This is a strong effort to sow mistrust between the villagers.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Yes, yes. I was just pointing out for everyone's benefit that the thought that I was trying to save anyone last night is incorrect.

Just basically trying to connect the dots for anyone who might be skimming through later and picked up the "trying to save clap" comment without really thinking it through.

In other words, just covering my ass.

That's fine, I understand! My turn to ask: I know why you voted Mrs. Schmidty, but what made you change to clap in the end? I feel like you only hurt yourself with a late vote for a non-wolf, so what was the reasoning?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Why do you think the wolves even care what Party they're on?

Good question. I don't know.

Like I said, though, I think it's split 50-50. But, I was surprised when the wolves put the rider on the BG bill instead of the seer bill.

I personally think the seer role is more powerful (by a LOT) than the Bodyguard, so was wondering why the wolves would do that.

One possible explanation is to hurt the Dems (I'm not sure it's a particularly good explanation, but I can't come up with any others right now).

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I don't see 14:4 as being too strong, especially since we have potential for a lot of roles here.

Could be right. I guess what I'm getting at would be that when the game first started I would've thought it about a 90+% that it was 14/4. As I play more though and get a better handle on things, I think it's more like 50/50 or 60/40 that it's 4 wolves or less. 4 wouldn't "shock" me, but I'm no longer essentially ruling out less than 4.

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

4) 3 wolves? That seems extremely light to me, and minimizing the wolf threat always strikes me the wrong way.

Over dramatizing the threat is equally bad. 5 wolves, remember? How crazy is that? I don't even think I have to go further.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Wow. This is a very important post.

1) Dems, including myself, urged GOP members to OPPOSE democratic bills if they were on the far end of the spectrum, like Clap and Tyrith, to better ensure their reelection.
2)CR's writeup makes it pretty clear that the veto and Clap's lynching, not our voting records, was responsible for the butt-kicking we took.
3) CR also made it abundantly clear that the bill was vetoed -- not because it was unconstitutional -- but because we passed 3 bills and he felt 2 was enough. He also went out of his way to state that he had, in fact, told Dems that the bill was constitutional before we submitted it.
4) 3 wolves? That seems extremely light to me, and minimizing the wolf threat always strikes me the wrong way.

That is a lot of factual errors all knotted up into one post. This is a strong effort to sow mistrust between the villagers.

I think that's a pretty lame attempt to paint a rosy picture of the actions of the Dems during the first two days.

1) I agree, and that's good. But while you guys had plenty of time and werewithal to do that, you found time to paint me in a bad light over the Speaker issue and neglect your own re-elections

2) Clap's lynching is exactly what I'm talking about. You all basically jumped on clap because you could, without regard really to if he was a wolf or how being incorrect would effect you.

3) Agreed, but I think the Dems chose to swing for the fences too much on that bill. Heck when I left yesterday with just a few hours to deadline there was still talk of altering it as people weren't sure. It was the responsiblity of Chubby and those he worked with to make sure something got passed, anything better than nothing.

4) I disagree. Like I said, I'm not ruling out 4, but I'm no longer ruling out 3. It's really neither here nor there, for all intents and purposes I'll hunt for wolves until the game is over, more a point of information. YMMV.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

That's fine, I understand! My turn to ask: I know why you voted Mrs. Schmidty, but what made you change to clap in the end? I feel like you only hurt yourself with a late vote for a non-wolf, so what was the reasoning?

Well, I got back into the thread at about 9:50 last night (this main thread, I read it before the Dem Party thread). I started reading and then saw that CR had extended the deadline. By that point it was getting really close to 10, so I flew through the thread and saw it was tied. I don't know what the tiebreaker is, and there is a Dem and a Repub there at the top (neither one of which I thought was a wolf), but didn't want a no-lynch and decided that of the two choices, I'd go with the party and vote for Clap - especially since I was peeved at him for putting the first vote of the day on ME - the party leader (that, more than anything pissed off many of the Dems and started the big block voting earlier in the day).

So I put a last second vote on Clap.

[jeheinz72]

KWhit, since you're here and frankly I'm ok with you wolf-wise right now...


How did the initial decision go down to essentially vote as a block against clap?

If anything, with the way that all went down, you look good in my eyes since you didn't appear to want to retaliate, you had a vote elsewhere pretty much all day, etc.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

You guys could have helped yourselves out by voting for who you thought was a wolf, instead of for party lines.

