TTH WEREWOLF House of Cards - The Rise of Burnham

[Magic]

Whatever happens, we can't let this end up in a double or triple lynch. It immediately worsens the odds for us, unless we strike lucky with a wolf.

That's worth the risk surely? Quintuple lynching. :drool:

[Spammer]

I don't see why it wouldn't favour us. It's basically just 5 nights' of lynching all at once.

[Magic]

Imagine if it was all the wolves nominated. :drool:

[7om]

We have 5 wolves in 22 (1 wolf for every 3.4 "villagers"). If we lynch all 5 and, let's say, get 1 we are left with 4 wolves in 17 (1 wolf for every 3.25 villagers). Assuming we've got one wolf nominated, a 5 person lynch wouldn't be in our favour.

[Toby]

I've already explained, using logic, how I'm not a wolf, but whevs.

Wasn't your 'logic' just to pick an NPC and claim to be them?

Non-role-holding villagers are literally just in the game as collateral. Given how much we learn from voting, it makes sense to target them at these early stages. You basically put yourself forward as a willing sacrifice, whereas for all we know any of the other four could be Corbyn, Sturgeon or Murdoch who we want to keep alive.


I don't see why it wouldn't favour us. It's basically just 5 nights' of lynching all at once.

lolwat

[Spammer]

My logic was to name myself as a villager and let anyone contradict me if I'm claiming to be who they actually are. Nobody has done, last I checked.

[Toby]

But what did you really hope to achieve with it? There are a few scenarios that can play out:

a) Nobody counters your claim, we agree you're a villager and give you up as the low-risk lynching
b) Nobody counters your claim, we don't lynch you but the wolves kill you because it's a nice traceless kill
c) Nobody counters your claim and you stay in for a few days/nights until either side is a bit stuck for better ideas
d) Somebody counters your claim and then... what? We have to kill one of you to prove anything.

Pretty much whatever the case, it ends with you dying fairly early on. So why risk killing an important player for somebody who has given themselves as a willing sacrifice?

[Spammer]

I hoped to get the girl that I like, get the job that I like and fulfil my wildest ambitions with it.

Either that or I just put it up without thinking too much about it.

[Browning]

I can't find a post where Hammer outed his role, which seems to be what he's suggesting, but whether he's done it or not, isn't that against the rules for precisely that reason.

[Toby]

Well we can't be having that. Death to the absent minded!

[Byron]

What?

I reckon we kill Hammer as he's making no sense.

[CJay]

Villagers do have a slight meaning - until there are less than 7 of them Corbyn can't be offed, right?

[Pen]

Surely the draw between everyone would be the most beneficial for you as if it is so that Burnham needs to vote for the lynchee to get lynched. That would mean that you'd be narrowing him to one out of four.

Re: the double/triple/etc. lynch that is impossible under the new rules

[Toby]

Surely the draw between everyone would be the most beneficial for you as if it is so that Burnham needs to vote for the lynchee to get lynched. That would mean that you'd be narrowing him to one out of four.

That's not how it works. Do we really have to go over that again?

[Browning]

OK I've found the post now. That's just fucking stupid though.

[Pen]

I must admit I only read the talk about the rules and thought that was how it worked. Nevermind me if that's not the case.

edit: Read the rules. Yeah, my advice in the post prior to this was the worst possible kind :D

[Magic]

Can't we lynch Toby? He's talking with too much authority.

[Toby]

I'm a natural leader of men.

[Vim]

Hammer - Toby - Magic - Browning - Matt

Just came back home from football. I do not want to rely on someone who thinks the right way to start a game is by giving away his role.

[Mazuuurk]

Hammer - Toby - Magic - Browning - Matt




So, are we going for Hammer cause he was being a twit/making sure there's no double lynch, or are we actually going for the triple lynch or whatever?

Is a triple lynch even possible, with Burnham having to vote for whoever gets lynched? I mean he can't vote for everybody, right? Or if there is a three-way tie, and Burnham voted for one of those three, does all three get lynched?


PS. when does voting close? I may change mine yet.

[Vim]

He also just noticed that black people are brown.

[niko_cee]

:face:

[niko_cee]

Vote closes at 8pm UK time (GMT+1) [I think].

[7om]

Why on Earth would you want a triple lynch?

[Browning]

Burnham doesn't HAVE to vote for whoever gets lynched, but if he doesn't, then the "Wolves" lose their kill. So it's in his interest to do it. I'd assume if a Triple/Double happens and he voted for one of them, they would get their kill.

A double/triple is not in our interest. If 1 person dies then we've narrowed Burnham down to about 6 posters (or they lose their kill, which is a win for us too), where as if we do a triple we've probably narrowed it down to 12-15.

[Vim]

A triple lynch would be retarded, because it basically gives the wolf a free kill because they can hide Burnham within the voters of three nominees.

[niko_cee]

With 6 votes Hammmer must be at about saturation point as far as the vote spreading strategy is concerned.

[Spammer]

You're all eejits.

Werewolf is shit anyway.

[Toby]

Burnham not voting for the lynchee is a very good outcome for the village if we play it properly.

Six is the lynching tally so ideally the remaining votes get spread among the other four.

[Mazuuurk]

Why on Earth would you want a triple lynch?

I've no idea to be honest, but someone went on about it. Didn't you sprout a load of random numbers? Anyway, got it explained here.


Burnham doesn't HAVE to vote for whoever gets lynched, but if he doesn't, then the "Wolves" lose their kill. So it's in his interest to do it. I'd assume if a Triple/Double happens and he voted for one of them, they would get their kill.

A double/triple is not in our interest. If 1 person dies then we've narrowed Burnham down to about 6 posters (or they lose their kill, which is a win for us too), where as if we do a triple we've probably narrowed it down to 12-15.

OK, thanks for this explanation (!), I FINALLY understand how this actually works now. I thought I had it before, but, well.

[Demerit]

Hammer - Toby - Magic - Browning - Matt

He's just a bit shit.

[Vim]

Now that I think about it, it's probably not even such a big deal for the wolves to hide Burnham by not making him vote for the lynchee since the role gets transferred anyway should the first Burnham get discovered.

[Browning]

Now that I think about it, it's probably not even such a big deal for the wolves to hide Burnham by not making him vote for the lynchee since the role gets transferred anyway should the first Burnham get discovered.

Correct, but we've still got a Wolf, which then allows us to analyse votes etc, and the new Burnham is still subject to the same rules so we SHOULD be able to find him again.

[The Merse]

There you go. We will never know whether the person we lynched was actually Burnham or we just got lucky with another. Will make the vote tallying trickier than what it might look like at first glance.

Precisely :D

I have thought through this shite. I just fucked up the members list.

[Vim]

Well, if Burnham knows he's about to be lynched, he'll probably change his vote to himself so that the wolves get the kill. He technically voted for the lynchee, bit a loophole I guess.

[Spammer]

I wanna put this out there: I've played this game in real life and people were allowed to tell people, factually or not, what their roles were.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Hammer - Toby - Magic - Browning - Matt

I'd quite like to vote Magic as he's clearly a fuckwit, but on the other hand Hammer has breached the Spirit of Werewolf and has to go.

[Vim]

I wanna put this out there: I've played this game in real life and people were allowed to tell people, factually or not, what their roles were.

Of course you're allowed, but it's fucking stupid.

[7om]

Thanks for informing us, Hammer. I'm sure all those who voted for you will take it under careful consideration and consider their stance against you.

[Pepe]

I wanna put this out there: I've played this game in real life and people were allowed to tell people, factually or not, what their roles were.

