Tol-in-Gaurhoth CIII: Big Magic in Middle Earth Arcane Encampment (Game Thread) [Archive]

Legate of Amon Lanc

08-23-2013, 04:24 AM

The Rule of Three, Nerwen? I don't think I've heard of that one before. Does it mean that as a rule of thumb, there'll be a sorcerer in the first three posters of each game?
Not a rule of thumb, but just based on probability, I would say (especially in smaller games). I think I recall it happening very often. Usually, the WWs also feel some "moral obligation" to post (I mean, there are "unsporty" wolves as well, but I think mostly WWs are like that they don't want to purposefully abstain for a day unless they are forced to, since it'd be unfair), if they are around, in case they won't be around later. So if a WW is around in early stages of the game, I think it's more likely they post than not. Also, the earlier the post, the more banter you can write (but I guess it depends on the Wolf if he/she is a under-the-radar-substanceless-posts-posting one or if he/she prefers to write things with actual content, such WWs probably prefer to write more once the actual discussion starts).

I'm so tired of suspecting Inzil and thinking "he can't be a wolf yet again, can he?". I think he turned out to be a wolf in all three of the games I've played with him before.$
*sigh* Back at the Rule of Three, are we? The trouble with Inzil is that he is a wolf improbably often, and when he isn't he still acts in the exact same manner!
Actually, I had the same idea after reading the first post, which on first sight (before I read anything else) felt like "ha, is he behaving like a Zilwolf"? But exactly the trouble is, he hasn't been a nonzilwolf for a while, so it's hard to say. However, on second look, I don't think Zil's post is actually in any way Wolf-seeming.

Nothing struck me weird on Lottie, if so, then rather about Cop. The flip-floppy chitter-chatter, especially if any of the other ones is also a Wolf (namely, Zil), because it doesn't sound like totally useless banter, but sounds like it might have a purpose (to seem like it's banter, while talking about Wolves, or even if there were two of them, then to seem like banter while talking about packmates).

The amount of these :rolleyes: in Greenie's post seems a bit excessive; if anything disturbs me, it is actually her. But it is also the general paranoia, since we recently talked about what would it be like, once the game starts, if three of us were Wolves and only one innocent (as mentioned above, there is currently Greenie, Lommy, Kath and me in the same place). Speaking of which, Lommy seems to me the most innocentish of all the people so far.

Anyway, somebody mentioned the strategy of getting rid of Saruman first of all; clearly that is the best course. But we can't figure out (I assume) who is Saruman and who is "ordinary baddie", so the subject simply comes down to basic Wolf-hunt. Sorry, Sorcerer-hunt.

Now off to finish my breakfast and I'll check back later :)

Kath

08-23-2013, 04:27 AM

Can't believe Nogrod isn't in this game - who else is going to be so pleased at the fact that, given I am currently staying with 5 other Downers, there's no way I can forget the game has started! I'm with Lommy - there should definitely be something that prods you back to the 'Downs every week or so. :D

To the game! Admin thread says only that the number of wolves will be determined by the number of players. Given we have few players I wouldn't have thought we would have more than 3 wolves, particularly with this chance to add another to the pack later on. Presumably this will come clear in the narration though so little point worrying yet. We still need to aim to catch any wolf!

Is there any knowledge on whether double lynches might happen? I looked through the admin thread but couldn't see anything. May be me being stupid though.

I have no scary notices at the moment. But do remember to copy posts before trying to submit them just in case! (Copying now. :D )

Coppermirror

08-23-2013, 05:20 AM

Finally, more people! I'll have to go to sleep very soon, but it's a relief that people know the game is on.

As for Lottie - well, I think we've tried the "lynch Lottie on Day 1" -strategy a couple of times before...

Why would Lottie be someone who frequently gets lynched on day 1? I can't quite remember if this topic got brought up in a previous game or not.

Aren't they all wolves in about 2/3 of the games anyway? ;)

Heeeey, you are impugning my almost spotless record of innocence! Prior to this game my ratio of wolfhood was 1/4. (Now 1/5)

The only thing that's raised my eyebrows this far is Cop taking the post quoted above seriously, but that's not very much. Gosh, I wish Nogrod was here to start the serious talk for us.

It's not that I was taking it seriously per se but that it's better to talk on Day 1 and see where the conversation may go. The worst situation is if nobody says anything, after all.

By now, rule of three or no rule of three, we've had eight people posting by now, and that means there's bound to be at least one wolf who's posted, and maybe more.

Anyway, somebody mentioned the strategy of getting rid of Saruman first of all; clearly that is the best course.

I agree that that would be the ideal strategy even if there are doubts about how it would work, but actually you're the first person to propose the strategy. Earlier people were debating the merits of going for Saruman versus also going for, um, Serverman, Lord of the Code.

Nothing struck me weird on Lottie, if so, then rather about Cop. The flip-floppy chitter-chatter, especially if any of the other ones is also a Wolf (namely, Zil), because it doesn't sound like totally useless banter, but sounds like it might have a purpose (to seem like it's banter, while talking about Wolves, or even if there were two of them, then to seem like banter while talking about packmates).

Legate, could you tell me what sort of hidden talking-to-wolves conversation you think could have been hidden in the banter between me and Inzil earlier? Now, I know there is no message, and personally I can't see potential for interpreting the posts in that way either, but I'm deeply interested in what you think it could have been, in the sense that I'm wondering whether you're a sorcerer and you already know there isn't one.

satansaloser2005

08-23-2013, 06:29 AM

I put in a temporary "narration" telling you the number of sorcerers. Enjoy.

I will be at work until deadline. If you have a question, PM me and I'll check the Downs from my phone a few times during the day. If you need something urgent, please have Shasta or Boro text me.

P.S. DEPRECATE! DEPRECATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Holbytlass

08-23-2013, 06:39 AM

i have been gone long in my travels and only now return.
some are known but most aren't.

i did want to come to the village square and say hello before returning to my humble abode and unpack and think and become paranoid and....

Kath

08-23-2013, 06:52 AM

Finally, more people! I'll have to go to sleep very soon, but it's a relief that people know the game is on.

Why would Lottie be someone who frequently gets lynched on day 1? I can't quite remember if this topic got brought up in a previous game or not.

Heeeey, you are impugning my almost spotless record of innocence! Prior to this game my ratio of wolfhood was 1/4. (Now 1/5)

It's not that I was taking it seriously per se but that it's better to talk on Day 1 and see where the conversation may go. The worst situation is if nobody says anything, after all.

By now, rule of three or no rule of three, we've had eight people posting by now, and that means there's bound to be at least one wolf who's posted, and maybe more.

I agree that that would be the ideal strategy even if there are doubts about how it would work, but actually you're the first person to propose the strategy. Earlier people were debating the merits of going for Saruman versus also going for, um, Serverman, Lord of the Code.

Legate, could you tell me what sort of hidden talking-to-wolves conversation you think could have been hidden in the banter between me and Inzil earlier? Now, I know there is no message, and personally I can't see potential for interpreting the posts in that way either, but I'm deeply interested in what you think it could have been, in the sense that I'm wondering whether you're a sorcerer and you already know there isn't one.
I don't quite understand this last sentence Cop. We know there is a sorcerer surely. Either from sally's original admin thread or then definitely from her added narration. So why would Legate know that there isn't a sorcerer? Or do you mean that he knows there isn't one amongst you and Inzil - because he is the sorcerer.

Also I just spelled sorcerer wrong about three times - Aganzir had to correct me!

Nerwen

08-23-2013, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by A Little Green
As for Lottie - well, I think we've tried the "lynch Lottie on Day 1" -strategy a couple of times before...
Why would Lottie be someone who frequently gets lynched on day 1? I can't quite remember if this topic got brought up in a previous game or not.
Lottie did through a period where she got lynched early a lot. It happens. The “why” is not so easy to determine...

But I don’t really like the way Greenie just points out Lottie's track record as a default lynch– without saying what she thinks of her this time. Or the way Cop picks up on it, for that matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinlómien
Aren't they all wolves in about 2/3 of the games anyway?
Heeeey, you are impugning my almost spotless record of innocence! Prior to this game my ratio of wolfhood was 1/4. (Now 1/5)
Well, of course– you’re a sorcerer this time, right, Cop?:p
EDIT: X’d with Kath.

Nerwen

08-23-2013, 07:08 AM

Coppermirror

08-23-2013, 07:09 AM

I don't quite understand this last sentence Cop. We know there is a sorcerer surely. Either from sally's original admin thread or then definitely from her added narration. So why would Legate know that there isn't a sorcerer? Or do you mean that he knows there isn't one amongst you and Inzil - because he is the sorcerer.

Oh, sorry, I see how that could be misleading. By "one" I meant a hidden conversation about sorcerers between sorcerers such as Legate appeared to be speculating was there in the banter. So what I was wondering about was whether Legate's speculation was legitimate or whether he's a sorcerer and already knows there isn't a hidden conversation there. Which led me to want to know what Legate thought the content of such a hidden conversation might have been and where in the posts it was, as I don't understand what he could have genuinely taken as such a conversation.

Edit: crossed with Nerwen twice.

Inziladun

08-23-2013, 07:12 AM

I suppose we'll find out from the narration, but right now I don't have much better to discuss, so I might as well. Four makes some sense, but Saruman has his one-shot power as well. That might cause there to be one less, perhaps. But that said, Saruman's power to convert people is very limited in scope.

Moddess has now indicated there are three baddies, including Saruman. Was it Greenie who said not knowing the number could be a sign of innocence? Could be. Anyway, I like Greenie thus far.

Anyway, assuming four sorcerers, we have five gifted (including the lovers), and five ordos (if one can call such fine magic users ordinary!). An interesting combination.

As for the Lovers, I would guess the requirement for them to win is as usual: they both have to survive. That means they can't be counted on by either the baddies or the village. Something to keep in mind.

Now this made me think that Zil's gone through people's profiles one by one seeing who's been online when. Why don't I have any problem imagining this... :p

Nothing so time-consuming. Before I posted I saw someone uncloaked. There must be standards of decency. :D

Anyway, somebody mentioned the strategy of getting rid of Saruman first of all; clearly that is the best course. But we can't figure out (I assume) who is Saruman and who is "ordinary baddie", so the subject simply comes down to basic Wolf-hunt. Sorry, Sorcerer-hunt.

Indeed. Unless Saruman happens to be scried in the Night I don't see how s(he)'s going to be distinguishable from the other evildoers. I wonder if Saruman would show as such to the Seer anyway.

x/d with Nerwen x 2 and Cop

Thinlómien

08-23-2013, 07:18 AM

Not a rule of thumb, but just based on probability, I would say (especially in smaller games). I think I recall it happening very often. Usually, the WWs also feel some "moral obligation" to post (I mean, there are "unsporty" wolves as well, but I think mostly WWs are like that they don't want to purposefully abstain for a day unless they are forced to, since it'd be unfair), if they are around, in case they won't be around later. So if a WW is around in early stages of the game, I think it's more likely they post than not. Also, the earlier the post, the more banter you can write (but I guess it depends on the Wolf if he/she is a under-the-radar-substanceless-posts-posting one or if he/she prefers to write things with actual content, such WWs probably prefer to write more once the actual discussion starts).What? Are you actually treating the rule of three as a serious theory? That's the fishiest thing I've seen today. The rule of three is utter made-up rubbish based on probabilities. I mean, yes, if we are 14 and there are 3 wolves, it's quite likely there is a wolf among the three first posters, but the probability is no bigger than there being a wolf among any given three players - say the three first in alphabetical order (in his case A Little Green, Boro and Coppermirror). There's no point in basing any suspicions on the rule of three.

Is there any knowledge on whether double lynches might happen? I looked through the admin thread but couldn't see anything. May be me being stupid though.Since there's nothing, we can quite safely assume there are none, that has been the trend recently. But [B]alittleimpishdevilsthemoddess2005[B], what happens in the case of a tie?

Heeeey, you are impugning my almost spotless record of innocence! Prior to this game my ratio of wolfhood was 1/4. (Now 1/5)Fair enough, your wolfiness just left a strong impression on me then. The clarification about your wolfhood ratio was quite unnecessary though.

By now, rule of three or no rule of three, we've had eight people posting by now, and that means there's bound to be at least one wolf who's posted, and maybe more.Okay kids, let Lommy teach you some maths. It is probable that one or two wolves have posted by now, but they are in no means bound to have posted yet since there are six people who haven't posted yet and we have three wolves. Ergo, it's totally possible our wolves are among those who haven't still posted.

Earlier people were debating the merits of going for Saruman versus also going for, um, Serverman, Lord of the Code.:D

edit: wow, a crowd! xed with everyone after Kath

Echo

08-23-2013, 07:32 AM

Well...

everyone but me carries a presumption of guilt.

There's two here I haven't encountered before, Holbytlass and naturally, Echo. Does that mean anything? Not really.

Out of the players in this game, I likewise haven't played with Echo or Holbytlass before.
Hmmm mentioned twice only out of not being known, which is where the worst kind of fear birthed from,...(lack of knowledge). but everyone has some knowledge of the behaviors of others....except me.
i did want to come to the village square and say hello before returning to my humble abode and unpack and think and become paranoid and...
such a public display just to crawl back to your condemed squanders, what do you have to think and be paranoid about?...:eek:

Legate of Amon Lanc

08-23-2013, 07:41 AM

Legate, could you tell me what sort of hidden talking-to-wolves conversation you think could have been hidden in the banter between me and Inzil earlier? Now, I know there is no message, and personally I can't see potential for interpreting the posts in that way either, but I'm deeply interested in what you think it could have been, in the sense that I'm wondering whether you're a sorcerer and you already know there isn't one.
Nope, I said nothing about wolf-to-wolf messages. I was simply musing on the idea of the rule of Three, and (independantly of that) posing the idea whether any of those already posting sound Wolvish. I didn't mean that it sounds like you and Zil would be giving messages to each other, but simply that you sound like somebody who is posting "avoidingly" (see my post above for description), and that it would also be possible that you would be acting that way if you and Zil both were wolves. Purely theoretical thoughts, but what now actually seems fishy to me is your reaction to it. Your last post really does seem like that of a sort of "responsive" Wolf (as in, a Wolf who immediately snaps back at the moment somebody only slightly accidentally brushes it with a ten-foot pole).

Indeed. Unless Saruman happens to be scried in the Night I don't see how s(he)'s going to be distinguishable from the other evildoers. I wonder if Saruman would show as such to the Seer anyway.
Good question, maybe that is something the Mod could answer as well. Because otherwise the fact that there is a Saruman is not really of much relevance to us, or, as in, we can't do anything about it. Well, if we learned about that, we'd simply lynch him anyway, but just for the sake of knowing... But let's not get tangled into this.

What? Are you actually treating the rule of three as a serious theory? That's the fishiest thing I've seen today. The rule of three is utter made-up rubbish based on probabilities. I mean, yes, if we are 14 and there are 3 wolves, it's quite likely there is a wolf among the three first posters, but the probability is no bigger than there being a wolf among any given three players - say the three first in alphabetical order (in his case A Little Green, Boro and Coppermirror). There's no point in basing any suspicions on the rule of three.
What? No! I was saying actually the exact opposite. I was saying that it is not a rule, of of course (look at the very first sentence I said!), and cannot be treated as such (I mean, who would be so stupid to think that? Obviously, if all the Wolves are living in some faraway timezone and are still sleeping or something, then of course they won't be posting!). But I was mostly explaining and then using my experience to point out that actually WWs might very often post among the first people, and giving reasons why they might do it if they are around. Probability, that's all. And I said even nothing about first three, I was speaking about "first posters" in general (indefinite number). Simply, that it is likely there have been at least some Wolves posting up to now, and that I think (emphasis on that I only think) that Wolves tend to post early, if they are around (if they are "being sporty" and feeling the moral obligation to speak). That's all.

EDIT: x-posted with Echo, whom I guess nobody here has played with, so I am hoping to see more from her/him to get a better idea about it (anyway, I guess I won't be at least voting for a newbie on the first Day, as I believe is a custom most people here hold anyway... that doesn't mean you can't be suspected though, Echo!)

A Little Green

08-23-2013, 08:15 AM

What? No! I was saying actually the exact opposite. I was saying that it is not a rule, of of course (look at the very first sentence I said!), and cannot be treated as such (I mean, who would be so stupid to think that? Obviously, if all the Wolves are living in some faraway timezone and are still sleeping or something, then of course they won't be posting!). But I was mostly explaining and then using my experience to point out that actually WWs might very often post among the first people, and giving reasons why they might do it if they are around. Probability, that's all. And I said even nothing about first three, I was speaking about "first posters" in general (indefinite number). Simply, that it is likely there have been at least some Wolves posting up to now, and that I think (emphasis on that I only think) that Wolves tend to post early, if they are around (if they are "being sporty" and feeling the moral obligation to speak). That's all.This confuses me. You first say that the Rule of Three doesn't work, and then proceed to explain why it does work? :confused: Even your less extreme version of the Rule of Three -logic looks problematic to me. I think (or at least hope) that all players feel a moral obligation to contribute early in the game if they are around, so I don't really see how that applies to wolves more than others.
Lottie did through a period where she got lynched early a lot. It happens. The “why” is not so easy to determine...

But I don’t really like the way Greenie just points out Lottie's track record as a default lynch– without saying what she thinks of her this time. Or the way Cop picks up on it, for that matter.A random observation, if you want the honest answer. It was pretty much the first thing that occurred to me when Cop mentioned that Lottie would be his pick if he had to name a wolf among the first three posters. (As in, "Oh dear, here we go again. Haven't we seen this before?") And for the record, I think she looks fine this far.

Other than that, I'm liking Lommy this far and feeling more comfortable with Inzil than usual.

Kath

08-23-2013, 08:37 AM

A random observation, if you want the honest answer.
As opposed to an untruthful one? :rolleyes:

Greenie though, I don't think that Legate is being problematic with his explanation of the Rule of Three. That 'rule' suggests that one of the first three posters must be a wolf. Legate does not say that, but says that sometimes a bold wolf may be an early poster. Therefore one of the first three posters may be a wolf but it does not necessarily hold that they are a wolf. At least that's how I read what he is saying.

Nerwen

08-23-2013, 08:42 AM

This confuses me. You first say that the Rule of Three doesn't work, and then proceed to explain why it does work? :confused: Even your less extreme version of the Rule of Three -logic looks problematic to me. I think (or at least hope) that all players feel a moral obligation to contribute early in the game if they are around, so I don't really see how that applies to wolves more than others.
I’m confused too– but maybe he just means “if a wolf has already posted..."

Note to newbies (and others), since this is becoming an issue: the Rule of Three is just a joke, not a valid reason for suspecting anyone.

(It does have its uses– talking about it has been known to provoke some interesting reactions...)

A random observation, if you want the honest answer. It was pretty much the first thing that occurred to me when Cop mentioned that Lottie would be his pick if he had to name a wolf among the first three posters. (As in, "Oh dear, here we go again. Haven't we seen this before?") And for the record, I think she looks fine this far.
Fair enough. Coppermirror is a “she”, by the way.

EDIT: X’d with Kath.

Inziladun

08-23-2013, 09:26 AM

Note to newbies (and others), since this is becoming an issue: the Rule of Three is just a joke, not a valid reason for suspecting anyone.

(It does have its uses– talking about it has been known to provoke some interesting reactions...)

Then again, it could also have been useful to see if someone actually did try to use that as an excuse to justify a vote.

Loslote

08-23-2013, 10:33 AM

Time to get down to business. :smokin:

I feel pretty good about Cop just now. I'm a bit shaky on Greenie, but thus far leaning innocent. Her 'honest answer' specifically feels innocentish. Plus, her Rule-o'-Three squabble with Legate definitely seems like something two innocents would do rather than an innocent and a wolf. Maybe two wolves, but that'd be bold. I'm inclined to think them both innocent just now, with maybe a hesitant question mark tacked onto the end of that statement. Lommy strikes me as a little less innocent, but nothing that shoves her into 'terrifying sorcerer' territory just yet.

I have no read whatsoever on Zil, Kath or Nerwen. That's where I'll be focusing my attention now, but I do have lab work to get done (and a lab class to go to) so depending on how dense Galileo turns out to be, I might be a bit quiet toDay.

Holbytlass

08-23-2013, 11:50 AM

how 'bout voting for these confusing debaters of the "rule of three"-too bad we cant "lynch of three" :p

highly suspect
Shasta
Nerwen
Green
Boro
Steve

very suspect
Kath
Dun
Cop

much suspect
Lottie
Echo
Legate
Lommy

innocent
McCobbler

it should be plainly obvious my reasonings!!

Thinlómien

08-23-2013, 12:09 PM

What? No! I was saying actually the exact opposite. I was saying that it is not a rule, of of course (look at the very first sentence I said!), and cannot be treated as such (I mean, who would be so stupid to think that? Obviously, if all the Wolves are living in some faraway timezone and are still sleeping or something, then of course they won't be posting!). But I was mostly explaining and then using my experience to point out that actually WWs might very often post among the first people, and giving reasons why they might do it if they are around. Probability, that's all. And I said even nothing about first three, I was speaking about "first posters" in general (indefinite number). Simply, that it is likely there have been at least some Wolves posting up to now, and that I think (emphasis on that I only think) that Wolves tend to post early, if they are around (if they are "being sporty" and feeling the moral obligation to speak). That's all.But still you're advocating it all the time.

Legate does not say that, but says that sometimes a bold wolf may be an early poster. Therefore one of the first three posters may be a wolf but it does not necessarily hold that they are a wolf. At least that's how I read what he is saying.Well that's quite a useless thing to say, it' the same as saying one of the ones who haven't posted this far might be a wolf because there's a possibility a quiet wolf might not post early.

This far: Copper and Legate seem a little fishy and Nerwen a little off, while Zil and Greenie give me fairly good vibes, but I don't really have a strong opinion on anyone.

Kath

08-23-2013, 12:12 PM

Holby, I mean this in the politest way, but - what the heck?

A list post is useful in terms of seeing where your loyalties lie in future Days but with zero additional information it is really fairly unhelpful right now! You said you want to lynch people discussing 'the rule of three' but that isn't so many people and not all of them can be evil anyway, so having everyone down as suspicious with no explanation isn't great.

it should be plainly obvious my reasonings!!
Then share them!

Inziladun

08-23-2013, 12:14 PM

Good question, maybe that is something the Mod could answer as well. Because otherwise the fact that there is a Saruman is not really of much relevance to us, or, as in, we can't do anything about it. Well, if we learned about that, we'd simply lynch him anyway, but just for the sake of knowing... But let's not get tangled into this.

I'm also curious as to whether it will be clear when/if he does meet his demise, that Saruman is gone.

how 'bout voting for these confusing debaters of the "rule of three"-too bad we cant "lynch of three" :p

highly suspect
Shasta
Nerwen
Green
Boro
Steve

very suspect
Kath
Dun
Cop

much suspect
Lottie
Echo
Legate
Lommy

innocent
McCobbler

it should be plainly obvious my reasonings!!

Not to me, though, not to belabor the point, I've never played with you before and have no idea of the "way you roll".

x/d with Lommy and Kath

Kath

08-23-2013, 12:17 PM

Well that's quite a useless thing to say, it' the same as saying one of the ones who haven't posted this far might be a wolf because there's a possibility a quiet wolf might not post early.
Well that's rather my point. It was a nothingy statement, so why has it dragged up all this suspicion?

Thinlómien

08-23-2013, 12:29 PM

Well that's rather my point. It was a nothingy statement, so why has it dragged up all this suspicion?Because it doesn't make any sense to say it! It's the same as if I posted "bananas are yellow". Why would I do that? Except to maybe appear like I was saying something while I wasn't?

Legate of Amon Lanc

08-23-2013, 12:33 PM

Greenie though, I don't think that Legate is being problematic with his explanation of the Rule of Three. That 'rule' suggests that one of the first three posters must be a wolf. Legate does not say that, but says that sometimes a bold wolf may be an early poster. Therefore one of the first three posters may be a wolf but it does not necessarily hold that they are a wolf. At least that's how I read what he is saying.
Yes, practically that is what I was saying.