What wolfish information did you have to base your party-line vote on Henry? This would be important for our caucus to determine whether or not to help him to get reelected.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

What wolfish information did you have to base your party-line vote on Henry? This would be important for our caucus to determine whether or not to help him to get reelected.

First of all, we didn't all vote for henry. I don't know if the information we had was wolfish or not -- do you have reason to believe henry was good? If so, I agree that it's worth looking into.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

What wolfish information did you have to base your party-line vote on Henry? This would be important for our caucus to determine whether or not to help him to get reelected.

Maybe I misunderstood -- were you asking if our information was wolfish, or what read we had on him being a wolf?

[KWhit]

The decision was essentially, "Why the hell is he voting for our leader for no reason?" Because frankly, at that point, I was a really poor choice for a lynch vote, IMO, as I was doing a lot to help the villagers (maybe you Repubs didn't see as much of it as the Dems, but I was working my butt off to figure out the ruleset and run things by CR, etc...).

Now, I saw it as Clap just voting for the person on the far left side of the spectrum, but it was not really a well-thought out vote, IMO, so many Dems jumped on it quickly. I tried not to take it personally, and wanted to put my vote elsewhere, but honestly, I didn't lobby in the Dem thread one way or the other. Just put my vote out there and said a couple of things in this thread about, "Let's focus on wolves, not partisanship" and left for the night (or so I thought, since I knew I wouldn't be back until after 9:00).

[Tyrith]

So...yesterday's vote was about you guys being angry? ....*holds back saying anything else*

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

First of all, we didn't all vote for henry. I don't know if the information we had was wolfish or not -- do you have reason to believe henry was good? If so, I agree that it's worth looking into.

This brings up an interesting point in this game. Most of the posts that people are making are in their party thread - but the party is unlikely to vote for one of their own. So we're going to consistently be voting mostly blind.

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

What wolfish information did you have to base your party-line vote on Henry? This would be important for our caucus to determine whether or not to help him to get reelected.

We didn't. It was, if we're throwing darts against the democratic wall we might as well pick something that might get us somewhere if things broke our way. That said, I was not upset to see clap die, as long as I didn't have to have a hand in it.

I don't blame you guys for voting party line for clap yesterday, although I wish you had done it for reasons other than being ticked off. It's that entire mess with Lathum voting for KWhit and then not voting for KWhit that has me irked at your side of the fence. And I'm not exactly in a rush to return Lathum to our august body.

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by KWhit

This brings up an interesting point in this game. Most of the posts that people are making are in their party thread - but the party is unlikely to vote for one of their own. So we're going to consistently be voting mostly blind.

We have about half as many party posts as you guys do :P

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

So...yesterday's vote was about you guys being angry? ....*holds back saying anything else*

No. That's not right, exactly. And certainly not what I meant to say. That was an initial part of it, but no. It wasn't out of anger per se. But it came across as reactionary to his vote of me.

Now there was likely some emotion as well as some analyzation in that reaction.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by KWhit

The decision was essentially, "Why the hell is he voting for our leader for no reason?" Because frankly, at that point, I was a really poor choice for a lynch vote, IMO, as I was doing a lot to help the villagers (maybe you Repubs didn't see as much of it as the Dems, but I was working my butt off to figure out the ruleset and run things by CR, etc...).

Now, I saw it as Clap just voting for the person on the far left side of the spectrum, but it was not really a well-thought out vote, IMO, so many Dems jumped on it quickly. I tried not to take it personally, and wanted to put my vote elsewhere, but honestly, I didn't lobby in the Dem thread one way or the other. Just put my vote out there and said a couple of things in this thread about, "Let's focus on wolves, not partisanship" and left for the night (or so I thought, since I knew I wouldn't be back until after 9:00).

Yeah, I'd agree clap's vote was a bad one. I was not very pleased at all and frankly had Day One of this game not turned me off as much as it did I would've ripped him much further in our thread than I did.


I don't know how averse you are to talking about Dem thread stuff here, but if you're open to it, I'd love to know the names of any folks in the dem thread who pushed to just pile on him. Of course I can see that a bit here, but the order is comprimised. I just want to get the wolves man, but I understand if you don't want to talk about Dem thread stuff to all of us.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

We didn't. It was, if we're throwing darts against the democratic wall we might as well pick something that might get us somewhere if things broke our way. That said, I was not upset to see clap die, as long as I didn't have to have a hand in it.

I don't blame you guys for voting party line for clap yesterday, although I wish you had done it for reasons other than being ticked off. It's that entire mess with Lathum voting for KWhit and then not voting for KWhit that has me irked at your side of the fence. And I'm not exactly in a rush to return Lathum to our august body.

