Cry Wolf

Cry Wolf is a brand new forum focused on the forum version of the deception game Mafia/Werewolves

Video Game UPick is over! Town Wins!
We now have a Discord Server!

You are not connected. Please login or register

Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 23 ... 41  Next

Go down  Message [Page 6 of 41]

76 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:57 pm

Rasei wrote:
vote: Ezz until they posted.
ah yes, the fresh smell of being voted for not posting around rollover which is at 4 am my time. exactly what I missed.

anyway. I support voting in such way as to put a gun in play in the early phases. we have solid chances of getting a gun into town hands early on, as well as enough room for failure given everyone is 1x killproof. moreover, that's honestly the only way we can get any sort of information apart from NK targets, which we already didn't get for whatever reason. withheld? forgotten? I can see either tbh.

idk I'm going back to bed

thank you kiyo!!
View user profile

77 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:08 am

I'm sorry Ezz, I forgot about your time difference. I think everyone tlaked now unless I forgot someone. I guess unvote

"I never dreamed a character inside the story could change the story." - Drosselmeyer

View user profile

78 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:11 am

There's the thought that, yes, if you get the gun you need to use it the phase you got it or else guns will accumulate, which is what I was saying earlier. If one person gets the gun, they're at least bulletproof while they have the gun. They can only use it during the night. If the person we choose to have the gun is actually a townie, then they'll be a target, yes, but then we know they're not mafia if they're shot at. If they're not shot at and mafia wants to try wifom, which is always possible at any time, then there's that issue but i feel as though we can work through that as long as we look at every action as carefully as possible.

However, once someone has been shot at, they get a gun. And if our target is mafia, which they can totally wrangle up if they're clever enough to do it, then they get a free gun. It might be bad to um... trust anybody who willingly asks to be shot at or asks to be hanged until there's something that concretely shows they're not at all mafia. And I feel like it needs to be REALLY GOOD evidence, not just a simple happenstance that sort of kind of looks town.

As for the nk, there's three people. If they're all in different timezones, that could be a reason as to why they didn't put out a nk target. If they weren't communicating and nobody said anything, well... of course a nk wouldn't be sent in. I still find it really weird and very odd that the nk wasn't sent out if it wasn't because of a communication issue and they just decided to not send it.

View user profile

79 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:24 am

Also i'd like to remind everyone, since I think we all forgot, at least I did, that if at least one person didn't vote, then that doesn't mean the no voter gets the gun. The gun is given out randomly. It's not at all in our best interest to willingly no vote if the gun is given out in that way.

Just to be clear, for example:

Let's say Tiki decides to no vote, since he's the one who has openly stated that he'll be a good gun person. Nighttime comes around and the gun is given out. It doesn't mean tiki will get that gun. Anybody could get that gun. So.... I'm against this plan of no voting to acquire a gun.

Edit: It explicitly says that any bear and/or patriots who did vote will be randomly given a gun. Tiki wouldn't even be in the running.

View user profile

80 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:54 am

Indeed. We'd basically need to decide, as a group:

  1. Who we want to vote out, while not actually voting (aside from one person).
  2. Who the lone person should be to give the single, which gives them the gun.

Of course, I did forget earlier that who ever gets voted out gets a gun too. So there would be two guns in play, and we would know who would have both, with one of the gun owners no longer protected. It also means that, theoretically, we should have three kill attempts the following night phase.

Either way, there is one person who will get a gun tonight, and be weaker for it. The question is, do we put a second gun into play as well, given to somebody with full protection?

Edit: And thinking on it, we probably do want to have a group agreement about who should give a singular vote. Otherwise, we could run into a situation where a Mafia "forgets" to vote, giving the gun to a random player, in hopes it will go to one of the two voting Mafia, allowing them to fire anonymously.

(Though, on the other side, people forgetting, legitimately or not, would give us something to speculate on, along with knowing the pool of people who MIGHT have gotten the gun...depends on what we decide mitigates the most risk.)

View user profile

81 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:06 am

ok if we're doing a group vote thingy we'll need to speed things up a lil cuz im pretty busy today and i dont want to forget to vote D:

View user profile

82 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:28 am

I'm just going to comment that the time to decide on a plan of this scale was on N0, not in the middle of D1 when people have commitments, differing timezones, etc.

So, honestly, rollover is in 8 hours right? Then I'd say do the following:


I guess by just no voting or indicating as much is fine? And if everyone, actually everyone, says so, then we will spend the last four hours discussing both who submits the vote and on whom. I don't really have a preference for or against the plan, so I'll just state I'll cooperate with the group in whichever way, since barring, I don't know, a stroke or an airplane falling on me, I should be around.