Time to get down to business. :smokin:

I feel pretty good about Cop just now. I'm a bit shaky on Greenie, but thus far leaning innocent. Her 'honest answer' specifically feels innocentish. Plus, her Rule-o'-Three squabble with Legate definitely seems like something two innocents would do rather than an innocent and a wolf. Maybe two wolves, but that'd be bold. I'm inclined to think them both innocent just now, with maybe a hesitant question mark tacked onto the end of that statement. Lommy strikes me as a little less innocent, but nothing that shoves her into 'terrifying sorcerer' territory just yet.

I have no read whatsoever on Zil, Kath or Nerwen. That's where I'll be focusing my attention now, but I do have lab work to get done (and a lab class to go to) so depending on how dense Galileo turns out to be, I might be a bit quiet toDay.
Hmm... for some reason, this made me a bit uncertain about Lottie, since she is practically avoiding going after those who are "in the heat" and focusing on other people, not that there is anything wrong with that per se, but I assume a Wolf might be happy to suspect people who are not in the center of attention, so that if later e.g. an innocent is lynched, the Wolf can be like "I didn't take part in this...".

But still you're advocating it all the time.
I am not advocating it and never was. Read my posts! And "all the time" is certainly overdoing it, because I mentioned it like once and then once answered to you, that's all (where I spoke about it only because you did). So I don't know what you are calling "all the time".

Then share them!
Seconded...

By the way: Kath is being almost suspiciously nice (see the first quote I used in my post, she is "moderating" the misunderstanding between me and Lommy) and asking very logical questions. Not that I have anything against it, mind you, far from it, but it just makes me incredibly paranoid when somebody is behaving in obviously too goodie and useful way without any conflict (especially if it's related to me, that makes me go incredibly paranoid).

I'll see if I am crossposting with anyone, then I'll still possibly appear (especially if I did crosspost).

EDIT: x-posted with Kath and Lommy

Kath

08-23-2013, 12:37 PM

Because it doesn't make any sense to say it! It's the same as if I posted "bananas are yellow". Why would I do that? Except to maybe appear like I was saying something while I wasn't?
Because it's Day 1? And no one has anything really worthwhile to say. If you were Nilp you'd leap on and self-vote, if you were Fea you'd appear and claim you were the wolf/cobbler/lover/Saruman. Legate often posts a flipping book so is it any wonder that sometimes parts of it are somewhat nothingy?

I just thought a mountain had been made out of a molehill. And it was a very small molehill to start with.

Thinlómien

08-23-2013, 12:39 PM

I am not advocating it and never was. Read my posts! And "all the time" is certainly overdoing it, because I mentioned it like once and then once answered to you, that's all (where I spoke about it only because you did). So I don't know what you are calling "all the time".Both times you mentioned it, you basically said the theory has some credit to it. And like I said in my previous post, it's a really useless thing to start talking about in the first place.

PS. Holby and Echo, I made an explanatory post about the nicknames on the admin thread, check it out here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685696&postcount=35)if you're confused.

Thinlómien

08-23-2013, 12:43 PM

Because it's Day 1? And no one has anything really worthwhile to say. If you were Nilp you'd leap on and self-vote, if you were Fea you'd appear and claim you were the wolf/cobbler/lover/Saruman. Legate often posts a flipping book so is it any wonder that sometimes parts of it are somewhat nothingy?That's true, but the fact that he always does that doesn't make it any less silly or fishy.

Kath

08-23-2013, 12:50 PM

That's true, but the fact that he always does that doesn't make it any less silly or fishy.
Ah now actually surely it does. Is he always a wolf? If yes then fine, he's evil, let's lynch him now. But if not, then we cannot tell that much from it, as he does it when innocent or guilty.

Aaaaanyway. This is a rather silly and unhelpful mini-argument.

Thinlómien

08-23-2013, 12:55 PM

Ah now actually surely it does. Is he always a wolf? If yes then fine, he's evil, let's lynch him now. But if not, then we cannot tell that much from it, as he does it when innocent or guilty.

Aaaaanyway. This is a rather silly and unhelpful mini-argument.
1) No. But I think he's more prone to do it when he's a wolf. Besides, I was not only saying it's suspicious, I was partly expressing my bafflement/frustration at talking nonsense.

2) Yes, it is, but it's even sillier if you take into account we're sitting in the same room RL and typing furiously at each other. :D

Coppermirror

08-23-2013, 12:55 PM

Overall impressions (unranked)

Shasta: Hasn't said a word so far. This is very concerning.
McCaber: Ditto
Eonwe: Ditto
Boro: Ditto

I regard people who haven't said anything yet with high suspicion...Of course, they're obviously not all wolves, and life is demanding and gets in the way of chances to post, but those who don't post or who show up very late aren't putting themselves at risk they way that other posters are, either toDay or toMorrow.

Echo: Has said very little. Is new, so won't be voted for toDay. They could talk more toDay with no risk of being lynched this time. Currently I have no real opinion about them. Unknown quantity.

Holbytlass: I don't remember anything about Holbytlass's style, but I do know they've been a Werewolf player for a very long time. The lack of content worries me a bit. That list with only names is enough to make the village weep. But I have no idea whether that fits Holby's usual patterns or whether there's anything sorcerous about it.

Kath: Talks about admin and rules issues. There's nothing particularly suspicious about that. She also asks for an explanation of a sentence of mine - and likewise, that doesn't look suspicious of her. Later on, she offers some clarification to Greenie about an interpretation of Legate re the rule of 3 business.

There is really nothing there that looks suspicious, but Kath is not putting herself out there much with opinions about other posters. Of course, it's hard to have a really strong opinion this early on. She could be a careful, thoughtful innocent, but equally could be a careful, cautious wolf.

Inzil: Good joke at #6! Later reminds people to turn invisible (which some people really took their time doing). At #24 he responds to discussion about the rules. The most notable thing he's said is that he feels good about Greenie.

I haven't really got a good idea about Inzilin this game yet. I'm not feeling bad about him, and he hasn't done anything to make me suspect him toDay, but I can't say I'm getting an actual good feeling about him yet.

Nerwen: Has several joking posts, and posts several helpful things in answer to questions. I feel ambivalent about her this time, but there's nothing specific that I can think of as the source of uneasy feelings, even though there are some uneasy feelings.

Lottie: Joins in the fun banter at first. At #32 she comes back with current opinions. I find it hard to draw conclusions about her from that. Will need to look again at that post and at any subsequent ones.

Greenie: She speculates about the speculation about sorcerer numbers. Nothing stands out as very suspicious there. She appeared to take my comment about Lottie seriously, but then, so did Lommy. I don't find her response to Nerwen at #28 suspicious either.

Legate: At #15 he appears to claim that my early banter comments, especially towards Inzil, could while purporting to be pure banter have a hidden purpose of "talking about Wolves" or "talking about packmates". At #27 he claims that that wasn't what he meant and that it was all a general comment about the "avoiding" feel of the banter. I'm not sure I buy that. I also think he's over-reacting to my concern about his intentions, as the situation as I believed it to be (Legate suggesting there could be hidden evil talking-to-and-about-sorcerers in the early banter, but not saying important things such as what or where) was a reasonable cause for suspicion and seeking clarification.

Although I don't trust the explanation at #27, the possibility definitely remains that Legate's wording at #15 just didn't convey exactly what he wanted it to and he's perfectly innocent. Will definitely have to keep an eye on Legate.

I don't particularly find the rule of three explanation that Legate gave to be suspicious. He posts first impressions of several people, which is a good sign. He missed some details about what people were talking about before, which suggests he wasn't reading all of the posts with extreme care. The continuing discussion with Lommy about the rule of three thing looks genuine, but is probably not especially relevant to whether he's a sorcerer.

Lommy: Nothing much of interest in her first post. She then gets on Legate's case about the rule of three thing, and I can vaguely see why, but what I don't understand is why it would be relevant to whether or not he's a sorcerer. It seems like a side issue to me.

She gets a bit pedantic about me using "bound to be" rather than "likely", but when I'd only just been pedantic myself I don't think I can complain. :p

Gives her suspicions in #34. It's good to have those, but they aren't very firm and don't come supported by reasoning, much as is the same for most people on page 1, although some inferences can be made based on one or two earlier posts. I'm unsure about Lommy.

At present there's nowhere near enough info for me to be anything but unhappy at the prospect of voting for any of the people who've spoken up so far.

As for the Lovers, I would guess the requirement for them to win is as usual: they both have to survive. That means they can't be counted on by either the baddies or the village. Something to keep in mind.

But, aren't the Lovers both counted as ordos in this game until they find each other? I would assume that means they're not on the side of the sorcerers. Er, could someone explain what the potential risk to the village is from the Lovers?

I have to go for a while now, but I'll be back.

Edit: cross-posted with Lommy, and I haven't read the past bunch of posts properly yet.

Shastanis Althreduin

08-23-2013, 12:56 PM

Hello, all. Bit busy at the moment, but will check in for real soonish. Just wanted to let people know I was alive. :)

Legate of Amon Lanc

08-23-2013, 01:05 PM

Both times you mentioned it, you basically said the theory has some credit to it. And like I said in my previous post, it's a really useless thing to start talking about in the first place.
Well, I mentioned it as one thing in my first post. It's you who started all these long complaints about it.

That's true, but the fact that he always does that doesn't make it any less silly or fishy.

Ok, I am fine with silly, but why fishy? Whatever. Enough of this, I guess, I don't find you fishy, and I think this is not very fruitful argument.

Speaking of that, I think I am still considering Cop to be most suspicious of all, but we shall see if she appears and posts more.

EDIT: x-ed with Lommy, Shasta and Cop

Inziladun

08-23-2013, 01:16 PM

I don't know what to make of the interactions between Kath, Legate, and Lommy, beyond that I think there's a reasonable chance one is evil.

But, aren't the Lovers both counted as ordos in this game until they find each other? I would assume that means they're not on the side of the sorcerers. Er, could someone explain what the potential risk to the village is from the Lovers?

If the Lovers are capable of winning independently of either the village or the baddies, they are a risk to both sides potentially. I say this because I was burned by SPM/Fea in just that way long ago. Some may recall that, though I can't for the moment remember the game's title.

Echo

08-23-2013, 01:31 PM

Because it doesn't make any sense to say it! It's the same as if I posted "bananas are yellow". Why would I do that? Except to maybe appear like I was saying something while I wasn't?

This is quite a good point, kath is suspicious with all the nonsense chatter and trying to point out that she's "innocent
". She doesn't sit right with me.
++ KATH

A Little Green

08-23-2013, 01:33 PM

Echo, you should bold your vote for it to be valid! :)

Thinlómien

08-23-2013, 01:35 PM

...since Coppermirror is bravely setting example, I should talk about something else than the rule of three and I'm going to vote soon:

Innocentish
Zil, Greenie - feel fair and don't even look foul on top of that

Neutralish
Shasta, Echo - not much to go on yet
McCaber, Eönwë, Boro - obviously no data
Holby - not sharing her reasons is quite unhelpful, but I'm not sure it makes her wolvish either
Kath - around on Day1, so should give her a pass whatever she says :p no, honestly, I don't know about her
Cop - I thought her a little fishy earlier, bu despite slight wishy-washiness I think her list post looked fairly innocent

Suspiciousish
Nerwen - too helpful for regular Nerwen, if I can say this without being offensive :p
Lottie - vaguely makes me suspicious, but to be fair she often does
Legate - I still didn't like treating the rule of three as a credible argument, he feels more like his wolf self than his innocent self and furthermore whenever I suspect him even a little and he doesn't suspect me back I get really suspicious

edit: xed with Echo and Greenillydilly

Thinlómien

08-23-2013, 01:38 PM

Because it doesn't make any sense to say it! It's the same as if I posted "bananas are yellow". Why would I do that? Except to maybe appear like I was saying something while I wasn't?This is quite a good point, kath is suspicious with all the nonsense chatter and trying to point out that she's "innocent
". She doesn't sit right with me.
++ KATH
...? I was talking about Legate in that quote, not Kath!

Inziladun

08-23-2013, 01:39 PM

This is quite a good point, kath is suspicious with all the nonsense chatter and trying to point out that she's "innocent
". She doesn't sit right with me.
++ KATH

Wait a minute, why are you voting for Kath on the basis of something she didn't even say? :confused:

Echo, you should bold your vote for it to be valid! :)

That too.

x/d with Lommy

Kath

08-23-2013, 01:39 PM

Alright, away from arguing with Lommy (however fun it is!). Onto some of these here other players.

Dun:
Here is an interesting sentence: And all must remember to use them in this case. Let us hope all come to their senses.

This in response to Cop saying: I am sure we have various spells and potions available to turn us invisible. Of course, we must bear in mind that the traitors in our midst have these means available to them as well...

So is Inzil hinting to his fellows that someone needs to get out of bed? Could perhaps be that there is a player he fears may not be around when they should be!

I guess he may also look to suspect anyone who votes for Legate, Lommy or myself as he wondered whether the 'rule of three' debate would lead to votes based around that. They wouldn't exactly be using the rule as a reason but it would have led through.

Nerwen:
Says we are likely to have four bad guys, then only lists three 'suspects'. Yes, yes I know it is all under this 'rule of three' silliness but hey, perhaps she knew full well there would only be three but hoped, as someone else mentioned, that seeming unsure of the number of wolves would suggest she was innocent.

Cop:
Not totally sure about this seeming in-game banter: We must attempt to locate the one who is possessed and those whose minds have been taken by Saruman, but what will we do to them when we catch them, and how many of them are in our midst? ...No, this is not the time. <-- It just seems a bit forced.

I do think she is overzealous in assuming there must already be a wolf in the first 8 posters given how many people there were still left to post. Even if more had posted than hadn't it doesn't mean a wolf MUST have posted yet.

Just read the epic post. I think this is pretty fair actually. I only wish there was some kind of summing up at the end so we knew more decisively who she holds to be potential wolves. While there is less ummming and aaahing in the post than many who make these lists posts obviously there are sections without much of a clear decision.

Lottie:
Plus, her Rule-o'-Three squabble with Legate definitely seems like something two innocents would do rather than an innocent and a wolf. Maybe two wolves, but that'd be bold. I'm inclined to think them both innocent just now, with maybe a hesitant question mark tacked onto the end of that statement.
Refusal to make a statement alert! But actually I more wanted to point this out to show that Lottie said she thought any squabble here would not be wolf on wolf - just so we remember it in later Days.

Will focus attention on Zil, me and Nerwen.

Greenie:
I already said I don't think Legate did flip flop within his post but that obviously is in the back of my mind about Greenie.

Little from her so far but then we have been hogging the laptops.

Legate:
Enough said here I think. I didn't think anything of the 'rule of three' discussion that has taken up most of my thought about him. I did check to make sure that in the intervening crossfire he had actually answered Cop's original question about what 'message' he had seen.

Nothing struck me weird on Lottie, if so, then rather about Cop. The flip-floppy chitter-chatter, especially if any of the other ones is also a Wolf (namely, Zil), because it doesn't sound like totally useless banter, but sounds like it might have a purpose (to seem like it's banter, while talking about Wolves, or even if there were two of them, then to seem like banter while talking about packmates).
Lommy. <-- The statement in question. Bolding mine because this is his answer to Cop asking 'what message?'.

Nope, I said nothing about wolf-to-wolf messages.

Which I would say is not entirely true, given the bit in bold.

Obviously we haven't yet seen anything from Shasta (bar turning up!), Eonwe, Boro, McCaber so ignoring them.

Echo is a pass for me toDay unless he pops up and shouts: I am a wolf!
(Just noticed his post - should I amend this to: or votes for me! :D )

Holby IS a pass, but a reluctant one. I want her to explain that list.

Now I am going to post this, look at what I have written, then draw my ideas down and vote.

Inziladun

08-23-2013, 01:41 PM

Echo is either a rushed newbie, or a nervous wolf-cub.

x/d with Kath.

Inziladun

08-23-2013, 01:44 PM

Coppermirror

08-23-2013, 01:48 PM

Overall Impressions (ranked)

Not worried about
n/a

Feeling neutral about
Inzil
Kath

Slightly suspicious of
Lottie
Lommy
Greenie
Nerwen
Holby ("confused about" might be more apt)

Middlingly suspicious of
Legate
Echo - I'm worried about the reasoning for their vote.

Red hot worry
McCaber
Boro
Eonwe
Shasta

If the Lovers are capable of winning independently of either the village or the baddies, they are a risk to both sides potentially.

I can't see anything in the admin post which suggests winning conditions for them, only that the day after they reunite there'll be no sorcerer kill. So the effect's like a perfect one-time ranger. It's a minus for the sorcerers and a plus for the village, so perhaps they're aligned to the village. I suppose there's no real way of knowing right now.

Edit: crossed since Lommy at #51

Kath

08-23-2013, 01:52 PM

Argh and I have somehow Lommy, which is ridiculous given how much we have spoken all Day! In all our debating I have not felt that she is particularly guilty, nor that she has any major vendetta against Legate.

So:

Ignoring:
Shasta
Eonwe
Boro
McCaber
Echo
Holby

Largely innocent:
Cop
Lottie
Lommy

Perhaps guilty:
Inzil ~ but more in a 'look out for him on future Days' way. I'm not sure there is anything that suspicious yet but I would want to check back with how he follows on from toDay.
Legate ~ well I would like to see his reply to what I mentioned in the other post.
Nerwen ~ it is pretty tenuous but it's something.
Greenie ~ largely from the debate we had earlier.

Vote in the next post, I want to check for any cross posting first.

Kath

08-23-2013, 01:55 PM

Boromir88

08-23-2013, 01:58 PM

Actually regarding the "Rule of 3" it's about as good of a place to start on Day 1 as anything else. There are obviously flaws with it, but it's better than a randomized "I'm saying one of the first three alphabetically listed is a sorcerer." That is a truly random grouping. Where saying one of the first three posters might be a sorcerer assumes an anxious "I want to get things started and appearing active" sorcerer in the bunch.

As far as with what there is on most Day 1s, it's a good starting point for seeing how first posters react to a "rule of three" suspicion.

Oh hi, I'm here.

Coppermirror

08-23-2013, 01:58 PM

Am I correct in assuming that there are three hours until the deadline? I'm really not confident when it comes to time zones.

Edit: cross-posted with Boro

Echo

08-23-2013, 02:00 PM

to be clear....lynch the witch ++KATH......or wolf in this matter of business.

Eönwë

08-23-2013, 02:03 PM

Ok, I'm here now.

With all the talk on the admin thread, I did not expect the game to start so soon, so today has been a bit difficult time-wise, and I only managed to get a few glimpses at the thread until now. Will post thoughts in a bit.

Coppermirror

08-23-2013, 02:03 PM

to be clear....lynch the witch ++KATH......or wolf in this matter of business.

You sound very sure about that. Could you tell us more about your reasoning?

Edit: cross-posted with Eonwe.

Kath

08-23-2013, 02:04 PM

Boro, Boro, Boro ... LOOK! I did it without a reminder this game! (And the fact that I am staying with 3 people who are also playing sooo doesn't count as a reminder.) :p

Boromir88

08-23-2013, 02:04 PM

to be clear....lynch the witch ++KATH......or wolf in this matter of business.

Well...that's direct. Nice to meet you, welcome to our community Echo.

Echo

08-23-2013, 02:04 PM

Wait a minute, why are you voting for Kath on the basis of something she didn't even say? :confused:
I miss quoted with my clumbsy fumbling,..im a blind deaf (and stupid) black smith with my hands full,....or perhaps im just saying this???:smokin:

A Little Green

08-23-2013, 02:06 PM

Greenie though, I don't think that Legate is being problematic with his explanation of the Rule of Three. That 'rule' suggests that one of the first three posters must be a wolf. Legate does not say that, but says that sometimes a bold wolf may be an early poster. Therefore one of the first three posters*may*be a wolf but it does not necessarily hold that they*are*a wolf. At least that's how I read what he is saying.Actually what he said was
I think I recall it happening very often. and
But I was mostly explaining and then using my experience to point out that actually WWs*might*very often post among the first people, and giving reasons why they might do it if they are around. Rather than "sometimes a bold wolf might", it's "wolves very often do" which is a different argument entirely. But anyway, I guess we've said enough about Legate and the Rule of Three for the moment.

Concerning the number of wolves and the speculation about it:
Speaking of those who must come to their senses, my memory is strangely cloudy about the details of how the encampment is to deal with the threat we are under. We must attempt to locate the one who is possessed and those whose minds have been taken by Saruman, but what will we do to them when we catch them, and how many of them are in our midst?
That last is actually a good question– given the numbers, I’d guess we have four evil ones among us at present, but no doubt the narration will make it clear.Knowing that there are actually three, and the wolves presumably knew as much, these two might be interesting. First there's Copper, who brings it up in the first place which, as I argued before, might point to her innocence as a wolf might not have noticed that their number wasn't actually clarified on the thread. There is something forced about her tone here though so I'm not sure. Nerwen then - could be bluffing, but if she was, it's a pretty old trick and I'm not sure she'd go for it. Bleh. So much for concluding anything!

Heeeey, you are impugning my almost spotless record of innocence! Prior to this game my ratio of wolfhood was 1/4. (Now 1/5)I'm also not very comfortable with this "ratio of wolfhood" thing, especially the part in brackets. I always find it fishy when someone feels the need to underline their innocence, especially when under no suspicion at all.

EDIT: x-ed since Copper's Overall Impressions

Boromir88

08-23-2013, 02:06 PM

Boro, Boro, Boro ... LOOK! I did it without a reminder this game! (And the fact that I am staying with 3 people who are also playing sooo doesn't count as a reminder.) :p

KATH KATH KATH! Hi...woah it's been a long time. Too long. Maybe too long that you forgot how forgetful you usually are about appearing in these villages? :p

Inziladun

08-23-2013, 02:06 PM

Am I correct in assuming that there are three hours until the deadline? I'm really not confident when it comes to time zones.

DL is slightly less than 2 hours, now.

I miss quoted with my clumbsy fumbling,..im a blind deaf (and stupid) black smith with my hands full,....or perhaps im just saying this???:smokin:

And I thought I was good at being confusing. :rolleyes:

x/d with Greenie and Boro

Loslote

08-23-2013, 02:06 PM

Lottie:
Refusal to make a statement alert!

Oh, honey, I never commit to solid statements! I'm a philosophy major. ;)

Seriously, though, this post just made me rather uneasy about her. A lot of the reasoning seems forced, almost like she's trying to suspect people even though she knows they can't be sorcerers. It could just be Day-1 lack of proper suspicions and trying to get traction, but it doesn't sit well with me.

EDIT: xed since Cop's #57...whoops

Thinlómien

08-23-2013, 02:10 PM

Argh and I have somehow Lommy, which is ridiculousWhat is this? First you forget me, then you forget the verb from my sentence? Outrageous! :eek:

Great to see Boro and Eönwë. A pity to go now that stuff starts happening, but I should slooowly start going.

Here we go:

++Legate

The combination of vague points against him and a vague bad gut feeling is the best bet I've got this far.

edit: xed with several

Inziladun

08-23-2013, 02:15 PM

Here we go:

++Legate

The combination of vague points against him and a vague bad gut feeling is the best bet I've got this far.

Hm. As I write this I'm listening to Sibelius's Concerto for Violin and Orchestra Op. 47. Is that a sign to "follow the Finn? ;)

Legate of Amon Lanc

08-23-2013, 02:16 PM

Short (emphasis on "short"! In the terms of Legate of Amon Lanc's notion of normal length of posts, of course. Look, two sentences! Three.)

Very innocent:
Kath - also very helpful. Almost suspiciously so, but I mean, that isn't a good reason for suspicion, right? Let's see what she does in the future.

Nothing particularly suspicious:
Lommy - looks like normal Lommy to me
Nerwen - looks like normal Nerwen to me

Uncertain:
Inzil - he doesn't do anything suspicious, but just does not give the "at easy" feel I might have with some others

Fishy, with weird explanation about their votes:
Holby
Echo - gets a newbie pass for Day 1, though.

Something fishy about:
Coppermirror - like I said, the sort of wannabe-banter posting in the beginning and somewhat touchy response make her flash with warning lights in my eyes (and theoretically also her later posts could contain balanced suspicions cast on other people, the sort of "hit and run" or inconclusive suspicions might benefit a Wolf). In any case at least worth watching, possible vote-candidate for me.
Lottie - a bit suspicious because of her possible "avoidance of the heat", but there is not so much to judge her based on just that
Greenie - her sort of balanced walking among posts and the excessive use of rolleyes in the start seemed really awkward to me, but the thing is more like a gut-feeling than an actual suspicion, so probably not having any merit as of now (I'll see if she has posted anything meanwhile)

No idea about:
Steve
Boro
Shasta
McCaber

EDIT: x-ed with about a million people since Cop's list

Coppermirror

08-23-2013, 02:22 PM

There is something forced about her tone here though so I'm not sure.

Well, yes. I wasn't using contractions and was trying to stay mostly in-character despite the lack of opening narration. My tone looks a bit forced to me there too.

I'm also not very comfortable with this "ratio of wolfhood" thing, especially the part in brackets. I always find it fishy when someone feels the need to underline their innocence, especially when under no suspicion at all.

I was being pedantic. Someone says I'm a wolf 2/3 of the time, in jest, and I am compelled to correct them and give them the actual amount, also in jest but also as a pedant, despite being aware it might look a bit off. It's not as if previous stats are relevant to this game anyway, assuming roles were assigned at random.

Your points are reasonable ones that I might have made myself, but I'm at a loss for whether that does anything to make you look better or worse, since evil folks can be perfectly reasonable. :smokin: No, on second thoughts it makes you look better.

Edit: crossed since Lottie at #71, probably.

A Little Green

08-23-2013, 02:23 PM

A quick list!

Shasta - Need to see more of him!
Kath - Witch or no, I feel fairly good about Kath. She has shrewd points and I think she seems more cautious when she's a wolf.
Dun - Not as bad vibes as usual!
Nerwen - Not sure what to think about her guessing at four wolves, but I don't agree with Kath that her list of three connects to this in any way.
Cop - Seems relatively fishy (see my previous post) but she also gives innocentish vibes so I don't know.
McCobbler - Who?
Lottie - Half innocentish, half under the radar.
Holbytlass - What?
Echo - WHAT?
Boro - Hello!
Legate - Enough said. (Although - suspecting me for excessive use of rolleyes? Honestly?)
Lommy - Like what I see this far.
Steve - Hello Steve!

EDIT: x-ed with Copper

Coppermirror

08-23-2013, 02:26 PM

Vote tally so far

Kath -> Nerwen
Echo-> Kath
Lommy -> Legate

Thinlómien

08-23-2013, 02:29 PM

Legate of Amon Lanc

08-23-2013, 02:35 PM

Well then.

++ NERWEN

Reasoning reminder: Says we are likely to have four bad guys, then only lists three 'suspects'. Yes, yes I know it is all under this 'rule of three' silliness but hey, perhaps she knew full well there would only be three but hoped, as someone else mentioned, that seeming unsure of the number of wolves would suggest she was innocent.
Okay, that's actually a point to consider. Although personally I am not sure if I'd use it as sole reasoning (too random), but I'd like to actually hear if Nerwen has anything to respond to that.

to be clear....lynch the witch ++KATH......or wolf in this matter of business.
Well, any more reasoning, or do you know more than we do? If you do, then at this rate you might just as well say so.

Legate ~ well I would like to see his reply to what I mentioned in the other post.
I didn't realise there was a question. But, to clarify then,
I did check to make sure that in the intervening crossfire he had actually answered Cop's original question about what 'message' he had seen.

Nothing struck me weird on Lottie, if so, then rather about Cop. The flip-floppy chitter-chatter, especially if any of the other ones is also a Wolf (namely, Zil), because it doesn't sound like totally useless banter, but sounds like it might have a purpose (to seem like it's banter, while talking about Wolves, or even if there were two of them, then to seem like banter while talking about packmates).
Lommy. <-- The statement in question. Bolding mine because this is his answer to Cop asking 'what message?'.

Nope, I said nothing about wolf-to-wolf messages.

Which I would say is not entirely true, given the bit in bold.
It isn't wolf-to-wolf, it's wolf-about-wolf. Cop talked about what I said first of all like I was talking about messages from one wolf to another. While I was talking about Wolves who want to speak (or have to speak) about other, and are doing it in the way so that it does not look like they are excessively defending them, but also not that they are bringing too much attention to them.

Probably again x-posted with some... but going to vote soon.

A Little Green

08-23-2013, 02:35 PM

Well, yes. I wasn't using contractions and was trying to stay mostly in-character despite the lack of opening narration. My tone looks a bit forced to me there too.
I was being pedantic. Someone says I'm a wolf 2/3 of the time, in jest, and I am compelled to correct them and give them the actual amount, also in jest but also as a pedant, despite being aware it might look a bit off. It's not as if previous stats are relevant to this game anyway, assuming roles were assigned at random.

Your points are reasonable ones that I might have made myself, but I'm at a loss for whether that does anything to make you look better or worse, since evil folks can be perfectly reasonable. No, on second thoughts it makes you look better.Coppermirror??!! Kind of wish I hadn't voted yet now, because that last post (#75) was positively weird. Your own tone seems forced to you too, huh? That's apologetic if I've ever seen anything apologetic in my life.Agreeing with Lommy here - what? While I appreciate it that someone doesn't react over-defensively when suspected, this is a bit too nice already. And, you know, it almost works, because I feel bad voting you now since you take it so constructively and act so nicely. Honestly though, that's too much.

++ Coppermirror

EDIT: x-ed with Leggity-leggings

Coppermirror

08-23-2013, 02:38 PM

Coppermirror??!! Kind of wish I hadn't voted yet now, because that last post (#75) was positively weird. Your own tone seems forced to you too, huh? That's apologetic if I've ever seen anything apologetic in my life.

Hmm? If I think that someone is right about their impression of a post (that is, that the tone sounds a bit forced) then I don't see why I shouldn't say so. If I can see how someone reached their conclusion, that's useful for me when evaluating whether their thought process was innocent or evil. In this case, I thought that Greenie was more likely to be innocent after that.

Edit: crossed since Lommy at #78.

Legate of Amon Lanc

08-23-2013, 02:42 PM

Well, yes. I wasn't using contractions and was trying to stay mostly in-character despite the lack of opening narration. My tone looks a bit forced to me there too.
Great. Now this makes me want to reevaluate on Cop, because what kind of Wolf would post something like that? Well, possibly a frustrated Wolf who suddenly realised she wants to appear innocent. But seriously speaking, I can see this being an innocent's realisation that her earlier posts seem forced.

Well, now that forces me to think still about other options of vote besides Cop... but I am not sure. One other option would be Echo just because of the vote out of the blue, or Holby for similarly awkward reasoning, but I think they could both get a newbie, resp. long-time-no-see-player pass... but I don't know. Okay, vote coming in a minute. I have to decide.

Inziladun

08-23-2013, 02:43 PM

You lot sure don't make it easy on Day 1, do you?

I'm back and forth trying to decide whether I think Kath or Legate seems dodgy, then there's Lottie, who seems to be looking for a reason to suspect Kath. It mainly looks odd in light of Echo's very strange vote, though.

x/d with Legate

Shastanis Althreduin

08-23-2013, 02:45 PM

Argh. Something's come up and I'm not going to be able to spend the time I'd like reading what's happened today.

Moddess Sally, I abstain from voting today.

Inziladun

08-23-2013, 02:45 PM

I can't bring myself to vote for Echo or Holby, due to first-time and long-time away considerations. Both have been downright bizarre up to this point, though.

x/d with Shasta

Coppermirror

08-23-2013, 02:47 PM

Agreeing with Lommy here - what? While I appreciate it that someone doesn't react over-defensively when suspected, this is a bit too nice already. And, you know, it almost works, because I feel bad voting you now since you take it so constructively and act so nicely. Honestly though, that's too much.

++ Coppermirror

*eyebrow raise*

I was taking it well because I could see how you got that impression and I thought I could have reached that conclusion myself. Earlier on, you'll see that I didn't take Legate's suspicion so well, because I think his reasoning has serious flaws.

Now I have to work out whether you were an innocent jumping on a small thing over-excitedly, or a sorcerer looking for an opening. Lommy thought it was bad too, and Legate is certainly on the warpath.

Edit: Or maybe not! I'm confused now. Crossed since Legate's last.

Legate of Amon Lanc

08-23-2013, 02:49 PM

P.S. And I wanted to say already two posts ago, and keep forgetting that, that Greenie's later posts make me think she is acting quite innocentish in the end.

Bah, and okay, I am not now 100% sure about it, but it is still probably my biggest suspect:

++Coppermirror

That's all folks.

EDIT: xed since my last. But good Night.

Loslote

08-23-2013, 02:53 PM

*eyebrow raise*

I was taking it well because I could see how you got that impression and I thought I could have reached that conclusion myself. Earlier on, you'll see that I didn't take Legate's suspicion so well, because I think his reasoning has serious flaws.

Now I have to work out whether you were an innocent jumping on a small thing over-excitedly, or a sorcerer looking for an opening. Lommy thought it was bad too, and Legate is certainly on the warpath.

Edit: Or maybe not! I'm confused now. Crossed since Legate's last.

I think your reaction here is wonderfully innocent, and I'm pretty okay with your first Controversial Post. At this point, I'm fairly certain you won't kill me in my sleep.

Legate's reaction to the Cop Controversy is also interesting - he doesn't jump on it as further reasoning to vote you, which could speak well for his non-sorcererarity, but he's experienced and might be wary of jumping on a bandwagon - though if that's the case, he wound up voting for you anyway, so I'm leaning innocentish on him.

Inziladun

08-23-2013, 03:08 PM

Legate's reaction to the Cop Controversy is also interesting - he doesn't jump on it as further reasoning to vote you, which could speak well for his non-sorcererarity, but he's experienced and might be wary of jumping on a bandwagon - though if that's the case, he wound up voting for you anyway, so I'm leaning innocentish on him.

Maybe it's just the end of the workday and week, but I find this confusing.

Anyway I should probably go ahead and vote, since I'm about to leave and don't know if I'll be able to make it back before DL.

++Lottie

A vague uneasy feeling, coupled with the apparent doublespeak above, and a forced-feeling suspicion of Kath.

Coppermirror

08-23-2013, 03:10 PM

Vote tally so far

Kath -> Nerwen
Echo-> Kath
Lommy -> Legate
Greenie -> Coppermirror
Legate -> Coppermirror (2)

Yet to vote:
Boro
Steve
Lottie
Inzil
McCaber
Nerwen
Holby
Coppermirror

Not voting: Shasta

I'm not sure who to vote for yet. Legate said some things earlier that really didn't make sense to me at all, but the question is whether the intent was innocent or evil. The fact he's leaving straight away after voting doesn't give me a good feeling.

Echo's vote looks pretty bad, but I don't think anyone will vote for them, as a first time player on their first day.

Holby's behaviour has been odd, but I know so little about them that I don't think I can place a vote.

I'm unsure about Nerwen, but I can't say it's enough to follow Kath's vote. She really hasn't done much.

There's about 50 minutes to go now, right? If I have to make a quick vote, I'll vote for Legate, but I'd like to spend a little time looking over toDay's posts again before making a firm decision.

Edit: crossed since Lottie's last.

Holbytlass

08-23-2013, 03:13 PM

Argh. Something's come up and I'm not going to be able to spend the time I'd like reading what's happened today.

Moddess Sally, I abstain from voting today.

don't like abstaining voters, esp day 1 where any reason is mostly justified because it is day 1.

the wagon jumping done here by legate and little green to lommie's suspicions of copper is unsettling. [arranging suspect list to first letter of names]

Eönwë

08-23-2013, 03:23 PM

Ok, it looks like this thorough readthrough is taking longer than I was hoping. I'm barely 2/3 through the first page, but here are some thoughts:

- The early-Day banter seems really weird toDay, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was at least one sorcerer (looks like I need to learn how to spell that word properly too!) among them. It also seems quite intermingled with some of the discussions, which I think deserve looking at:

Serverman- Very limited, all banter
Invisibility- Zil suggested it seriously, but Cop turned it into banter in a way that makes me uncomfortable.
Wolf numbers - Brought up by Coppermirror (possibly as banter?) and is then turned more serious by Nerwen. Nerwen thinks 4, Kath thinks 3, Coppermirror doubtfully suggests 4 and Greenie just said to wait for Sally's confirmation, which could be wolvishly non-committal, or just sensible.
Rule of 3 - Quite messy, and there's not much time until DL, but to me Greenie dismissing it out of hand could either be helpful to the village or a wolf trying to appear as such, and Legate's lengthy post on it seems suspicious. Since Cop apparently didn't know about it, I think Lommy's suspicion of her based on that is unfounded, but not very suspicious.

Beyond that, I'm not too keen on Legate trying to echo (non-existent) support for aiming for Saruman, when clearly that's impossible to do.

Ok, so this is really rare for me on a Day 1, but some strong suspicions have jumped out at me:

I think it's quite likely that at least one of Legate and Coppermirror is a sorcerer. Both sides of their back-and-forth about the wolf-on-wolf messages seem quite suspicious to me. It might be a bit bold for sorcerers to do this, but some early distancing is usually quite a good tactic for them.

In fact, if I were to pick a wolf-pack from the posts I've read so far, I would guess, Legate, Cop and Greenie. Greenie seems maybe a bit too clean for my liking, and if Cop and Legate are a pack, then they've got exactly the right sort of dynamic between them, with Greenie indirectly supporting Cop and Legate distancing himself from Greenie with a suspicion.

Also, on a side note, Zil seems innocent for possibly the first time ever, which worries me a lot.

Boromir88

08-23-2013, 03:39 PM

++Kath

Sorry love, as gleeful as it is to have you remember to participate in Day 1, and as much as it means I want to continue having you around as someone to bounce ideas off of...it's feeling not meant to be this time around. There's something off with you today.

Particularly post #54 where I think your points on Inzil and Lottie are off. I don't get the connection you're trying to make about Inzil reminding everyone to go invisible. And Lottie I don't think was making a non-commital statement, but more or less saying she thinks more than likely the Day 1 arguments between 2 people are innocent-on-innocent.

...and a bit of Echo said she was a witch...which made me want to ask "Did she turn you into a newt? And you got better?" But it's worth a go considering what I think we've had so far today.

Coppermirror

08-23-2013, 03:52 PM

Boro does have a point about Kath's #54, now that he points it out, but I didn't notice anything particularly suspicious in her other posts.

I can't wait to vote any longer than this, so I've got to go with the person I've got the most suspicion for based on their actions.

++Legate

Vote tally so far

Kath -> Nerwen
Echo-> Kath
Lommy -> Legate
Greenie -> Coppermirror
Legate -> Coppermirror (2)
Inzil -> Lottie
Boro -> Kath (2)
Coppermirror -> Legate (2)

Yet to vote:
Steve
Lottie
McCaber
Nerwen
Holby

Not voting: Shasta

Eönwë

08-23-2013, 03:52 PM

This end-of-Day silence is quite disconcerting.

edit: x-posted, obviously

Eönwë

08-23-2013, 03:53 PM

So, who else is around now that hasn't voted yet?

Loslote

08-23-2013, 03:53 PM

So we have a triple tie between Cop, Kath, and Legate, with no clarifying rules on tie-breakers? Well then.

++Kath

I find her far more suspicious than either Cop or Legate.

EDIT: xed with two of Steve's

Holbytlass

08-23-2013, 03:55 PM

a three way tie!?!

++LEGATE

since out of the three hes suspicious to me

Eönwë

08-23-2013, 03:56 PM

Wait, so what happens in the case of a tie?

edit: x-ed with Holby

Coppermirror

08-23-2013, 03:56 PM

Vote tally so far

Kath -> Nerwen
Echo-> Kath
Lommy -> Legate
Greenie -> Coppermirror
Legate -> Coppermirror (2)
Inzil -> Lottie
Boro -> Kath (2)
Coppermirror -> Legate (2)
Lottie -> Kath (3)
Holby -> Legate (3)

Yet to vote:
Steve
McCaber
Nerwen

Not voting: Shasta

Loslote

08-23-2013, 03:57 PM

That clears that right up. :rolleyes:

Eönwë

08-23-2013, 03:59 PM

Ok, well I haven't seen the other two around, we can't risk a tie meaning no lynch, so:

++Legate

satansaloser2005

08-23-2013, 05:58 PM

Legate is dead. He was an ordinary arcanist. Sorcerers may whisper in the dark while the rest of you....rest. A proper narration will be here tomorrow.

Casting:
Shasta
Kath
Dun
Nerwen
Cop
McCobbler
Lottie
Green
Echo
Holbytlass
Boro
Lommy
Steve

Cast aside:
Sally (moddess)
Morsul (collateral damage)
Legate (wizard)

satansaloser2005

08-24-2013, 04:20 PM

Inziladun has passed on. He was an ordinary wizard.

Echo

08-24-2013, 04:44 PM

Are we aloud to post now?
if we are i would like to say, may Inzil rest in shredded pieces.
hmmm i was mildly suspicious about him, but no matter now.

the reason i whatch my back at night
holby~ its not just me noticing her weird QUIET behavior but youd know better than me, im just a new nobody :cool:
cop~ hes either really good or really bad,...but im still havent desided which. (hopfully good)

mildly suspicious of
green~ill have to pick a better reason than the one ive got,...you dont sit right with me though. :confused:
AND everyone else.
[U]other[U]
Boro~ what can i say other than hes nice and welcomed me, i have no reason to suspect him........yet.

well ponder my list. think of me evil or think of me not,..i dont care.
but youll think of me the way you think when you think it. but if i die today or tonight you will get no further.

Coppermirror

08-24-2013, 05:18 PM

A pity about Legate. :( I can see how that happened now and I really should have known better. At least the voting yesterDay was interesting and had multiple tiebreakers. Plus, the game started with a Day phase, so there's no way the sorcerers had plans in place in advance.

And man, Inzil's killed the time he's finally innocent? We're clearly dealing with very sadistic sorcerers here. Anyway, why might Inzil have been killed? The only things which come to mind are that nobody really suspected him this time, or that they might have thought he was the Seer. Or it could be to lay a false trail to Lottie, I suppose.

I'll settle down to do an analysis of each person who posted yesterDay. This may take me a while, especially if I'm looking at past games to check on things about some people's behaviour.

Three people didn't vote yesterDay: Nerwen, Shasta, and McCaber (the latter of whom didn't show up at all as far as I can see, so I hope he knows the game is on). This is pretty bad. There are also some people who showed up relatively late and didn't get much of a chance to talk. It would be great if those people would speak up as early as possible toDay.

Are we aloud to post now?

I think so. The Day always starts when the moddess announces who was killed during the Night. Sally's just really busy at the moment.

Loslote

08-24-2013, 06:29 PM

Until further notice, everyone but me carries a presumption of guilt. Confessions will be entertained. ;)

Maybe this could have been seen as a Seer hint? For the most part, though, Zil was fairly non-committal. He certainly didn't jump in guns blazing saying "x is evil", so I think he was probably a no-trace kill.

Echo

08-24-2013, 06:56 PM

do an analysis of each person. I'm looking at past games to check on things about some people's behaviour.
as am i cop,
hobbits dont live in dirty,nasty, wet holes filled with the ends of worms,...but do holbyts?...........
:eek:

Echo

08-24-2013, 07:13 PM

i patiently wait for the bantering and finger pionting..... though its quite late but no worry i eagerly wait!!! (well not the finger pionting if its at me):rolleyes:

Nerwen

08-24-2013, 09:09 PM

Off the top of my head, I’d say Zil was a no-trace– but we’d still better worth look his posts over.

The Legate–waggon also needs inspection...

Coppermirror

08-24-2013, 09:21 PM

I hope I'm not breaking some WW taboo I don't know by saying this, but Nerwen, you're not still set to invisible on the forums. Might be a good idea to change that.

Nerwen

08-24-2013, 09:24 PM

Echo, should you happen to be still around–

Why did you vote for Kath? Lommy, whom you quoted in support of
your vote ("http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685708&postcount=49”) was talking about Legate– and your comments (“nonsense chatter and trying to point out he’s innocent”) don’t seem to apply to him either.

Nerwen

08-24-2013, 09:25 PM

I hope I'm not breaking some WW taboo I don't know by saying this, but Nerwen, you're not still set to invisible on the forums. Might be a good idea to change that.

What? I’m always invisible!

The recent troubles here must have reset my profile, or something.

Anyway, thanks for the warning.:)

Echo

08-24-2013, 09:43 PM

hmm all you need know is i dont think kath is quite important anymore,...does this have profound meaning?!,...i guess if you want it to,..but i find someone else making my skin crawl,....:eek:

Loslote

08-24-2013, 10:15 PM

Nerwen

08-24-2013, 11:42 PM

Zilalysis

#3.
Until further notice, everyone but me carries a presumption of guilt. Confessions will be entertained.

There's two here I haven't encountered before, Holbytlass and naturally, Echo. Does that mean anything? Not really.
Comment: Lottie has suggested this might have been seen as a Seer-hint. This seems a very odd thing to say, as Seers rarely just hint at their role without leaving specific clues– this is in fact likely to be counter-productive. Possibly she means, not a deliberate hint, but the unconscious result of a Seer’s natural pre-occupation with his role, which I could perhaps buy into– though only if taken in conjunction with later comments (see below).

#4. Reminds everyone to turn on Invisible mode.

#6. (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685656&postcount=6)
Banter with Coppermirror. Makes some remarks about how “all must remember to use [their powers]” and how we should hope “all come to their senses”.
Comment: Much later (see #53) Zil explains this as having referred to the invisibility issue, but I suppose the wolves could have missed this and taken it as a sign of the gifted mindset.

#24. (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685678&postcount=24)
Quoting Coppermirror (#7, #12), agrees with Greenie (#13) that Cop’s ignorance of baddie-numbers “could be” a sign of innocence. Likes Greenie. Points out that Lovers are not necessarily true friends of the village. Mentions that his reason for telling everyone to turn invisible was that he already had noticed someone wasn’t. Agrees with Legate (#15) that Saruman will be hard to distinguish from other baddies. Wonders if Saruman “will appear as such to the Seer anyway”.
Comment: Following on from my previous comments, here his apparent pre-occupation with the Seer-role might have got wolfish attention.

#31. ("http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685685&postcount=31”)
Replying to yours truly (#30), thinks it might have been useful to see if anyone used the Rule of Three to justify a vote.

#36. ("http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685691&postcount=36”)
Again following Legate (#27), is curious whether Saruman will be identified as such after death. Wants Holbytlass to explain the “obvious” reasoning behind her suspicion-list at #33.
Comment: As do many of us, I believe... Meanwhile, could his speculations about Saruman have looked like a Seer worried accidentally betraying himself, or something like that?

#48. ("http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685706&postcount=48”)
Concerned by interactions between Kath, Lommy and Legate. Thinks there’s a “reasonable chance” one is evil.

#53. ("http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685712&postcount=53”)
#53. Demands to know why Echo (#49) is voting for Kath “based on something she didn’t even say”.

#55. ("http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685714&postcount=55”)
Echo is either a rushed newbie, or a nervous wolf-cub.

#56. ("http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685715&postcount=56”)
Responding to Kath (#54), who saw his comment (#6) about all using their powers as a possible hint to fellow wolves, explains that he was still talking about people using invisibility mode.

#70. ("http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685729&postcount=70”)
Tells Coppermirror that DL is within two hours. Finds Echo “explanation” of her vote (#67) “confusing”.

#73. ("http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685732&postcount=73”)
Wonders whether to follow Lommy’s vote on Legate.
Comment: This is said is such a banter-y fashion that I actually can’t tell if he was seriously considering it.

#83. ("http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685743&postcount=83”)
You lot sure don't make it easy on Day 1, do you?

I'm back and forth trying to decide whether I think Kath or Legate seems dodgy, then there's Lottie, who seems to be looking for a reason to suspect Kath. It mainly looks odd in light of Echo's very strange vote, though.

#85. ("http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685745&postcount=85”)
I can't bring myself to vote for Echo or Holby, due to first-time and long-time away considerations. Both have been downright bizarre up to this point, though.

