It's cool, I'll take care of things tonight when you go. For now, we can focus on talking with them and seeing if we can find out anything.
It's also possible that everyone could want to focus on the first night's clues, which means we would face ousting again. It doesn't happen often, but it's worth keeping in mind.
There may be a wolf left in our clue, but there is definitely a wolf in the other clue. I'd hope that would be enough for people to realize that it's too early to revisit old ground, although of course I'm not going to take anything for granted.
I'd rather wait too, since I don't want to get Rika ousted if she's a sheep. But other people might see it as assuring that at least one wolf is ousted, since they're even less sure of if they got a wolf or not. But at the same time, if Rika IS a wolf, I doubt the wolves would push to vote from the first clue, since it's equally likely that Rika would get voted out as it would be for us to get voted out.
we could also take this time to find someone trustworthy from the remaining people who haven't been in a clue. Right now, we have five teams not used in a clue, and only one of them is a wolf team. If we can find someone that we're sure is a sheep team, we can talk privately with them and see what they think.
It wouldn't even assure that they got a wolf out unless they either took a third vote to clean out the last team from the clue, or the last standing were eaten. I can see someone arguing for it, but it seems like a horrible move to make unless there's a clear reason to suspect there's still a wolf left, and not just a vague uncertainty as there is now.
I like the idea of finding someone trustworthy, though that leaves the question of who.
No, see, if two days pass and we haven't gotten a wolf yet, the shepherd will give a warning. That's how we can know if we get a wolf if we focus on only the first group: if there's no warning, we know we got the wolf, and if there is a warning we know the last person is a wolf.
I'm not completely sure, but I think Cesare and Ash might be good people to talk to. They seem to know what they're doing.
Oh, I understood that much, I just meant that it would be idiocy to return to the clue now rather than later.
I don't know Ash well, but Cesare is definitely smart. Even if we're not sure of their intentions yet, I'd be interested to know what their thoughts are.
Yeah, there's going to be at least one clear person today, once we get the clue. The problem is they'll probably be eaten tonight, and everyone will want to talk with them.
- either way, dinner's about to come out of the oven, so if you get back to this before I do and you think we should do it, go ahead and take care of it without me!
You know what? Just ignore him. Ultimately it's our vote, we have to decide for ourselves. Getting threatened into voting one specific way isn't the right way to play this game.
Speaking of votes, what are your thoughts about how we vote?
no subject
Date: 2012-02-11 11:51 pm (UTC)It's also possible that everyone could want to focus on the first night's clues, which means we would face ousting again. It doesn't happen often, but it's worth keeping in mind.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 12:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 12:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 12:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 12:35 am (UTC)we could also take this time to find someone trustworthy from the remaining people who haven't been in a clue. Right now, we have five teams not used in a clue, and only one of them is a wolf team. If we can find someone that we're sure is a sheep team, we can talk privately with them and see what they think.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 12:42 am (UTC)I like the idea of finding someone trustworthy, though that leaves the question of who.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 12:53 am (UTC)I'm not completely sure, but I think Cesare and Ash might be good people to talk to. They seem to know what they're doing.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 12:54 am (UTC)I don't know Ash well, but Cesare is definitely smart. Even if we're not sure of their intentions yet, I'd be interested to know what their thoughts are.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 01:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 01:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 03:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 03:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 04:13 am (UTC)Also the people we were talking to got eaten. At least we were right about them being sheep, huh?
no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 04:16 am (UTC)With four teams left who haven't been in a clue, it'll be easy to pick out at least one safe one with another clue.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 04:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 08:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 08:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 12:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 12:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 01:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 01:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 01:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 02:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 02:22 am (UTC)Are we going to take them up on how we place our vote, or are we rejecting it?
no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 02:24 am (UTC)Speaking of votes, what are your thoughts about how we vote?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:sob work changing my work days w;A;w
From:sob, the class I'm computerless for is tuesday...
From:Then we'll just have to put up the votes super-early I guess sob
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:omg i can tag from my kindle o_o
From: