Jump to content

OrangeP47

Forum Game Masters
  • Posts

    11,352
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23
  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

Everything posted by OrangeP47

  1. From the wording of this post, it sounds like civil war doesn't just happen if there's 0% stability, but also if too many antagonistic choices are made in a row.
  2. Because the pluralist faction is still strong, and if not satiated, will begin to fight dirty.
  3. Everyone, remember the plan. Soft Pluralism. If you vote for it you will be rewarded
  4. You know what they say about people who make assumptions.
  5. I have to check out for a doctor's apointment soon, so I'll be away, but I guess I'll get this in now as a way to generate some activity. ##Nominate Killing_You
  6. I guess I better get the ball rolling early as time is running out, but why nominate KY? Convince me. I don't want Shade to have it, and I'm relatively neutral on KY, but want to limit who has access to the vault. I want to know if this train is going to take off or if I should start a different one.
  7. Maybe with this vote switching thing, the person who did it didn't actually control where it went to? There are a few ways that could happen, such as the ability flipping the vote on the soft/radical axis, or flipping it on the status quo/pluralism axis, or being entirely random. That would reduce the utility of such an ability, but it's still a thing that could happen maybe.
  8. It would be some next level strats, but maybe it was designed to fragment radicals and reformers rather than status quo and pluralism. Push all the reformers to soft pluraism when before they'd been split between SPL and SSQ, push all the radicals to RSQ when they'd previously been split or joining in on the softs because of previous diplomatic efforts. Then, it turns out, radicals outnumber reformers....
  9. Well, Sunflower definitely gave off quite the manifesto for voting radical...
  10. I find it hard to believe that nearly all the unaccounted for votes would be for RSQ, though.
  11. Really, ILTS has to be RSQ for the observed effect (RSQ winning) to have worked, realistically.
  12. Huh, when we're split up so many ways, the totals are actually pretty low.
  13. All I can think of is maybe they thought Santa was a farce and that most of us would still stack up as we'd been stacking up previously.
  14. We checked with Nodlied at some point and he said no voting from jail.
  15. Well some people seemed to have developed leanings as to what people are pretty early on. Personally I didn't know what Cat 5 was, which is why I checked him, but maybe we should go back and look at Irish's chart.
  16. It could be the same or it could be different people. In a game like this I wouldn't be surprised if the conspiracy faction was actually quite large, but not in contact with one another, similar to how Death Note Mafia went down. If someone did both though I still think it's a valid course of action for them if they're willing to go all in and maybe sacrifice their own chance to vote.
  17. If we assume that the ties had been Soft Status Quo vs Soft Pluralism, maybe someone was trying to KEEP us tied, if everyone was going to vote soft pluralism, or at least that could be the thinking of someone operating under that assumption. Maybe they discounted Ringleader Santa.
  18. I do, but as I protested last time, nominating someone or changing reform should take PP too, not just the first time you do it
×
×
  • Create New...