WWE/WCW wars GAME THREAD!

[bhaw]

I'll probably change my vote tomorrow, but I'm liking going after the people who are pushing bad theories:

redwill - I get how you are rationalizing your vote, but more has happened since then, so I would think you'd have come up with more

What has happened?

Seriously.

I want to know.

You popped this theory out on day 2. We've had 2 more votes and 2 more night sessions. You, yourself, admitted that this was something better to apply to a day 2 or 3 vote. They have happened but you're still pushing it onto the day 1 vote.

[Twisted Wrister]

wow, im honestly surprised, I had a page and a half to read on a SATURDAY none the less!

[redwill]

What has happened?

Seriously.

I want to know.

You popped this theory out on day 2. We've had 2 more votes and 2 more night sessions. You, yourself, admitted that this was something better to apply to a day 2 or 3 vote. They have happened but you're still pushing it onto the day 1 vote.

"They have happened"? Are you being serious? No. You cannot be.

I will change my vote just as soon as possible if you or somebody gives me something.

But you are unable to do that, aren't you?

[dagny]

I'll probably change my vote tomorrow, but I'm liking going after the people who are pushing bad theories:

redwill - I get how you are rationalizing your vote, but more has happened since then, so I would think you'd have come up with more
jays - see our convo... it doesn't make sense to say i'm damaging the village then say that i'm not now but that's still why people should vote for me

Other than that:

dagny - your posts are inconsistent right now. you said you've been making notes about the game so far in one then when pushed by redwill you say you've got nothing at all.

Here is my order for now: redwill, dagny, jays - but this may change as more posting happens.

I also want to go back tomorrow and see who keeps saying there is nothing to go on because there isn't much, but there are still votes and some other things going on. If you can't start formulating strategy now, when do you plan on doing so?

You're just mad cuz you got modded.

If you read, you'll see that I said things are not now, as they were, when I made my notes. Part of my notes at the time was that hockeynut had only posted once. That has since changed, along with any other theory I may have been pondering.

Thus, I posted this:

Honestly, at his point, the only thing I lean toward is eliminating non/low active players. Basically, whoever has the least amount of posts in the thread. When I was gonna post my notes before, hockeynut only had one. That has since changed and I don't have time to research the current post counts right now.

With no solid evidence, the only thing that makes sense to me, is to take out non/low actives. But I hesitate even bringing it up because we always say we're gonna do this, and we don't.

I do believe that outlines what I feel is best to go on right now. It's only one page back.

Dear lawd, as read your post again, I see that you even say the same thing (to redwill) that I said in my quoted post above. Things have since changed (since I made my notes).

Nice try, though.

[jaysmiter]

jays - see our convo... it doesn't make sense to say i'm damaging the village then say that i'm not now but that's still why people should vote for me

Well, the first part may be true, but at no point have I said people should vote for you...at all. I said I was doing it for my own reasons never trying to convince anyone else...the fact that you keep hanging onto this and bringing it up when I have explained myself multiple times is just odd and unnecessary. And, yes, a bit confusing to the village...dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

God, typing this much on a cellphone sucks.

[redwill]

What has happened?

Seriously.

I want to know.

You popped this theory out on day 2. We've had 2 more votes and 2 more night sessions. You, yourself, admitted that this was something better to apply to a day 2 or 3 vote. They have happened but you're still pushing it onto the day 1 vote.

"They have happened"? Are you being serious? No. You cannot be.

I will change my vote just as soon as possible if you or somebody gives me something.

But you are unable to do that, aren't you?

Pffffttt.

I'm going to bed.

[bhaw]

What has happened?

Seriously.

I want to know.

You popped this theory out on day 2. We've had 2 more votes and 2 more night sessions. You, yourself, admitted that this was something better to apply to a day 2 or 3 vote. They have happened but you're still pushing it onto the day 1 vote.

"They have happened"? Are you being serious? No. You cannot be.

I will change my vote just as soon as possible if you or somebody gives me something.

But you are unable to do that, aren't you?

I don't have anything concrete obviously or I'd be trying to push votes at you. Just saying that you came out with a theory on day 2 and have yet to change it when you admit that it is pretty bad. And apparently nothing that has happened since the day 1 vote has given you anything to go off of, so your sticking with the 3rd or 4th person that voted on day 1... So maybe we should be asking if you are serious about your "theory."