I'm not exactly happy about his vote for me, either.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Maybe I misunderstood -- were you asking if our information was wolfish, or what read we had on him being a wolf?

The latter. A bunch of Dems jumped on Clap because he went after KWhit. What was the justification for picking on Henry?

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by KWhit

No. That's not right, exactly. And certainly not what I meant to say. That was an initial part of it, but no. It wasn't out of anger per se. But it came across as reactionary to his vote of me.

Now there was likely some emotion as well as some analyzation in that reaction.

Votes stayed on Clap for 2 reasons -- 1) No other member of either party stood out as a wolf; and 2) there is a penalty to changing votes.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

I don't know how averse you are to talking about Dem thread stuff here, but if you're open to it, I'd love to know the names of any folks in the dem thread who pushed to just pile on him. Of course I can see that a bit here, but the order is comprimised. I just want to get the wolves man, but I understand if you don't want to talk about Dem thread stuff to all of us.

The votes for Clap happened quickly and spontaneously, with no discussion, really. Someone posted "Clap just voted to lynch KWhit," and *bang* Clap found himself with a bunch of retaliatory votes.

Honestly, I was headed over to the thread to vote against him myself, but when I saw that he had already been slammed, I decided to keep my powder dry.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

The latter. A bunch of Dems jumped on Clap because he went after KWhit. What was the justification for picking on Henry?

When clap made his vote, we were like "oh shit" -- there was some talk of us all following on that vote, thinking that if we didn't, you guys would get one of us voted out. But then we decided to wait and see what you guys did (my suggestion), thinking that if we had to make clap change his vote, it wouldn't be the end of the world -- especially since it was his fault for voting without really talking it through. IIRC, three votes came pretty quickly for clap, and we just figured "it's on" and attacked someone who seemed weak.

This sounds like it's the same, but there's a big difference. We started the votes first, but you started the bandwagon first. IMO, a bandwagon needs to be defended against, but one vote does not.

[jeheinz72]

For me I voted henry because we were a bit forced to. 4 Dem votes in succession, including 3 in consecutive posts pretty much tipped us (well me at least) as to how the Dems were planning to vote as far as censures.

When I left it was 5-3-2 or 4-2-1 with Clap having the big chunk, Mrs. S having the least and Henry with the middle.

I wanted to vote for a clap pile'r on'er but PF, the 2nd voter, wasn't eligible. That left 2 people I didn't have a wolf read on (yet), Path and Lathum or just vote Henry since I had to split. Since Henry had the bonus of helping me directly, I made the vote I did.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

When clap made his vote, we were like "oh shit" -- there was some talk of us all following on that vote, thinking that if we didn't, you guys would get one of us voted out. But then we decided to wait and see what you guys did (my suggestion), thinking that if we had to make clap change his vote, it wouldn't be the end of the world -- especially since it was his fault for voting without really talking it through. IIRC, three votes came pretty quickly for clap, and we just figured "it's on" and attacked someone who seemed weak.

This sounds like it's the same, but there's a big difference. We started the votes first, but you started the bandwagon first. IMO, a bandwagon needs to be defended against, but one vote does not.

Well, it wasn't really premeditated. It just sort of happened.

[Passacaglia]

I don't think PF was ineligible from lynching -- I think he was just automatically re-elected.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

The votes for Clap happened quickly and spontaneously, with no discussion, really. Someone posted "Clap just voted to lynch KWhit," and *bang* Clap found himself with a bunch of retaliatory votes.

Honestly, I was headed over to the thread to vote against him myself, but when I saw that he had already been slammed, I decided to keep my powder dry.

Yeah, frankly your vote for Mrs. Schmidty gives you a tick of favor in my eyes, truth be told.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I don't think PF was ineligible from lynching -- I think he was just automatically re-elected.

From da rulez

"Presidential candidates cannot be voted on as wolves during their candidacy. Votes for them during the presidential election day cycle will be ignored."

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

From da rulez

"Presidential candidates cannot be voted on as wolves during their candidacy. Votes for them during the presidential election day cycle will be ignored."

Ah, thanks.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

This sounds like it's the same, but there's a big difference. We started the votes first, but you started the bandwagon first. IMO, a bandwagon needs to be defended against, but one vote does not.

I see what you are saying. I'm still new at this. There certainly could be a wolf in the 3 quick votes that hit Clap after he voted for KWhit. Clap makes a little mistake and the wolves can start a landslide while retaining plausible deniability.