Werewolf XXXVI: Resident Evil (S.T.A.R.S. Wins! Post #1424)

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by LoneStarGirl

Okay, right now I am having trouble understanding Nemesis and Infector. Are those two people that are already out there? OR are they created later?

The Infector is out there now. The Nemesis must be created by one of the Umbrella roles.

And the zombies get 100% chance if they try to kill somebody together. What is the sense of not trying to kill people together then? What are the advantages for one zombie going at it alone?

Tiredness is a common disadvantage, but I don't think we have that in this game. Otherwise, the most likely issues are greater chance of getting spotted, and having it preclude an alternative action (e.g. if there are only two zombies and one is the infector).

[Alan T]

Maybe an alternate day 1 voting theory would be to vote for whoever's name is closest resembling the current day of the week?

I would hate to be Alan Thursday tommorrow!

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by Alan T

To be honest, I am tweaking you a bit. Its pretty easy to suggest there be a run off of two candidates on day 1, but then not have any suggestions on who those candidates should be. Then when your neck starts getting closer to the noose, that two candidate run off isnt as appealing to you.

Going back through posts from this morning and ran across this one -

I think two candidate runoff is the best way to make a Day 1 vote count. Statistically, we are probably at worst 66% likely to get one bad guy involved in a runoff.

I've run the numbers on why I think it is a bad idea to have me in the runoff, knowing that I'm with STARS. If we have two people from STARS in that head to head, we are not going to learn nearly as much from this vote.

That being said, if we are going to have someone from STARS be in this against someone from another faction on Day 1 then I'm pretty OK with being that person. I'll be around, I'll argue my points as strongly as I can on Day 1, and take my chances on how it works out. That is a better option for STARS than having someone quiet in this position who gets run over by the other two factions - who would be very pleased to escape a Day 1 lynch.

[Tyrith]

If we go with hoops being the first guy the second guy really needs to be one of the people Alan has been talking about -- I'd be okay with it being bullet.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Going back through posts from this morning and ran across this one -

I think two candidate runoff is the best way to make a Day 1 vote count. Statistically, we are probably at worst 66% likely to get one bad guy involved in a runoff.

I've run the numbers on why I think it is a bad idea to have me in the runoff, knowing that I'm with STARS. If we have two people from STARS in that head to head, we are not going to learn nearly as much from this vote.

That being said, if we are going to have someone from STARS be in this against someone from another faction on Day 1 then I'm pretty OK with being that person. I'll be around, I'll argue my points as strongly as I can on Day 1, and take my chances on how it works out. That is a better option for STARS than having someone quiet in this position who gets run over by the other two factions - who would be very pleased to escape a Day 1 lynch.

I think you were missing my point. Its not as much that I have an issue with a rundown between people, I was more saying that its easy to say that but leave it to others to determine who that would be.

The only thing I've gathered is that you would be fine with a run down between yourself vs Lathum or yourself vs St.cronin. I've stated that I won't participate in that type of run down, and don't really care to be in one with you involved in it either.

Going based off of nothing other than statistics, its roughly a 32% chance of two stars being in a two person run off today. But the fallacy with that logic is you aren't going to have all 19 votes between those two people, you'll have some sides with an advantage of being able to push candidates they know are not on their team (and more likely to be stars) and in the end, I think on a day 1 run off you are far more likely to have a chance to lynch a Stars member than a non-stars member.

That said, having close votes does matter in voting history and using that to determine things later on in the game. Having a smaller selection of people to vote between helps give more data to go on later (as long as its not a run away vote).

I think there are two bigger factors we have to consider today though than creating voting history between a runoff.

1) Don't lynch someone who will be valuable later in the game just for trying to contibute on day 1 or on a hunch.
2) Don't allow a situation where an accidental tie can happen and thus voiding anything you might gain from the vote later.


I think those two things are more important to avoid than just trying to create a run off on day 1.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

If we go with hoops being the first guy the second guy really needs to be one of the people Alan has been talking about -- I'd be okay with it being bullet.

What would you think of a run off between you and Bullet instead?

[hoopsguy]

I'm very envious of the Chief this game - I would expect him to be in a great position to map out sides in this game by the start of Day 4, as long as there is reasonable discussion of candidates.

[hoopsguy]

I'm not normally a guy who wants to return votes with votes in these games. But the 5.5% advantage on that vote, compared to any other vote I would cast, is pretty tough for me to give up on Day 1.

Another note, based on reviewing earlier posts - Lathum says he is going to see Flogging Molly tonight, which I'm pretty sure is his favorite band. So he probably will not be around to defend himself if the vote runs in that direction. He would be my choice for a vote over Cronin, all things being equal.

Although I do not normally find myself drifting in the same direction with my initial thoughts as Cronin, I can usually see his arguments once he spells them out. Today being another example of this ...

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by Alan T

What would you think of a run off between you and Bullet instead?

It would sadden me, especially after my dismal performance in 35. I'm with you; I really don't want to lynch someone that's going to provide a lot of information. If we keep killing cronin/saldana/hoops in the first two days eventually they're going to stop being helpful. We have to put pressure on people that don't talk so at least we can deal with stuff later.

That said. I don't have any factual evidence for any of these guys, so I'm hesitant to be first man in because we tend to lynch the first man in unless they're extremely good at defending their reasoning and themselves in general and they have a good image, which you have, Alan, and I don't. I'm not going to vote for you, lathum, hoops, saldana, anxiety, path, or sndvls today without some good reason. I suppose my preferred lynch group would be bullet, spleen, ntn, just because I don't have experience around them and they don't have the great player rep.

SIDE NOTE: THIS IS NOT ANY KIND OF PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU, YOUR PLAYING ABILITY, YOUR INTELLECT, OR ANYTHING ELSE. But I have to play the game.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

It would sadden me, especially after my dismal performance in 35. I'm with you; I really don't want to lynch someone that's going to provide a lot of information. If we keep killing cronin/saldana/hoops in the first two days eventually they're going to stop being helpful. We have to put pressure on people that don't talk so at least we can deal with stuff later.

That said. I don't have any factual evidence for any of these guys, so I'm hesitant to be first man in because we tend to lynch the first man in unless they're extremely good at defending their reasoning and themselves in general and they have a good image, which you have, Alan, and I don't. I'm not going to vote for you, lathum, hoops, saldana, anxiety, path, or sndvls today without some good reason. I suppose my preferred lynch group would be bullet, spleen, ntn, just because I don't have experience around them and they don't have the great player rep.

SIDE NOTE: THIS IS NOT ANY KIND OF PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU, YOUR PLAYING ABILITY, YOUR INTELLECT, OR ANYTHING ELSE. But I have to play the game.

The fun part about reading through posts like this where you list a bunch of names the immediate thing that pops in my mind are:

What about the people you didn't name at all. Wonder if there is some reasoning for that.. hmm

[Tyrith]

The people in the middle are the moderately experienced players who I've been around/read in the past. Except for Brian, he's a total wildcard for me. So I suppose I should add Glen to my lynch group, but his performance in Tombstone impressed me some.

[Tyrith]

My fear in this is that I'm going to turn into Alan and wind up face down in a gutter by night 4, or get shot in the middle of the street by the good guys. Being loud and having a lot of posts tends to do that.

[ntndeacon]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Out of curiosity who are we in a good vs good vote off between?

I am thinking historically more than anything else. Aren't most werewolf games 1st days between two good guys. I don't really know that hoops and cronin are good, but I really don't want to get on either bandwagon either.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

My fear in this is that I'm going to turn into Alan and wind up face down in a gutter by night 4, or get shot in the middle of the street by the good guys. Being loud and having a lot of posts tends to do that.

People tend to want to lynch me by day 3 just for the peace and quiet.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by ntndeacon

I am thinking historically more than anything else. Aren't most werewolf games 1st days between two good guys. I don't really know that hoops and cronin are good, but I really don't want to get on either bandwagon either.

Ok fair enough, was just curious which two you thought personally were good. Hoops and Cronin or Hoops and Lathum or Lathum and Cronin or Hoops and Bullet or whoever

So your vote in a sense for Fouts was because you feel its more likely that people with votes are STars members, so the group of people without votes at the time have a higher percentage of being a bad guy.

[Alan T]

So I have a new topic of discussion for everyone that has checked in some way or another. Everyone has been to this thread since the game started except for Bulletsponge (Saldana is in the thread, but I assume reading and getting caught up so hasnt posted yet). Many people checked in various different ways.

I kept track of how people checked in and noticed some came right out and said they were a member of Stars, others implied it and others entirely avoided the topic all together.

My initial thoughts were:

Zombies don't care who you are you arent on their team so they will eat you regardless.

