So basically Tass decided to miscount the votes (it's 7-5 not 7-4), lock the thread and declare Whorli the winner after 6 hours of voting.
I don't want to sound like a sore loser here (because I have no intention of losing), but Whorli and I both agreed that 6 hours is DEFINITELY not enough time, and Tass kind of did this all on his own. Host voting should be about 24 hours.
I talked it over with Whorli and since we're the only ones who have a decent shot at this, we agreed to reopen the thread. Thanks for cooperating Whorli : )
Ok... repost in here since this is where it should be.
I just wanted to refute a few things.
Originally posted by Qreepy
How many players and reds in Afro's game? It has to be reasonably balanced, because having no blues at all is quite the advantage for the wolves. If the wolves play it right, not a one of them will die.
That would be answered in the part where I said:
Originally posted by I
Amount of people in the game and amount of wolves to be determined if I actually win. And by determined I mean talked over with TWC until we come to an agreement.
Everything would most definitely be fair.
I'd imagine you should just be ignoring Afro's campaign. He isn't running because he wants to, he is running out of anger and from hostility. Which is why he has no gameplan, no structure, and no blues... which is Manhunt to a new level. There is practically no way to form an alliance, which is the only way humans win games. No alliance, no human victory. Its that simple. Wolves would run with Afro's game hands down.
First of all, no. I did not run simply out of anger and hostility. They were the thing that sparked me, but I definitely wanted to host.
Second, there was a quite specific game plan. It was, however a simple idea. No blues. I had it all planned out, and it would definitely work. The only thing I didn't have decided was how many people would play (probably would have been standard) and how many wolves would there be (probably 2). I did however assure that it would be disscussed with TWC and that it would be fair.
Third, alliances are not needed for human victory. All that is needed is people being active and voting for those who they believe are wolves. There have been numerous games where wolves have been lynched without an alliance leading the lynch of that wolf. Everyone has simply gotten so used to using an alliance as a crutch that they feel they can't win without one. I assure you, that it is most definitely possible.
If you don't trust me about humans winning without an alliance, take a look at Mafia. There is almost no way there can be an alliance in that game, yet the greens still win at that. It is totally possible, it's just that the greens would have to actually work toward the goal of lynching wolves rather than sitting back waiting for the vigi, the seer, or a saved person to decide who to lynch.
This idea was designed to test your skills of this game. You all have gotten too reliant on your precious alliance to win the game for you. I do intend to run for the next game. There better be more than a friendly pity vote from eb next time, too.
so if I were a wolf I would want whorli's game but if I were a human I'd want chardish's game.
since I haven't been a wolf in a while and I really want to see if I can pull it off now that I have this enormous reputation for being helpful... whorli
edit: chardish I might consider changing my vote if you update the FFR art thing... I want to see if ap's talents will pull him through or not. plus it's been like, over a week.
Tass, this isn't something you should have to get my permission on. Fish should have set a time and that's when signups close, not when you feel good and ready to declare your girlfriend winner.
I'm not bitter at Whorli because she's been nothing but nice but you've been fairly irritating about this.
I've played this whole thing terribly politically because I failed to convince people that it's not about who's had opportunities to host, but it's about the game that's being played. People should vote for the game rather than the person.
Comment