I've played in other forums where it is also common. Not nearly as bad as people here make it out to be but whatevs.

[Pepe]

Vote tally anyone? Jimmy is either being stupid, careless, suspicious or all of the above.

[Toby]

I've played in other forums where it is also common. Not nearly as bad as people here make it out to be but whatevs.

With named villagers it's shit. If they all did it the village would win pretty quickly.

[7om]

A quick check I make it 7-3-3-4-4

[Pepe]

That is not too bad I guess although anyone adding votes to Hammer later on (see Jimmy) goes into the 'lynch next' list.

[Vim]

Would they be so obvious though?

[randomlegend]

This thread is such an activity sink.

Booooooooooo.

[Pepe]

Who's to know what they might or might not do. Wolves or not, they are hurting the town's interests.

[Vim]

Fair enough. The question we've got to ask is, was it obvious/predictable enough that Hammer was going to be lynched? I think so. Therefore I think Burnham could have voted for Hammer early, predicting him to be lynched.

Not sure though, we're still in the first round not too much to go on.

[Magic]

Is being a fuckwit grounds for a lynching? This isn't set in the 1100s you know.

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

So Hammer is gone and we have 7 (assuming no one else votes for him and no changes are made) that could be Burnham.

Not a bad outcome.

[Pepe]

Only if they kill tonight, but yes.

[Vim]

Assuming Burnham has voted for Hammer.

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

Assuming Burnham has voted for Hammer.
Of course.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Hammer is clearly getting offed anyway, and declaring his role makes his participation pointless. I'd rather have a better game than 'spread the vote' or whatever.

[The Merse]

Right, I'm out tonight but will be back for 10.30 and posting deaths around 11-11.30.

See you then.

[Toby]

It's okay, but if Ian's not going to turn up two of them could switch to me and Magic to narrow it down further...

[niko_cee]

Does it still end at 8?

There could be other 'role' based reasons for people doing odd things. Maybe Farage has to turn up in the last x minutes of a vote (been in the pub) and just lump on whoever is leading.

[The Merse]

8 was the specified cut off point so that's your lot in eight minutes time. Apologies to be hanging around a bit longer for the announcements tonight.

[niko_cee]

Is that that then?

Not nearly as traumatic/eventful as I imagined.

[Toby]

Classic Ian, he never puts the effort in.

[Spammer]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/hmc.gif

[Byron]

You have been a bit of a prize idiot mate. Other games might have allowed it, but announcing your role on such a manner is a bit stupid.

[SvN]

Do you play werewolf at your swinger parties, Hammer? Is getting your balls flicked the equivalent of getting lynched?

[Pepe]

Hammer is clearly getting offed anyway, and declaring his role makes his participation pointless. I'd rather have a better game than 'spread the vote' or whatever.

How does you voting for him, when it was clear he was getting lynched, make it in any way a 'better game?'

[Byron]

Because he's Burnham obvs.

[Pepe]

Better explanation than any he could come up with.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Most of the votes were done while I was on my way home from work, and I'm not just going to not vote.

[niko_cee]

Compelling.

[Pepe]

Well I take it back.

[Vim]

To be fair, just like it's hard to mount a proper case against someone in the first round, it's hard to give a proper defence. I agree that Jimmy leaving it late could be dodgy, but jury's still out imo.

[Toby]

You don't say.

[7om]

Calm down, Toby Prescott.

[niko_cee]

Is there any reasonable explanation for Jimmy doing that other than he was required, in some way, to do it due to his role? Seems an unnecessarily obstructive thing for a normal villager to have done.

[Magic]

Doesn't pretty much everyone have a role in this game?

[Pepe]

Dat reading comprehension. :drool:

[Magic]

I'd mrgreen you probably but I've never been so lost and left out. This is like first year all over again.

[Spammer]

Unlike me, Jimmy has done something that actually suggests he might not be a villager. He needs seeing to good and proper for that.

[Mazuuurk]

The villagers don't have a "role" as such (other than collectively). I can't think of any role where deliberately voting late may serve a purpose other than Burnham or maybe Farage.

It does seem monumentally stupid by Jimmy to intentionally vote the very last person if he was indeed Burnham. Was is a complete dead race at that point?

[niko_cee]

No, Hammer was already for it by a few votes.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Did you want me to not vote, or what?

[niko_cee]

Operating on a number of assumptions (you aren't Burnham, Burnham has voted for Hammer) then you could have voted for someone else and narrowed the pool, as wot was the plan.

Burnham probably hasn't voted for Hammer and this is some sort or elaborate wolf bluff.

[Vim]

If Burnham hasn't voted for Hammer then we still narrow it down, just not as much.

If the wolves did choose to get the kill by having Burnham vote Hammer, then Jimmy's really not helped the town as we have one more suspect.

[Toby]

If Burnham hasn't voted for Hammer then we still narrow it down, just not as much.

If the wolves did choose to get the kill by having Burnham vote Hammer, then Jimmy's really not helped the town as we have one more suspect.

Burnham not voting for Hammer this time is actually better in some ways, if we can stay organised. We just need those who voted for Hammer this time to vote en masse again next round. Eventually Burnham will have to add his vote to the rest.

[Vim]

Yeah, I would also prefer having a slightly wider group to find Burnham in than the wolves getting a kill. Interesting to see what strategy the wolves went for, it's kind of all in their hands at this point.

[Toby]

Burnham not voting for Hammer this time is actually better in some ways, if we can stay organised. We just need those who voted for Hammer this time to vote en masse again next round. Eventually Burnham will have to add his vote to the rest.

In this scenario, it's actually better than Jimmy has added an extra vote, since it'll take them a bit longer to thin down the numbers.

Hopefully Merse gets on with it so we can stop theorising and actually start making a plan.

[niko_cee]

Hide all the non-Burnham wolves in the winning pack, let the village tear itself apart in search of the elusive scouse bastard.

[Spammer]

Toby and Jimmy are wolves if you ask me.

[Toby]

I'm sure bitterness hasn't fuelled that in any way.

[Spammer]

Yeah, i'm hugely bitter.


YOU FUCKING CUNT AAARHGHGHGHGG

[niko_cee]

No sign of Merse yet. Doubt I'm going to make the stories. Hoping not to wake up dead.

[The Merse]

Right... Sorry lads, few more beers than anticipated but at least for your sake I didn't get laid :(

To warm things up (this round will be quite sober, by the way, gotta warm things up, stay with me), Murdoch was done some investigating....


--------------------


Murdoch was on the case. He briefed his editors – he wanted Corbyn around, alive and kicking, he had his reasons, but he also had his own agendas and vendettas. His editors would use all their nous to bend the facts to his will, and likely wreak havoc doing so.

Mid Staffs Hospital Enquiry Accused of Political Engineering and Ineffectiveness

5 years on, the Mid Staffs Hospital enquiry continues to worry locals. The 2009 investigation concluded that ‘’it would be unsafe to infer from the figures that there was any particular number or range of numbers of avoidable or unnecessary deaths at the Trust’’. Four enquiries were launched into the scandal in total, but all have been criticised for failing to address the problem. But The Sun can today reveal that all four enquiries into the scandal were subject to intense political engineering.

Some 15 months after the results of the initial enquiry, the new Tory government seized upon the opportunity to chastise their defeated opposition by launching another enquiry, the results of which were a scathing critique of all involved but which again failed to set out a clear strategy to improve key services at the hospital. The Sun have unearthed several private memo’s shared between David Cameron and Robert Francis QC, chair for the enquiry which made it clear that senior Labour officials of the period were ‘to be hung out to dry’. But it is the 2009 enquiry that has revealed the most shocking revelations. Key figures in the enquiry have been criticised as having blocked any line of enquiry that might implicate the Ministry of Health under labour.