Umbrella wants to avoid being eaten by zombies and want to find the Stars to kill them.

Stars want to identify each other but avoid being killed by both Umbrella and the Zombies.

My thoughts were in this game it seems a bigger advantage to hide your identity as a Stars member than in normal games as Umbrella might know you arent on their side but do not know if you are a zombie or not.

The only compelling reason for Umbrella to not come out and say who they are is that Stars players might kill them off just to keep from killing their own in an effort to find the zombies.

Since we all know that none of us can believe someone when they come right out and say they are a member of Stars, simply saying it doesn't mean alot in the game. My initial instinct in this game was the people who came out and said they were Stars members psychologically had a greater chance of being Umbrella members than anything else.

I'm curious to the three or four people who said you were stars or hinted it, what was your reasoning for doing so rather than hiding in the shadows with the majority.

[ntndeacon]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Well.. guess I was too slow to ask ntndeacon that.

That vote doesn't make much sense to me either. Well not as much the vote as the comment with it. I currently have the vote as:

(2) Hoopsguy - Lathum (112), st.cronin (125)
(1) St.cronin - Fouts (120)
(1) Bulletsponge - Alan (180)
(1) Fouts - Ntndeacon (184)

So I'm pretty puzzled at who the good vs good run off ntndeacon referenced is between right now.

Well, the only two names I had heard out there being discussed at that point were Hoops and Cronin. Since there was so much discussion, I guess Ijust assumed it would devolve into a Hoops vs Cronin match up without any other candidates out there. I realize your Bullet post was there but I had not read it very deeply at the point of my post.

[saldana]

interesting day one to this point...lots of posts but not many votes.

so far two things that jump of the page at me:
1. i agree with Kwhit that the statement of "i wished i was a bad guy but i am not" is always something that gets my alarm bells ringing

2. when i dont have anything on day one, unless i do the old random thing, i like to go with the first person to cast a 2nd vote...in this case it would be cronin, who put the second vote on Hoops.


I really dont like that play at all...i always try to avoid lynches of certain players until there is evidence against them, and hoops is at or near the top of that list...cronin has been in more than enough games to know the value of hoops to the the villagers, so i really dont understand why he would make a crapshoot vote for him on day 1.

i'm not ready to vote yet, but right now, cronin is at the top of my list. part of me wants to say he is also to smart to make such an obvious play, but he also thinks tom brady is better than joe montana, so i do have some doubts about his intellect

[spleen1015]

Reading everything today, I think I know what way I am going to go today. I'm just going to wait and see how things go the rest of the day.

[path12]

I'm having big time problems connecting to the net today, we're having a denial of service attack. So I'll try to get on where/when I can, but might be limited today, especially since I have some chores tonight.

But while I'm here, I just want to say how interesting it is to see us go an entirely different way than the usual overanalyzing of initial posts. Although I think this is a good idea generally, I believe having the additional factions can actually make initial posts more important than usual.

For example, as I believe Alan noted above, I find it very interesting to see that some of us are coming right out and aligning themselves with stars. I think that there are likely a couple of bluffs in that group -- I don't understand why you'd put that bullseye on yourself right off the bat.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by saldana

1. i agree with Kwhit that the statement of "i wished i was a bad guy but i am not" is always something that gets my alarm bells ringing

I suppose I should pay more attention to my off-hand comments. The first day chaos is always entertaining for a small portion of the game players and frustrating for the rest since everybody knows it so often turns into a good-vs-good fight. I was just speaking to that frustration.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I'm going to believe in hoops this game because of odds. He was a wolf last game and that game was pretty big. This game is also pretty big, so him being a wolf is pretty slim.

My father wrote an article for a games and puzzles mag back in the 70s where he dissected teh view that people look at hte overall chance instead of the next one when determining odds and that is flawed. Suppose, for maths sake, there is a 1 in 3 chance of being a bad gy in this game. It does not matter what hoops was last game, there is still a 1 in 3 chance of hoops being a baddie.

The likelihood of me flipping heads three times in a row is 12.5%, but after I've flipped heads twice, it rises to 50%.


-Anxiety

[hoopsguy]

I'll come out and say why I'm doing it right away - because I'm pretty heavily in the discussion for lynch (leading at the moment) and that knowledge is shaping my voting decision.