I am perfectly content with more guns because this is AMERICA and that's the solution to all problems. So at the very least, there should be one person not voting. I don't know who I'd care to vote for, though. Can we write ourselves in? That's the Tiki special right there.

Oh yeah, I can totally see mafia intentionally holding the NK because then they don't have to play 4D Chess with the town. I guess we can narrow our suspects down to a pack of BLACK BEARS if they'd rather make the second move.

View user profile

83 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:14 pm

im so gundamn confused someone give me a spark notes version

View user profile

84 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:37 pm


1. There's an idea to have everyone but one person in the thread submit "No Vote".
2. This single voter, chosen by the group, will submit a vote on a player that is also chosen by the group(?).
3. This will mean both the only person voting and the person they vote on get a gun.
3a. The rules say if as much as ONE PERSON submits "No Vote", then a gun is randomly given to a player in thread that did vote.
3b. We will not be told who receives the gun.
3c. But under this plan, there's only one possible recipient of the gun.
3d. Meanwhile, the player this person votes on receives a gun.
4. This is to control who gets guns.
5. Seeing as there are 8 town to 3 mafia, odds are more favorable for guns to land in town hands.

I think that's it.

Problem is this requires first everyone agreeing not to vote, and then collectively deciding both who is delivering the only vote, and on whom before phase end. There's other messy complications and implications for the game as a whole with this plan, in my opinion, but if people want to do it, yeah go for it, man. Just, you know, make sure everyone is down and around for it. Otherwise you're going to spend the whole phase playing a game of chicken.

edit: Man, Five didn't even sign up. I knew she didn't love me, anyway.

View user profile

85 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:25 pm

Well it's 5.5 hours until phase-end, so we're running out of time. I'm at work and will only be able to pop in and out before 5PM PST, but won't be able to contribute to coordination.


vote: Mr. Gerbear until he lets us know he's alive and town.

View user profile

86 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:00 pm

vote: no vote

If drandahl doesn't return to change or at least discuss his vote, I'm going to view his vote as an attempt to force thread's hand to give him a gun and I will change my vote to drandahl before rollover. Otherwise, I will leave my vote on no vote to make it easier for the thread to pick one voter and one vote target.

View user profile

87 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:04 pm


I think my biggest hesitation about the plan is that if a town player no votes that does increase the likelihood of a mafia player getting the gun over a town player. This means that as a town player, I feel uncomfortable being the one to no vote because that spikes the chance the maf gets a gun.

people who no vote can't get a gun, right? so idk. hmn. I think alca's reasoning is pretty solid there so I guess it can't hurt to vote: no vote for now, then swap later as needed.

I'm playing pathfinder tonight so i may be busy for rollover but i will keep checking the thread.

View user profile

88 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:23 pm

I thought the plan was for everybody in the thread except one person to no vote? That way only one person votes and they are guaranteed to get the "random" gun.

We will then have two guns in play: the "random" gun and the gun from the person who was lynched. ;v;

View user profile

89 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:41 pm

So rollover is again during my work, so I wont be here after this. That being said since we still haven't decided what the game plan is, if there is one?? I can vote: no vote because if we do go with a plan no matter what it is I think that messes us up the least? Unless we want every townie to vote so the random gun goes to town? Now that Im saying this Im not even sure this plan pans out. At this point though even if I did vote I think it'd be on a random player because there's not much info to go off of and Im awful at gut reads (at least I feel like I am). Also another point to think about is that no votes dont give us any voting pattern info. EITHER way I dont know whats going on so even though Im starting to wonder if this is the best plan of action Ill just no vote for today. I dont want a gun anyway, guns are stressful ;0;

View user profile

90 Re: Paw Enforcement [BEARS WIN] on Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:43 pm

Alca, my vote was an activity vote. I felt like that was clear by "until he lets us know he's alive and town."

Also there didn't seem to be consensus on whether or not we had a plan. I still want to hear from everyone regardless of whether or not we're going with some plan. Will switch to NV if we coordinate in that direction.

Of people I trust if we do go the route... Probably Ninfia is the only player so far which is giving me the most town reads. Of people I'm getting most maf reads... Probably Rasei. But I'd like to hear about the rest of you as well, if you happen to be going NV.

Some other reads...
*Blaire's feeling townish
*Tiki's kind of confusing. He feels less actively town than in the past, but he also seems to like to play towny as mafia. So... I'm not sure how to read him yet this game.
*Alca, your response to my vote feels really strong. Maybe I just haven't played with you in a while, but I felt like my intentions were clear.
*Lux is feeling town. Or at least she's feeling town-beneficial right now.

Other players need to post more for me to get more of a read. This is all I have time for right now.

View user profile

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 6 of 41]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 23 ... 41  Next

Similar topics


» Let's Talk About Bears

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum