kentucky_mcgiygas: (Clash of the titans)
Kentucky McGiygas ([personal profile] kentucky_mcgiygas) wrote in [community profile] the_newlydead_game2017-03-17 07:04 pm
Entry tags:

Day 7

Today we have something exciting for you, Mackentuckyfuckians! This is going to be a D-D-D-DOUBLE ROUND! That means each of you get TWO VOTES for the price of one! They can't be for the same person!

As for our immunity challenge, it's a game some of you may have heard of - Never Have I Ever! And in the spirit of McDouble Day, we're going to be awarding TWO immunities this week! DETAILS INSIDE!

((Vote here!
Game navigation
Private posts
Character Status

PLOT-RELATED THREADS:

Hanzo leads the voting discussion
Ronald makes an announcement))

[personal profile] dragonsated 2017-03-18 03:32 am (UTC)(link)
[Hanzo doesn't care about participating in the drinking game. Eventually, however, he'll stop his sulking to interrupt.]

If it has not all escaped your notice, the rules of this round have changed. In light of this, we should discuss strategy before we grow too occupied with the immunity challenge.

Assuming we have two candidates we can all decide upon a split vote with as before, I suggest we take our second votes and simply vote for ourselves. That way, the votes remain evenly spread, and no one will be any more at risk than anyone else by stray voters.

If anyone has any thoughts, I would like to hear them.
very_good_end: (Cat Among the Pigeons)

[personal profile] very_good_end 2017-03-18 03:35 am (UTC)(link)
An elegant reasoning, Hanzo-san.

Perhaps if a tie were to be forced, it would be the same as a unanimous vote.
the_macdonald: (10)

[personal profile] the_macdonald 2017-03-18 05:29 am (UTC)(link)
[a nearby screen turns on]

Ooh, fun! If you all agree on two people, that definitely counts as unanimous! I'll allow it!

[personal profile] dragonsated 2017-03-18 02:10 pm (UTC)(link)
So we're clear: a unanimous tie would result in both being disqualified, not killed?

(no subject)

[personal profile] very_good_end - 2017-03-18 23:24 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] the_macdonald - 2017-03-18 23:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] very_good_end - 2017-03-19 01:00 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] the_macdonald - 2017-03-19 01:04 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] very_good_end - 2017-03-19 01:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] the_macdonald - 2017-03-19 01:33 (UTC) - Expand
weeabird: (7)

[personal profile] weeabird 2017-03-18 04:12 am (UTC)(link)
[High-five for the no fun squad. Except not, because no fun squad.]

The group may need some reassurance in voting for themselves, but that could work. There's been no collusion between the stray voters thus far, so the risk would be minimal.

[personal profile] dragonsated 2017-03-18 02:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes. In the earlier rounds, there would have been a high risk, but at this point we appear to have identified and removed the stray voters. Everyone voting for themselves nullifies the risk associated with an additional vote.
weeabird: (you think you're so moe don't you)

[personal profile] weeabird 2017-03-18 07:49 pm (UTC)(link)
That is the obvious rational conclusion, but if there is anything here not obviously rational, it is our fellow contestants.

[personal profile] dragonsated 2017-03-18 08:57 pm (UTC)(link)
I suppose we can hardly expect rationality from most of them, given the circumstances.

[personal profile] proficient_in_photoshop 2017-03-18 04:27 am (UTC)(link)
I think Erika's right. A unanimous vote is still unanimous. It's just twice as hard to track now.

Hmm... you really think there's a chance we just prevent elimination? We'll be stuck if nobody is eliminated at all. The goal is to get people out of here. If we tie two people, they might both go free.
Edited 2017-03-18 04:28 (UTC)

[personal profile] dragonsated 2017-03-18 02:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Given the voting behaviour exhibited so far, you are optimistic if you believe we can get an equal number of votes, unanimously, on two people. If even one person breaks the tie, the other we try to save will be killed.

[personal profile] proficient_in_photoshop 2017-03-19 05:33 am (UTC)(link)
I do understand. Although in that case, even one person not voting for themselves would be enough as well.
kayssistant: (Who moved my Swiss roll?)

[personal profile] kayssistant 2017-03-18 01:30 pm (UTC)(link)
[To Kay, that drinking game is more like a Shamrock Shake drinking game. She's clutching two empty cups.

Brace yourselves for a possible sugar rush.]

That sounds better than just trying to get two people to tie for the votes...it'll be harder to get everyone to cooperate for that.

[personal profile] dragonsated 2017-03-18 02:27 pm (UTC)(link)
Attempting a unanimous tie to save two people would leave no margin for error in votes. I do not trust everyone here to cooperate with such precision.

[Especially when some of them are on crack or just. Drinking. Nonstop.]

Have you decided whether you would like to get disqualified yet, Kay? Now that we have established you would not be asked to kill, there is little risk involved.
kayssistant: (You found a Pikachu where?)

[personal profile] kayssistant 2017-03-20 08:02 am (UTC)(link)
But what if they change their mind and switch back to what happened with Ticky Mikk?

[personal profile] dragonsated 2017-03-20 11:44 pm (UTC)(link)
Then tell them I will kill the victim in your place. As long as someone does the deed, I cannot see how they would argue with it.

(no subject)

[personal profile] kayssistant - 2017-03-21 12:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] dragonsated - 2017-03-21 13:31 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] kayssistant - 2017-03-23 13:30 (UTC) - Expand
robosb4bros: (it's my life)

[personal profile] robosb4bros 2017-03-18 07:21 pm (UTC)(link)
By "split vote," do you mean continue the trend of voting one person to safety and another to death? Because I'm curious if you've got any other convenient serial killers waiting in the wings to vote for.
weeabird: (dotard no baka)

[personal profile] weeabird 2017-03-18 08:24 pm (UTC)(link)
[tmw somebody makes a good point but you can't say anything because it's your sister]
robosb4bros: (blue monday)

[personal profile] robosb4bros 2017-03-18 08:33 pm (UTC)(link)
[how sad, sometimes people support their siblings! rarely in this family, but still]

[personal profile] dragonsated 2017-03-18 09:06 pm (UTC)(link)
The strategy we have followed thus far was what I had in mind, yes. But if there is no one immediately obvious to dispose of, we will have to choose someone ourselves, or else hope to get a unanimous vote.
robosb4bros: (veridis quo)

[personal profile] robosb4bros 2017-03-18 09:18 pm (UTC)(link)
That sounds like a hope that's never going to come to fruition.

...What happens if someone who has immunity gets second place?

[personal profile] dragonsated 2017-03-18 09:22 pm (UTC)(link)
Presumably, their life is spared. If there is someone keeping track of who the winners are in the immunity challenge, the votes could also be organised around that.

(no subject)

[personal profile] robosb4bros - 2017-03-18 21:31 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] dragonsated - 2017-03-18 22:33 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] robosb4bros - 2017-03-18 23:28 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] dragonsated - 2017-03-19 00:13 (UTC) - Expand
splashofbourbon: (Payload's stopped)

[personal profile] splashofbourbon 2017-03-18 11:35 pm (UTC)(link)
I'll go with whatever it is everyone wants to do about the whole situation.

[personal profile] dragonsated 2017-03-19 12:07 am (UTC)(link)
It is likely we will still have to vote to kill someone, even if we decide upon my strategy. Do you have any thoughts on that?
splashofbourbon: (Smarts don't it?)

[personal profile] splashofbourbon 2017-03-19 12:27 am (UTC)(link)
Ain't any different from what I've done up until now.

(no subject)

[personal profile] dragonsated - 2017-03-19 00:47 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] splashofbourbon - 2017-03-19 00:50 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] dragonsated - 2017-03-19 00:52 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] splashofbourbon - 2017-03-19 00:53 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] dragonsated - 2017-03-19 01:22 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] splashofbourbon - 2017-03-19 01:56 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] dragonsated - 2017-03-19 02:18 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] splashofbourbon - 2017-03-19 02:23 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] dragonsated - 2017-03-19 02:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] splashofbourbon - 2017-03-19 02:27 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] dragonsated - 2017-03-19 02:33 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] splashofbourbon - 2017-03-19 02:48 (UTC) - Expand