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

[RendeR]

Vote Lynch McCollins

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I trust PF far more

"Far" more?? On the basis of a single vote?

[Passacaglia]

VOTE LYNCH PACKERFANATIC

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

VOTE LYNCH PACKERFANATIC

any reason?

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by Lathum

any reason?

Well, you saw what happened the last time we allowed a run on a villager (EagleFan then, me now) - we learned nothing from voting history because the wolves were able to just blend in unnoticed.

[jeheinz72]

Yeah, I have to say, this run worries me.

[jeheinz72]

Hence why I asked for the Dem input. I really wish that the group of Dems that I either trust or at least don't distrust (KWhit, Chesapeake, Chubby, Henry) would say *something* in here.

I mean PF and Collins both think the other guy is the wolf of the two and Lathum backs PF which while I'm not inclined to think Lathum is a wolf right now I don't trust him enough to have his opinion actually carry much weight.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Yeah, I have to say, this run worries me.

Well, because of the popularity dings incurred in switching votes, almost everyone is going to be too chicken to change their vote so I've nearly already lost:

5 -McCollins - Heinz (1605), PackerFanatic (1634), PurdueBrad (1635), illinifan999 (1650), RendeR (1651)
1 - JeHeinz72 - Lathum (1606)
1 - PackerFanatic - Passacaglia (1653)

But do note that this vote is going remarkably similarly to EagleFan's nearly unanimous lynch.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Lathum

any reason?

I trust McC far more

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

I mean PF and Collins both think the other guy is the wolf of the two

I don't think PF is a wolf as much I think he's generally suspicious (quick vote of me today, others have mentioned suspicion of him, etc.) and I'd obviously rather avoid votes coming my way.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by mccollins

Well, because of the popularity dings incurred in switching votes, almost everyone is going to be too chicken to change their vote so I've nearly already lost:

5 -McCollins - Heinz (1605), PackerFanatic (1634), PurdueBrad (1635), illinifan999 (1650), RendeR (1651)
1 - JeHeinz72 - Lathum (1606)
1 - PackerFanatic - Passacaglia (1653)

But do note that this vote is going remarkably similarly to EagleFan's nearly unanimous lynch.

There's 6 votes in play still, and despite the penalty, people have changed (remember Day 1?), so this thing is far from over IMO. Yesterday was different because there was someone trusted who seemed to have a read on EagleFan. Today, it's not like that.

[jeheinz72]

I'm not afraid to change, but I'm going to need an actual like "case" made. Of the 5 people voting for you, I only trust two of them, me and RendeR. PB I trust a little but that could be party-blinders. Illini, though pres, I have like zero opinion about.

[Tyrith]

I think heinz made a very important observation and I feel a lot better about him right now.

Pass, would you like to go into your trust for mccollins a little bit? I'm pretty up in the air right now.

Render is good for speaker, I'll vote for lynch sometime between 5 and 7 CST.

VOTE RENDER FOR SPEAKER

[PurdueBrad]

vote RendeR for speaker

[Lathum]

if people choose to vote a Dem today I sugges they vote Packerfan

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

. Illini, though pres, I have like zero opinion about.

Maybe I should've brought this up earlier but 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."

It sounds like if everyone were to vote for me, I would be cleared as a villager AND it wouldn't actually hurt us since the vote would basically be ignored. That's only if I'm reading that right.

[jeheinz72]

Oh I know I can vote for you, but I have had no real reason to do so and aside from not overtly acting like a wolf or anything, I have no real reason to trust you perse'

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

I think heinz made a very important observation and I feel a lot better about him right now.

Pass, would you like to go into your trust for mccollins a little bit? I'm pretty up in the air right now.

Render is good for speaker, I'll vote for lynch sometime between 5 and 7 CST.

VOTE RENDER FOR SPEAKER

Nah, I was actually just poking a little fun at Lathum. I'm up in the air too, but shocked as hell that it was 5-0.

[Lathum]

i dont get it

[chesapeake]

VOTE CENSURE PACKERFAN

This is not an easy decision. PF has pinged me because he's pushed pretty hard for every higher office. The night kill of Path gave him another seat, although you can say the same about McCollins.

As I looked back through the Dem thread, my sense was that McCollins occasionally offered constructive, pro-village suggestions. I didn't see much from PF.

It is hard to count on that too much, as I thought we had found a smoking gun in EF's bedroom just to find that to be merely some bad choices on EF's part.

I do feel prety confident that out of Lathum, McCollins and PF you have one -- and maybe 2 -- Democratic wolves.

The benefit of a tough decision like this is that you'll learn something at the end of the day, hopefully.

[RendeR]

Just for clarification, my vote was entirely my own. I was holding out to see what others were thinking and when I saw a number of people suspicious of MCC I went with the vote I wanted to make. I don't trust him or Packer, but I suspet McC more.

So, not really a pile on vote as much as a "I wanted to see if anyone agreed with me" vote.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

VOTE CENSURE PACKERFAN

This is not an easy decision. PF has pinged me because he's pushed pretty hard for every higher office. The night kill of Path gave him another seat, although you can say the same about McCollins.

As I looked back through the Dem thread, my sense was that McCollins occasionally offered constructive, pro-village suggestions. I didn't see much from PF.

It is hard to count on that too much, as I thought we had found a smoking gun in EF's bedroom just to find that to be merely some bad choices on EF's part.

I do feel prety confident that out of Lathum, McCollins and PF you have one -- and maybe 2 -- Democratic wolves.

The benefit of a tough decision like this is that you'll learn something at the end of the day, hopefully.

I would agree with this analysis. Still not 100% on who I'm voting to censure.

I think PF has gotten some leeway since he was our Prez candidate and now Speaker. (whether it was warranted I'll leave up for discussion)

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I trust PF far more

Originally Posted by Lathum

if people choose to vote a Dem today I sugges they vote Packerfan

So you trust PF far more but we should vote for him? Huh?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

So you trust PF far more but we should vote for him? Huh?

things have changed since now and then

[jeheinz72]

There was a 24 minute gap in those two quotes. Care to enlighten me?

[RendeR]

FASCinating....

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

There was a 24 minute gap in those two quotes. Care to enlighten me?

nope.

Just something I spotted.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

nope.

Just something I spotted.

Great. I don't get you this game man. If I thought it possible, I'd swear you have some sort of extra win condition. Here I am, voting for the other horse in the race, blatantly asking for reasons why I should switch and you won't give me whatever changed your mind? Very strange.

[KWhit]

Anybody have a vote count?

[KWhit]

BTW, I'm leaning toward voting Packerfan.

[mccollins]

Wolf Vote:
5 -McCollins - Heinz (1605), PackerFanatic (1634), PurdueBrad (1635), illinifan999 (1650), RendeR (1651)
1 - JeHeinz72 - Lathum (1606)
2 - PackerFanatic - Passacaglia (1653), chesapeake (1670)

Speaker vote:
Lots for Render
PackerFan for himself

[Passacaglia]

Me:

Is this bill possible?

Such is the need to maintain security and confidence in the good nature of our Congreesional members, We hereby revoke, unmake and strike down the Cunning Wolf Clause previously set into law by a Wolf party Rider.

CR:

No, you would have to undo the entire law creating it—the Wolf Security Act Redux. Only the Supreme Court can wipe out parts of a law.



Nice try, though.

[Passacaglia]

oopsie

[RendeR]

I guess my problem with this is that its two seperate laws, the security act and the brutal clause, they do two entirely seperate things, they simply got voted through at the same time, they are not one law, but two.

doesn't make sense that we can't legislate to fix one law without destroying a totally seperate one.

no wonder this country is fucked.

[PackerFanatic]

I am not sure what I have done to ping so many radars this game. Maybe the fact I have been a little more vocal that other games...maybe I just need to stick to a play-style (or figure one out first, heh)

The reason for my "gunning" for the higher positions is my position in the party. I am right near the middle and after being the prez candidate for the first term, my popularity grew and I was able to gain a little more backing. President and Speaker don't really have all that many powers, so it wouldn't matter one way or another what position I am in.

[mccollins]

Leaving work, will be on sometime in the hour before deadline.

[KWhit]

Safeguarding Against Redundant Protective Services Act

Congressional Sponsorship: KWhit and McCollins

Whereas, it is possible for the Bodyguard and Doctor to protect the same person in a single night;
Whereas, this wastes a protection for the safety of the village;
Whereas, coordination of the protective services members would require revealing their role to the village.

Be it resolved that:
The Doctor may submit two names in order of preference for protective services on any night and if the Bodyguard chooses to guard the Doctor's first choice then the Doctor will protect their second choice.

[KWhit]

Vote Yes SARPS Act

[jeheinz72]

Vote Yes on SARPSA

[KWhit]

Vote Censure PackerFanatic

[Chubby]

Vote YES SARPS Act

[Chubby]

alright, I don't have a great read on either PF or mccollins but I'm going to follow the lead of the person I trust the most besides myself (KWhit)

Censure PackerFanatic

[jeheinz72]

Unvote mccollins
Vote PackerFanatic for Censure

I'm feelin' lucky...punk.

[jeheinz72]

Whoa, that was less than ideal.

[jeheinz72]

Wolf Vote:
5 - PackerFanatic - Passacaglia (1653), chesapeake (1670), KWhit (1690), Chubby (1692), Heinz (1693)

4 -McCollins - PackerFanatic (1634), PurdueBrad (1635), illinifan999 (1650), RendeR (1651)

1 - JeHeinz72 - Lathum (1606)

[Lathum]

Vote Yes SARPS Act

[illinifan999]

Vote Yes SARPS Act

[RendeR]

I'm probably going to get fired by the supreme court. I just sent of a frustrated PM to our fearful moderator.

I'm seriously frustrated by being handcuffed to a tree and told to find wolves in the building across the street.

[RendeR]

VOTE YES ON SARPS


its bland enough the courts might actually let it through.

[chesapeake]

VOTE YES SARPS ACT