A Labour spokesman last night denied that the June 2009 enquiry launched during Gordon Brown’s tenureship was a defensive mechanism to shield former health ministers from accountability and credit those who initiated the enquiry. Locals are not convinced. We spoke to Lloyd, a local man who moved to the Staffordshire area in 2014, ‘It’s a disgrace, it quite clearly a disgrace. Only to years ago I was in Belgium, where the standards of care in hospitals published openly and clearly without the need for independent enquiries, I know that, I can see it. Nothing has been done. Just politicians covering their arses and trying to look like they have a conscience at the same time’.

[Pleb]

:sherlock:

[Spammer]

I'm off to bed, but this is for whenever I do get done in and it turns out i'm a villager:

http://i61.tinypic.com/ny5nh4.jpg

[The Merse]

Burnham loses Media Chief!

Carmel Nolan was sensationally hounded out of the Corbyn today after leeking her own secret brief a beleaguered press.

In an unparalleled cock up, Nolan revealed she was in fact responsible for ensuring that Corbyn

• Wore even socks at all times to appease suburbia
• Was to be kept away from razors to bring in the hipster vote
• Was never, ever allowed to appear on Desert Island Discs, because that never ends well with politicians

Such mundane terms of employment ought to appeal to Labours core support, but on Tuesday morning Corbyns media svengali was scolded on the Sunday Politics by Diane Abbott, notorious hard woman of the party, and on Monday told in uncertain terms that the public airing of spotted white Y-fronts was a fairly shitty thing to do and broke with party ethics.

Hammer is an ass that outed himself. He doesn’t die, he doesn’t leave with dignity, he fucked up and got thrown out. What a pleb.

Hammer was Carmel Nolan.

Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It was all going so well for Kat Fletcher.

A couple of years playing dolly bird to Corbyn’s Islington office had led to the role of Deputy Mayor of Islington, now Corbyn had moved from back bench MP to leader of the opposition, an opposition desperate for more female representation… She couldn’t fail.

Sensing this, she was willing to do whatever she needed to to secure a top seat at the table, and for once, that meant more than a blow job for Red Ken.

Rifling through the draws and shuffling reams of paper, she hunted for the evidence she needed to bring her target to heel.

Something was wrong about Burnham… Something… She had good instincts. Fatal instincts. He'd been here for 4 years, there must be something

There… There it is… This – this will convince Jeremy… This will convince him of my loyalty…

The joy was tangible.

The joy was short lived.

Out of nowhere, Prescott leapt. Like a gruff northern Samurai, his blade knocked her head clean off her shoulders.

Or so he would recount to Darth Burnham. In fact, he’d been hiding in the ventilation shaft merely observing his prey (that he’d grass to the campus security staff at the earliest opportunity and be done with), when the plaster and metal had given way.

Landing on our dear Kat, he crushed her windpipe. Slowly, the life drained out of her as Northern bacon-scented, shit-tasting sweat dripped over her skin, into her eyes, her mouth… It wasn’t quick – mercy would have snapped her back rather than slip her disc. She died in pain, gasping beneath an unconscious former deputy prime minister.

He took a Jag back that night. As did she to her final resting place in the Thames…

Matt was Kat Fletcher

[Ian]

Sorry chaps, I was busy at work and when I did pop on I was holding off to save my vote and keep the vote spread as I suspected I'd not be on much tonight. Then was leaving my vote 'til I got home after a "quick pint" but.... yeah, I'm sure you can put the rest together. Sincere apologies.


Classic Ian, he never puts the effort in.

I know, right? :(

[The Merse]

It's day. Nominations by 3pm, votes by 8pm, PM's for the applicable parties.

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

You fucking pisshead Ian.

[The Merse]

Two of the least interesting characters in one night. Wolves and Villagers, you fecking muppets.

[Ian]

Alright, GS, it's the first night and your first game. Wind it the fuck in.


You fucking pisshead Ian.

Well duh.

[The Merse]

I'm only here to enjoy a game from the most informed viewpoint and make you play to daft rules... Enjoying it already...

[Toby]

Right, Matt's death means we can be sure that Burnham is one of:

Toby
Panda
Igor Balis
Vim
Mazuurk
Jimmy Floyd

Down to six rather than seven since Matt himself voted for Hammer.

Any suggested strategies for narrowing it down further? Do we spread the votes again and have the good guys among that group avoid the lynchee?

[Browning]

Really killing Matt (who voted for Hammer) strikes me as a bit weird so...

I nominate Vim (First nomination)

These are the people who killed Hammer, for the record: Toby, Panda, Matt (dead), Igor, Vim, Maz, Jimmy

I'm expecting Jimmy will be on this ballot regardless due to his bizarre vote. I'd expect to see a selection of those join him.

[Toby]

Hey Browning's doing that thing again where he comments on how weird the wolves' choices are and it sounds like he's a wolf trying to throw us off the scent.

:baz: etc

[Browning]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mak646775Q1rf8zido1_500.jpg

[Browning]

Originally my post described it as stupid rather than weird, but I wanted to be nicer to poor Vim. Just seems the most likely on that list to do something like that. It leads me to believe that Toby/Jimmy had nothing to do with it, but then again, maybe that's what they want me to think....

But I wanted to get a nomination in tonight anyway. I'd expect the ballot to only be names on that list, but if other people have other ideas, so be it. Either way, we've got to keep spreading the votes to narrow down who it is.

[Pepe]

Lets get all/some of those nominated, then demand three of them to vote for someone and the other three to vote for someone else. One of those someones needs to be killed of course. After that, regardless of the outcome, we will have a confirmed wolf within a group of three players.

Any better suggestions?

[Browning]

That actually sounds pretty good to me.

[Toby]

Lets get all/some of those nominated, then demand three of them to vote for someone and the other three to vote for someone else. One of those someones needs to be killed of course. After that, regardless of the outcome, we will have a confirmed wolf within a group of three players.

Any better suggestions?

If none of the five not Burnhams vote for the lynchee, we either have him, or the wolves can't kill anybody until we do. Isn't that better than just narrowing it down to threes?

[Pepe]

So, have each of them vote for someone different? That might be a good idea.

[Toby]

So, have each of them vote for someone different? That might be a good idea.

Pretty much what we've done this time - four or five nominees, and the five not Burnhams vote for anybody but the lynchee.

EDIT: If we're organised it doesn't even need all that. Just agree to kill Magic, anybody who didn't vote for Hammer vote for him, and everybody who did vote for Hammer votes for somebody else.

[Browning]

But how do we know who the lynchee is before people have voted? The "non Burnhams" could be the first people to vote.

Having them each vote for someone different is an idea, but the trouble with it is even if we avoid the wolf kill the possibility exists that we just kill an innocent and don't really learn anything, we just eliminated one more name from the list of possibilities. Which isn't the end of the world but isn't terribly productive.

One things for sure we need a fair few players up (4-6) and it should be from that list.

[Toby]

But how do we know who the lynchee is before people have voted?

Well, we decide. Anybody not following whatever plan is agreed can be killed for dissension.

[Boydy]

This game is giving me a headache.

[7om]

Even though it feels slightly against the spirit of werewolf to manufacture a lynch like this I think it is the right way to go and we still have four other wolves to go after by traditional methods so I think we should do it.

[Browning]

Even though it feels slightly against the spirit of werewolf to manufacture a lynch like this I think it is the right way to go and we still have four other wolves to go after by traditional methods so I think we should do it.