[bhaw]

I'll probably change my vote tomorrow, but I'm liking going after the people who are pushing bad theories:

redwill - I get how you are rationalizing your vote, but more has happened since then, so I would think you'd have come up with more
jays - see our convo... it doesn't make sense to say i'm damaging the village then say that i'm not now but that's still why people should vote for me

Other than that:

dagny - your posts are inconsistent right now. you said you've been making notes about the game so far in one then when pushed by redwill you say you've got nothing at all.

Here is my order for now: redwill, dagny, jays - but this may change as more posting happens.

I also want to go back tomorrow and see who keeps saying there is nothing to go on because there isn't much, but there are still votes and some other things going on. If you can't start formulating strategy now, when do you plan on doing so?

You're just mad cuz you got modded.

If you read, you'll see that I said things are not now, as they were, when I made my notes. Part of my notes at the time was that hockeynut had only posted once. That has since changed, along with any other theory I may have been pondering.

Thus, I posted this:

Honestly, at his point, the only thing I lean toward is eliminating non/low active players. Basically, whoever has the least amount of posts in the thread. When I was gonna post my notes before, hockeynut only had one. That has since changed and I don't have time to research the current post counts right now.

With no solid evidence, the only thing that makes sense to me, is to take out non/low actives. But I hesitate even bringing it up because we always say we're gonna do this, and we don't.

I do believe that outlines what I feel is best to go on right now. It's only one page back.

Dear lawd, as read your post again, I see that you even say the same thing (to redwill) that I said in my quoted post above. Things have since changed (since I made my notes).

Nice try, though.

Where did I get moded?

I saw the post you quoted of yours, but I didn't see you say anywhere that the notes you came up with were now bad. Hence why your posting seems inconsistent. Maybe you were thinking it and we were supposed to read your mind...

[bhaw]

jays - see our convo... it doesn't make sense to say i'm damaging the village then say that i'm not now but that's still why people should vote for me

Well, the first part may be true, but at no point have I said people should vote for you...at all. I said I was doing it for my own reasons never trying to convince anyone else...the fact that you keep hanging onto this and bringing it up when I have explained myself multiple times is just odd and unnecessary. And, yes, a bit confusing to the village...dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

God, typing this much on a cellphone sucks.

Well, voting for someone implies that you are trying to get someone voted out... I don't get people who claim they are voting for someone but don't want others to follow them... that makes no sense at all. I brought it up because you made the claim, I asked you about it, you backed off and said it's probably not logical yet still think it's the best option (for you). And I never asked you to re-explain yourself, but clearly that's implied as well since I put your name out there. If you claim your strategy for this vote isn't based in anything, why question mine which at least has some basis?

[bhaw]

Well, it's nothing personal or necessarily sensible. Just my personal thoughts. Don't really have much to go on at this point since the majority of bad guy kills have come from the opposing bad guy faction.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a bit detached from this game because I thought we weren't starting until Monday...and surprise, I was way behind. I've had time to catch up, but still haven't been able to put a ton of thought or time into what's going on.

You're not nearly as off-the-wall as Senka is, bhaw, but last game really left a sour taste in my mouth the way you went about it...so, am I holding a grudge for last game? Yeah, probably. Is that sensible? Probably not.

This... So it's not sensible for me to question the sensibility of your thoughts that you admit aren't sensible?

[bhaw]

Where did I get moded?

I saw the post you quoted of yours, but I didn't see you say anywhere that the notes you came up with were now bad. Hence why your posting seems inconsistent. Maybe you were thinking it and we were supposed to read your mind...

I forgot a sentence or two in there somehow...

I missed where you said your notes were useless now even though I saw that post. I guess I assumed there were more notes than hockeynut hasn't talked much. You made it seem like more.

[dagny]

Ok, I had time to go through and count the posts. Though, after doing that, I see we have pretty good participation. It's not like there's anyone with, like, 2 posts, or anything.

But, I took the time to count, so here goes:

Lowest amount of posts in thread -

NAN -- 11

Hockeynut -- 11

canaan -- 13

Loney -- 13

slappy -- 14

Zaro -- 14

Senka -- 14

So, barring any "compelling" evidence, I could go with a NAN or hockeynut vote.

[dagny]

Where did I get moded?

Ahem.... enough bickering.

Remember what I said about HAVING FUN?!

You WILL have FUN in this forum, and you'll like it!

I'm trying... I just don't understand why it's wrong to have a dissenting opinion about the "slow" rps. I thought I pointing out pretty valid things about this game not being anyone's life priority and that 6 hours is pretty easy for someone in college to sleep through after a night of drinking or for someone to not be around if they have to head out unexpectedly.

