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

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

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.

Well..... I've shared a good bit already, so I'd prefer it if someone else from the dem party took a look at the way the votes played out on our side and answer that if they want.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

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

And ironically, we both got heat inside our party for it.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

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.

Maybe, but it could be people that have no read on wolves, and just jumped to the gun, assuming both parties would vote in a block.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by KWhit

And ironically, we both got heat inside our party for it.

So it sounds like by that time, the bandwagon was in full effect?

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by KWhit

And ironically, we both got heat inside our party for it.

Who gave you heat for your votes, if you don't mind the question?

[KWhit]

It's obvious from this thread last night, isn't it?

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by KWhit

It's obvious from this thread last night, isn't it?

I guess, but I know that a couple of us seemed to feel that the you vs. Lathum dynamic felt a bit 'manufactured.' Not in a wolf way, but maybe in a partisan way, particularly with you making the final damning vote on Claph.

[KWhit]

Nothing manufactured there (at least from my POV).

[KWhit]

Did you guys talk in your thread about Chubby's and Lathum's elections yesterday/last night? Someone clearly sabotaged them. Do you guys know who did that?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Did you guys talk in your thread about Chubby's and Lathum's elections yesterday/last night? Someone clearly sabotaged them. Do you guys know who did that?

I ask mainly to do some fact checking, not to get into partisan bickering (though I know this could lead there)...

[KWhit]

I'm also interested in figuring out of the wolves have the ability to affect elections.

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Did you guys talk in your thread about Chubby's and Lathum's elections yesterday/last night? Someone clearly sabotaged them. Do you guys know who did that?

No. We spent our slurries yesterday on PF to win the election. Although, to be honest, there's a good chance Chubby lost because he vetoed the bill and Lathum lost because of the vote flopping. It wasn't necessarily a wolf thing.

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I ask mainly to do some fact checking, not to get into partisan bickering (though I know this could lead there)...

Nobody claimed Lathum but since nobody did, I would tend to believe that his info on it being Claph is correct. I was also surprised to see nobody claim Chubby either so I don't know if it was the same person (Claph) or someone else. Frankly, and maybe this will start bickering (not meant to), I wonder if it is possible that Chubby was shafted internally (hmmm, those last two words together just sound painful).

[PurdueBrad]

Like Tyrith, I do tend to think that the veto could be a large part of it and now am quite concerned about voting for a bill that gets vetoed.

[KWhit]

Did you guys discuss what kind of politican you all were going to choose (on the 1-5 scale)? Do you know what Clap and st.cronin chose?

[Tyrith]

Pretty sure clap was 1, the most dishonest guy in the room. Cronin was pretty busy and pretty quiet, so I don't have a clue there.

[KWhit]

Then it might make sense for clap to have sabotaged Lathum's election.

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Then it might make sense for clap to have sabotaged Lathum's election.

True. That's probably what his special power was for the #1.

[Passacaglia]

What surprises me is that clap was #10 on the most powerful men in Washington. You'd think he'd have to be higher on the list to be able to do something like that.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

True. That's probably what his special power was for the #1.

I can't get behind this line of thinking -- I chose #1, and have no such power.

[KWhit]

My thinking too.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by KWhit

My thinking too.

That was in response to your post about clap being #10 on the list....

[PackerFanatic]

I don't like how split we are getting and we certainly didn't do ourselves any favors last night with the Clap voting.

I would really like to know from jeheinz why he has such bad feelings about me. I would like the opportunity to prove my allegiance to the country and nix any rumblings about me being a wolf.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I can't get behind this line of thinking -- I chose #1, and have no such power.

Well what power do you have?

[Tyrith]

Alright, it's time for us to introduce our nominee for Speaker. We've received a popular mandate for Republican rule, for right now at least. Also, our more centrist members have been under attack for the past couple of days. So, we're going further right. None of us really trust Mrs. Schmidty. Therefore, our choice to be the next speaker of the house is PurdueBrad. I personally don't have the greatest feel for him right now, but it makes sense politically and putting him in the spotlight should give us an opportunity to examine him more closely.

VOTE PURDUEBRAD FOR SPEAKER

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I can't get behind this line of thinking -- I chose #1, and have no such power.

Hm. Well, maybe Lathum just shot himself in the foot then.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Well what power do you have?

None, other than the ability to PM freely with...well, no one.

[Passacaglia]

VOTE PURDUEBRAD FOR SPEAKER

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

None, other than the ability to PM freely with...well, no one.

Come on Dems, get us a new liaison :P

[PackerFanatic]

Not too many are around right now, we are trying!

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

None, other than the ability to PM freely with...well, no one.

We're working on that

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

Not too many are around right now, we are trying!

Executive fiat is always a nice route

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

I would really like to know from jeheinz why he has such bad feelings about me. I would like the opportunity to prove my allegiance to the country and nix any rumblings about me being a wolf.

My bad, totally spaced on this. I just got the feeling that you didn't want that bill initially veto'd. And really you waited until after the veto had the support to then say you're ok with it. Like you took a stab.

Then with you being that 2nd vote on clap it's got you on my radar.

I'm not like ready to vote ya or anything (yet), but you're on my no-fly list.

[jeheinz72]

For Lathum when he gets in:

How did you know for certain that it was Clap who sabotaged you?

[chesapeake]

From the rules:

"The President can be voted for as a Wolf while seated, but it only works if he actually is a Wolf, and receives a 2/3 vote. Any removal will be treated like an impeachment and subsequent removal from office, with similar effect. If he is voted as a Wolf and is not a Wolf, he will not be removed from office, regardless of the vote results, and votes for him will be ignored."

This shapes up as a free, public seer review of illini that is good until he leaves the Presidency. And if he is a villager, he is immune from the lynch. A wolf? Buh-bye. I presume the wolves will kill him then, since he would be a known good guy.

Since lynching a good guy doesnt hurt anyone according to the rules until AFTER the person is removed from the game, this really seems like a freebie. The two issues of concern would be -- illini would be very vulnerable right after he leaves office, although the BG, if still alive, potentially mitigates that; and, we miss an opportunity to lynch someone today that is pinging more people's radars.

[oliegirl]

Wow. It's been really quiet this morning. No PM's with questions or anything...you politicos must have figured out how this whole process works I'm around til 3, then gone til about 4:30 - 5, and then here til 8 pm.

Have any votes been cast yet? I didn't see any, but am multi-tasking so I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything...

The usual drill, PM or email me with questions

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

My bad, totally spaced on this. I just got the feeling that you didn't want that bill initially veto'd. And really you waited until after the veto had the support to then say you're ok with it. Like you took a stab.

Then with you being that 2nd vote on clap it's got you on my radar.

I'm not like ready to vote ya or anything (yet), but you're on my no-fly list.

I didn't understand or like the initial response to vetoing the bill, and neither did the brass in the Dem party. It wasn't until after the veto was in and the night was over (the next morning) that I saw the point behind it and it wouldn't have made any sense to put support behind it then (since it was done and other with)

As far as the 2nd vote on Clap, as others have said, we felt we had to defend our leader. I had no other leads for the day, no one else I really felt deserved a vote, and I thought Clap's vote was unmerited and was defending my party. I know, now, that I probably should have thought it through a little more, but I probably wouldn't have voted for anyone else.

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

Wow. It's been really quiet this morning. No PM's with questions or anything...you politicos must have figured out how this whole process works I'm around til 3, then gone til about 4:30 - 5, and then here til 8 pm.

Have any votes been cast yet? I didn't see any, but am multi-tasking so I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything...

The usual drill, PM or email me with questions

One vote for PB as speaker.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

From the rules:

"The President can be voted for as a Wolf while seated, but it only works if he actually is a Wolf, and receives a 2/3 vote. Any removal will be treated like an impeachment and subsequent removal from office, with similar effect. If he is voted as a Wolf and is not a Wolf, he will not be removed from office, regardless of the vote results, and votes for him will be ignored."

This shapes up as a free, public seer review of illini that is good until he leaves the Presidency. And if he is a villager, he is immune from the lynch. A wolf? Buh-bye. I presume the wolves will kill him then, since he would be a known good guy.

Since lynching a good guy doesnt hurt anyone according to the rules until AFTER the person is removed from the game, this really seems like a freebie. The two issues of concern would be -- illini would be very vulnerable right after he leaves office, although the BG, if still alive, potentially mitigates that; and, we miss an opportunity to lynch someone today that is pinging more people's radars.

Cool idea, but we'd have to get confirmation if the bolded part applies to impeachments as well.

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Since lynching a good guy doesnt hurt anyone according to the rules until AFTER the person is removed from the game, this really seems like a freebie. The two issues of concern would be -- illini would be very vulnerable right after he leaves office, although the BG, if still alive, potentially mitigates that; and, we miss an opportunity to lynch someone today that is pinging more people's radars.

We've had this discussion before in the republican thread, I think. I really suspect that at the end of the day voting for a good president will wind up hurting politically -- it doesn't make any sense within the rest of the structure of the game for the public to shrug off those votes, even if that's how it seems the letter of the rules works. Someone should ask CR to make sure before we go down that road.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

From the rules:

"The President can be voted for as a Wolf while seated, but it only works if he actually is a Wolf, and receives a 2/3 vote. Any removal will be treated like an impeachment and subsequent removal from office, with similar effect. If he is voted as a Wolf and is not a Wolf, he will not be removed from office, regardless of the vote results, and votes for him will be ignored."

This shapes up as a free, public seer review of illini that is good until he leaves the Presidency. And if he is a villager, he is immune from the lynch. A wolf? Buh-bye. I presume the wolves will kill him then, since he would be a known good guy.

Since lynching a good guy doesnt hurt anyone according to the rules until AFTER the person is removed from the game, this really seems like a freebie. The two issues of concern would be -- illini would be very vulnerable right after he leaves office, although the BG, if still alive, potentially mitigates that; and, we miss an opportunity to lynch someone today that is pinging more people's radars.

This is something we'd talked about in the GOP thread. The other downside is that if illinifan is not a wolf, you'll still take a political hit for voting for him -- per CR, it's not "ignored" in that sense. The good news about that, though, is that you wouldn't take a hit until illinifan is removed from the game.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

One vote for PB as speaker.

Actually, two.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

We've had this discussion before in the republican thread, I think. I really suspect that at the end of the day voting for a good president will wind up hurting politically -- it doesn't make any sense within the rest of the structure of the game for the public to shrug off those votes, even if that's how it seems the letter of the rules works. Someone should ask CR to make sure before we go down that road.

Yeah, if voting for a good Claphamsa hurt us, I've got to think that voting for a good President would hurt us even more.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Cool idea, but we'd have to get confirmation if the bolded part applies to impeachments as well.

The bolded part is confirmed -- if illinifan is good, the hit won't come until after he's removed.

The other thing is we probably won't waste a day -- the votes for illinifan will be ignored, so if he has the most votes, whoever has the 2nd most votes will be lynched.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

We've had this discussion before in the republican thread, I think. I really suspect that at the end of the day voting for a good president will wind up hurting politically -- it doesn't make any sense within the rest of the structure of the game for the public to shrug off those votes, even if that's how it seems the letter of the rules works. Someone should ask CR to make sure before we go down that road.

I agree that CR/Olie would need to clarify whether a wolf vote on the Prez would be trouble if he turns out to be a swell guy (despite being a Republican).

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Actually, two.