The people who have played a few games with me know that there is usually a 2nd thought behind the one that I post on the board, particularly when I'm on the offensive in a game. If I'm able to move to a cleared position early in the game, I can go on the offensive and really try to help the "good faction" win this game.

Whether playing as a good guy, or as a bad guy, an early game goal is to move to cleared status. As a bad guy it involves some lies along the way. As a good guy, that isn't the case unless there is some wicked angle-shooting going on. Obviously it is a lot easier to play the game in the "good" role. And when I get the opportunity to do so, I try to play the game in an aggressive fashion that hopefully results in putting pressure on the other team. If I'm enough of a threat for them to take me out at night, so be it. My enjoyment of werewolf isn't predicated on surviving for a long time as much as providing value for my team in the time that I do play.

So, that pretty much covers my reasons for coming out as STARS in this game. Partially because of early game circumstances, but largely in part because of my overall "good guy" philosophy on how to play the game.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

As regular STARS, the only one out of that lot who is going to pick someone worth voting for is the chief. Umbrella will be figuring that anyone who isn't them works well, zombies the same, meaning that aside from the chief, the baddies are most likely to pick STARS. It's to the STARS favor to drive the voting so that there's a better chance of picking up a zombie or Umbrella.

This is what I disagree with, particularly on day 1. If Stars are driving the vote, and it ends up stars vs. stars, then we've got nothing. If we let non-stars drive the vote, and it ends up stars vs. stars, then we've got something - the people that drove the vote. Because stars don't know who stars are, get it? But the other folks do - so let them pick people to lynch. Then we punish them when they get it wrong.

That's why I waited to see who voted first.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

This is what I disagree with, particularly on day 1. If Stars are driving the vote, and it ends up stars vs. stars, then we've got nothing. If we let non-stars drive the vote, and it ends up stars vs. stars, then we've got something - the people that drove the vote. Because stars don't know who stars are, get it? But the other folks do - so let them pick people to lynch. Then we punish them when they get it wrong.

That's why I waited to see who voted first.

I still don't understand this though. You keep saying you waited to see who voted first, but you didn't vote for that person. You voted for someone who hasn't voted yet.

I could buy into your theory a bit more if you used this arguement to turn around and vote for Lathum. I understand Lathum's excuse for voting early (not going to be here today), but if you wanted to use that as a reason to vote for him, then so be it. But why use the voting early reasoning for someone who did not vote early?

In my mind all this does is associate yourself with Hoops and Lathum in some scenerio which can be a bad thing for many reasons.

If hoops or lathum ends up bad at some point, then we spend time trying to figure out if you and the other of them are bad too and were trying to distance yourself some. If you both are good guys, all we end up with is a few days of spinning our wheels chasing stars members while the zombies do what they want to at night.

I fully admit that out of you, hoops and Lathum odds are that at least 1 of you 3 are not on the same team.. but are we really ready to spend the first 3 days of the game pursuing that on a hunch?

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

This is what I disagree with, particularly on day 1. If Stars are driving the vote, and it ends up stars vs. stars, then we've got nothing. If we let non-stars drive the vote, and it ends up stars vs. stars, then we've got something - the people that drove the vote. Because stars don't know who stars are, get it? But the other folks do - so let them pick people to lynch. Then we punish them when they get it wrong.

That's why I waited to see who voted first.

This plan won't work because the entire STARS group won't play along with it. You should know that. What if the bad guys all play quiet -- we have to kill someone eventually, and you're going to tear them apart. This kind of plan only works if everyone will cooperate. You're vote itself either indicates you're or you're a bad guy, if you judge yourself by your own logic.

This is getting too close to the realm of voting for cronin even though i don't want to...but damn, cronin really knows better than to pull insanely stupid crap like this.

[st.cronin]

Alan, I also agree there isn't a whole lot of value YET in claiming to be part of stars. I will say that it seems like it will be a better bluff for zombies at a certain point to claim to be umbrella, obviously. But at this point, either umbrella or stars could concievably be claiming to be stars as a bluff. To me it doesn't mean anything.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by LoneStarGirl

After reading some of your early analysis I dont believe I am smart enough for this game. Also, it seems we have there experts here that are going to blow some of us newer folk away. I am going back to the first page to reread the rules, but right now I have no grasp of who to vote for besides NOT voting for Lathum, hoops, alant or st. cronin

Don't worry, I'm in the same boat and I am a supposed expert. A lot of experts fall into tunnel vision trap, and forget to review the whole picture, instead looking at just one piece. Just make sure you don't and you'll be fine.