You say that, but even when we get Burnham they'll be a new Burnham to find. So "traditional methods" probably won't come into it. However I do agree with the plan.

[Panda Bear]

Right, Matt's death means we can be sure that Burnham is one of:

Toby
Panda
Igor Balis
Vim
Mazuurk
Jimmy Floyd

Down to six rather than seven since Matt himself voted for Hammer.

Any suggested strategies for narrowing it down further? Do we spread the votes again and have the good guys among that group avoid the lynchee?

It's all six of us. Well, except for one of us.

One of us?

[Panda Bear]

Lets get all/some of those nominated, then demand three of them to vote for someone and the other three to vote for someone else. One of those someones needs to be killed of course. After that, regardless of the outcome, we will have a confirmed wolf within a group of three players.

Any better suggestions?Unless the wolves choose not to kill someone that night, which I think they can choose to do, meaning that nothing gets revealed.

[Pepe]

Correct. Still, keeping them from killing can only benefit us.

[Panda Bear]

Kind of. If they kill, we know which group to take. If they don't, though, our pool of potential Burnhams increases in size.

If we work through the six, though, that increases the number of rounds to work through lynching people as opposed to the intended three rounds in your proposal.

I guess it's a wash. If multiple wolves voted for Hammer on that round, lol.

[Vim]

So are we just hoping to get lucky and get Burnham the first time? It just seems like this game will involve no intuition, just trying to use 'game theory' type thing to narrow down a wolf one by one.

Nonetheless, I guess it's the best thing we've got right now.

Do we just put all the possible Burnhams up for voting?

[niko_cee]

You could do that, have all 6 up and ask them to vote for the following one in the vote. Compliance should narrow that to a field of 1. But then Jimmy will turn up late again and fuck that idea up, and we'll be left needing to kill him the next night. May as well just cut out the middle man.

I nominate Jimmy Floyd (First nomination)

He's brought this on himself.

What do people make of the Murdoch investigation?

[Vim]

I'm not an expert in the subject matter so I couldn't really decipher who or what it's alluding to.

I nominate Toby (first nomination)

Like I said yesterday night, it was pretty predictable that Hammer would be the one to be lynched so Burnham could have gotten on early.

[Mazuuurk]

I nominate Jimmy Floyd (Second nomination)

I'd say we keep trying to evenly spread the votes, I'm not sure Jim is guilty (or about anything at this point) but he definitely needs to be scrutinised.

I'll say though, I'm not too comfortable with someone in particular orchestrating who should be voting for who. How are we sure they are innocent anyway? I think we ought to keep with the strategy and just spread the vote, get 4-6 nominees in per round.

[Toby]

Kind of. If they kill, we know which group to take. If they don't, though, our pool of potential Burnhams increases in size.

If we work through the six, though, that increases the number of rounds to work through lynching people as opposed to the intended three rounds in your proposal.

I guess it's a wash. If multiple wolves voted for Hammer on that round, lol.

I don't think I follow. How is the pool of Burnham's going to increase from this current group of six?


I'm not an expert in the subject matter so I couldn't really decipher who or what it's alluding to.

I nominate Toby (first nomination)

Like I said yesterday night, it was pretty predictable that Hammer would be the one to be lynched so Burnham could have gotten on early.

Was it predictable before I pissing nominated him?

[Toby]

I nominate Jimmy Floyd (Second nomination)

I'd say we keep trying to evenly spread the votes, I'm not sure Jim is guilty (or about anything at this point) but he definitely needs to be scrutinised.

I'll say though, I'm not too comfortable with someone in particular orchestrating who should be voting for who. How are we sure they are innocent anyway? I think we ought to keep with the strategy and just spread the vote, get 4-6 nominees in per round.

Does it matter if the strategy put forward works? The sure fire way to get Burnham tonight is to have a whitewash with only Hammer voters voting the other way. If you want to burn the witch at the stake just in case, you can make me the player killed for all the difference it makes.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I nominate Pepe (first nomination)

Pepe is playing a wholly predictable game here. We know Burnham is among the six mentioned above - I thought the wolves would box clever and abstain from giving us this clue, but they have obviously decided to maximise the killing instead.

Now however Pepe (avec Toby, but it's more in Toby's nature) is looking to take control of the process. It seems to me there's a good chance he's a non-Burnham wolf looking to try and make sure Burnham is found on the wolves' terms, which will no doubt mean manipulation of the vote to delay his identification as long as possible.

On a side note, why did the wolves kill Matt when he was among the Hammer voters? Seems an odd strategy.

[Mazuuurk]

Dude I'm not saying you're a wolf either. It may be the best strategy, I'm not sure. I'm still getting to grips on this new format. Last time I played we didn't do coordinated voting, it just doesn't seem quite right to me. But I guess it's more that quite a few people haven't really participated much yet.

Also sorry if I'm being daft but you're confusing me with metaphors here, what is a whitewash and why would you be a witch burned at the stake, and how would I make you the player killed?


EDIT: Toby

[Toby]

Dude I'm not saying you're a wolf either. It may be the best strategy, I'm not sure. I'm still getting to grips on this new format. Last time I played we didn't do coordinated voting, it just doesn't seem quite right to me. But I guess it's more that quite a few people haven't really participated much yet.

Also sorry if I'm being daft but you're confusing me with metaphors here, what is a whitewash and why would you be a witch burned at the stake, and how would I make you the player killed?


I didn't really take it that way, but I'm curious - if the strategy works - why it would make a difference if those suggesting it are innocent themselves? Getting Burnham doesn't clear anybody's name, but I don't see how following this strategy and targeting known villagers and/or non-contributors in the process doesn't buy us time for a few more Murdoch investigations whilst also getting the wolf numbers down.

The spirit of the game arguments are a different matter but I don't care about those - other people can discuss them and come up with an alternate strategy if they don't feel comfortable with it.

I am "the witch" in that comment, what I mean to say is if you suspect me of ulterior motives, it makes little difference to me if you choose me to be the victim tonight in order to get Burnham after the next wolf kill. A 'whitewash' is just all or most of the votes going one way.

[Mazuuurk]

I didn't really take it that way, but I'm curious - if the strategy works - why it would make a difference if those suggesting it are innocent themselves? Getting Burnham doesn't clear anybody's name, but I don't see how following this strategy and targeting known villagers and/or non-contributors in the process doesn't buy us time for a few more Murdoch investigations whilst also getting the wolf numbers down.

No I mean, if it "works" it's all good, of course.

But, if anyone orchestrating it is a wolf (but not Burnham), why would they do so, in that case? All I'm thinking is that Burnham will be relatively easy to identify quite early anyway with this new spreading system, and given that the wolves offed one of the people who were nominated last round, they must have some sort of plan about what comes after "the first" Burnham is found out.

It seems more intuitive to me to let people spread the votes themselves for a few rounds to try to find any patterns and perhaps identifying several wolves, rather than chasing Burnham straight away and be clueless again straight after.

But I dunno, maybe all that would lead to is more dead people and no more info anyway.

I'm quite confused in general, feeling a little paranoid here.

[Toby]

I guess I never place much weight on waiting to see voting patterns develop because I never really think they do. Pretty much everybody is smarter than to leave an obvious trail. We have a seer and we should be looking to maximise the number of investigations we get from him, if we can kill Burnham in the meantime that seems like a bonus to me.

[Mazuuurk]

Well it seems to me like they would because of the new Burnham voting to kill dynamic. They can't all vote for whoever gets lynched if there's a kill at night, but they can't really always spread their votes either (so long as there are killings at night). Then again - I didn't play the last 10 or so games here or whatever.