Sorry, missed the other

[PurdueBrad]

Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican nominee for Speaker of the House...PurdueBrad.
(polite applause)

PB: Thank you and thank you for your support. I know that one of the big concerns both inside my party and outside is that I will be out for the remainder of the day. Well you need not worry. At the very moment I get home (around 2 am), I will fulfill my duties as Speaker (aside: just ask my mistresses).

Another big concern or criticism I've been hearing is about what will go on at this Jimmy Buffett concert. Well, I can tell you this. I will not exhale.

[aide jumps to PB's side]

I mean, I will not inha-wait, that's no fun.

[aide again jumps to PB's side]

I am against hail. It hurts our crops, our homes, and our golf games. So,

I support PB for Speaker and so should you.

[mccollins]

This feels dated now (in only an hour or so!), but I worked too long on it to throw it away!

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I'd like proof of that, please.

Pass, I went to search through all of your posts, but it also brought up your GOP posts so I closed the window quick.

NOTE TO EVERYONE: WE CAN'T SEARCH THROUGH A PERSON'S POSTS IN THIS GAME BECAUSE IT WILL BRING UP SNIPPETS OF THEIR PARTY POSTS AS WELL.

I went through the whole thread to find the two instances that were sticking out in my mind and re-reviewed them:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

So shouldn't the Speaker be a Republican? I mean seriously, Seer is way more powerful than BG -- we want someone who stands to gain from creating Seers.

Originally Posted by mccollins

I don't think any of us should know who the Seer/BG is. That is, unless you're looking for a loophole to allow the Wolf Party to easily find out their identity.

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I don't know if you meant to quote me in your post, but I didn't say anything about people knowing who the Seer/BG is.

Apparently I misunderstood what you meant about the Speaker 'creating Seers'. Though if you did mean that the Speaker would hand pick the Seer, my point stands.

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Did you mean to quote my post? I was asking if you guys put Support behind the bill.

I had this nasty sidenote written about the line "Did you mean to quote my post?" (since it generally comes off as condescending to me and you've said it to me twice), but it looks like this back and forth between us was a genuine misunderstanding since you were asking about the "(note: there have been reports that this issue was targeted for support)" and I was just looking at the percentages.

Looks like Henry had misunderstood you too:

Originally Posted by henry296

Sorry I missed that.

In review, "backtracking" is an overstatement and I take that back. My apologies.

In conclusio, in our party's weakened position I think we'll be looking to work a bit more bi-partisanly so it would help for us all, myself included, to not go opening petty partisan arguments.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I guess my point is that if they're wolves, then the village rejoices.

It's three people. You think they're all wolves?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by mccollins

This feels dated now (in only an hour or so!), but I worked too long on it to throw it away!



Pass, I went to search through all of your posts, but it also brought up your GOP posts so I closed the window quick.

NOTE TO EVERYONE: WE CAN'T SEARCH THROUGH A PERSON'S POSTS IN THIS GAME BECAUSE IT WILL BRING UP SNIPPETS OF THEIR PARTY POSTS AS WELL.

I went through the whole thread to find the two instances that were sticking out in my mind and re-reviewed them:





Apparently I misunderstood what you meant about the Speaker 'creating Seers'. Though if you did mean that the Speaker would hand pick the Seer, my point stands.




I had this nasty sidenote written about the line "Did you mean to quote my post?" (since it generally comes off as condescending to me and you've said it to me twice), but it looks like this back and forth between us was a genuine misunderstanding since you were asking about the "(note: there have been reports that this issue was targeted for support)" and I was just looking at the percentages.

Looks like Henry had misunderstood you too:


In review, "backtracking" is an overstatement and I take that back. My apologies.

In conclusio, in our party's weakened position I think we'll be looking to work a bit more bi-partisanly so it would help for us all, myself included, to not go opening petty partisan arguments.

Thanks. I wasn't referring to hand picking a seer -- I was just thinking that we'd rather have two seers and one BG, then two BGs and one seer. In retrospect, it's not working out like that -- two seers is too much anyway, so we have to look at other roles on our side of the spectrum.