-Anxiety

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by saldana

part of me wants to say he is also to smart to make such an obvious play, but he also thinks tom brady is better than joe montana, so i do have some doubts about his intellect

I do not think Tom Brady is better than Joe Montana. That is like having an opinion that the sky is blue.

[Abe Sargent]

How come more people haven't made hay out of the fact that st. cronin claimed he thought only baddies voted early and then he voted early?

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Alan, I also agree there isn't a whole lot of value YET in claiming to be part of stars. I will say that it seems like it will be a better bluff for zombies at a certain point to claim to be umbrella, obviously. But at this point, either umbrella or stars could concievably be claiming to be stars as a bluff. To me it doesn't mean anything.

If you claim to be umbrella sniper is gonna vape you, so that doesn't seem like a smart play for anyone. That or we'll lynch them because STARS doesn't really need umbrella to continuing existing if they're going to try to lynch us.

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

How come more people haven't made hay out of the fact that st. cronin claimed he thought only baddies voted early and then he voted early?

I just pointed that out. Cronin, if you could answer this for us, please.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I still don't understand this though. You keep saying you waited to see who voted first, but you didn't vote for that person. You voted for someone who hasn't voted yet.

I could buy into your theory a bit more if you used this arguement to turn around and vote for Lathum. I understand Lathum's excuse for voting early (not going to be here today), but if you wanted to use that as a reason to vote for him, then so be it. But why use the voting early reasoning for someone who did not vote early?

In my mind all this does is associate yourself with Hoops and Lathum in some scenerio which can be a bad thing for many reasons.

If hoops or lathum ends up bad at some point, then we spend time trying to figure out if you and the other of them are bad too and were trying to distance yourself some. If you both are good guys, all we end up with is a few days of spinning our wheels chasing stars members while the zombies do what they want to at night.

I fully admit that out of you, hoops and Lathum odds are that at least 1 of you 3 are not on the same team.. but are we really ready to spend the first 3 days of the game pursuing that on a hunch?

Isn't it obvious why I haven't voted for Lathum yet? Unless a new candidate emerges, I'll either leave my vote on Lathum or move it to somebody who already has a vote.

[st.cronin]

sorry, last post should read leave my vote on hoops.

[Abe Sargent]

In fact, I think that's where I'll go with my vote unless I come across something better for a Day One vote.


Vote st. Cronin

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

How come more people haven't made hay out of the fact that st. cronin claimed he thought only baddies voted early and then he voted early?

Well, I guess I wasn't clear enough. My thought was that regular Stars would NOT be likely to cast a FIRST vote - not an early vote.

[Tyrith]

I just find anything based off Lathum's vote highly suspicious. Unless we think Lathum was lying about being gone all day for sure, in which case we need to lynch Lathum for being a bastard. Otherwise early votes really can't be used for anything like that and I suspect Lathum was just having some fun with his vote.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

I just find anything based off Lathum's vote highly suspicious. Unless we think Lathum was lying about being gone all day for sure, in which case we need to lynch Lathum for being a bastard. Otherwise early votes really can't be used for anything like that and I suspect Lathum was just having some fun with his vote.

That's entirely possible. But the option to using a strategy (which I am trying to do, however misguided people think it is) is to just vote at random, as others are claiming to do.

I think a random vote has much less value than a vote which is based on theory, even if the theory turns out wrong.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Isn't it obvious why I haven't voted for Lathum yet? Unless a new candidate emerges, I'll either leave my vote on Lathum or move it to somebody who already has a vote.

To be fair, the above quote Cronin meant leaving his vote on hoops not lathum as he wrote. Just clearing that up before this gets viewed wrong...

Now with that said, lets take the three earliest voters (besides you)

Hoopsguy
Fouts
Alan T

If you chose to move off of Hoopsguy to another early voter, would it be either myself or Fouts? Would you prefer neither and to stick with Hoops if you had your choice of those three?

[Tyrith]

I have to agree with that, which is why I haven't started a dogpile yet. I think, like you thought last game, that you could easily be a misguided villager....for now. It makes me want to keep you around if you're good just so we have more thoughts later. But I also want to keep hoops around for the same reason, hence me going with Alan's kill UTR strategy for now.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

If you claim to be umbrella sniper is gonna vape you, so that doesn't seem like a smart play for anyone.

Not true -- the sniper is only useful against zombies, because s/he'll commit suicide if a STARS or Umbrella is hit.

[Tyrith]

Oops, wtf, I read that or in the wrong place. Then yes, umbrella reveal could be useful in some circumstances, but we might still have to kill them. Lynching an umbrella isn't going to be a bad lynch unless/until we hit the endgame and we need to keep everyone alive to prolong the game...and at that point Umbrella is going to start killing zombies, too.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, I guess I wasn't clear enough. My thought was that regular Stars would NOT be likely to cast a FIRST vote - not an early vote.

Obviously, you weren't clear, because you didn't say first, you said early. Sounds like backpedalling, because here is what you actually said:

I am going to assume that any player who casts an early vote is either zombie, umbrella, or police chief. Regular stars players will likely be looking for clues that somebody is the police chief.

Using your own stated logic, you are either a zombie, umbrella or the police chief. Not much chance that you will help us, so I'm voting for ya. Not first, but merely early.

-Anxiety

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Alan T

To be fair, the above quote Cronin meant leaving his vote on hoops not lathum as he wrote. Just clearing that up before this gets viewed wrong...

Now with that said, lets take the three earliest voters (besides you)

Hoopsguy
Fouts
Alan T

If you chose to move off of Hoopsguy to another early voter, would it be either myself or Fouts? Would you prefer neither and to stick with Hoops if you had your choice of those three?

Are you counting my early vote for you here? That vote doesn't really count. I was just screwing around before roles were even sent out.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Are you counting my early vote for you here? That vote doesn't really count. I was just screwing around before roles were even sent out.

I'm pretty confused. I think you have stumped me on this question.. I didn't mention you anywhere in there I just picked the three earliest "legal" votes of the day not including his own when I asked him that question

I was just curious since he offered the possibility of switching off of hoops to another early voter, which he had in mind.

[Lathum]

OK, I got back early and have a little time before I am leaving for the show. First off, I find the notion that I would vote early on the pretense of the possibility for me being gone all day as "gamesmenship" kind of offensive. That being said I had to cast a vote in case I wasn't going to be home. For those who don't believe me saldana can vouch for the fact that I called him an my way home.

I knew my early vote would cause some discussion ( and it sure did!!) but I would rather vore early then not vote at all for 2 reasons:

1. At the end of the day it looks WAY more guilty to note vote at all then to vote first.

2. I don't think it is fair for whoever is running the game.

COnsidering the reactions and subsequint discussion I am

UNVOTE HOOPSGUY

that vote was basicly a day one throw away vote.

St. Cronins action raise flags to me. Post #112 I vote hoops. Post #125 St.Cronin jumps on that vote as well. Then in post #160 St.Cronin says he's open to voting for me if that's the way it goes. I may be totally wrong but it seems like he is looking for a place to "hide" his vote. That being said

VOTE ST.CRONIN

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I'm pretty confused. I think you have stumped me on this question.. I didn't mention you anywhere in there I just picked the three earliest "legal" votes of the day not including his own when I asked him that question

I was just curious since he offered the possibility of switching off of hoops to another early voter, which he had in mind.

The confusion is definitely all on my end. I read 'voters' as 'votes' and that changes the meaning of what you were saying completely. Nevermind!

[hoopsguy]

Votes as of Post #247:

(2) St.Cronin - Anxiety (235), Lathum (246)
(1) Hoopsguy - st.cronin (125)
(1) St.cronin - Fouts (120)
(1) Bulletsponge - Alan (180)
(1) Fouts - Ntndeacon (184)
(1) BrianD - KWhit (190)

[hoopsguy]

Oops, lets change that to have all the Cronin votes in one place:

(3) St.Cronin - Fouts (120), Anxiety (235), Lathum (246)
(1) Hoopsguy - st.cronin (125)
(1) Bulletsponge - Alan (180)
(1) Fouts - Ntndeacon (184)
(1) BrianD - KWhit (190)

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by Lathum

OK, I got back early and have a little time before I am leaving for the show. First off, I find the notion that I would vote early on the pretense of the possibility for me being gone all day as "gamesmenship" kind of offensive. That being said I had to cast a vote in case I wasn't going to be home. For those who don't believe me saldana can vouch for the fact that I called him an my way home.

Just to note, I never thought you were gaming us, but just said that if you were we were going to have to kick your ass for it