And actually, we have two seers, one which seems to not be entirely to be trusted at all times (Murdoch).
Also, I just noticed the rules say "Publicly investigate" - I wonder if that means he has to somehow announce in the thread who he's investigating?

But anyway, I may be missing something but how are the amounts of investigations by the seers maximized or even minimized? They will investigate one person per night anyway, won't they? And we have to lynch (at least) one person off per night anyway, won't we?

[Toby]

I'd actually missed Corbyn having seer powers of his own...

Yes they don't get any more powers as things go, I just mean if we keep targetting Burnham, either he chooses to kill somebody and reveals his identity, or the wolves can't kill and as long as we're not idiots we keep the seers alive for longer.

[Magic]

If we get Burnham does one of his immigrant loving allies get the role instead? Or am I misreading the rules.

[Ian]

I don't really have much to add other than that the strategy seems like a sound one. Is there an optimal number of nominees we should be looking at or does it not really matter as long as we don't landslide anybody?

[Toby]

Which strategy is "the strategy"? Because my strategy would be to landslide somebody.

[Mazuuurk]

Wait, what? Why landslide somebody? Doesn't that just give Burnham a new opportunity to hide within that lot?

EDIT: I suppose the night-kill would then reveal a thing or two.

[Toby]

http://i.imgur.com/TDOJnow.png

[Toby]

We have six people, one of whom is Burnham. We can split them into smaller and smaller groups over a few days (as Pepe initially suggested and Ian seems to be supporting), or we can have all the other players vote the same way, with only the five not-Burnhams voting differently, and Burnham forced to break from the pack if he wants to have a night phase kill.

[Mazuuurk]

OK I understand now I think, Toby. So much fucking theory going on now, I remember when people just shouted "you're a wolf!" at each other :D

Anyway, I don't see how one is better than the other. Both strategies will probably nail down Burnham in 1-3 rounds, I'd say.
I like Pepe and Ians strategy best.

[Toby]

Fair enough. That way just takes longer and makes it easier for the wolves to continue killing before Burnham is found.

But given how confused everybody seems to be by my suggestion I'd suggest we fuck it off since it's only useful if acted out properly, and I'm pretty far from confident that would happen.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I quite like Toby's suggestion. It leaves things less open to lupine manipulation.

[CJay]

By the way I'll be away all day tomorrow so likely won't be able to vote or whatever. I might be on later today, though, if I have wifi.

[Pepe]

Toby:

Doesn't your idea mean we have a 1 in 6 chance to get a wolf, which means it might take us up to six days to get a Burnham? Granted, this would be six days were they don't get to night kill so it is not too bad but still. On the other hand, my idea could get us a wolf in three days max, but it could backfire if the wolves decide to not kill someone in a round they could have done so. I say we go for Toby's plan.

As for people saying this is against the spirit of the game: We still need to choose who to lynch from the reduced group. That decision should still be based on players' actions (or lack off, remember most wolves are usually 'laying low' especially during the first few rounds.) In that sense, Jimmy's move was suspicious as fuck, bordering on the too dumb to be on purpose. Unless someone has a good reason to lynch someone else, he is my preferred target.

[Pepe]

For people who are not sure how Toby's plan works:

We pick someone to lynch within this group:

Toby
Panda
Igor Balis
Vim
Mazuurk
Jimmy Floyd

Every player not on that list votes for whoever we collectively choose should be lynched (doesn't really have to be everyone really, just a majority). Everyone on that list must vote for someone else. That means we have a 1/6 chance of lynching a wolf today and we are guaranteeing that the wolves don't get a night kill.

[Toby]

It could take that long, I guess. It seems unlikely though, and six days without any wolf kills is also pretty good going for us.

I'm not sure about Jimmy's vote yesterday but - as I joked about with Browning - I'm always a little suspicious of people making this sort of comment:


I thought the wolves would box clever and abstain from giving us this clue, but they have obviously decided to maximise the killing instead.

It just comes across as a wolf who knows the motivation behind their killings, trying to have them viewed in the sort of way they hoped they would be. That to me is more suspicious than the vote yesterday, which I think has been blown out of proportion a bit, but I'm not convinced it's enough to take out a potentially valuable player when there are a couple of do-nothings on the list.

[SvN]

Can the wolves choose to not kill anyone? Or are they obliged to nominate someone?

[SvN]

It could take that long, I guess. It seems unlikely though, and six days without any wolf kills is also pretty good going for us.

I'm not sure about Jimmy's vote yesterday but - as I joked about with Browning - I'm always a little suspicious of people making this sort of comment:



It just comes across as a wolf who knows the motivation behind their killings, trying to have them viewed in the sort of way they hoped they would be. That to me is more suspicious than the vote yesterday, which I think has been blown out of proportion a bit, but I'm not convinced it's enough to take out a potentially valuable player when there are a couple of do-nothings on the list.
I didn't even spot that post. I didn't even know they were allowed to abstain. To me, that reads like they decided against abstaining or didn't consider it until too late, and are now regretting it. I just can't imagine why he'd post that as a non-wolf.

On that basis, I'm in favour of going with Jimmy if we do go with your strategy.

[Pepe]

Can the wolves choose to not kill anyone? Or are they obliged to nominate someone?

They can choose not to kill, which is the main issue of my initial plan.

[Pepe]

It could take that long, I guess. It seems unlikely though, and six days without any wolf kills is also pretty good going for us.

I'm not sure about Jimmy's vote yesterday but - as I joked about with Browning - I'm always a little suspicious of people making this sort of comment:



It just comes across as a wolf who knows the motivation behind their killings, trying to have them viewed in the sort of way they hoped they would be. That to me is more suspicious than the vote yesterday, which I think has been blown out of proportion a bit, but I'm not convinced it's enough to take out a potentially valuable player when there are a couple of do-nothings on the list.

Not a big fan of the 'potentially valuable player' argument. When we're stabbing in the dark then fair enough, get rid of Panda. Not the case here. I'm willing to hear reasons for lynching someone else though.

[Toby]

I've overlooked the abstaining thing as well. I think we have to go for the strategy I've suggested in that case, as it'd be too easy in the other case for Burnham to hide by choosing not to kill rather than not voting for the lynchee.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I meant 'abstain' as in 'get Burnham to vote for a non-lynched player', not just elect not to night kill.

I swear we got a full page of discussion about this very point yesterday too :cab:

[Pepe]

I've overlooked the abstaining thing as well. I think we have to go for the strategy I've suggested in that case, as it'd be too easy in the other case for Burnham to hide by choosing not to kill rather than not voting for the lynchee.

Agreed.

[Vim]

Originally my post described it as stupid rather than weird, but I wanted to be nicer to poor Vim. Just seems the most likely on that list to do something like that.

I don't get what I'm meant to have done?

You do know that there is more than one wolf that decides who to kill?

[SvN]

So who do we go for tonight then?

Toby
Panda
Igor Balis
Vim
Mazuurk
Jimmy Floyd

I've already made it clear I'd prefer to go with Jimmy first. I think Pepe is on board with this too. We have 40 minutes to get nominations in, so we need to get a move on.

[7om]

I nominate Toby (second nomination)


I think it's only Jimmy nominated so far so let's get another one up. Someone probably should be seconding those Vim and Pepe nominations as well.

[SvN]

I nominate Vim (Second nomination)

No point in seconding Pepe as he's not one of the 6. Nothing against Vim at the moment, but we need to decide which we're going for - if we can't do that soon, we need to at least have as many nominated as possible.

[Boydy]

So who's up at the moment?