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA la la la la la la la la la la la la.....

I can't hear you, I'm spinning in circles with my fingers in my ears.... having fun!

little dizzy now

I moded you here.

Spoiler:

LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA la la la la la la la la la la la la.....

[Hockeynut!]

Lowest amount of posts in thread -

NAN -- 11
Hockeynut -- 11
canaan -- 13
Loney -- 13
slappy -- 14
Zaro -- 14
Senka -- 14

As I mentioned, if you want to get rid of me to get the ball rolling, I'm fine with that. My reasons for not posting are simple - I don't know who is good or who is bad and posting just to get my post count up seems silly. Throwing someone under the bus when I have no real ideas who is good or bad seems even more silly.

BTW, unpin bhaw

I've given my reasons for not posting much and I'm just a regular player so getting rid of me won't hurt, but it won't really help either. Should we hear what NAN, Canaan, Troy and the others have to say?

[jaysmiter]

jays - see our convo... it doesn't make sense to say i'm damaging the village then say that i'm not now but that's still why people should vote for me

Well, the first part may be true, but at no point have I said people should vote for you...at all. I said I was doing it for my own reasons never trying to convince anyone else...the fact that you keep hanging onto this and bringing it up when I have explained myself multiple times is just odd and unnecessary. And, yes, a bit confusing to the village...dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

God, typing this much on a cellphone sucks.

Well, voting for someone implies that you are trying to get someone voted out... I don't get people who claim they are voting for someone but don't want others to follow them... that makes no sense at all. I brought it up because you made the claim, I asked you about it, you backed off and said it's probably not logical yet still think it's the best option (for you). And I never asked you to re-explain yourself, but clearly that's implied as well since I put your name out there. If you claim your strategy for this vote isn't based in anything, why question mine which at least has some basis?

Did I vote for you this round?

It's a simple question with a simple answer: No.

I said that I, personally, would like to vote for you or Senka, but wasn't opposed to voting for others based on other evidence. And what did you do? You came out all butthurt and defensive because I said I didn't like your playing style and how confusing you are to the village. Then you have proceeded to be confusing to the village by continually putting words in mine and dagny's mouth and posting like 30 times in the past 36 hours.

My reasoning isn't totally sensible, no...I just can't stand your playing style and how crazy Senka gets. Being at the end of the game with Senka and watching you at the end of the game, having you two around late isn't beneficial to the village. That's just my opinion. If you want to cry about it, cry about it.

So, barring you putting more words in my mouth and being not entirely honest about MY voting AND someone else quoting you and believing you, I'm done talking with you about this. My thoughts are out there, no need to keep harping on them...

[bhaw]

so voting for people you don't like IS somehow beneficial, regardless of how they've played in the particular game you want to vote them out in? k... got it. we should all abandon strategy and just vote for the people we don't like how they've played in the past (even if that was only 1 game).

You're the one that seems to be butt hurt that I called you on this. I'm not crying about anything... at least I'm being reasonable and not saying you aren't hurting the village this game but I want to vote for you because you are hurting the village.

Senka has all of 11 posts... yup, that's super confusing.

I haven't put any words in your mouth... I've quoted the posts where you've said this stuff.

[jaysmiter]

so voting for people you don't like IS somehow beneficial, regardless of how they've played in the particular game you want to vote them out in? k... got it. we should all abandon strategy and just vote for the people we don't like how they've played in the past (even if that was only 1 game).

You're the one that seems to be butt hurt that I called you on this. I'm not crying about anything... at least I'm being reasonable and not saying you aren't hurting the village this game but I want to vote for you because you are hurting the village.

Senka has all of 11 posts... yup, that's super confusing.

I haven't put any words in your mouth... I've quoted the posts where you've said this stuff.

And Senka is usually much, much more active...ding ding I think we're on to something here. Glad it took you this long to figure that out.

[bhaw]

so voting for people you don't like IS somehow beneficial, regardless of how they've played in the particular game you want to vote them out in? k... got it. we should all abandon strategy and just vote for the people we don't like how they've played in the past (even if that was only 1 game).

You're the one that seems to be butt hurt that I called you on this. I'm not crying about anything... at least I'm being reasonable and not saying you aren't hurting the village this game but I want to vote for you because you are hurting the village.

Senka has all of 11 posts... yup, that's super confusing.

I haven't put any words in your mouth... I've quoted the posts where you've said this stuff.

And Senka is usually much, much more active...ding ding I think we're on to something here. Glad it took you this long to figure that out.

If this is what you were trying to get at the last 24 hours, why didn't you say it? You said he's confusing, not that he wasn't posting much, and that's why you would want to vote for him.

[jaysmiter]

I wasn't necessarily trying to say that from the start, considering I didn't do any kind of post counting. I was, however, trying to glean whatever information I could from my opinions of the two of you.

So...we have some info on him now. He's usually very active and confusing and now he's not posting.

[Malkamaniac]

If you guys are talking about Senka, I compare him to the absolute dark horse of every game. You're never able to get a good read, and it's often frustrating, he's a highly skilled player ala a few games ago where he played the exact same way and came out on top bad.

[MWB]

Ok, I had time to go through and count the posts. Though, after doing that, I see we have pretty good participation. It's not like there's anyone with, like, 2 posts, or anything.

That's why I said this was a problematic position in my last post. There aren't inactive people.

But, I took the time to count, so here goes:

Lowest amount of posts in thread -

NAN -- 11

Hockeynut -- 11

canaan -- 13

Loney -- 13

slappy -- 14

Zaro -- 14

Senka -- 14

So, barring any "compelling" evidence, I could go with a NAN or hockeynut vote.

Really? You want to go with the two people that have two or three less posts than other people? I could see if they only made one or two posts, but your going after people who have made a decent number of posts. And at least for NAN, someone who is usually a thoughtful contributor. This goes against what you usually say.

I'm hesitant to say this, but I'm in agreement with bhaw on this. I've placed a vote for redwill, but I could go with dagny based on inconsistencies.

[Senka]

Ive actually been following the thread a bunch. I have posted when Ive needed to, but not really much else. I feel like when ive been on to look, the game has been slowed at the time... I havent had much class this week with all the snow, so morning have been spent sleeping in

unpin Canaan, Pin jays

[jaysmiter]

So...both Senka and bhaw have declared me a suspect (Senka even voting for me) because I called them out...SHOCK

[jaysmiter]

Really? You want to go with the two people that have two or three less posts than other people? I could see if they only made one or two posts, but your going after people who have made a decent number of posts. And at least for NAN, someone who is usually a thoughtful contributor. This goes against what you usually say.

I'm hesitant to say this, but I'm in agreement with bhaw on this. I've placed a vote for redwill, but I could go with dagny based on inconsistencies.

Sadly, I can agree with agreeing with bhaw. dagny's just not adding up right. I know that she was "moving" yesterday, but after her crusade about not locking the thread for the weekend and then her minimum, inconsistent participation...things just aren't adding up.

Right now, my top two are Senka and dagny, and those are legit suspects currently. I'd vote for bhaw, but that's because I just don't like him

Senka because his lack of posting then posting when called on it to immediately vote for the person that called him on it...

dagny because of her inconsistencies and the mac/corvi kills, both WCW kills, both people dagny would target.

[dagny]

Ok, I had time to go through and count the posts. Though, after doing that, I see we have pretty good participation. It's not like there's anyone with, like, 2 posts, or anything.

That's why I said this was a problematic position in my last post. There aren't inactive people.

But, I took the time to count, so here goes:

Lowest amount of posts in thread -

NAN -- 11

Hockeynut -- 11

canaan -- 13

Loney -- 13

slappy -- 14

Zaro -- 14

Senka -- 14

So, barring any "compelling" evidence, I could go with a NAN or hockeynut vote.

Really? You want to go with the two people that have two or three less posts than other people? I could see if they only made one or two posts, but your going after people who have made a decent number of posts. And at least for NAN, someone who is usually a thoughtful contributor. This goes against what you usually say.

I'm hesitant to say this, but I'm in agreement with bhaw on this. I've placed a vote for redwill, but I could go with dagny based on inconsistencies.

I promised myself that, barring anything concrete to go on, I would stick with voting for the least active people this game, in the early phases. We always say we're going to do this, but we never do.

When I took my notes, that's what I was focusing on. Everything about what I wrote down then has changed, including a good amount of bad guys being eliminated. What I wrote then, is moot now.

I've missed the previous votes, so I haven't had the chance to vote the way I wanted to.

Right now, I have no concrete suspicions, so I went with what I promised myself. However, as I stated, it showed me that most people are participating. In sticking with what I promised myself, I'm willing to vote for Senka or NAN.

I'm slowly finding myself open to a redwill vote, which I've really held back on because I don't want to be retaliatory. However, the way he's posting, the attitude, and some of what bhaw pointed out, are at least something, no matter how minute, to go on, besides low post count in the thread.