[SvN]

So far we have Jimmy, Vim and Toby.

[7om]

Apologies, I thought Pepe was on that list.

Vim, Toby and Jimmy up now then.

[Pepe]

Good enough. Now, we should probably try to reach some sort of consensus before voting, ESPECIALLY the six on that list. You cunts don't dare voting until we tell you who to vote for or you'll be next on the chopping block.

[Demerit]

Let's kill Vim

[SvN]

Well let's hear the arguments for Vim and Tobes. Jimmy has two strikes so far (albeit low quality strikes), but I can't see any reason to suspect Vim or Toby yet. Jimmy could well be innocent, and it's hardly concrete, but it makes sense to me to get rid of the one who we have (slight) reason suspicious about.

If he is innocent, let's just hope he isn't a useful character.

[Pepe]

I agree Jimmy is the best bet. He came late and piled a vote on Hammer, giving us an extra name on the maybe-wolf list at a point when it wasn't required. Now, maybe he just didn't read the thread before voting and went for what would have usually been a safe vote. Or maybe he is Burnham and he didn't want to lose his night kill. Also, nominating me was a bit of an odd move when we have a shortlist of potential wolves.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I don't understand the basis for me being guilty. A late vote (could have been anyone) with clear reasons for why I was voting that way, reasons shared, it must be pointed out, by Toby, who merely had the fortune not to be commuting back from Seoul at peak voting time (this is a mistake I won't be making again tonight). That allied to an exploratory post woefully - perhaps wilfully, I'm beginning to think - misunderstood by the same northerly party.

I see no reason to suspect Vim above any of the others, so surely it's got to be Toby.

[SvN]

But why bother voting at all? Did you not read the thread beforehand? It was a pointless vote that made no difference to the outcome. The only thing it did was make you look daft or suspicious.

[Jimmy Floyd]

You should always vote in these. People not bothering to vote makes it more of a GCSE maths exercise than an interesting game.

[Toby]

That allied to an exploratory post woefully - perhaps wilfully, I'm beginning to think - misunderstood by the same northerly party.

It was SvN who misunderstood your abstain comments, I knew fine what you meant and that isn't what I was highlighting. I just find those sorts of posts, theorising about the wolves' motives, are often quite suspicious. It's something I've pointed at in lots of games, and certainly in the case of Browning something he has done before when in a position of evil. With you I'd be less sure, but there's a tone to it that always sits oddly with me.

And your vote for Hammer has nothing to do with the motives for killing him in particular - he was already dead. It's just that you unnecessarily added an extra number to the potential Burnham count. I'd agree it's just a bit annoying rather than suspicious, and I understand maybe you didn't have time to read the thread, but I don't get why you're trying to portray us as having done the same thing.

[Pepe]

You should always vote in these. People not bothering to vote makes it more of a GCSE maths exercise than an interesting game.

Agreed. But you could have voted for any of the others. But then you said you didn't want to participate in the 'splitting votes' business. Why not? Did you think the plan was poor?

[Jimmy Floyd]

Agreed. But you could have voted for any of the others. But then you said you didn't want to participate in the 'splitting votes' business. Why not? Did you think the plan was poor?

I don't like plans of any sort particularly because whilst it might be good in the short term to get rid of one wolf - and we know one of the six listed must be Burnham - it gives the others an opportunity to hide behind easy alibis and vote choices, and will allow them to pick us off later in the game because they won't have had the opportunity to make mistakes. This is also the reason I nominated you, if it's too regimented we're allowing the wolves to take control, and you must know this.

[Toby]

I don't like plans of any sort...

Doesn't really tally with,


I quite like Toby's suggestion. It leaves things less open to lupine manipulation.

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

I nominate Pepe (Second nomination)

Throwing the cat amongst the pigeons.

I know we should be looking at 'THE SIX!!!' but Pepe was quick to put the boot in, hard might I add, to Jimmy.

We know a favourite strategy of the wolves is to try and get the active members out of the game pronto, this smells a bit like that to me.

[Vim]

Was it predictable before I pissing nominated him?

Fair enough. Though I do think that Hammer announcing his role made him an easy target, if you were a wolf (not accusing just speculating) then you could have taken advantage of that.

I'd like to hear a bit of a longer argument for your case Demerit, if you don't mind.

[Jimmy Floyd]

That comment is clearly in relation to Pepe's plan. The two of you are managing some creative interprerations of English between you.

[Toby]

That comment is clearly in relation to Pepe's plan. The two of you are managing some creative interprerations of English between you.

No it isn't. You said "plans of any sort", how can they be limited to a solitary plan? :cab:

I wasn't particularly suspicious of you before all this but you've made some seriously strange comments on this page.

[Mazuuurk]

Toby and Pepe are running the show here :cool:

Would be quite lolzy to kill Toby out of the three just because of that, but there's not really much cause to. Then again there's not much Vim seems to have done either, and all Jim did was vote late, which is more than the others I suppose. Someone making dodgy comments is a poor proof to use when we are already using this very methodical way of exposing Burnham, I reckon. From memory people always say random whit when they are about to get lynched.

[Mazuuurk]

There's no way we're going to agree on anything here :D

[Jimmy Floyd]

No it isn't. You said "plans of any sort", how can they be limited to a solitary plan? :cab:

I meant 'relative to', not 'in relation to'. +1 for the creative English.

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

Toby and Pepe are running the show here :cool:

Would be quite lolzy to kill Toby out of the three just because of that, but there's not really much cause to. Then again there's not much Vim seems to have done either, and all Jim did was vote late, which is more than the others I suppose. Someone making dodgy comments is a poor proof to use when we are already using this very methodical way of exposing Burnham, I reckon. From memory people always say random whit when they are about to get lynched.

Out of the four, Maz.

I seconded Pepe just before the deadline.

[Mazuuurk]

Stop bickering about grammar and tell us why we shouldn't double lynch you fuckers.

[Toby]

I meant 'relative to', not 'in relation to'. +1 for the creative English.

That changes nothing. Have you had a knock on the head?

"I don't like plans of any sort", except for Toby's, which isn't all that different to Pepe's. How can you claim it is me being creative with language with here?


Stop bickering about grammar and tell us why we shouldn't double lynch you fuckers.

It's not an issue of grammar, it's that Jimmy's position is completely inconsistent.

[Mazuuurk]

Out of the four, Maz.

I seconded Pepe just before the deadline.

Ah, ok out of the four then.

[SvN]

Someone making dodgy comments is a poor proof to use when we are already using this very methodical way of exposing Burnham, I reckon. From memory people always say random whit when they are about to get lynched.



Eh? It's hardly just "dodgy comments". The late vote is enough to be suspicious, and at the point Jimmy made the "wolf strategy" comment, he wasn't about to get lynched.

We have to get rid of one of the 3 (assuming we actually follow through with this rather than randomly lynching people), so it makes sense to vote for the only person who's done anything out of the ordinary.

I find this defence of Jimmy pretty odd, and I'd be looking in your direction next if he does indeed turn out to be Burnham.

[Jimmy Floyd]

That changes nothing. Have you had a knock on the head?

"I don't like plans of any sort", except for Toby's, which isn't all that different to Pepe's. How can you claim it is me being creative with language with here?



It's not an issue of grammar, it's that Jimmy's position is completely inconsistent.
No it is a position of grammar, because I was working on the assumption that one of the plans was in fact going to be adopted (I'd already gone outside the plan box by nominating Pepe) and so stated that yours makes more sense than Pepe's, which it does.

You're grasping at almost anything to try and incriminate me.

[Mazuuurk]

It's not an issue of grammar, it's that Jimmy's position is completely inconsistent.

It's looks like bickering to me.

EDIT: That goes for you too, Jimmy.

[Toby]

No it is a position of grammar, because I was working on the assumption that one of the plans was in fact going to be adopted (I'd already gone outside the plan box by nominating Pepe) and so stated that yours makes more sense than Pepe's, which it does.

You're grasping at almost anything to try and incriminate me.

Sorry, my mistake here is in thinking you meant your "I don't like plans" comment was in relation to Pepe's plan only and not that you liked my plan in relation to Pepe's.

I still don't see why you wouldn't argue against plans of any sort sooner (like, before nominations closed) but I at least understand what you're saying now.

[Jimmy Floyd]

I made just such an argument in my nomination of Pepe.

[Mazuuurk]

Eh? It's hardly just "dodgy comments". The late vote is enough to be suspicious, and at the point Jimmy made the "wolf strategy" comment, he wasn't about to get lynched.

We have to get rid of one of the 3 (assuming we actually follow through with this rather than randomly lynching people), so it makes sense to vote for the only person who's done anything out of the ordinary.

I find this defence of Jimmy pretty odd, and I'd be looking in your direction next if he does indeed turn out to be Burnham.


I nominated Jimmy you spaz. But for voting late, not for saying something like that, which I don't think holds much significance personally, didn't really pay much attention to that either, admittedly.

But I'm also starting to think something is up with Pepe and Toby though, they have a role of some sorts good or bad. Wouldn't surprise me if there like 2 wolves out of the 3 of those.

[SvN]

Jimmy's nomination was inevitable. Don't think that nominating him gives you a free pass if he's Burnham.

[Toby]

Me putting forward the strategy to find Burnham in the quickest possible time could be a gameplan to hide in plain sight. It's certainly possible. I mean, it's not one that has ever worked in the history of werewolf given the inclination to kill anybody who posts more than twice a day, but maybe I've decided to give it one last try just in case.

Still, don't you think it would be sensible to pursue other options before killing off active contributors who are at least ostensibly helping the town on the off chance they might be doing so as a bluffing tactic?

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

Instead of all this posturing bullshit, why doesn't someone open up the votes?

[Mazuuurk]

Jimmy's nomination was inevitable. Don't think that nominating him gives you a free pass if he's Burnham.

I'm not exactly asking for a free pass, all I'm saying is that we seemed to start with some sort of a plan, i.e. distributing votes in one way or another, which is new to me but sounds quite efficient. But what it's starting to look like now is people randomly accusing each other based on the tonality of their posts (yours as well) which usually just makes people jump on some sort of bandwagon.

I still think we ought to lynch Jimmy, mind you, I'm just saying we should try to keep it civil.

[Vim]

Why don't you do it? ;)

I'm off to football soon, what is the final plan in regards to voting?

From the people up for nomination, I am most suspicious about Toby for the reasons I've stated before. Nonetheless, it's a very thin argument, the best I can come up with so far.

It might well be that Toby and Jimmy are actually in cahoots and orchestrating this whole argument. But that's basically a conspiracy theory.

------------------------------------------

These are the people up for lynching:


Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd


Because I'm shit and lazy, Vim. Thank you.

[Toby]

Vim is getting off fairly easily here, by the way. Of the four who have been put forward I'd be more inclined to kill him at this point, since we have little reason to suspect anybody in particular and Pepe and Jimmy are valuable players. Vim coming up with half-baked theories that don't make much sense under scrutiny is less of a loss if he's just a villager.

EDIT: Well, I guess there goes the "all load on one person" plan. Cheers, Mahow.

[7om]

I think we need to make it crystal clear right now how we're going because someone (I guaran-fucking-tee it) will come strolling in and do their best to fuck it up if it's ambiguous.

Are we all piling on Jimmy and leaving Burnham to vote for himself / out himself by sacrificing the wolf kill?

[SvN]

Vim is getting off fairly easily here, by the way. Of the four who have been put forward I'd be more inclined to kill him at this point, since we have little reason to suspect anybody in particular and Pepe and Jimmy are valuable players. Vim coming up with half-baked theories that don't make much sense under scrutiny is less of a loss if he's just a villager.

EDIT: Well, I guess there goes the "all load on one person" plan. Cheers, Mahow.

There's nothing to say we can't go for Vim next round if Jimmy isn't Burnham.


I think we need to make it crystal clear right now how we're going because someone (I guaran-fucking-tee it) will come strolling in and do their best to fuck it up if it's ambiguous.

Are we all piling on Jimmy and leaving Burnham to vote for himself / out himself by sacrificing the wolf kill?



This is my preferred course of action.

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

Vim is getting off fairly easily here, by the way. Of the four who have been put forward I'd be more inclined to kill him at this point, since we have little reason to suspect anybody in particular and Pepe and Jimmy are valuable players. Vim coming up with half-baked theories that don't make much sense under scrutiny is less of a loss if he's just a villager.

EDIT: Well, I guess there goes the "all load on one person" plan. Cheers, Mahow.
I'd be happy to change my vote.

All load onto Toby, gents?

[Vim]

Vim is getting off fairly easily here, by the way. Of the four who have been put forward I'd be more inclined to kill him at this point, since we have little reason to suspect anybody in particular and Pepe and Jimmy are valuable players. Vim coming up with half-baked theories that don't make much sense under scrutiny is less of a loss if he's just a villager.

EDIT: Well, I guess there goes the "all load on one person" plan. Cheers, Mahow.

It's early days in the game so I'm putting out any ideas I might have with little filter, but no-one seems to have contradicted me so ... well, except for you contradicting my theory 'against' you of course. ;)

[SvN]

Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd


Sorry if you're innocent Jimmy, but of the three choices available, you're the obvious choice.

[niko_cee]

It has to be Jimmy (in terms of piling in).

If he is Burnham does he have to vote for himself to get a night kill?

:baz:

[Vim]

Are we all piling on Jimmy and leaving Burnham to vote for himself / out himself by sacrificing the wolf kill?

That's the best way to go about this voting stage, in my opinion.


Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd


I'm going to football very soon, so I won't be on for a couple of hours. Hoping the village won't mong this up.

[niko_cee]

Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd


Same for me. Let's hope the good guys amidst THE SIX! do the sane thing.

:face:

[niko_cee]

Abort. Let's just kill Vim instead.

[Vim]

Soon the be the Five™.

Still waiting for Browning to explain his comment about me by the way.

[niko_cee]

You realise you're fucking THE PLAN up, yeah? I suppose perhaps not.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Who are the gombines meant to vote for then? Just so I know.

[Vim]

You realise you're fucking THE PLAN up, yeah?

What am I supposed to do, tell me?

[niko_cee]

The gombines were supposed to vote for anyone who wasn't the chosen dead chap (it appears that's you Jim). In a way this solves the problem for you as I doubt you are allowed to vote for yourself, but in other ways, less satisfactory.

[7om]

Jesus :D

This is what I'm talking about.

[Vim]

Okay then I didn't really understand the plan.

[Vim]

Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd


I change my vote from Jimmy Floyd to Toby.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Shouldn't we all just pile on Vim instead now? 'Misunderstanding' and 'going to football' my arse, he clearly just wants to be on the lynched player despite his SIX status.

[Vim]

Shouldn't we all just pile on Vim instead now? 'Misunderstanding' and 'going to football' my arse, he clearly just wants to be on the lynched player despite his SIX status.

Yeah, cause I didn't understand the plan. :D

Just to make sure, is this correct:

-- everyone not in the SIX sponsored by Budweiser votes for Jimmy
-- either the wolves don't get a kill, or the only non-six to vote for Jimmy is Burnham.

[SvN]

For people entering the thread now, the jist of the plan is:

The 6 people that could be Burnham are:
Toby
Panda
Igor Balis
Vim
Mazuurk
Jimmy Floyd

Our plan is for everyone except those 6 to vote for a single person (Jimmy today). The other 6 should all vote elsewhere. This will enable us to discover who Burnham is, unless the wolves sacrifice their evening kill.

So Mazuurk, Toby, Vim, Panda and Igor vote for anyone BUT Jimmy. Everyone else vote for Jimmy.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Right you are, cap'n.


Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd

[Vim]

For people entering the thread now

Or those apparently stupid enough not to have grasped the plan before voting started. :(

Thanks svn and sorry guys for being a bit slow here.

[Mazuuurk]

Wait, so I'm not supposed to vote for Jimmy now?

I don't mind, if that's #theplan, but can someone explain why that is exactly?

[7om]

Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd

[Vim]

Wait, so I'm not supposed to vote for Jimmy now?

I don't mind, if that's #theplan, but can someone explain why that is exactly?

There's six possible Burnhams. One of us six is Burnham. One of us six must vote for the lynchee for the wolves to get a kill.

Therefore, if all the non-Burnhams vote for Jimmy he dies and the wolves do not get a kill because the six possible Burnhams have not voted for Jimmy.

[SvN]

Wait, so I'm not supposed to vote for Jimmy now?

I don't mind, if that's #theplan, but can someone explain why that is exactly?

By voting for someone else, it effectively rules out that you're Burnham (unless the wolves abstain from killing a villager).

[Mazuuurk]

Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd



OK cheers Vim. I'll just go for you then. It doesn't matter, right?

[niko_cee]

Murdoch should be getting on with investigating other SIXERS while Jimmy burns, there's probably more than one wolf in their midst.

Jimmy voting for himself is blinding stuff. What's going on? Having a right Ospina.

[7om]

I think it was a sarcastic nod to SvN leaving him out of his final sentence on who should vote for anyone not Jimmy.

[niko_cee]

Or maybe just getting on the winning team. However this pans out, a mare has been had.

[Pleb]

I've been at work for most of the day and I've just this moment caught up.

Am I voting for Jimmy because I have no fucking idea what you guys are going on about here?

[niko_cee]

That's the plan chief.

[Pleb]

Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd

I'll take your word for it.

[Byron]

I'm pretty convinced Jim is Burnham. Him voting fit himself looks like he's trying to at least guarantee a wolf kill.

[Pepe]

Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd

Yes Byron, that is most likely the case. That or he is having a massive seethe. Probably both.

[Pepe]

For people entering the thread now, the jist of the plan is:

The 6 people that could be Burnham are:
Toby
Panda
Igor Balis
Vim
Mazuurk
Jimmy Floyd

Our plan is for everyone except those 6 to vote for a single person (Jimmy today). The other 6 should all vote elsewhere. This will enable us to discover who Burnham is, unless the wolves sacrifice their evening kill.

So Mazuurk, Toby, Vim, Panda and Igor vote for anyone BUT Jimmy. Everyone else vote for Jimmy.

Quoting it so no one pretends they didn't see it.

[Toby]

Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd

Essentially a random choice, just that as one of the six I have to vote for not-Jimmy.

[SvN]

1-2-1-6 is the current score

[niko_cee]

There's bound to be some sort of narrative trick to fuck this plan up. A landslide victory reincarnates Tony Blair Ascendant, his sole mission to lay waste to the Corbynistas with great vengeance and furious anger.

[P_3]

Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd

https://i.gyazo.com/f8fad2ab8a6d5fa9140688a92b8ff35a.png

Random.org says Jimmy.

[Browning]

Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd

Solid plan, has to be done.

Vim, you didn't do anything wrong, just I considered killing one of the 7 to be silly for the Wolves as it narrowed the pool of potential Burnham's, and I didn't (and still don't) see a real way it could be a double bluff, so I assumed that the more experienced players (Toby and Jimmy) probably were not behind it and picked you at random out of the others. However Jimmy's behavior throughout has been bizarre.

[Ian]

Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd

There's something nagging me about this plan but I dunno if that's just my natural paranoia that I'm contributing to a fuck-up or if there's actually something amiss.

[SvN]

It's logically sound.

[Ian]

If Jimmy is Burnham what happens next round? Back to spreading it out? I've tried to catch up with the thread quickly so I may have missed something. I certainly had earlier when I misunderstood the plans and said I was in favour of the wrong one. Typical that I actually start having to do stuff at work once one of these kicks off. :moop:

[Browning]

Yea, Jimmy voting for Jimmy helps us here. If he dies and gets a wolf kill we KNOW he was Burnham (and we didn't just strike lucky with a random kill) where is if they don't get a kill, we know he wasn't, and one of the others still is Burnham.

That is unless one of the other members of "The Six" votes for Jimmy too, but if they do we kill them next.

[Vim]

Vim, you didn't do anything wrong, just I considered killing one of the 7 to be silly for the Wolves as it narrowed the pool of potential Burnham's, and I didn't (and still don't) see a real way it could be a double bluff, so I assumed that the more experienced players (Toby and Jimmy) probably were not behind it and picked you at random out of the others. However Jimmy's behavior throughout has been bizarre.

Yeah I also found it odd and I see your point. I can't really complain given how shite I've been today. My point was that if I were a wolf, the other wolves wouldn't let me do stupid stuff like that.

[Jimmy Floyd]

Yea, Jimmy voting for Jimmy helps us here. If he dies and gets a wolf kill we KNOW he was Burnham (and we didn't just strike lucky with a random kill) where is if they don't get a kill, we know he wasn't, and one of the others still is Burnham.

That is unless one of the other members of "The Six" votes for Jimmy too, but if they do we kill them next.

Surely the death story will communicate whether or not I am Burnham?

You're all making a mistake here. You're dipping the biscuit in the milk, but is the milk sour?

[niko_cee]

No, another wolf will die and the role of Burnham will transfer to a remaining wolf.

[Sir Andy Mahowry]

Fuck the plan.

Kill Pepe.

[Toby]

Yea, Jimmy voting for Jimmy helps us here. If he dies and gets a wolf kill we KNOW he was Burnham (and we didn't just strike lucky with a random kill) where is if they don't get a kill, we know he wasn't, and one of the others still is Burnham.

That is unless one of the other members of "The Six" votes for Jimmy too, but if they do we kill them next.

Slightly complicated by the wolves ability to opt not to kill anybody, so if they don't kill anybody tonight we shouldn't completely rule out the other five holding that role, as unlikely as it would seem.

[niko_cee]

I don't think a wolf in the remaining 5 is unlikely at all.

[Toby]

I don't think a wolf in the remaining 5 is unlikely at all.

That's not what I was saying. I was saying we can't even rule out them being Burnham himself.

[The Merse]

Irregularities at the London mayors office

Allegations of corruption and incompetence at the London Mayors Office have surfaced today, implicating past and present London mayors and their Chief of Staff were duped into money laundering at the hands of a Mexican drugs cartel in a scandal which also caught out a former Premier League footballer. Once again, The Sun brings you all the big stories… pages 5-6. See page 3 for drugs cartel opinion piece by Cindy, 19 from Bromham.

[Pleb]

No sensational stories about FIFA then?

Shambles.

[igor_balis]

Toby - Vim - Pepe - Jimmy Floyd


That's what I'm supposed to do, right?

[Pleb]

What's the count at the moment?