#89. ("http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685751&postcount=89”)
Votes Lottie, quoting her statements on Legate(#88).
Maybe it's just the end of the workday and week, but I find this confusing.

Anyway I should probably go ahead and vote, since I'm about to leave and don't know if I'll be able to make it back before DL.

++Lottie

A vague uneasy feeling, coupled with the apparent doublespeak above, and a forced-feeling suspicion of Kath.

Conclusions: I think there is a good chance that Zil’s unusual level of activity, coupled with his notably careful-yet-authoritative posting style, flagged him as a likely gifted. This, with the fact that no-one seemed to suspect him (for once!) seems to me a sufficient reason for him to have been chosen. As for whether the wolves thought him the Seer (as suggested by Lottie and Cop), rather than any other role– well, maybe, but the “Seer-hints” are tenuous, and it should, anyway, have been quite clear that if he was one, he had dreamed no villain yet. They could, of course, have been afraid he was about to do so, meaning we should probably take a closer look at those of whom he expressed suspicion– Lottie, Kath, Holbytlass and Echo.

What this was probably not: an attempt to frame Lottie (cf. Coppermirror #106). For that to work, the murdered player needs to have behaved in a way that would, in theory, make him look like a major threat to the player being framed. Preferably, he needs to have said things that could have made him look like a Seer who had dreamed her guilty already. There’s none of that in Zil’s posting.

EDIT: x’d with Echo and Lottie.

Nerwen

08-25-2013, 12:12 AM

Echo, while frustratingly (and, it seems, purposefully) vague, does come off to me at least as being simply a nervous newbie. Unless he/she (did we ever get clarification on that point?) does something glaringly eeeeeevil, I'm inclined to give him/her an extension on his/her newbie pass.
No. I mean, so far I don’t particularly see Echo as a baddie either, but she(?) shouldn’t be encouraged go on playing like this, or it’ll become a real problem.

Holby alarms me, but I get the impression that's just her style. Makes me nervous, though - it's too easy to hide under that.
Another one being confusing, apparently deliberately so. Not necessarily evil, no– but not exactly helpful, either.

Shastanis Althreduin

08-25-2013, 12:25 AM

Nerwen @ #10 is the first actual game-related post, wondering about the number of evils we have in this game. Fair question.

Nothing too interesting until this -

My initial thought was that it seems more likely that the one who first realizes we don't know the number of wolves would be an innocent than a wolf, since the wolves presumably know how many of them there are. (Captain Obvious at your service!) But then again, there's always double-bluffs, so that theory doesn't really hold water. Bleh.
It's late here, but my initial thought here was that Greenie was well aware that the number of wolves hadn't been posted by the moddess, but had elected not to say anything because... why? I can think of a couple reasons a wolf would remain silent on the number of baddies, but it's harder for me to think of reasons an innocent would.

Maybe I'm looking too hard, though. I could easily be getting rusty. x_x

The only thing that's raised my eyebrows this far is Cop taking the post quoted above seriously, but that's not very much.
I thought the same upon my first read, but Cop ended up choosing Lottie because "Inzil just can't be a wolf again..." which strikes me as (I think) Cop's brand of humor. Very dry, that one. :p

The amount of these in Greenie's post seems a bit excessive; if anything disturbs me, it is actually her.
And here we have Legate, apparently jumping at shadows? Suspecting someone for smilies?

Also this -

Anyway, somebody mentioned the strategy of getting rid of Saruman first of all; clearly that is the best course.
Actually, at the time this was posted (I'm reading as I go), no one had mentioned this strategy at all as far as I can tell. Where did you get this idea, Legate?

Ah, I see Cop also mentioned this in #17. You may have already answered this.

Moddess has now indicated there are three baddies, including Saruman. Was it Greenie who said not knowing the number could be a sign of innocence? Could be. Anyway, I like Greenie thus far.
And here we have the first place where Inzil and I have a difference of opinion. :p

What? Are you actually treating the rule of three as a serious theory? That's the fishiest thing I've seen today. The rule of three is utter made-up rubbish based on probabilities. I mean, yes, if we are 14 and there are 3 wolves, it's quite likely there is a wolf among the three first posters, but the probability is no bigger than there being a wolf among any given three players - say the three first in alphabetical order (in his case A Little Green, Boro and Coppermirror). There's no point in basing any suspicions on the rule of three.
QFT.

Holby, I mean this in the politest way, but - what the heck?

A list post is useful in terms of seeing where your loyalties lie in future Days but with zero additional information it is really fairly unhelpful right now! You said you want to lynch people discussing 'the rule of three' but that isn't so many people and not all of them can be evil anyway, so having everyone down as suspicious with no explanation isn't great.
I thought the same - I even started typing about it. Then I took a second look and figured she suspected everyone but McCaber (inside joke, perhaps?)

Because it doesn't make any sense to say it! It's the same as if I posted "bananas are yellow". Why would I do that? Except to maybe appear like I was saying something while I wasn't?
I read this statement in your voice Lommy!

Hmm... for some reason, this made me a bit uncertain about Lottie, since she is practically avoiding going after those who are "in the heat" and focusing on other people, not that there is anything wrong with that per se, but I assume a Wolf might be happy to suspect people who are not in the center of attention, so that if later e.g. an innocent is lynched, the Wolf can be like "I didn't take part in this...".
This statement pinged my radar a tad. Mostly because it's so very easy to turn around - "a Wolf might be happy to suspect people who are in the center of attention in order to push a lynch on them", etc.

Re - Lommy and Kath @ #42 and #43: I tend to fall on Lommy's side here. Just because someone is known for action A, it does not follow that action A is in and of itself unsuspicious.

Echo with the first vote at #49 - reminds me of wintywinty's first game. Still annoying.

The real thing I find interesting about it, though, is Greenie's reaction at #50 - no questioning of the random, out-of-the-blue vote as I would suspect, just a nice reminder to bold the vote :). It strikes me as incredibly odd that she didn't mention that such votes tend to be frowned upon...

Lots of posting, but nothing really eye-catching until...

Legate, at #74, and his list post. I notice no one goes beyond "fishy" and "uncertain" for him - fair enough, for Day 1, I suppose, but still rather odd in terms of who he planned on voting.

Greenie, at #76, and a delayed reaction (after other people evidenced the same reaction, how odd) -
Echo - WHAT?
Huh.

Coppermirror??!! Kind of wish I hadn't voted yet now, because that last post (#75) was positively weird. Your own tone seems forced to you too, huh? That's apologetic if I've ever seen anything apologetic in my life.
Actually, Lommy, Cop was being perfectly reasonable there, I think. Although this bit was a bit of an eyebrow-raiser -
despite being aware it might look a bit off
I honestly can't tell if the fact that she considered how saying that would make her look before posting it makes her look better or worse.

However, reading up to #87 I'm not really seeing where the sudden Cop suspicion is coming from. Greenie's vote I at least understood the reasoning behind, even if I disagree, but Legate's was plain confusing.

[Legate's reaction to the Cop Controversy is also interesting - he doesn't jump on it as further reasoning to vote you, which could speak well for his non-sorcererarity, but he's experienced and might be wary of jumping on a bandwagon - though if that's the case, he wound up voting for you anyway, so I'm leaning innocentish on him.
Huh?

don't like abstaining voters, esp day 1 where any reason is mostly justified because it is day 1.
Except that, again, I hadn't had time to read very much at all, and with nothing to go on it would have been much more likely that my vote would have been for an innocent. I didn't want a random vote by me tipping the scales in case someone else came up with something good later in the day.

Lottie's vote post at #97 makes me uneasy. The tone is almost as if she's grateful her vote choices have been narrowed down, and that's never something an innocent actively wants.

Holby, by contrast, has a much more panicky feel to it (context - Lottie's post was seven minutes before DL, Holby's was five, so both extremely close to the end of the day, but Lottie was pretty calm about the whole thing.) I would, however, like to know why Holby found Legate more suspicious than Cop or Kath. I don't thinK I remember her being suspicious of him prior.

And Eonwe casts the deciding vote for Legate over Kath. He mentions Legate as a possible wolf earlier, so no real surprises there. Definitely worth a look later though, depending on what Kath turns out to be if she dies.

Echo makes the first post of Day 2 and mentions four people in his/her post - none of which are Kath. Curiouser and curiouser.

- And that's what I've got for now. I've got to get some sleep. I'll post some more when I get home after work. Good night.

Nerwen

08-25-2013, 12:27 AM

If anyone notices my Zilalysis just got slightly longer, it’s because the site had initially edited out part of it. (Apparently, too much linking will do this at present.)

Nerwen

08-25-2013, 12:33 AM

Actually, at the time this was posted (I'm reading as I go), no one had mentioned this strategy at all as far as I can tell. Where did you get this idea, Legate?
*cough* *cough* My best beloved, Legate is, tragically, in no condition to answer you.

For the record, I believe it was something he got out of Cop’s early banter.

Nerwen

08-25-2013, 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by Greenie
My initial thought was that it seems more likely that the one who first realizes we don't know the number of wolves would be an innocent than a wolf, since the wolves presumably know how many of them there are. (Captain Obvious at your service!) But then again, there's always double-bluffs, so that theory doesn't really hold water. Bleh.
It's late here, but my initial thought here was that Greenie was well aware that the number of wolves hadn't been posted by the moddess, but had elected not to say anything because... why? I can think of a couple reasons a wolf would remain silent on the number of baddies, but it's harder for me to think of reasons an innocent would.
But this was her first post, wasn’t it?

In fact Cop (not me) first pointed out the problem very early (#7, the fifth post of the game), so there was no time for anyone to “elect to remain silent” (or to give themselves away through knowing too much). This, in turn, makes me wonder if the village really should be giving either of us “innocence points” just for having drawn attention to the fact.

A Little Green

08-25-2013, 03:34 AM

The real thing I find interesting about it, though, is Greenie's reaction at #50 - no questioning of the random, out-of-the-blue vote as I would suspect, just a nice reminder to bold the vote . It strikes me as incredibly odd that she didn't mention that such votes tend to be frowned upon...That was because I posted that in a hurry in case he meant to leave directly after voting. Regardless of whether I approve of his vote choice or the reasons (or lack thereof) behind it, it should be as valid a vote as anyone else's.
Greenie, at #76, and a delayed reaction (after other people evidenced the same reaction, how odd)That was a list post. As for why I did not react before - I did not really have much to say about him other than "WHAT??", and since - like you said - others had already said it, it would not have been very constructive to repeat the same thing without adding anything new.
And Eonwe casts the deciding vote for Legate over Kath. He mentions Legate as a possible wolf earlier, so no real surprises there. Definitely worth a look later though, depending on what Kath turns out to be if she dies.This is a good point; should one of them turn out to be a wolf, I'd look closely at the other.

I'm off to do some rereading of yesterDay and see if I discover anything of consequence.

A Little Green

08-25-2013, 04:08 AM

A couple of points from yesterDay:I'm not sure who to vote for yet. Legate said some things earlier that really didn't make sense to me at all, but the question is whether the intent was innocent or evil. The fact he's leaving straight away after voting doesn't give me a good feeling.Really? In a game without retractable votes, voting only just before you go is the sensible thing to do if you're not dead certain of your choice. Something might come up that makes you change your mind and if you've already voted it's too late. Therefore suspecting anyone for doing that looks a tad like straw-grasping to me.

the wagon jumping done here by legate and little green to lommie's suspicions of copper is unsettling. [arranging suspect list to first letter of names]Wagon-jumping on Lommy's suspicions? Both Legate and I suspected Copper before Lommy did, so I fail to see what you're talking about here.

Ok, well I haven't seen the other two around, we can't risk a tie meaning no lynch, so:

++LegateAnd to return to the earlier speculation Eonwe and Kath, this vote, while possibly Eonwolf saving his partner Kath, looks more like a genuine innocent voting in a difficult position. I'm not too worried about either of them at the moment, especially as both have given me mostly good vibes otherwise.

Thinlómien

08-25-2013, 04:15 AM

First, my apologies for the badly formatted post(s), I'm at work and using my dumbphone to play ww.

After yesterDay I've made the mental note not to vote Legate on Day1s anymore as he turns out innocent disappointingly often, however fishy his posts. When I have a computer I'll definitely look at yesterDay's votes properly, as competing bandwagons are always interesting.

As for Inzil's death, I agree with Nerwen's assessment that you can get an overall gifted vibe from his posts. Still N's zilalysis #116 struck me as a little wolvish in the way that it delves a bit too deep into wolf logic, especially what she said about wolves misinterpreting Zil's talk about invisibility.

Thinlómien

08-25-2013, 04:32 AM

To be honest, Echo looks quite innocent to me, but I will not judge until s/he explains her/himself a little more. Echo, why did you vote Kath (other than that she's a witch)?

Good to see more of Shasta, who is fishing mild aww points by talking about my lovely voice (without saying it's lovely, gah, if I could quote with this phone I'd just have quoted what he said and commented 'aww' instead of writing this silly rant). Anyway, I'm taking Shasta's mistake about Legate as an innocent blunder rather than a cheap wolvish ploy.

Echo

08-25-2013, 04:49 AM

To be honest, Echo looks quite innocent to me, but I will not judge until s/he explains her/himself a little more. Echo, why did you vote Kath (other than that she's a witch)?

at the time i thought her very suspicious,..talking about other things besides the game,...but after a second viewing of the previous posts i realized she wasnt deliberate,....unlike a certain someone being vague on purpose....whom i mentioned in my first post. but everyone seems to ignore(?) me and the harder i push the matter the closer im to my death out of suspicion of me or me having to much knowedge. but no matter no one seems to pay attention to a vague, confused newbie ....(ARGH!!!) :p

Thinlómien

08-25-2013, 05:02 AM

Echo, you mean Holbytlass? Do you have any particular reasons apart from a gut-feeling to suspect her?

Personally, I think Holby looks fairly innocent although her unexplained suspicion list yesterDay was weird to say the least.

Echo

08-25-2013, 05:16 AM

Holbytlass;685687]how 'bout voting for these confusing debaters of the "rule of three"-too bad we cant "lynch of three" :p

highly suspect
Shasta
Nerwen
Green <--------- double vowels
Boro
Steve

very suspect
Kath
Dun <--------one syllable
Cop

much suspect
Lottie
Echo <--------double syllables
Legate
Lommy

innocent
McCobbler <-----dosent fit in any of the above.

it was supost to be a joke,.... but shes posting vague things just so she cant seem suspicious or slip up.

Echo

08-25-2013, 05:24 AM

perhaps you might think my last post gives her justice that shes innocent? but i was observant enough to figure out her list. though dose not explain why she wouldnt just tell us about the list or perhaps i am wrong?....:smokin:

Holbytlass

08-25-2013, 05:49 AM

That clears that right up. :rolleyes:
:p

Coppermirror

08-25-2013, 05:55 AM

Real life's got in the way a lot toDay, so my analysis of people is going to be later than planned, but won't be at the last minute.

Wagon-jumping on Lommy's suspicions? Both Legate and I suspected Copper before Lommy did, so I fail to see what you're talking about here.

The first post where Lommy expressed some suspicion of me was #34, so are you referring to your post at #13 where you said "And as for everyone else, I always find Cop suspicious but try no to do so now unless given some reason to do so."? I'm guessing you mean something else.

In any case, I'm pretty sure that Holby was talking about your post at #80, where you said you agreed with Lommy's post at #78, and placed your vote. Your most recent post before that one was at #76, where you said you were getting both innocent and guilty vibes and so didn't know about me, so your post at #80 represented a quick swing to stronger suspicion. It looked pretty wagon-jumpy to me, but currently I still can't tell whether it was an innocent wagon-jump from you or an opportunistic one.

Boromir88

08-25-2013, 06:04 AM

I've got less time today than I was hoping to for catching up...will have to vote within the next couple hours since I'm heading into work.

I'll write up a post on Inzil and see if there's anything about why the sorcerers killed him. I was hoping to see more of Kath, but I'm not sure if that's going to happen. Others pinging on my suspicions are Lottie, Lommy, and Holby (which I'll hopefully be able to explain too)

Holbytlass

08-25-2013, 06:19 AM

Zilalysis

They could, of course, have been afraid he was about to do so, meaning we should probably take a closer look at those of whom he expressed suspicion– Lottie, Kath, Holbytlass and Echo.
ooh, good thinking-even if i'm on the list

but then they will start looking at me..buts its helpful no matter what..but i hate people looking at me..we must find sorcers and kill them..cant we just leave,again..?

What this was probably not: an attempt to frame Lottie (cf. Coppermirror #106). For that to work, the murdered player needs to have behaved in a way that would, in theory, make him look like a major threat to the player being framed. Preferably, he needs to have said things that could have made him look like a Seer who had dreamed her guilty already. There’s none of that in Zil’s posting.

is this a subtle protection from those in league?

yes, maybe if one checks out #21 and #30, could be deflection..ooh using fancy words-and i just said that..but i was agreeing

must huddle and think and look at others

Kath

08-25-2013, 07:45 AM

Just posting a couple of things that caught my eye when I read up on happenings on the thread from after I left yesterDay, then I will go and read what has been going on toDay.

Boro asked me yesterDay:
I don't get the connection you're trying to make about Inzil reminding everyone to go invisible.

It was the second part of the sentence – the part about traitors having the same means available to them. Why would he want to remind wolves to go invisible? Yes it is obviously sporting for all players to know not to be visible, but that had already been explicitly stated by Inzil in an earlier post. So why mention it AGAIN? At the time I thought maybe there was a fellow wolf in his pack who still hadn’t figured this out. Clearly I was wrong!

If I were a paranoid person, I might wonder about this in light of Inzil’s death. For here is a very handy suspicion that wolf-Boro or indeed any wolf could go back to and pick up on.

Then later Cop said:
Boro does have a point about Kath's #54, now that he points it out, but I didn't notice anything particularly suspicious in her other posts.

What point exactly? The Inzil one? If so explained above, if not please elaborate.

Kath

08-25-2013, 07:55 AM

OH! Oh I have just noticed that I am completely wrong! It was not Inzil that had that sentence about the traitors at all, it was Cop! Sorry Boro - no wonder you were confused.

Kath

08-25-2013, 07:57 AM

But, in which case, my paranoia about somebody (and I am now thinking it likely to be Cop) picking up on Boro's all but throw-away remark has grown.

Boromir88

08-25-2013, 08:08 AM

Well, I see a Zilalysis was already...dun.

I won't go linking and quoting him all over again, especially since I think Nerwen's analysis is true (and in general after reading today's posts, I feel good about Nerwen and Shasta. (nice to have you here finally :p)).

I'm from the "kill the seer right away" school of villainy...but that's also based on I'm always trying to stay upfront and loud. And even if the seer isn't hitting baddies, the more dreams the more information works against the wolves no doubt.

Although, over the years, I've also seen the folks who are quiet, lay low, and are great at avoiding eyes don't always have the seer as "priority number 1" for the first kill. If say their list of possible seers none are drawing attention to their mates, or if they think whoever the seer, caught the eye of the ranger too and thus would be protected, then the sorcerers would much rather go to get their first kill instead.

Inzil seems to fit this...no one was mentioning as a suspect, he was active, and with others throwing around more obvious gifted vibes, they thought Inzil wasn't going to be protected.

I agree with Nerwen it doesn't look like a frame of Lottie or anyone that Zil was suspecting yesterday. Her reasons why are sound.

My bad feelings on Holby are pretty much based on her post #33:

how 'bout voting for these confusing debaters of the "rule of three"-too bad we cant "lynch of three" :p

It might have been a jest and maybe an innocent would think "hey three evil sorcerers, too bad we can't lynch all three." But it doesn't come off that way...it comes off as "let's vote this group of people (those debating the rule of three) and too bad they all couldn't be lynched...which comes off...bad for Holby.

Lottie it's not any sinister looking quotes like with Holby, but several textbook looking sorcery. Kath's post #54:

Refusal to make a statement alert! But actually I more wanted to point this out to show that Lottie said she thought any squabble here would not be wolf on wolf - just so we remember it in later Days.

I thought this looked off for Kath, because I didn't think Lottie was refusing to make a statement...I mean I followed Lottie as saying she thought for the time being Legate and Lommy's argument were two innocents.

Although, I don't think I read Kath's statement clearly at first, because I overlooked the Kath just so we would remember it "in later Days." Well, Legate was innocent, so Lottie was right it wasn't wolf-on-wolf but these sort of statements where someone acts as the objective observer outside of the argument (Lottie in this case, but I've done it too).

No matter the true roles of the two arguers (2 innocents, 1 wolf 1 innocent, wolf-on-wolf) it makes Lottie look objective and reasonable. "Alright folks let's not get distracted by this, because it's probably just two innocents in a silly curfluffle." Or it's a a small defense/cover for one of Lottie's mates (Lommy). Since it turns out Legate is innocent, more than likely the matter of Lommy's role would be dropped completely.

But again, no matter Lommy's guilt/innocent it makes Lottie look like an objective observer who wasn't part of the argument...and that "I'm inclined they're both innocent" is 1 suspicious mark against Lottie.

Another is in the voting yesterday, I think it was Shasta today who said Lottie seemed almost thankful to have her choices limitted down out the end...which doesn't look innocent. You probably can't tell with my posts, but I was sitting there for the longest time debating in my head whether I had enough bad feeling to put Kath up in a tie, or would it be better to vote Cop/Legate when I wasn't as suspicious and I'm wary of DL wagons...or completely do a copout and vote for McCaber. No one ever makes Day 1 voting easy, but I agree with Shasta, Lottie seemed calm by it all. (Lottie's vote post)

So we have a triple tie between Cop, Kath, and Legate, with no clarifying rules on tie-breakers? Well then.

++Kath

I find her far more suspicious than either Cop or Legate.

And I've got to be heading out now...so it's going to be:

++Lottie

Edit: crossed with Kath, bolding names

Kath

08-25-2013, 08:37 AM

The Legate bandwagon yesterDay I thought was very silly - though I was also very surprised to find I was in the running!

The voters:
Lommy ~ well she had been arguing against his reasoning all Day so she at least had a consistent and personally reasoned reason for voting for him. That is not to say that it makes her automatically innocent. There is nothing to say that she didn't go after him for this very reason. Being the first to vote also means no automatic innocence - it's the safest place to be in the bandwagon.

Cop ~ now Cop already had 2 votes at this point so actually her vote for Legate makes sense, but in two ways. She could know she is an innocent, therefore know nothing of Legate and reasonably assume her death would be no better if not worse for the village than Legate's. Or she could know that she is a wolf, therefore know that Legate is not and therefore need to save her own skin. At this point though, she could also have voted for me and put me ahead as Boro had just given me a second vote. The choice between Legate and me then is an interesting one.

Quick recap on Cop's posts then:
#5: I am sure we have various spells and potions available to turn us invisible. Of course, we must bear in mind that the traitors in our midst have these means available to them as well...
THIS is the sentence that had me thinking, I had just wrongly attributed it to Inzil. So it is Cop perhaps who needed to remind a fellow wolf to turn invisible. I do think it more than simple banter, only because Inzil had entirely explicitly stated this already.

#7: Began the questioning of how many wolves there were. But did say ‘No, this is not the time.’

#12 Knew nothing of the ‘rule of three’ (and let us please hope we can be at the end of that ridiculous discussion now!) but seemed to take it seriously, stating she would not want to be suspicious of Inzil as usual but would instead suspect Lottie.

#17 Specifically states that she is innocent in response to a jokey comment from Lommy. Overstates the likelihood of a wolf/wolves already having posted. Lommy does later have this out with her. Questions Legate about seeing wolf to wolf communication in her conversation with Inzil – so this could be the start of her Legate suspicion.

#45 Suspicions, so here is what she said about me and Legate.
Kath: Talks about admin and rules issues. There's nothing particularly suspicious about that. She also asks for an explanation of a sentence of mine - and likewise, that doesn't look suspicious of her. Later on, she offers some clarification to Greenie about an interpretation of Legate re the rule of 3 business.

There is really nothing there that looks suspicious, but Kath is not putting herself out there much with opinions about other posters. Of course, it's hard to have a really strong opinion this early on. She could be a careful, thoughtful innocent, but equally could be a careful, cautious wolf.

Legate: At #15 he appears to claim that my early banter comments, especially towards Inzil, could while purporting to be pure banter have a hidden purpose of "talking about Wolves" or "talking about packmates". At #27 he claims that that wasn't what he meant and that it was all a general comment about the "avoiding" feel of the banter. I'm not sure I buy that. I also think he's over-reacting to my concern about his intentions, as the situation as I believed it to be (Legate suggesting there could be hidden evil talking-to-and-about-sorcerers in the early banter, but not saying important things such as what or where) was a reasonable cause for suspicion and seeking clarification.

Although I don't trust the explanation at #27, the possibility definitely remains that Legate's wording at #15 just didn't convey exactly what he wanted it to and he's perfectly innocent. Will definitely have to keep an eye on Legate.

I don't particularly find the rule of three explanation that Legate gave to be suspicious. He posts first impressions of several people, which is a good sign. He missed some details about what people were talking about before, which suggests he wasn't reading all of the posts with extreme care. The continuing discussion with Lommy about the rule of three thing looks genuine, but is probably not especially relevant to whether he's a sorcerer.
So at this point she is clearly more suspicious of Legate than of me, and has a reason separate to Lommy’s. I do agree that Legate’s comment and later explanation were a bit vague. I would suspect that he maybe did get a funny feel from the post and then poked Cop to see what would happen.

#64 Questions Echo – somebody she had stated she was concerned about.

#75 This is the post that raised suspicions in a few people as she states she thinks her own tone was forced, and also defends herself for stating she is an innocent. Yes, she is putting it across as correcting a mistaken stat, but what she has actually done is explicitly state that she is an innocent. If you’re going to do that then fair enough, but don’t then back away from it.

#81 Through her acceptance that things she did may appear suspicious, she clears Greenie of suspicion. If she was beginning to worry about ending up in the noose this would be a nice time to deflect suspicion away from a Greenie-wolf buddy.

#86 Oh, but then turns round and suggests that Greenie might actually be a wolf after all for voting for her.

#90 States that she would be likely to vote for Legate, saying his leaving right after voting is odd. Actually I would say this is all but usual behaviour! Those who vote then hang around gleefully waiting to see what happens are the ones I would worry about.

#94 Then this: Boro does have a point about Kath's #54, now that he points it out, but I didn't notice anything particularly suspicious in her other posts. Which I have already asked for clarification on, followed by a vote for Legate.

Then her first post today:
#106 A pity about Legate. I can see how that happened now and I really should have known better.
I would very much like an explanation of this sentence.

I must say that this read through does not make me feel very happy about Cop. I rather feel that she pushed at Legate quite hard, and did put him back in the running for the lynch when she voted, although her reasons were voting were at least reasoned and well supported.

Holby ~ after I had been voted into the lead for the lynch, Holby then appeared and put Legate back into the running saying: since out of the three hes suspicious to me. Had Legate in her ‘much suspect’ list, but this list was nearer the innocent end of the list than her ‘very suspect’ list which included me and Inzil. So at this point I would suggest Legate was the least suspicious to her. Later says she thinks Legate and Greenie suspicious for bandwagoning on suspicions of Cop. So I suppose that you could say Legate was her highest suspect of the three at the point that she voted. That said, given she thought the suspicion of Cop was odd she could have been trying to save a fellow Cop-wolf and at this point used suspicion of Legate to direct votes away from Cop and to Legate.

Eonwe ~ made the final decision! Brave innocent or uncaring wolf. An innocent would die either way.

This has got overly long. Posting.

satansaloser2005

08-25-2013, 08:39 AM

Well, I see a Zilalysis was already...dun.

I love you.

I'll be catching up on narrations throughout the day. Thank you all again for your patience with my stupidly busy schedule during the last few days. :)

A Little Green

08-25-2013, 08:56 AM

The first post where Lommy expressed some suspicion of me was #34, so are you referring to your post at #13 where you said "And as for everyone else, I always find Cop suspicious but try no to do so now unless given some reason to do so."? I'm guessing you mean something else.No, definitely not referring to that!
In any case, I'm pretty sure that Holby was talking about your post at #80, where you said you agreed with Lommy's post at #78, and placed your vote. Your most recent post before that one was at #76, where you said you were getting both innocent and guilty vibes and so didn't know about me, so your post at #80 represented a quick swing to stronger suspicion. It looked pretty wagon-jumpy to me, but currently I still can't tell whether it was an innocent wagon-jump from you or an opportunistic one.Ah. I'm pretty sure you're right about what she meant. Interestingly though, what you do not mention is that Lommy, too, switched quickly to stronger suspicion after your #75. The previous thing she had said about you was
Cop - I thought her a little fishy earlier, bu despite slight wishy-washiness I think her list post looked fairly innocentShe uses the past tense in talking about finding you fishy, indicating that she doesn't any longer. What I had said prior to my list post (the #76 that you mentioned) was that I found your tone forced in one post and that I found your need to underline your innocence fishy. If you look at my list at #76, you, Echo and Holby were the ones I had any issues with, and since Echo had a newbie pass and Holby a newly returned -pass, you were the one I considered voting anyway. Your #75 (which I cross-posted with) made you look very fishy instead of somewhat fishy. Lommy had the same reaction as me but posted it before I did. If that's bandwaggoning, fine.

Other than that - Boro, that was an awful pun!

Kath

08-25-2013, 09:01 AM

And then to those who voted for me:

Echo ~ jumped onto the end of mine and Lommy’s argument over Legate.
Stated: This is quite a good point, kath is suspicious with all the nonsense chatter and trying to point out that she's "innocent
". She doesn't sit right with me.
++ KATH
I would like to ask Echo where I said that I was innocent. If nowhere, then he has made up a reason for voting for me, which I do not like. If somewhere, then I would like an explanation of why doing so makes me suspicious.

This is his explanation when asked to clarify by Inzil:
I miss quoted with my clumbsy fumbling,..im a blind deaf (and stupid) black smith with my hands full,....or perhaps im just saying this???
Echo, if you are worried that you are being ignored, or not taken seriously, may I suggest that this is why. You have been asked a clear, concise question. Please respond accordingly to gain the respect and co-operation of your fellow players.

At no point on Day 1 did Echo mention suspicions of any player, bar perhaps concern about Holby in an early post. Obviously there is reason for concern here.

Boro ~ supported the ‘rule of three’ (headdesk) argument, so in a way I suppose supported Legate at this point. Votes for me so that I drew in votes with Coppermirror. Now, the reasoning behind the vote itself I don’t particularly contest given that I have now realised I got my quotes confused! However, I do think it very odd that Boro would put me in a position to be in line for the noose without considering Coppermirror, who already had two votes, at all!

Lottie ~ so now that we know Legate is innocent, that comment that was pretty explicit about Legate and Greenie’s argument being the work of two innocents (definitely – her words) becomes interesting. Putting in a subtle defence of Greenie early on perhaps? After I throw some suspicion her way she says this:
A lot of the reasoning seems forced, almost like she's trying to suspect people even though she knows they can't be sorcerers.
And how precisely do I know they can’t be?

Very sure of Cop’s innocence and says Legate is innocent as well. This is a pretty clear path then to when ‘forced’ to choose between them and me ending up with voting me!

So of these three I would like far more actual information and sense from Echo, but it is Lottie’s reasoning that strikes me as interesting.

A Little Green

08-25-2013, 09:01 AM

Sally my love, could you clear the lynch thing up? As in, what happens in the case of a tie?

Kath

08-25-2013, 09:03 AM

sally as you are here could you please make clear the rules surrounding potential double lynches?

Kath

08-25-2013, 09:09 AM

Oh and I missed commenting on Boro at the end of that last post there, but then it is probably clear within it that I think his vote for me was odd. So actually I suspect everyone who voted for me! :p

Not Echo so much though, would just like to hear some actual reasoning from him.

From the Legate voters Cop is concerning to me, and I would like more information from Holby.

So let's go to toDay at last!

satansaloser2005

08-25-2013, 09:13 AM

sally as you are here could you please make clear the rules surrounding potential double lynches?

Absolutely! Sorry, I was still catching up on the thread (which is made more difficult by the deprecating daleks).

In the case of a tie, your unfocused energies will result in no one being lynched.

I'll also add this to the rules post in a moment so it's easily accessible.

Thinlómien

08-25-2013, 09:26 AM

Shasta - in general, he seems quite fine, or maybe he's just buddying me up effectively. (I interpreted QTF in the positive sense since google gave me two different meanings for the acronym.) Also there's the confusion about Legate not being dead which would be weird coming from a wolf.

Kath - I don't know why she's getting so much suspicion her way, she seems rather innocent to me. In my experience, wolf!Kath is more wary, and quieter. Although now I maybe have to admit that I didn't really get one of her long posts yesterDay at all, which made me consider her a little weird, but it's been revealed toDay that she's been confused anyway, so maybe it makes sense that she doesn't always make sense. (Cookies to everyone who understood that sentence.)

Nerwen - yesterDay, she was being a bit too nice to my liking. ToDay, she is writing about the wolves' thoughts with a little too insight-ly tone for my liking. She isn't very blatantly wolvish at all and makes a lot of sense but it's the little things.

Copper - I keep flip-flopping on her. Right now I'm kind of wary of how much she's paid attention to what people have been saying about her.

McCaber - hasn't posted at all, has he? I'll contact him on Facebook and ask if he knows the game has started.

Lottie - I suspected her for her standard Day1 fishiness (sorry dear!), then she seemed ok, and now Boro made me suspicious about her again. I need to think, apparently.

Green - is kind of under my radar. I mean, I see her posting, she looks innocent and I don't pay her any more attention. Or like, I pay more attention to her points than to whether she might be a wolf, which is slightly alarming.

Echo - obviously a newcomer, and to be fair, I was a lot less reasoned in my first game. Still, we shouldn't have to dig in order to get his/her reasoning out of him/her. Also I have absolutely no idea what to make of that post explaining Holby's list. Was that serious???

Boro - my bororadar is not concerned at the moment. My gut-feeling about him is good and there's not factual evidence that would make me doubt my gut-feeling. So far, so good.

Eönwë - like a mixture of Boro and Greenie: good gut-feeling and I have no points against him which almost makes me ignore the option that he's a wolf. Will pay more attention to him in the future.

...and in that bunch, there are three wolves? Gosh, I need to start thinking sharper.

edit: xed with all the short posts after Kath's essay

Loslote

08-25-2013, 09:28 AM

Lottie ~ so now that we know Legate is innocent, that comment that was pretty explicit about Legate and Greenie’s argument being the work of two innocents (definitely – her words) becomes interesting. Putting in a subtle defence of Greenie early on perhaps? After I throw some suspicion her way she says this:
A lot of the reasoning seems forced, almost like she's trying to suspect people even though she knows they can't be sorcerers.
And how precisely do I know they can’t be?

If you are a sorcerer, then you know who the other sorcerers are - and, by extension, you know the other sorcerers aren't. If you want to suspect anyone other than your fellow sorcerers, you have to fake suspicion.

On another note, I don't know what to think of Holby anymore. Last post I said I thought she was probably an innocent with a semi-vexing playing style, now I'm not so sure, and probably next time I post I'll be even more confused. :rolleyes:

YesterDay, Kath was my strongest suspicion, and I suppose she still is, but only by default. I'm mostly on the fence with her, leaning just a bit towards eeeeevil, but I'll probably spend more time looking over her posts later on to maybe see if I can work out where that feeling is coming from and whether or not it's justified.

Nerwen

08-25-2013, 09:31 AM

Back again.

I’ve been thinking about Loslote and Coppermirror’s reactions to Zil’s death, and neither of them are sitting right with me.

Cop says (#106)
And man, Inzil's killed the time he's finally innocent? We're clearly dealing with very sadistic sorcerers here. Anyway, why might Inzil have been killed? The only things which come to mind are that nobody really suspected him this time, or that they might have thought he was the Seer. Or it could be to lay a false trail to Lottie, I suppose.
Now, this can be interpreted two ways. (That, by the way is the problem I’m having with Cop in general– practically all her posts this game seem to have alternative good/evil readings!:rolleyes:) She could just be citing common reasons for a Night One kill. However, from another angle it does have something of a fragment-of-the-nightly-discussion look.

Meanwhile, Lottie says
Originally Posted by Inziladun
Until further notice, everyone but me carries a presumption of guilt. Confessions will be entertained.
Maybe this could have been seen as a Seer hint? For the most part, though, Zil was fairly non-committal. He certainly didn't jump in guns blazing saying "x is evil", so I think he was probably a no-trace kill.
Thing is, as I said in my analysis of Zil, his posts taken together might well have given off a gifted vibe, but that one by itself actually doesn’t look much like a hint. Through paranoid eyes, this looks rather like someone who has, in fact, studied Zil’s posts in detail, but wants to appear as if she hasn’t– and is also trying a bit of misdirection.

Again, this is one of those posts that can be can be read different ways, so I really don’t know. And of course, Lottie’s criteria for “looking Seerish” may be quite different from mine anyway– there’s always that.

Still, thought it was worth mentioning.

EDIT:X’d with a host.

Kath

08-25-2013, 09:32 AM

As to Inzil, I would say his questioning about how Saruman would appear to the Seer would have been a clue that he was not the Seer. That is a question far better directed to the mod in private I would have thought!

Shasta seeming to believe that Legate is still alive at the beginning of Day 2 is, I think, suggestive of innocence. If a wolf the Nightly discussions would surely have made it clear to him that Legate was dead as he would not then have been a kill option.

Aaaand that's about all I have right now.

Kath

08-25-2013, 09:34 AM

If you are a sorcerer, then you know who the other sorcerers are - and, by extension, you know the other sorcerers aren't. If you want to suspect anyone other than your fellow sorcerers, you have to fake suspicion.

On another note, I don't know what to think of Holby anymore. Last post I said I thought she was probably an innocent with a semi-vexing playing style, now I'm not so sure, and probably next time I post I'll be even more confused. :rolleyes:

YesterDay, Kath was my strongest suspicion, and I suppose she still is, but only by default. I'm mostly on the fence with her, leaning just a bit towards eeeeevil, but I'll probably spend more time looking over her posts later on to maybe see if I can work out where that feeling is coming from and whether or not it's justified.
Then Lottie I would like you to go back to that post and determine precisely whom you feel I was making 'forced' suspicions about. That way if I am lynched/killed or indeed you are then everyone else will get much more information to work from.

A Little Green

08-25-2013, 09:48 AM

A quick list on how fishy you folks are!

1) TINY FISH
Shasta - I quite like what I've seen of him toDay, although the Legate-confusion is slightly odd. Possibly just an innocent blunder though, can't see any great profit in purposefully doing that as a wolf.
Kath - I'm still of the same opinion as yesterDay - she seems more relaxed and chatty than she does when she's evil.
Lommy - Quite comfortable with her still, though she's fooled me before.

2) RELATIVELY SMALL FISH
Steve - I'm not sure. Leaning innocent?

3) MEDIUM FISH
Nerwen - I don't have a read on her, which is not really news. I'll take a look at her if I have time.
Lottie - I'll try to take a look at her toDay, she's under my radar even though she's been quite active.
Boro - He makes a reasonable case against Lottie, but I'd need to reread her first to form an opinion of him.

4) BIG FISH
Cop - What was fishy yesterDay is still fishy toDay. Nothing has particularly jumped at me from her toDay's posting to change my opinion either way.

5) CONFUSING FISH
Echo and Holbytlass - I don't know what either of these two are doing!

6) NO FISH :(
McCaber - Does he know the game is on?

Therefore, my aim for toDay is to reduce the size of the third and fifth categories, preferably to zero though I'm not sure that's a realistic goal!

EDIT: x-ed since Sally's rule clarification.

Kath

08-25-2013, 09:53 AM

Another question for sally - if McCaber doesn't appear toDay will he be modfired? 'Cause if so and he's innocent the numbers get scarier. :(

satansaloser2005

08-25-2013, 10:14 AM

Another question for sally - if McCaber doesn't appear toDay will he be modfired? 'Cause if so and he's innocent the numbers get scarier. :(

I'm going to give him a bit of time to show up. I just sent him a message on FB to let him know the game's started, so I assume he'll shuffle over in due course.

Nerwen

08-25-2013, 10:15 AM

Echo ~ jumped onto the end of mine and Lommy’s argument over Legate.
Stated: This is quite a good point, kath is suspicious with all the nonsense chatter and trying to point out that she's "innocent
". She doesn't sit right with me.
++ KATH
I would like to ask Echo where I said that I was innocent. If nowhere, then he has made up a reason for voting for me, which I do not like. If somewhere, then I would like an explanation of why doing so makes me suspicious.
And toDay (#126) Echo says you were “talking about things other than the game”, which again doesn’t seem to tally with anything you actually posted. I’m starting to wonder if Echo even knows who you are!

As to Inzil, I would say his questioning about how Saruman would appear to the Seer would have been a clue that he was not the Seer. That is a question far better directed to the mod in private I would have thought!
True, but I was thinking of it maybe being taken as part of that obsessed-with-your-role syndrome that gifteds can fall into. (Overall, the evidence of Zil’s “Seerishness” is pretty thin anyway, though.)

Shastanis Althreduin

08-25-2013, 11:00 AM

*cough* *cough* My best beloved, Legate is, tragically, in no condition to answer you.

For the record, I believe it was something he got out of Cop’s early banter.
...Urr. My bad. I completely forgot that I'd typed that in my post as I read down the page. :o

In fact Cop (not me) first pointed out the problem very early (#7, the fifth post of the game), so there was no time for anyone to “elect to remain silent” (or to give themselves away through knowing too much). This, in turn, makes me wonder if the village really should be giving either of us “innocence points” just for having drawn attention to the fact.
That's a fair enough point.

Re: Greenie @ 122 - Fair enough. I just think the two posts taken together look strange.

Good to see more of Shasta, who is fishing mild aww points by talking about my lovely voice (without saying it's lovely, gah, if I could quote with this phone I'd just have quoted what he said and commented 'aww' instead of writing this silly rant).
But your voice is lovely, my dear. I thought that was implicit in the fact that it's you. :D

It might have been a jest and maybe an innocent would think "hey three evil sorcerers, too bad we can't lynch all three." But it doesn't come off that way...it comes off as "let's vote this group of people (those debating the rule of three) and too bad they all couldn't be lynched...which comes off...bad for Holby.

I don't know that I buy this. I've seen things said purely in jest taken as "evidence" before, and I think it's very rarely ended well.

This, however -
But again, no matter Lommy's guilt/innocent it makes Lottie look like an objective observer who wasn't part of the argument...and that "I'm inclined they're both innocent" is 1 suspicious mark against Lottie.

I tend to agree with. I'll want to look at Lottie more today.

I must say that this read through does not make me feel very happy about Cop. I rather feel that she pushed at Legate quite hard, and did put him back in the running for the lynch when she voted, although her reasons were voting were at least reasoned and well supported.
Given that Cop herself was in the running for the lynch, it's hard to suspect her for trying to push Legate ahead of her. However, I am a bit curious as to why Cop didn't simply take the "self-preservation" out.

Echo, if you are worried that you are being ignored, or not taken seriously, may I suggest that this is why. You have been asked a clear, concise question. Please respond accordingly to gain the respect and co-operation of your fellow players.
QFT.

Therefore, my aim for toDay is to reduce the size of the third and fifth categories, preferably to zero though I'm not sure that's a realistic goal!
So you aren't going to attempt to fry the lone fish in your fourth (and most suspicious) category? You're not really helping me think you innocent, Greenie. :(

McCaber

08-25-2013, 11:23 AM

So there I was, relaxing by the figurative beach, when I got the feeling I had forgotten about something. All of a sudden alarm bells started ringing all over and when I checked my phone it told me that not only had the WW game started, but that I had missed one entire day of action! This is not a good start to my comeback, let me tell you.

But I'm here now, and I'm hurriedly reading the thread. Hopefully you guys didn't do anything too drastic while I was gone.

Nerwen

08-25-2013, 11:38 AM

But I'm here now, and I'm hurriedly reading the thread. Hopefully you guys didn't do anything too drastic while I was gone.
Does lynching Legate count?

Anyway, I can’t put off voting any longer, so

++Coppermirror

I really just can’t make up my mind whether the “evil” reading of her posts is the right one, but I think it’s a possible one, anyway.

(I was tempted to vote Holby for being annoying and obstructive, but it’s a bit early for that. If she keeps on with it, though...)

McCaber

08-25-2013, 11:42 AM

Well, seeing as Legate was my innocent, illicit lover and now he's dead, I'd say that counts, Nerwen. Since the role is the innocent lover I can only assume that I'm now playing on the side of the village instead of just for myself. Unless I've lost already, in which case the wolves are free to make me an offer.

Not that I blame you guys for lynching him. I probably would have voted for him too after some of the crap he was posting.

Coppermirror

08-25-2013, 12:16 PM

:( Augh, I've been delayed severely by having to keep an eye on a sick person. They're asleep for now, so I can come back to my analysis for a bit. Hopefully I'll be able to get it all done.

Analysis - McCaber

Nothing to say here, but at least he's finally arrived. And - I see he's claiming to be the remaining innocent lover. My initial assumption is that he's probably telling the truth. If he isn't, the remaining one will know he's guilty and could and would come straight forwards so we can decide which one to lynch.

Analysis - Boro

Posts #60, #61, #69 - nothing to judge guilt or innocence on there.

#93 - Thinks something is off about Kath. I agree with the point about post #54, but I don't know about the others; I can't claim to have a good grasp on Kath's usual behaviour. Will have to come back to this points later on when analysing her. He votes Kath. May have been influenced by Echo's very firm and now retracted statement?

There doesn't seem to be anything especially suspicious about Boro there, but he's said so little that that doesn't mean much. At #132 he still suspects Kath and lists a few others too, and will come back with reasons. I'll have to wait to see those.

It seems to me at first glance that Boro and Kath are unlikely both to be sorcerers. There were still people who hadn't voted when Boro placed his one, although he could probably have guessed that I was likely to place a vote for Legate. Boro wasn't going solely on feelings but had some reasoning to support his vote, so people might reasonably have followed it, which means it was likely to be a genuine attempt to get Kath lynched regardless of his guilt or innocence. By similar logic and looking at the voting record, Lottie may be even less likely to be part of a sorcerer team with Kath, as she placed the third vote and that put Kath in a fair bit of danger. Either Holby or Steve's votes could have been sorcerous ones in order to save her (...but could also have been attempts to lynch innocent Legate). Anyway, I'll come back to those people later.

Analysis - Holby

I am a bit curious about Holby. Is there anyone who can venture an opinion about whether Holby is acting in a usual way for her in this game?

As Holby's a long-time player returned after a long absence, it was unlikely that people would want to lynch her on Day 1. She could have been relying on that. And she seems to be having fun early on Day 1. It's good she gave a list of suspicions at #33, but no reasoning was given with it, and there's some doubt about whether and to what degree it was serious.

At #91 she doesn't like having any abstaining voters, especially on Day 1. Which is fair enough. Says she doesn't like Legate and Greenie wagon jumping on me after Lommy's post. Seems to have missed noticing that Legate's post was probably cross-posted and that he probably didn't see Lommy's or even the post she was reacting to. It's hard to draw a conclusion from this.

Analysis - Echo

At #49 tries to vote for Kath, and actually does so at #66. Sounds very, very firm about it.

#67 - when Inzil asks why they voted for Kath based on something Kath didn't say, replies that it's a misquote "or perhaps im just saying this???".

The next Day they come out with a small list of suspicions, ending again with a mysterious statement about how "if i die today or tonight you will get no further". Goes on to make some other vague statements about suspicions.

At #126 explains that the Kath vote was due to a reason they later decided against but that their suspicion of somebody else was stronger. Lommy asks if that person is Holby. At #128 Echo explains that the problem was with Holby's vague posts, especially at #128, and makes some sort of point about syllables.

As several people have pointed out, Echo could very well be the confused, innocent newbie they claim to be. ToDay, Echo's reasoning appears a bit better and clearer than yesterDay's, which could be a natural sign of feeling more confident about the game. But if Echo is in fact a newbie sorcerer, they went all of the first Day of their first game without having spoken to the other sorcerers beforehand, and so their behaviour might change after the first Night. I don't think there's been a major change in the sort of way they've been talking. This doesn't mean I trust Echo, but I'm willing to give them a chance for another Day.

Loslote

08-25-2013, 12:48 PM

My day has gotten away with me - I'd hoped to have a fair bit of time for analysis, but here we are a little more than three hours to the deadline and I'm just now getting around to anything. :o

Well, seeing as Legate was my innocent, illicit lover and now he's dead, I'd say that counts, Nerwen. Since the role is the innocent lover I can only assume that I'm now playing on the side of the village instead of just for myself. Unless I've lost already, in which case the wolves are free to make me an offer.

Not that I blame you guys for lynching him. I probably would have voted for him too after some of the crap he was posting.

I...don't think this is a move a sorcerer would make, especially not on Day 2 - it seems too risky. Can we be confident enough in that to write him off as a known innocent?

Echo

08-25-2013, 01:28 PM

Coppermirror

08-25-2013, 01:52 PM

What point exactly? The Inzil one? If so explained above, if not please elaborate.

OH! Oh I have just noticed that I am completely wrong! It was not Inzil that had that sentence about the traitors at all, it was Cop! Sorry Boro - no wonder you were confused.

Yes, it was the point about Inzil which looked odd there. So your explanation for it is a combination of thinking that it was overdone for Inzil to mention invisibility in two posts as he did, and a mistaken belief that he said a line he didn't. Although in the actual post where you detailed your suspicion, the attributions were clear and quoted in your own post right in front of your speculation, so I think it would be difficult to have been mistaken about the latter.

I find it strange that Inzil reminding people about their invisibility would be taken first and foremost as a likely hint from a Sorcerer-Inzil to members of his pack. The same goes if it's true that Kath was mistaken about attributions and what bothered her was my banter on the topic. If saying anything about invisibility is really that suspicious, I have to wonder why Kath doesn't find my specific reminder toDay to Nerwen about her invisibility to look really bad. (Could Nerwen and Kath be part of a pack?)

But, in which case, my paranoia about somebody (and I am now thinking it likely to be Cop) picking up on Boro's all but throw-away remark has grown.

That's interesting, because I don't think a remark that is part of someone's rationale for his vote and one of the two points he thought was most suspicious is what I'd call "all but throw-away". You do seem to be distancing yourself from your remark at #54. Blimey if I can tell whether it's sorcerous distance.

Let's see, before I get back to my analysis I think there were a few more things that people were asking me.

Then her first post today:
#106 A pity about Legate. I can see how that happened now and I really should have known better.
I would very much like an explanation of this sentence.

Legate looked okay to me aside from the one point that looked really bad, which meant that there was a risk of him being a confused innocent who had just failed to explain himself. In retrospect it would have been better to give him the benefit of the doubt for the Day. All the same, I don't regret placing that vote, because Legate was still the person I suspected the most at the end of that Day.

I'm pretty sure you're right about what she meant. Interestingly though, what you do not mention is that Lommy, too, switched quickly to stronger suspicion after your #75.

And I find it interesting that you think that that point about Lommy was something I should have mentioned when explaining what I think Holby meant when she was saying it looked as if you and Legate were bandwagon jumping.

Given that Cop herself was in the running for the lynch, it's hard to suspect her for trying to push Legate ahead of her. However, I am a bit curious as to why Cop didn't simply take the "self-preservation" out.

I considered voting for self-preservation. However, before I voted, the only person I was tied with was Kath. Although I thought that Boro had a point, it wasn't enough for me to vote for her. Also, Boro had posted very little, which left me unable to make any sort of conclusion about his guilt or innocence. My suspicion of Legate was much stronger.

Kath

08-25-2013, 02:09 PM

Dun:
Here is an interesting sentence: And all must remember to use them in this case. Let us hope all come to their senses.

This in response to Cop saying: I am sure we have various spells and potions available to turn us invisible. Of course, we must bear in mind that the traitors in our midst have these means available to them as well...

So is Inzil hinting to his fellows that someone needs to get out of bed? Could perhaps be that there is a player he fears may not be around when they should be!

I guess he may also look to suspect anyone who votes for Legate, Lommy or myself as he wondered whether the 'rule of three' debate would lead to votes based around that. They wouldn't exactly be using the rule as a reason but it would have led through.
Okey pokes, here is the post which caused me such issues. I have bolded the sentence that threw me when I was thinking about the implications. I read it back to myself as 'Inzil said this in response to Cop' rather than 'he said the above after Cop posted this'.

And in looking back I noticed something else. Holby still has not explained her list, despite requests and even a bizarre interpretation by Echo. I am getting a little fed up of having two players who seem totally uninclined to actually respond to anyone else.

Kath

08-25-2013, 02:10 PM

Kath

08-25-2013, 02:20 PM

all this talk of reasoning...makes my head hurt (quite litterally) i voted kath under mild suspicions ...and due to other people talking about her,...makes no sense to vote for someone if your going to be the only one....(like voting for the third presidential party),.....and its not easy voting when your in the back of a moving car thinking the DL is in minutes,..so i hope very dearly that is enough reasoning.
:confused:
i will try to muster up a better reasoning of why i suspect Holby,...right now the best way to put it is a very strong gut feeling.....
Sure and that's fine. But other people had been talked about at that point as well. So why were you quite so determined about me? Legate was being talked about in particular - you didn't even mention him. Greenie had a couple of mentions etc.

Thinlómien

08-25-2013, 02:20 PM

...Urr. My bad. I completely forgot that I'd typed that in my post as I read down the page.So you were writing a post overNight? I always consider that a little suspicious, although I know by now that innocents do it too.

Now I get to do the quoting and awwing thing:But your voice is lovely, my dear. I thought that was implicit in the fact that it's you.Aww thanks!

Nothing to say here, but at least he's finally arrived. And - I see he's claiming to be the remaining innocent lover. My initial assumption is that he's probably telling the truth. If he isn't, the remaining one will know he's guilty and could and would come straight forwards so we can decide which one to lynch.Don't forget the option that the lovers are some other people entirely, in which case it would actually be a rather clever wolf ploy to claim to be the lover of the innocent Day1 lynch (or Night2 kill for that matter).

But if Echo is in fact a newbie sorcerer, they went all of the first Day of their first game without having spoken to the other sorcerers beforehand, and so their behaviour might change after the first Night. I don't think there's been a major change in the sort of way they've been talking. This doesn't mean I trust Echo, but I'm willing to give them a chance for another Day.You people are thinking in weird ways, this scenario for example would never have occurred to me. Which - justified or no - makes me think this is actually what happened last Night between the wolves.

all this talk of reasoning...makes my head hurt (quite litterally) i voted kath under mild suspicionsGetting more and more baffled about Echo.

And in looking back I noticed something else. Holby still has not explained her list, despite requests and even a bizarre interpretation by Echo. I am getting a little fed up of having two players who seem totally uninclined to actually respond to anyone else.To be fair, Echo did answer me when I asked them about their reasons for suspecting Holby and now they explained their vote yesterDay as has been requested several times.

Anyway, I'm currently entertaining thoughts of a Coppermirror-Echo-Nerwen pack, but it makes little sense as Coppermirror would hardly have told a packmate on the thread to go invisible as she could have very well said it during the Night phase. But Coppermirror and Echo could be packmates based on what Cop speculated about packmates giving advice to Echo last Night. So I don't really know.

edit: xed with Kath's last

A Little Green

08-25-2013, 02:21 PM

So you*aren't*going to attempt to fry the lone fish in your fourth (and most suspicious) category? You're not really helping me think you innocent,Greenie.I have formed some kind of an opinion on Cop - or, at least, I have a pretty shrewd idea of what she's said and done. I can't claim the same of many others. I was talking about how I'll try to use my time, not who I'll attempt to fry. I may fry her still toDay, but concentrating on one person only has rarely ended well in my experience so I'll try to look at other people too. Does that make sense to you?

That said, I'm off to try to be a man of my word and do some rereading. Back soon!

EDIT: x-ed with Kath and Lommy

A Little Green

08-25-2013, 02:22 PM

Oh, and I forgot to say that I believe McCaber; if he's a wolf he's insane.

A Little Green

08-25-2013, 02:38 PM

So you were writing a post overNight? I always consider that a little suspicious, although I know by now that innocents do it too. Actually writing a post overNight wouldn't explain that since Legate was a lynch and not a Night kill.

Don't forget the option that the lovers are some other people entirely, in which case it would actually be a rather clever wolf ploy to claim to be the lover of the innocent Day1 lynch (or Night2 kill for that matter).What? I'm confused about lover rules in general, but I don't get this point. If the lovers are some different people entirely, then surely even if they haven't found each other yet they'll be able to do the math and realize that both McCaber and Legate can't be lovers if they are, too, so they'd know McCaber was lying. Which would make it a pretty risky lie to tell, I think.

Anyway, I'm currently entertaining thoughts of a*Coppermirror-Echo-Nerwen*pack, but it makes little sense as Coppermirror would hardly have told a packmate on the thread to go invisible as she could have very well said it during the Night phase. But*Coppermirror*and*Echo*could be packmates based on what*Cop*speculated about packmates giving advice to*Echo*last Night. So I don't really know. That doesn't really work, because the theory of packmates giving advice to Echo last Night was based on there having been no Night phase in the beginning of the game, and if there was no Night phase, Copper actually couldn't have said anything to packmates before the game began. So that means that this obstacle to your theory actually doesn't exist! :D So yes, theoretically Cop and Echo could be packmates.

Thinlómien

08-25-2013, 02:41 PM

Likely packmates
- Copper and Echo (what I said about Cop speculating about Nightly talk)
- Copper/Holby/Eönwë and Kath (any of the three could've been trying to save Kath yesterDay)
- Lottie and Echo/Holby (she's giving them free passes a tad too happily)

Unlikely packmates
- Echo and Kath (the witch-hunt and the latter's frustration with the former - I feel that is Kath was Echo's packmate, she'd rather try to encourage/tutor them than just straightaway give up on them)
- Boro/Lottie and Kath (both clearly put her in the risk of being lynched yesterDay)
- Copper and Nerwen (the invisibility thing would make no sense)
- Echo and Holby (or then I'm not giving Echo enough credit, but their jump on Holby toDay is quite aggressive to be wolf-on-wolf)

edit: xd with Greenie's last

Coppermirror

08-25-2013, 02:46 PM

Oh and unless anyone comes out to refute it I am willing to accept McCaber's claim of being lover. Assuming this means he is now on the side of the village entirely then please McCaber vote toDay so we have no modfire of an innocent!

But, if one of the Lovers is killed before they find each other, they remain an innocent ordo in things like narration and to the seer. Do we really gain something by voting for him now?

You people are thinking in weird ways, this scenario for example would never have occurred to me.

If you're innocent and you weren't thinking about that scenario and associated points, you're worrying me, Lommy. If you're a sorcerer, then that was a canny comment to make, to cast suspicion on people who are trying to work out what the sorcerers' plans are likely to be.

I may make a post towards the end of toDay explaining a bit more about what I think you're overlooking, if I don't have to leave earlier than that, because there are some things you really ought to have in mind toDay.

Edit: crossed with Lommy since #166.

Thinlómien

08-25-2013, 02:49 PM

What? I'm confused about lover rules in general, but I don't get this point. If the lovers are some different people entirely, then surely even if they haven't found each other yet they'll be able to do the math and realize that both McCaber and Legate can't be lovers if they are, too, so they'd know McCaber was lying. Which would make it a pretty risky lie to tell, I think.True, but I doubt the lovers would want to reveal themselves by pointing fingers at McCaber. But I still agree it's much more likely McC is telling the truth, also based on meta reasoning.

That doesn't really work, because the theory of packmates giving advice to Echo last Night was based on there having been no Night phase in the beginning of the game, and if there was no Night phase, Copper actually couldn't have said anything to packmates before the game began. So that means that this obstacle to your theory actually doesn't exist! :D So yes, theoretically Cop and Echo could be packmates.What? No! Cop's point was that Echo's more "reasoned" behaviour toDay could be because of packmate briefing last Night and that the briefing couldn't have taken place before Day1 because the game started with a Day phase. My point then was that Cop sounds almost like she's telling what actually happened last Night in the wolf PM discussion ergo she and Echo are wolves.

edit: xed with Copper

Thinlómien

08-25-2013, 02:51 PM

If you're innocent and you weren't thinking about that scenario and associated points, you're worrying me, Lommy.What?! Why?

Thinlómien

08-25-2013, 02:52 PM

Actually writing a post overNight wouldn't explain that since Legate was a lynch and not a Night kill.True... so he started writing it yesterDay before DL but didn' post it??? Confusion.

Echo

08-25-2013, 02:57 PM

Sure and that's fine. But other people had been talked about at that point as well. So why were you quite so determined about me? Legate was being talked about in particular - you didn't even mention him. Greenie had a couple of mentions etc.

because i didnt care about legate and i still dont he didnt make me suspect him much.......as for greenie,.....well ill save my fingerpionting for later,..
of course you probebly want an explenation for that last sentence,...ill get back to you on that.

Shastanis Althreduin

08-25-2013, 02:58 PM

True... so he started writing it yesterDay before DL but didn' post it??? Confusion.

No no. I wrote that post toDay and posted it when it was done - I just asked that question of Legate early on and forgot to go back and change it.

Coppermirror

08-25-2013, 03:02 PM

What?! Why?

No need to panic, I'll explain before the end of the Day if I have time, even if I get lynched. There are reasons why it should be then. If I don't have time and I get killed, it's my devout hope that somebody else will be able to explain the point instead the next Day, since I think it's a point that people should at least be aware of.

Thinlómien

08-25-2013, 03:08 PM

No need to panic, I'll explain before the end of the Day if I have time, even if I get lynched. There are reasons why it should be then. If I don't have time and I get killed, it's my devout hope that somebody else will be able to explain the point instead the next Day, since I think it's a point that people should at least be aware of.Now this is very mysterious, and I hate to say more in an innocent than in a guilty way. And I was almost convinced I was going to vote Cop toDay! Will have to think.

Echo

08-25-2013, 03:15 PM

Likely packmates
- Copper and Echo (what I said about Cop speculating about Nightly talk)

hmmm interesting,..but sorry doll.
and the part about me and holby,...that was cute,..i laughed :D

A Little Green

08-25-2013, 03:16 PM

LOTTIE
(Not including Serverman banter or other irrelevant stuff)

The first actual impressions on people, early on Day 1, are that she feels "pretty good" about Cop, is shaky on me but leaning innocent, and thinks my Rule of Three squabble with Legate looks innocent-on-innocent. Lommy strikes her as "a little less innocent, but nothing that shoves her into 'terrifying sorcerer' territory just yet". Has no read on Zil, Kath or Nerwen.

Then, speaking about Kath accusing her of refusing to make a statement:
Seriously, though, this post just made me rather uneasy about her. A lot of the reasoning seems forced, almost like she's trying to suspect people even though she knows they can't be sorcerers. It could just be Day-1 lack of proper suspicions and trying to get traction, but it doesn't sit well with me.

Finds Cop's reaction to the whole "my tone looked off to me too" -discussion "wonderfully innocent" and is fairly certain Cop is innocent. Is also "leaning innocentish" on Legate, though with some reservations.

Then moving on to her famous vote post:
So we have a triple tie between*Cop,*Kath, and*Legate, with no clarifying rules on tie-breakers? Well then.

++Kath*

I find her far more suspicious than either*Cop*or*Legate. I get Boro's (and was it Shasta's?) point about this looking as if she was relieved about the choice being limited. However, in light of what she said prior to this, the vote makes perfect sense. Kath was the only one she suspected anyway, whereas Cop and Legate were ones she had specifically mentioned looked innocentish to her.

Moving on to toDay, she suggests that a quote from Inzil might have been taken for a Seer hint or else that he was a no-trace kill. I don't really buy the Seer hint theory but it doesn't really tell me much about her innocence or guilt.

She thinks Echo comes off as a nervous newbie (though "frustratingly and purposefully vague") and is willing to extend his newbie pass. Holby alarms her, but she "gets the impression that's just her style". These reactions look to be following the same trend of being noncommittal and diplomatic that Kath accused her of yesterDay.

She then argues slightly with Kath and revises her opinion of Holby, saying she isn't sure anymore. She ends the post with
YesterDay,*Kath*was my strongest suspicion, and I suppose she still is, but only by default. I'm mostly on the fence with her, leaning just a bit towards eeeeevil, but I'll probably spend more time looking over her posts later on to maybe see if I can work out where that feeling is coming from and whether or not it's justified.Which is pretty much what I was thinking, too: where is this Kath suspicion coming from? Apart from the one post on Day 1, she doesn't really give reasons for her consistent suspicion of Kath. I hope she returns to elaborate!

And in her latest post to date, she comments on McCaber coming out:
I...don't think this is a move a sorcerer would make, especially not on Day 2 - it seems too risky. Can we be confident enough in that to write him off as a known innocent? Which is more careful than most others, but seems sensible for both innocent and wolf.

Conclusions? On the whole, I think Lottie looks pretty innocent. She is at times over-diplomatic and her Kath-suspicion is a bit odd, but her general behaviour especially yesterDay seems logical and sensible. She's down to the Relatively Small Fish -category with Steve, I'd say.

EDIT: x-ed since Lommy's 172

Kath

08-25-2013, 03:17 PM

Well I am going to have a look at everyone now and then probably vote.

Nerwen:
Well my suspicion yesterDay really was fairly tenuous as I said. ToDay I think she did a fair analysis of Inzil and while I do not think it would be so easy to decide he might be the Seer the things she found were fair indicators if you were looking extremely hard. She has suspicions of Lottie and Cop - largely centred around the way they responded to Inzil's death. Has ended up voting Cop with rather tallies with the way her suspicions have developed. I see nothing concerning in her posting toDay.

Cop:
Well now. I quite like that she's arguing back. :D I do like a good debate.

A pity about Legate. I can see how that happened now and I really should have known better.
I requested clarification.
Legate looked okay to me aside from the one point that looked really bad, which meant that there was a risk of him being a confused innocent who had just failed to explain himself. In retrospect it would have been better to give him the benefit of the doubt for the Day. All the same, I don't regret placing that vote, because Legate was still the person I suspected the most at the end of that Day.
It really is generally pretty suspicious to be a large part of someone's death and then basically say 'oops shouldn't have done that'. If you suspected him most at the end of the Day then you could not have known better at the time. It's just weird.

Then of course there is my mistaken attribution of that post. Now that I have rediscovered that it was Cop then obviously my suspicion surrounding this comment moves to her.

To respond to Cop's question about why I found her previous comment about invisibility suspicious but am happy to ignore her direct comment to Nerwen, it is because her previous comment appeared to be directed towards the wolves. Saying directly to Nerwen that she is visible is a very different kettle of fish (to steal a metaphor from Greenie).

I call Boro's statement all but throw-away because it was put in rather at the last minute. Oh, that one thing she said in that one post is also weird but I'll come back to it with more time. He's hardly spent hours over it.

Lottie:
So Lottie said that Greenie and Legate would not be a wolf on wolf argument but rather an innocent on innocent one. If we have a wolf pack that includes Lottie this would suggest to me that Greenie is a packmate.

Her 'Seer hint' about Inzil is weakly reasoned. I feel she could have done better if she was really looking for hints. Nerwen found a few better examples. So perhaps a wolf who knew this was not the reason they had killed him.

Greenie:
I already said I don't think Legate did flip flop within his post but that obviously is in the back of my mind about Greenie.

Also she just feels to be slipping past without me noticing her. Everything I read gives me this feeling of vague suspicion. I don't really have time to look into it now but I will come back to it toMorrow.

Lommy:
Feels innocent to me toDay.

Shasta:
Currently I feel is innocent, largely due to his forgetfulness around Legate!

McCaber:
Counting him as a known innocent now.

Boro:
Given that he has gone for the Day I am willing to give him a pass for now. I would like more time to converse with him. Plus his big post had some good reasoning in it that made him sound much more like the usual thoughtful Boro.

Echo:
Has begun to at least respond to what he has asked. If he does later come back and give an explanation for that comment about Greenie then I will be much happier about him. If not, well.

Holby:
I am very unhappy about. If a complete newbie is now posting more sense than someone who has been around for a few years? It is very worrying.

Eonwe:
Am still fairly happy with him for breaking the tie yesterDay.

My current feeling is some kind of Lottie/Copper/Greenie wolf pack. Not sure about the Greenie part because she is flying under my radar and I will want to take a much closer look at her toMorrow.

I am going to post then vote.

Eönwë

08-25-2013, 03:21 PM

is this a subtle protection from those in league?It's hardly very subtle. Whatever her intentions, she wants us to remember it.

THIS is the sentence that had me thinking, I had just wrongly attributed it to Inzil. So it is Cop perhaps who needed to remind a fellow wolf to turn invisible. I do think it more than simple banter, only because Inzil had entirely explicitly stated this already. This actually seems to be a general theme with Cop. Most of her early early banter was very weird and far too real to be able to be passed off as real banter when it should have been, and not serious enough when broaching important topics. It still doesn't sit right with me.

edit: x-ed with Kath.

Eönwë

08-25-2013, 03:24 PM

My current feeling is some kind of Lottie/Copper/Greenie wolf pack.

I don't know whether this post should make me feel more confident or wary, because this is exactly the pack I'm thinking of.

edit: though Cop's most recent post is making me doubt it a little.

McCaber

08-25-2013, 03:24 PM

Man, it seems being out for the first Day and a half really did a number on my investigation skills. Holby is looking suspicious, Lommie's looking innocent, and I'm looking out of time to make a choice.

I'll probably vote Holby unless something happens in the next half an hour. But knowing how ends of days work, something probably will.

Kath

08-25-2013, 03:24 PM

++COPPERMIRROR

Based on all previous suspicions mentioned.

A Little Green

08-25-2013, 03:26 PM

No need to panic, I'll explain before the end of the Day if I have time, even if I get lynched. There are reasons why it should be then. If I don't have time and I get killed, it's my devout hope that somebody else will be able to explain the point instead the next Day, since I think it's a point that people should at least be aware of.Most mysterious, like Lommy said. Now trying to decide if it's in an innocent way or if it's a bluff.

EDIT: x-ed with McCaber and Kath

Coppermirror

08-25-2013, 03:31 PM

Time is getting on and if I'm not careful or anything extra comes up in real life we'll be at deadline before I've finished my analysis for the Day, so I'm going to go ahead and post a quick list now.

Probably an innocent:
McCaber. If he's not, then the real Lover could easily come forward and will probably do so toMorrow at the latest. If Legate was the real other Lover, then a wolf doing a fake reveal would have to be relying on either the real Lover already having left for the Day (for example, Nerwen or Boro) and the sorcerers killing them in the Night, or for it to be Inzil. That's got to be the maximum risk scenario for the sorcerers, and it makes sense for the Lover to come forward ASAP.

Feeling okay about
Shasta - I'm finding his posts and logic easy to follow, and have yet to notice anything suspicious about him. This doesn't mean he's innocent, of course.

Unknown and very confusing:
Holby - I don't have nearly enough information about her, although her later posts are clearer than the first ones.
Echo - Ditto.

Neutral
Boro - Seems fairly well reasoned, and hasn't said anything suspicious of note, but my goodness he could seriously be going under people's radar.
Lottie - Likewise could be going under the radar, except that some people have pointed out that they think she seems like an observer. This could be true. Both Lottie and Boro are pursuing what I think is sensible wolf behaviour and should definitely not be written off as suspects.

Concerning
Lommy - Would have been on the "suspicious of" list, but if she was a sorcerer, I don't think she would have lessened her suspicion of me in her post at #178. Rather, I think she would have taken the opportunity to become more suspicious. But there are still things I'm worried about, and she could just be a very clever sorcerer.

Suspicious of
Kath - I don't like the way she dismissed Boro's vote as throwaway.
Nerwen - didn't vote on Day 1 and didn't make a lot of firm suspicions. I've still got an uneasy feeling about her.
Greenie - Seemed to bring up Lommy earlier on in an irrelevant way. It's unlikely that both of them would be wolves.

I can't help but note that most of the people I'm most suspicious of have been pretty loud. I don't like this. This is one of the natural problems with Werewolf, because it's entirely possible to set a bunch of noisy innocents together to tear themselves to bits while the real wolves are quiet in the background.

Really really really worried about:
Eonwe - he didn't post much yesterDay, and, probably due to time constraints, didn't complete his analysis to the point where it was up to date. There's too little info about him. If he's a sorcerer he really hasn't left much of a trace at all, and that is dreadfully dangerous. But there's nothing to support a vote or draw firm suspicions from.

Edit: cross-posted since Lommy at #178.

Loslote

08-25-2013, 03:33 PM

Which is pretty much what I was thinking, too: where is this Kath suspicion coming from? Apart from the one post on Day 1, she doesn't really give reasons for her consistent suspicion of Kath. I hope she returns to elaborate!

Mainly gut-feeling - a couple of her posts have nudged me the wrong way. I mentioned Day 1 that some of her reasoning felt forced. Nothing concrete, but enough to keep me wary.

List time:

Likely Innocent
McCobbler
Nerwen
Greenie

More Innocent Than Not
Cop
Echo
Boro

No Read
Steve
Lommy
Shasta
Holbytlass

Could Be Evil, Maybe
Kath

I might vote for Kath, but not if it'll be a throw-away. Otherwise, I'd prefer my no-reads over the ones I feel better about.

Thinlómien

08-25-2013, 03:35 PM

++NERWEN

Like I've said earlier toDay, there are little things in her behaviour that bother me and unfortunately that's the best I've got as I've started wavering on Cop, I don't feel like I can trust Boro on Lottie and Echo and Holby are still quite enigmatic.

edit. xed with Loss Nech

Eönwë

08-25-2013, 03:37 PM

You people are thinking in weird ways, this scenario for example would never have occurred to me. Which - justified or no - makes me think this is actually what happened last Night between the wolves.

Or could be the case for Cop herself. She was acting a lot more suspicious yesterDay, and toDay seems quite different. She could have been re-evaluating her style on her own, but it's also very possible that some of it is the product of a Night-discussion. And if I'm going to run with the Greenie-Cop pack (I know I said Lottie as the third, but that's more because she seems suspicious in her own right and I haven't had time to analyse her with regard to the other two), there are definitely a few times when I've got the feeling that Greenie is gently brushing something Cop says or does aside than contesting it.

A Little Green

08-25-2013, 03:37 PM

There is a possibility I'm doing something incredibly stupid here, but I don't really have other suspects, except that something probably needs to be done about Holby or Echo or both at some point if they keep confusing everyone at this rate! But I won't vote for anyone on Day 2 solely for being confusing. Anyway, have to get going now, so

++ Copper

EDIT: x-ed with Lottie, Lommy and Eonwe

Coppermirror

08-25-2013, 03:39 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it the vote count is:

Boro -> Lottie
Nerwen -> Coppermirror
Kath -> Coppermirror (2)

And with Steve, Greenie, Lommy and Eonwe various different degrees of really suspicious of me. I would really hate to be lynched by six people in a row because of how easy it would be for sorcerers to hide in that.

Edit: crossed since my last.

Coppermirror

08-25-2013, 03:41 PM

Oops, Steve and Eonwe are not different people. Scratch that.

Eönwë

08-25-2013, 03:43 PM

Seem pretty good
Shasta
Kath
Lommy
McCaber (for now)

Don't particularly suspect
Boro

Something dark may lie beneath
Nerwen
Lottie

Suspicious
Cop
Greenie

What!?
Echo
Holby

Eönwë

08-25-2013, 03:44 PM

Coppermirror

08-25-2013, 03:47 PM

Eonwe, if you've decided on a vote, if it's me I want you to tell me it in advance before you send it.

Eönwë

08-25-2013, 03:50 PM

Eonwe, if you've decided on a vote, if it's me I want you to tell me it in advance before you send it.

Now this is serious.

Coppermirror

08-25-2013, 03:50 PM

So... when are you planning on doing this?

Now would be okay.

My point that Lommy didn't seem to have realised is one of the biggest advantages the village has in this game, IMO, which is that it started with a Day phase. This means that although the sorcerers probably knew who the others were, they had no time to talk to each other and make plans. After Night #1, they are likely to have made contact and plans. They have a potential weakness in the switch between those times. This is something that innocents should be watching out for.

That's it, it wasn't a big thing, but it was something Lommy missed. I think it may have been covered by someone else in the meantime.

satansaloser2005

08-25-2013, 03:50 PM

Deadline is in ten minutes. Try not to kill any- wait.

Loslote

08-25-2013, 03:50 PM

Okay. Well. At the moment, Nerwen and I both have one vote, while Cop has three. I'm going to

++Holby

Because I find her somewhat suspicious where I definitely don't find either Cop or Nerwen suspicious, and I want to put up another candidate who has a chance against Cop. I'm off to a nice dinner with the boy. Have a good Night, everyone.

McCaber

08-25-2013, 03:51 PM

++ Holby

edit: x'd with Lottie on the previous page.

Coppermirror

08-25-2013, 03:53 PM

++Holby

I'm suspicious of Holby enough to vote for her to save myself.

Eönwë

08-25-2013, 03:53 PM

Eonwe, if you've decided on a vote, if it's me I want you to tell me it in advance before you send it.

I honestly am not sure any more. You've really made me reconsider your guilt/innocence. The problem is that I don't know how bold you are as a wolf.

Holbytlass

08-25-2013, 03:53 PM

++ Nerwn

Echo

08-25-2013, 03:56 PM

++HOLBY,...!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

satansaloser2005

08-25-2013, 03:56 PM

Someone give me a vote count, please.

Eönwë

08-25-2013, 03:56 PM

++ Nerwn

You need to bold your vote for it to count.

Eönwë

08-25-2013, 03:57 PM

Boro -> Lottie
Nerwen -> Cop
Kath -> Cop (2)
Lommy -> Nerwen
Greenie -> Cop (3)
Lottie -> Holby
McCaber -> Holby (2)
Cop -> Holby (3)
Holby -> Nerwen (2)
Echo -> Holby (4)

Eönwë

08-25-2013, 03:58 PM

Is there anyone else left to vote that's around now? I don't want to vote Cop and cause a tie.

Echo

08-25-2013, 03:59 PM

if i dont make it tonight,..green leaves fall on my grave :smokin:

Coppermirror

08-25-2013, 03:59 PM

Is there anyone else left to vote that's around now? I don't want to vote Cop and cause a tie.

Shasta hasn't voted yet.

Eönwë

08-25-2013, 04:00 PM

Shasta hasn't voted yet.

Well, it's too late now. I'm just going to leave it as it is.

Shastanis Althreduin

08-25-2013, 04:01 PM

I took a nap. :o My bad.

++Shasta

satansaloser2005

08-25-2013, 04:03 PM

After losing both Legate and Dun, tempers had started to flare. Copper and Holby had each received their fair share of suspicion, and as Shasta stumbled from his bedroll, having just recovered from a nap, he heard the rest of the mages arguing, Holby and Copper standing in the middle of the circle with the rest of the group surrounding them.

"Nerwen is clearly at fault for everything," Holby stated flatly, crossing her arms. She could feel an uneven pulsing in her chest and pulled her arms a little tighter, wincing at the discomfort under her robes. "I don't know why some of you think I'm to blame. After all, some of you know me quite well. Am I really capable of such a thing?"

"You may not have been," Lottie offered, "but unfortunately if one or more of us is under the spirit's control, their own nature has been overtaken by another. I'm not saying it's you, but we can't rule you out either. I'm sorry."

Boro sighed, but nodded. "It could be anyone. Even you," he said, pointing at the lass who had just spoken beside him. "Even me. We can't be sure."

"All we can do," McCaber offered solemnly, "is try to purge the spirit from its host."

"Yes, because that's worked so well in the past...."

"Echo, being negative won't help anything," Nerwen said, turning a hesitant gaze to Copper. "You've been acting strangely."

"You're not wrong," Steve noted. "I thought something was wrong with you before, but....Copper, I think you're our best option."

"So you're just going to kill me? On a whim? That's a great idea. Wait. No it's not. It's a horrible idea. I don't want to die."

Steve's expression hardened, and he approached Copper, standing eye to eye with her as she stared at him with a solemn expression. He studied her face, slowly backing away once he'd apparently satisfied himself. "You are not right. I think she needs to go. It's the only way."

"I agree," Greenie chimed in. "If we don't try the ritual again, they'll band together and kill another of us in the night."

"It's the only way," Steve said again, though his voice trembled slightly, and he could no longer meet Copper's eyes.

"Steve, whatever you do, tell me first. I just want to...." Copper sighed, hanging her head. "I need to know what you're going to do. Whatever it is, just please tell me so I'm prepared for....you know. Death. Hopefully not death."

"I just don't know what's going on anymore!" Steve shouted, clutching his head in frustration. "Maybe we shouldn't do anything...."

"Of course you shouldn't do anything," Holby said calmly. "You won't do anything, because I am too powerful for you to touch."

"You know, maybe it's best if we- Excuse me?"

"I....am more powerful than all of you. My arcane might....my might cannot be contained." Holby rubbed at her chest again. The others were staring at her strangely, and she shook her head, her vision clearing as she met the gaze of Cop and then Echo. "What....what's happened?"

Lommy shook her head solemnly. "Well, that makes that decision easy enough, I guess. I'm so sorry, Holby."

"We're going to try to help you," Kath promised. "No one wants to hurt you, but you have to let us try this. We can free you."

"Freedom?" Holby shrieked. "I will have it, and you will not prevent it! You won't touch me! I won't let you!" Suddenly her eyes rolled back in her head and the others stared at her as she began to shake. Her hands pulled apart her robes to reveal a pulsing white mark, the tips of what were clearly fingers visible just above the collar of her dress. "I....will not....be denied!"

"Get down!" Steve shouted, tackling one of the other mages just in time as white bolts from Holby's body shot out in all directions.

When the wizards looked up, Holby's body was gone. All that remained of their sorcerer friend were her robes and her staff, which fell to the ground with a clatter, rolling until it came to rest at the feet of a bewildered Shasta.

"....Someone should explain what just happened."

Casting:
Shasta
Kath
Nerwen
Cop
McCobbler
Lottie
Green
Echo
Boro
Lommy
Steve

Cast aside:
Sally (moddess)
Morsul (collateral damage)
Legate (wizard)
Dun (wizard)
Holby (sorcerer)

satansaloser2005

08-26-2013, 04:01 PM

Echo tossed and turned, unable to rest for fear that the sorcerers would make tonight's sleep eternal. Such fears were only heightened as the sound of a rock skittering across the land caused Echo to look up. "....Hello?"

"....Hello?"

"Uh....hello. Who's....who's there?"

There was nothing for a moment, and then Echo heard a soft voice from beyond the darkness.

"Uh....hello. Who's....who's there?"

"This isn't funny!" Echo called, glancing around to find the source of the voice.

"This isn't funny!"

"This isn't funny!"

Echo blindly fumbled around until fingers met wand. The implement's tip lit up, but the glow was immediately snuffed out by a cloud of darkness.

"What are you doing?"

"What are you doing?" came the reply. The breath of the speaker warmed Echo's neck, but just as quickly the sensation was gone. "We're here," the voice rasped, "to ensure that we have no problems with repetition."

"Repetition?"

"Repetition...."

"No, really, repetition?" Echo said, hesitantly sliding backward. "What do you mean repetit- Oh. Oh dear."

"Oh dear."

"Oh de- No, stop it. To business. We're here specifically to ensure there is no repetition of last dusk's events. And for that, we'll need to eliminate any, shall we say, remaining echo of suspicion."

"Echo of suspicion."

Echo jumped backward, but the spark from the attackers' weapons lit the area just long enough for Echo to see two robed figures before everything went black.

~~~~

The next morning, as the group awoke to find Echo's bedroll unoccupied, they failed to notice that one of their number had acquired the now silent Echo's wand.

"One more of us down," sighed one of the wizards.

"One more of us down," whispered a sorcerer, dropping Echo's wand into a bush before solemnly joining the others for breakfast.

Casting:
Shasta
Kath
Nerwen
Cop
McCobbler
Lottie
Green
Echo
Boro
Lommy
Steve

Cast aside:
Sally (moddess)
Morsul (collateral damage)
Legate (wizard)
Dun (wizard)
Holby (sorcerer)
Echo (wizard)

Boromir88

08-26-2013, 04:38 PM

Now that one, I definitely think was the sorcerers hoping to get the seer...hehe.

Eönwë

08-26-2013, 04:40 PM

Well, my gut reaction is that Echo was killed as a possible Seer. Especially since I seem to recall that there was something that could be read as a hint. I'll try to find it.

As for the voting, all I can infer right now is that McCaber is probably not a sorcerer. It don't know whether or not it makes Cop look better, though. But if she is a sorcerer, she's pretty brutal (unless Nerwen is also one), though there was little choice by that point.

edit: x-ed with Boro

Eönwë

08-26-2013, 05:00 PM

Ok, I've started rereading Echo's posts, and really, practically every post could be read as a Seer hint if that's what you're looking for.

And the thing is, I think that is the main point behind this. To just make everything more confusing. Between all the people he suspects and people he points at in Holby's list, and possible bluffs and double bluffs from the sorcerers, the waters are really muddied.

Eönwë

08-26-2013, 05:21 PM

I do think it should be addressed though.

If the sorcerers thought Echo was a seer, then Cop and Greenie are the most obvious answers for possible wolves (which funnily enough have topped my suspicion list since D1, but I won't let that cloud this post). Of course, it would also be risky to kill with such links - though Echo was enigmatic, Cop was next to Holby in the suspicious list, and Greenie a step below (and also pointed at in the annotated Holby's list) - though maybe not as risky as being found out. And of course if they're not, the sorcerers could just want to frame them.

On the other hand, it could be a 'let-them-think-we-think-Echo's-a-seer' kill, in which case it points to Kath. If Echo were a Seer, the most likely dreams would either be Kath as innocent or Holby as a sorcerer. Given the sudden sudden change, and lack of Holby suspicion on D1, the former would be more likely, so by killing Echo, Kath makes herself look amazingly innocent (i.e. makes us think the wolves thought her innocent).

I might be overthinking this though... I don't think I've tried such a complex plan as a wolf.

Anyway, that's it for now; hopefully when I wake up there'll be some proper discussion going on.

Nerwen

08-26-2013, 06:43 PM

Steve–

Since the person to whom Echo suddenly switched suspicions at the start of Day Two, and continued to pursue throughout the Day without giving any concrete reason, all the while muttering “I fear lest I be killed for my knowledge...” etc, etc. was, in fact, a wolf– well, it looks pretty straight-forward this time. I don’t think we need any elaborate theories to explain it– it would have been very surprising had they not killed her*.

Or him. We still haven’t cleared that one up, have we?

Shastanis Althreduin

08-26-2013, 07:27 PM

satansaloser2005

08-26-2013, 07:36 PM

Nerwen: You know what? I'm going to PM them and ask, 'cause I really don't know. :o

McCaber

08-26-2013, 07:53 PM

One evil sorcerer down, an unknown amount to go.

I'd say this makes both Lottie and I look pretty innocent. I'll do a second readthrough and see if I can glean any hints from the post history soon enough.

And yes, as far as I know I'm on the village's side and I haven't necessarily lost yet. While this makes me innocent, this absolutely does not guarantee I know anything about any situations so please take my opinions with all the lack of credibility they deserve.

Boromir88

08-26-2013, 09:38 PM

I'd say this makes both Lottie and I look pretty innocent. I'll do a second readthrough and see if I can glean any hints from the post history soon enough.

You maybe, but I'm not sure how it makes Lottie look good? Maybe as the starter to put Holby as a lynch possibility, but of the 4 votes for Holby, it is the most likely spot for a wolf-on-wolf.

Cop's was for self-preservation, which Cop said herself. So, it doesn't make her look better. But it also doesn't make her look any worse than all the suspicion yesterday.

There may be better trails to follow than the Holby voters, at least for today. As a "job well done" nod for lynching a sorcerer.

I wouldn't put Kath in the no-doubt innocent category, but she's the one I'm going to trust the most for the time being (stop getting so confused! :p). If they had gone after Echo as the seer, then the sorcerers would have to think everything Echo said was right. (That being Holby = sorcerer and suddenly backing off Kath after the Day 1 vote)

Nerwen

08-26-2013, 09:51 PM

I wouldn't put Kath in the no-doubt innocent category, but she's the one I'm going to trust the most for the time being (stop getting so confused! :p). If they had gone after Echo as the seer, then the sorcerers would have to think everything Echo said was right. (That being Holby = sorcerer and suddenly backing off Kath after the Day 1 vote)
But they could hardly have thought “Seer”Echo dreamed them both on the same Night, Boro.

Nerwen

08-26-2013, 10:46 PM

Echoalysis
(Longer posts will be extracts only.)

Day One

#26. [Replying to Zil (#3) and Coppermirror (#5) who both mentioned not having played with Echo or Holbytlass before]
Hmmm mentioned twice only out of not being known, which is where the worst kind of fear birthed from,...(lack of knowledge). but everyone has some knowledge of the behaviors of others....except me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holbytlass
i did want to come to the village square and say hello before returning to my humble abode and unpack and think and become paranoid and...
such a public display just to crawl back to your condemed squanders, what do you have to think and be paranoid about?...

#49. [The infamous vote-post]
Originally Posted by Thinlómien
Because it doesn't make any sense to say it! It's the same as if I posted "bananas are yellow". Why would I do that? Except to maybe appear like I was saying something while I wasn't?
This is quite a good point, kath is suspicious with all the nonsense chatter and trying to point out that she's "innocent
". She doesn't sit right with me.
++ KATH

#62.
to be clear....lynch the witch [B]++KATH......or wolf in this matter of business.

#67
Originally Posted by Inziladun
Wait a minute, why are you voting for Kath on the basis of something she didn't even say?
I miss quoted with my clumbsy fumbling,..im a blind deaf (and stupid) black smith with my hands full,....or perhaps im just saying this???

Actually... after looking at all this, I’d say it does speak for Kath’s innocence (particularly #62). Not because Echo was killed last Night, but because he/she wasn’t killed the Night before. Er– whatever Night that was– this being an important point. Apparently we began with a Day phase. In that case the Seer may have had no initial dream– if this is so, and the wolves knew it, it somewhat weakens the case for Kath.

Would our moddess be so good as to clarify the matter?:Merisu:

–Meanwhile, as you see the only other person Echo mentions at all on Day One is Holbytlass (wolf), and this is just banter– though it does seem to carry a tone of suspicion.

satansaloser2005

08-26-2013, 10:49 PM

The game began with a Day phase, though those with nightly powers were able to use them (with the obvious exception of the sorcerers' kill) before the thread opened.

Coppermirror

08-26-2013, 11:13 PM

Since I got pushed into saying what I did at #196, I think I'd better clear the matter up in case that ends up inhibiting the reasoning of innocents toDay. I'm either the Protector Wizard or the Pact Mage. I'm not the Aura Reader. I'd rather not say which of the other two I am at this point unless it's strictly necessary.

I'll be back later - I've been working on an analysis of Echo, and I intend to do one of Holby too.

Nerwen

08-27-2013, 12:56 AM

Note: I had to leave halfway though composing this, hence the delay. No idea who has posted in the meantime; I am afraid to refresh for fear of Serverman, Lord of the Code.

Echo, Day Two
#105 [First post of the Day]
Are we aloud to post now?
if we are i would like to say, may Inzil rest in shredded pieces.
hmmm i was mildly suspicious about him, but no matter now.

the reason i whatch my back at night
holby~ its not just me noticing her weird QUIET behavior but youd know better than me, im just a new nobody
cop~ hes either really good or really bad,...but im still havent desided which. (hopfully good)

mildly suspicious of
green~ill have to pick a better reason than the one ive got,...you dont sit right with me though.
AND everyone else.
[u]other[u]
Boro~ what can i say other than hes nice and welcomed me, i have no reason to suspect him........yet.

well ponder my list. think of me evil or think of me not,..i dont care.
but youll think of me the way you think when you think it. but if i die today or tonight you will get no further.
You see what I was talking about– this post just by itself could well have been enough to get Echo killed!

#108.
Originally Posted by Coppermirror
do an analysis of each person. I'm looking at past games to check on things about some people's behaviour.
as am i cop,
hobbits dont live in dirty,nasty, wet holes filled with the ends of worms,...but do holbyts?...........
More suspicion of Holby.

#109
i patiently wait for the bantering and finger pionting..... though its quite late but no worry i eagerly wait!!! (well not the finger pionting if its at me)

#114. [Replying to me at #112, when I asked Echo to explain the Day One vote.]
hmm all you need know is i dont think kath is quite important anymore,...does this have profound meaning?!,...i guess if you want it to,..but i find someone else making my skin crawl,....
And more. This seems to me more easy to interpret as “Forget Kath, I’ve definitely got a wolf this time,” than as “I dreamed Kath and she was innocent”.

#128.
Re-posts Holby’s Day One suspicion list, pointing out that the names are grouped by number of vowels/syllables.
it was supost to be a joke,.... but shes posting vague things just so she cant seem suspicious or slip up.
Yet more.

#129.
perhaps you might think my last post gives her justice that shes innocent? but i was observant enough to figure out her list. though dose not explain why she wouldnt just tell us about the list or perhaps i am wrong?....
And so on...

#161.
all this talk of reasoning...makes my head hurt (quite litterally) i voted kath under mild suspicions ...and due to other people talking about her,...makes no sense to vote for someone if your going to be the only one....(like voting for the third presidential party),.....and its not easy voting when your in the back of a moving car thinking the DL is in minutes,..so i hope very dearly that is enough reasoning.

i will try to muster up a better reasoning of why i suspect Holby,...right now the best way to put it is a very strong gut feeling.....
And so forth... Note, by the way, how Echo more-or-less admits needing to come up with a case to justify an existing suspicion.

#175.
Originally Posted by Kath
Sure and that's fine. But other people had been talked about at that point as well. So why were you quite so determined about me? Legate was being talked about in particular - you didn't even mention him. Greenie had a couple of mentions etc.
because i didnt care about legate and i still dont he didnt make me suspect him much.......as for greenie,.....well ill save my fingerpionting for later,..
of course you probebly want an explenation for that last sentence,...ill get back to you on that.

Very cryptic– I suppose Echo had noticed something about Greenie, but never got around to saying what.

#179.
Originally Posted by Thinlómien
Likely packmates
- Copper and Echo (what I said about Cop speculating about Nightly talk)
hmmm interesting,..but sorry doll.
and the part about me and holby,...that was cute,..i laughed
I think this refers to #170, where Lommy lists Echo and Holby as “unlikely packmates”.

#205.[3rd vote on Holby]
++HOLBY,...!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

#210
if i dont make it tonight,..green leaves fall on my grave
“I’m the Seer, I’ve done my job, farewell... Unless you feel like protecting me, Ranger.” That’s how it would read to the wolves, I imagine. Unless you take “green leaves” to be a supposed “Seer-hint" regarding Greenie (cf #175)– but it’s so weak compared to all the Holby-stuff that it would have to be no more than an intention to dream her next.

Well, that had to be done. Fairly useless, though. As you see, I’ve ended pretty much exactly where I started: I believe they thought Echo was a Seer who had dreamed Holby. There is little else to be got from Echo’s posts, except that, as already mentioned, his/her survival after the first Day is a point in Kath’s favour.

One thing I have noticed is that nearly all Echo’s posts have a white tree icon, while the first has a green leaf. Possibly the wolves thought this meant something. Possibly they were meant to think this– I am leaning now towards the idea that Echo may have been deliberately acting as bait. A very unusual ploy for a complete newbie to try– but I just honestly can’t work out why else an ordo would say half the things Echo did.

EDIT:X’d with Coppermirror & moddess.

Coppermirror

08-27-2013, 02:41 AM

The game began with a Day phase, though those with nightly powers were able to use them (with the obvious exception of the sorcerers' kill) before the thread opened.

Sally, there's one thing I'd like to clarify about that. Does that mean that the wolves were able to PM each other prior to the first Day phase?

Coppermirror

08-27-2013, 03:53 AM

And one more thing, for people in general. I've just thought of something which worries me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't any actual proof that Legate was the other Lover, is there? We know that there's no Night kill the Night after the Lovers reunite, and that means that hasn't happened. But if the other Lover is still alive, they already know who McCaber is because he's come forward, and maybe they could put off reuniting until an opportune time, as long as they were still both alive.

I'm concerned about what it might mean for the village if Legate wasn't the other Lover. Can anyone offer their thoughts here? I'm quite unsure about this topic, having not played in a game with Lovers in it before.

Eönwë

08-27-2013, 04:02 AM

Well, that had to be done.
Really? For someone who talks about unnecessary posting, the last two posts were an awfully long way of saying 'a Holby dream was more likely'. And then there's this point: Actually... after looking at all this, I’d say it does speak for Kath’s innocence (particularly #62). Not because Echo was killed last Night, but because he/she wasn’t killed the Night before. Er– whatever Night that was– this being an important point. Apparently we began with a Day phase. In that case the Seer may have had no initial dream– if this is so, and the wolves knew it, it somewhat weakens the case for Kath.
What you're saying here is that the sorcerers would rather kill a new player whose playing style they know nothing about and which gained him/her a lot of suspicion and confusion instead of someone who everyone thought was innocent and was fairly no-trace after the first day? Considering the normal depth of your analysis, this looks like it could be a sneaky way to make it look like you didn't consider the situation fully to look more like an innocent. I'm starting to see where the Nerwen-votes are coming from. And Holby voting for you as she died does not help.

Not to mention that I thought we'd already agreed on the Holby-dream being the most likely. I don't think anyone actually suggest a Kath-dream to be more likely, except for me within the context of a 'make-it-look-like-we-though-Echo-is-a-seer' kill.

edit: x-ed with Cop

Eönwë

08-27-2013, 04:04 AM

Nerwen

08-27-2013, 04:27 AM

Really? For someone who talks about unnecessary posting, the last two posts were an awfully long way of saying 'a Holby dream was more likely'. And then there's this point:
What you're saying here is that the sorcerers would rather kill a new player whose playing style they know nothing about and which gained him/her a lot of suspicion and confusion instead of someone who everyone thought was innocent and was fairly no-trace after the first day?
No. I’m saying that if Kath was a wolf, Echo on Day One would have probably looked more like a gifted to the wolves than Inzil. This is a very simple and obvious point, such as I should have expected an experienced player like yourself to grasp quite easily. The fact that you don’t– or at least you claim you don’t... interesting...

Not to mention that I thought we'd already agreed on the Holby-dream being the most likely. I don't think anyone actually suggest a Kath-dream to be more likely, except for me within the context of a 'make-it-look-like-we-though-Echo-is-a-seer' kill.
I thought I had better do an analysis just to settle the matter, and just in case there was something more to be gleaned. There wasn’t, but how could I know that until I’d done it?

Again, a simple, routine procedure. And yet, according to you, a sign of wickedness. Really.

I'm starting to see where the Nerwen-votes are coming from.
You mean Holby..., right?

Nerwen

08-27-2013, 06:05 AM

Holbalysis

Holbytlass, Day One.

#18.
i have been gone long in my travels and only now return.
some are known but most aren't.

i did want to come to the village square and say hello before returning to my humble abode and unpack and think and become paranoid and....

#33

how 'bout voting for these confusing debaters of the "rule of three"-too bad we cant "lynch of three"

highly suspect
Shasta
Nerwen
Green
Boro
Steve

very suspect
Kath
Dun
Cop

much suspect
Lottie
Echo
Legate
Lommy

innocent
McCobbler

it should be plainly obvious my reasonings!!

Echo believed this list was arranged according to number of syllables in the players’ names. Holby’s next posts tends to support this.

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin
Argh. Something's come up and I'm not going to be able to spend the time I'd like reading what's happened today.

Moddess Sally, I abstain from voting today.

don't like abstaining voters, esp day 1 where any reason is mostly justified because it is day 1.

the wagon jumping done here by legate and little green to lommie's suspicions of copper is unsettling. [arranging suspect list to first letter of names]
So... one of those Holby “suspects” here is an innocent (Legate). It’s a common enough wolf-ploy to pair one’s fellow’s name with that of an innocent, and that could have been what she did here. Or not. It would be quite a stretch to call it an actual point against Greenie.

a three way tie!?!

++LEGATE

since out of the three hes suspicious to me
This was the third vote for Legate, bringing him to a tie with Kath. Other candidates were Cop (2 votes) and me (1 vote). Note that Holby’s stated intention here is to break the tie (as was Lottie’s in voting for Kath). If we take that at face-value, then their votes crossed and Holby did not realise Kath had just got a third vote. However, Holby’s vote is timestamped two minutes after Lottie’s.

Where am I going with this? Not sure... just looking for signs of our known wolf showing a preference for one candidate over another. Hmmn. Inconclusive, I’d say.

Holbytlass, Day Two
#130. Post consists entirely of the “Stick out tongue” emoticon, in response to a comment of Lottie’s (#101) the Day before. Not very informative, but it does rather sum up Holby’s attitude!

#133.
Originally Posted by Nerwen
Zilalysis

They could, of course, have been afraid he was about to do so, meaning we should probably take a closer look at those of whom he expressed suspicion– Lottie, Kath, Holbytlass and Echo.
ooh, good thinking-even if i'm on the list

but then they will start looking at me..buts its helpful no matter what..but i hate people looking at me..we must find sorcers and kill them..cant we just leave,again..?
What this was probably not: an attempt to frame Lottie (cf. Coppermirror #106). For that to work, the murdered player needs to have behaved in a way that would, in theory, make him look like a major threat to the player being framed. Preferably, he needs to have said things that could have made him look like a Seer who had dreamed her guilty already. There’s none of that in Zil’s posting.

is this a subtle protection from those in league?

yes, maybe if one checks out #21 and #30, could be deflection..ooh using fancy words-and i just said that..but i was agreeing

must huddle and think and look at others
Um... Holby is an actual flesh-and-blood person, right? Not, say a sock-puppet of Nilp’s, by any chance? :rolleyes:
Anyway, #21 (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685675&postcount=21) and #30 (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=685684&postcount=30) are two Day one posts of mine. I’m not sure what she’s getting at, though– I think the idea is supposed to be that Lottie and I (and Coppermirror?) are packmates, raising points against each other only to dismiss them, or something like that.

Then Holby vanished for a long while, and voting happened.

When she returned, the tally run thus:

Boro -> Lottie
Nerwen -> Cop
Kath -> Cop (2)
Lommy -> Nerwen
Greenie -> Cop (3)
Lottie -> Holby
McCaber -> Holby (2)
Cop -> Holby (3)

Holby then cast her own, final vote:
++ Nerwn
Apart from the fact that this “Nerwn”, whoever she may be, is not listed among the players, the vote isn’t even bolded. And yet Cop already had three votes. Had Holby resigned herself to death? But why? With only two players left to vote, she might well have survived if she voted Cop.

Obviously, this looks pretty bad for Coppermirror. This may, however, have been the idea (i.e. Holby thought she hadn’t long regardless, and thought it worth it to implicate an innocent). Or she may have panicked/lost count of the votes. Or just not cared. Very hard to know what Holby’s aims were at any point, really.

Nerwen

08-27-2013, 06:27 AM

Oh yes–

I haven’t finished with you, yet, Mr Eonwe.

This is what you actually said, earlier in the Day (my bolding):

I do think it should be addressed though.

If the sorcerers thought Echo was a seer, then Cop and Greenie are the most obvious answers for possible wolves (which funnily enough have topped my suspicion list since D1, but I won't let that cloud this post). Of course, it would also be risky to kill with such links - though Echo was enigmatic, Cop was next to Holby in the suspicious list, and Greenie a step below (and also pointed at in the annotated Holby's list) - though maybe not as risky as being found out. And of course if they're not, the sorcerers could just want to frame them.

On the other hand, it could be a 'let-them-think-we-think-Echo's-a-seer' kill, in which case it points to Kath. If Echo were a Seer, the most likely dreams would either be Kath as innocent or Holby as a sorcerer. Given the sudden sudden change, and lack of Holby suspicion on D1, the former would be more likely, so by killing Echo, Kath makes herself look amazingly innocent (i.e. makes us think the wolves thought her innocent).

Here it is, plain and clear: you stated that Echo’s death potentially implicated three players (with “Holby as sorcerer” being the least likely “dream”).

I took the (considerable) trouble to examine the evidence in some detail, in the course of this demonstrating why it didn’t actually support your conclusions.

This, according to you, is a highly sinister course of action, not to mention useless, since–
we'd already agreed on the Holby-dream being the most likely.
Who’s “we"? You certainly hadn’t.

Nerwen

08-27-2013, 07:39 AM

Eönwë

08-27-2013, 08:50 AM

No. I’m saying that if Kath was a wolf, Echo on Day One would have probably looked more like a gifted to the wolves than Inzil. This is a very simple and obvious point, such as I should have expected an experienced player like yourself to grasp quite easily. The fact that you don’t– or at least you claim you don’t... interesting... New players are unpredictable. And with the way Echo was posting, I could definitely see the wolves opting to wait another day. If they went for him/her, it would totally implicate Kath whether or not Echo was actually the Seer. In this scenario, they would have been on the alert for seerishness from Echo yesterDay, and, well, they were definitely given it. And anyway, I find it unlikely that Zil was attempt at a gifted at all.

Here it is, plain and clear: you stated that Echo’s death potentially implicated three players (with “Holby as sorcerer” being the least likely “dream”).
Ok, I know it was late and my wording was less than clear, but the two paragraphs are obviously separate scenarios. In the first one, Holby being dreamt is implicit- why would they fear Echo otherwise? In the second, it's meant to be how a wolf-Kath would approach it, and obviously for her it would be better to get people to believe the wolves thought it she that was dreamt.

we'd already agreed on the Holby-dream being the most likely.
Who’s “we"? You certainly hadn’t.
The next sentence of my post holds the answer (i.e. what I just said above):
I thought we'd already agreed on the Holby-dream being the most likely. I don't think anyone actually suggest a Kath-dream to be more likely, except for me within the context of a 'make-it-look-like-we-though-Echo-is-a-seer' kill.

I thought I had better do an analysis just to settle the matter, and just in case there was something more to be gleaned. There wasn’t, but how could I know that until I’d done it?

Again, a simple, routine procedure. And yet, according to you, a sign of wickedness. Really. Ok, I've actually had a bit of a change of heart about this. I don't think you were posting just to look like you were being helpful. With all the confusingness that is Echo, we need as much clarity and certainty as we can get. Sometimes it is better to be safe than sorry.

Nerwen

08-27-2013, 09:37 AM

New players are unpredictable. And with the way Echo was posting, I could definitely see the wolves opting to wait another day. If they went for him/her, it would totally implicate Kath whether or not Echo was actually the Seer. In this scenario, they would have been on the alert for seerishness from Echo yesterDay, and, well, they were definitely given it. And anyway, I find it unlikely that Zil was attempt at a gifted at all.
Sure. You’re under no obligation to agree with my reasoning. That’s not the point, Steve.

The next sentence of my post holds the answer (i.e. what I just said above):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eönwë
I thought we'd already agreed on the Holby-dream being the most likely. I don't think anyone actually suggest a Kath-dream to be more likely, except for me within the context of a 'make-it-look-like-we-though-Echo-is-a-seer' kill.
I am aware that you were describing two separate scenarios. However, you said:
"If Echo were a Seer, the most likely dreams would either be Kath as innocent or Holby as a sorcerer. Given the sudden change, and lack of Holby suspicion on D1, the former would be more likely”
Here, yes, you’re talking about your double-bluffing scenario (where Kath is a wolf killing Echo in order to look better). But your statement that Kath would have been the supposed Seer-Echo's “most likely dream" is a general one, not specific to that scenario.

Therefore, the contradiction remains.

Now, again, you don’t have to agree with me on why Echo was killed. I could be completely wrong. Despite the evidence, it may be that the wolves killed Echo for some other reason entirely. Who knows– except them, of course. What I do not appreciate is being heavily attacked simply for analysing the posts of a dead player, and especially for examining them in the light of scenarios suggested by you yourself.

Yes, you’re trying to back away from it all now– but you were ready to scream “sorcerer” at me before. On that note, I particularly don’t care for that little bit you threw in about, “Holby voting for you as she died”. No, not just on personal grounds– I'm actually wondering now if that was something cooked up overnight– “I know, let’s try and pass off Holby’s vote as wolf-on-wolf, heh, heh..."

Thinlómien

08-27-2013, 10:50 AM

Alright! Quite glad about the recent turns of events as they clarify quite a lot of stuff (not to mention that we're one baddie down). Now, let's go and comment on stuff:

YesterDay

Oops, Steve and Eonwe are not different people. Scratch that.Maybe I'm tired but I totally cracked up at this. :D

Seem pretty good
Shasta
Kath
Lommy
McCaber (for now)

Don't particularly suspect
Boro

Something dark may lie beneath
Nerwen
Lottie

Suspicious
Cop
Greenie

What!?
Echo
HolbyI don't like this list at all. It seems lazy and mostly just echoing other people's opinions, especially lumping Holby and Echo in one category of confusion, it feels like Eönwë is trying to fish sympathy or goodwill (maybe not consciously) by joining in OMGing over Holby and Echo's weird behaviour. (Seriously, I think their "weirdness" was greatly exaggerated in this game and I admit taking some part in that too.)

My point that Lommy didn't seem to have realised is one of the biggest advantages the village has in this game, IMO, which is that it started with a Day phase. This means that although the sorcerers probably knew who the others were, they had no time to talk to each other and make plans. After Night #1, they are likely to have made contact and plans. They have a potential weakness in the switch between those times. This is something that innocents should be watching out for.Then we just have different views on the topic. In my experience (admittedly I haven't been a wolf in ages so if you guys have developed new wolving routines in the past couple of years I wouldn't know :p), wolves seldom make grand plans on Night1 anyway, it's mostly chatter and bonding and maybe minor planning plus warning packmates like "I will try to avoid voting for you guys but if you act really weird I'm gonna vote you" so I see no big advantage in them not being able to talk on Night1.

Boro -> Lottie
Nerwen -> Cop
Kath -> Cop (2)
Lommy -> Nerwen
Greenie -> Cop (3)
Lottie -> Holby
McCaber -> Holby (2)
Cop -> Holby (3)
Holby -> Nerwen (2)
Echo -> Holby (4)

Is there anyone else left to vote that's around now? I don't want to vote Cop and cause a tie.Now if Eönwë is a wolf this is pretty freaking bold and my hats off go to him.

Speaking of the vote count above, it's pretty weird Holby didn't vote for Cop and try to save herself but instead went for Nerwen who only had one vote. Does this mean Cop is guilty, or that Holby was just being a bit careless (which she was before)?

ToDay

Steve–

Since the person to whom Echo suddenly switched suspicions at the start of Day Two, and continued to pursue throughout the Day without giving any concrete reason, all the while muttering “I fear lest I be killed for my knowledge...” etc, etc. was, in fact, a wolf– well, it looks pretty straight-forward this time. I don’t think we need any elaborate theories to explain it– it would have been very surprising had they not killed her*.Totally agreed.

I wouldn't put Kath in the no-doubt innocent category, but she's the one I'm going to trust the most for the time being (stop getting so confused! ). If they had gone after Echo as the seer, then the sorcerers would have to think everything Echo said was right. (That being Holby = sorcerer and suddenly backing off Kath after the Day 1 vote)
Actually... after looking at all this, I’d say it does speak for Kath’s innocence (particularly #62). Not because Echo was killed last Night, but because he/she wasn’t killed the Night before. Er– whatever Night that was– this being an important point. Apparently we began with a Day phase. In that case the Seer may have had no initial dream– if this is so, and the wolves knew it, it somewhat weakens the case for Kath.I agree that Kath looks pretty innocent now. It occured to me already on Day1 that Echo being the seer who dreamt of Kath might explain their weird behaviour and wouldn't consequently have been surprised if they had died already on Night2, so I'm totally ready to follow this logic.

I'm either the Protector Wizard or the Pact Mage. I'm not the Aura Reader. I'd rather not say which of the other two I am at this point unless it's strictly necessary.*heads explodes noisily* ARGGH. Since Day1 I've been flip-flopping on whether Cop looks more wolvish or gifted, and yesterDay I abstained from voting her and went for Nerwen instead of her because I thought she was hinting at being gifted. And now this ambiguous and thus uncontestable reveal, which would be pretty darn cunning from a wolf in dire straits. Well, I guess we should just give Cop the benefit of doubt for a Day or two and see what happens...

I'm at loss as for Eönwë and Nerwen's row toDay. I'm always quite careful to label any arguments as two innocents fighting, but I'd be inclined to do it this time. Eönwë looks pretty innocent for his open fishing of support to lynch Cop instead of Holby (a wolf would be quite brazen to do that) and Nerwen is putting effort into this game in a way that suggests innocence to me (I know I voted her yesterDay and my minor suspicions concerning have gone nowhere, I'm just pushing them back at the moment because they don't seem relevant in the big picture) - it looks like she's actually thinking about who the wolves might be, not just hanging around. Still, I'm baffled that Eönwë and Nerwen have both completely ignored Copper's reveal. :confused:

Nerwen

08-27-2013, 11:08 AM

*heads explodes noisily* ARGGH. Since Day1 I've been flip-flopping on whether Cop looks more wolvish or gifted, and yesterDay I abstained from voting her and went for Nerwen instead of her because I thought she was hinting at being gifted. And now this ambiguous and thus uncontestable reveal, which would be pretty darn cunning from a wolf in dire straits. Well, I guess we should just give Cop the benefit of doubt for a Day or two and see what happens...

I'm at loss as for Eönwë and Nerwen's row toDay. I'm always quite careful to label any arguments as two innocents fighting, but I'd be inclined to do it this time. Eönwë looks pretty innocent for his open fishing of support to lynch Cop instead of Holby (a wolf would be quite brazen to do that) and Nerwen is putting effort into this game in a way that suggests innocence to me (I know I voted her yesterDay and my minor suspicions concerning have gone nowhere, I'm just pushing them back at the moment because they don't seem relevant in the big picture) - it looks like she's actually thinking about who the wolves might be, not just hanging around. Still, I'm baffled that Eönwë and Nerwen have both completely ignored Copper's reveal. :confused:
Got caught up with the Eonwe-situation. Besides, there’s not really much we can do about Cop’s reveal at present. I’d already thought she had to be one or the other, so the reveal doesn’t really surprise me– and I can see the point of making it ambiguous– yet, as you say, that’s something that would be very much in a wolf’s interests as well.

satansaloser2005

08-27-2013, 11:22 AM

The sorcerers were able to whisper for a few moments (read, hours) before the game began.

Nerwen

08-27-2013, 11:22 AM

Eönwë looks pretty innocent for his open fishing of support to lynch Cop instead of Holby (a wolf would be quite brazen to do that)
True– but I have been burned quite a few times through thinking “a wolf would never vote like that”.

Anyway, since I can’t put it off any longer

++Steve.

This may look like retaliation, but even before he made that odd attack on me, I’d been uneasy about him because his speculations on the Night-kill seemed rather forced, as though perhaps he was just trying to get the village to waste time on Echo's posts. And the attack on me also seems forced– as I said, perhaps from a wolf looking for a way to capitalise on Holby’s dying vote.

That’s one way of looking at it. To be fair, another is this: Innocent Steve is highly suspicious of Greenie and Cop, to the point of seeing my Echo-analysis as somehow a defence of them (which it isn’t– I merely argued against his theory that the kill itself actually points to them), leading him to suspect me as well.

Sorry I don’t have anything better, but nobody else has been around most of the Day, so I just haven’t have much to go on.

EDIT:X’d with moddess.

A Little Green

08-27-2013, 11:29 AM

I'm back! I agree that Echo was probably a suspected Seer. I haven't really thought this through and Nerwen and Eonwe's argument makes my brain hurt, but from what I gather there are two scenarios if the wolves thought Echo was the Seer:

Scenario 1: they thought he dreamed Kath based on his pretty drastic flip-flop on her - from "Lynch the witch!" to "She's not important anymore" overnight might have caught their attention. If this was the case, Kath looks good.

Scenario 2: they thought he dreamed Holby. Also makes sense, given his (also rather drastic) sudden switch of suspicion to her yesterDay. If this was the case, it doesn't really tell us much about the roles of living players as Holby is already a dead wolf.

What did I miss?

Anyway, moving on to other things - a quick look at the vote tally from yesterDay:

Boro -> Lottie
No surprises here; he made a solid enough case and voted on it immediately. Not suspicious in itself, but would also be a pretty safe thing for a wolf to do. I hope we'll see more of Boro toDay; I might go through his posts as well if I have the time or the energy.

Nerwen -> Cop
Said that multiple comments of Cop's could be read as either innocent or evil and voted withI really just can’t make up my mind whether the “evil” reading of her posts is the right one, but I think it’s a possible one, anyway.

Kath -> Cop (2)
I'm pretty okay with Kath's vote; she had decent points behind it, including Cop's apologetic "Oops should have known better" after Legsy's death. This would also have been a pretty safe vote for a wolf to make, though, but since I tend to find Kath pretty innocent anyway I'm not too alarmed.

Lommy -> Nerwen
Because there are "little things that bother her" and because she began to waver on Cop and didn't want to vote for her. This makes me feel rather good about Lommy, actually. I'd guess a Lommywolf would try to think of a more elegant argument to base her vote on.

Greenie -> Cop (3)

Lottie -> Holby
Because I find her somewhat suspicious where I definitely don't find either Cop or Nerwen suspicious, and I want to put up another candidate who has a chance against Cop.This sounds sensible. Also, it would be a daring move from a wolf since there was some anti-Holby sentiment around and quite a few undecided people left to vote.

McCaber -> Holby (2)
Not dwelling on this since I find it highly improbable that he is a baddie.

Cop -> Holby (3)
Self-preservation. Doesn't really tell much about her role as at that point it looked like it was going to be either her or Holby, so if she is a wolf it would have been a wolf lynch anyway. Of course as a wolf she could have voted Nerwen and hoped to create a tie and thus a no-kill, but that would have been quite risky as it would have looked fishy.

Also, while on the subject of Cop - the gifted reveal? I'm not sure. This "I'm either the Ranger or the Hunter" is pretty much the cleverest way to fake a reveal if you're a heavily suspected wolf. I mean, no one can come out with a contesting claim since the ranger will think "Oh, that means she's the hunter" and the hunter "Oh, she's the ranger". But it would also be sensible from a real gifted so I don't know! Cop thanks for making my head hurt. :D

Holby -> Nerwen (2)
This has already been speculated on so sorry if I'm repeating stuff, but this might be the most interesting vote of the bunch - why didn't she vote Cop? Was it that she wasn't up to date with the vote tally, or that she had given up, or that she wanted to protect a fellow Cop, or was afraid Cop was the Hunter? Or was she hoping that neither she nor Cop would get any more votes, leaving the vote in a tie and thus a no-kill? The thing is, with Holby it's hard to tell! :rolleyes:

Echo -> Holby (4)
No surprises here either, and since both these guys are already dead there's no need to dwell on analyzing this.

Shasta -> Shasta
Because he fell asleep and had to avoid modfire somehow. Doesn't tell anything about him except that he should probably start drinking coffee or something, sleepyhead. :p Anyway, I hope he gets his act together regarding the voting!

EDIT: x-ed with Lommy, two Nerwens and a Sally!

Boromir88

08-27-2013, 11:55 AM

Boromir88

08-27-2013, 01:36 PM

I wish I could be my standard active self and I'm actually able to keep up on what's happening well enough, but just not much time to get much written out or organized. But the good news is I find myself enjoying this whole WWing all over again.

Ok so I'm not sure I'll have time to post all of this now, before needing to complete a few more errands, but hopefully I'll be able to finish when I'm back.

Part I.

For today, I'm not interested in voting for...

Kath
Cop
McCaber

With the possibility of Saruman lurking we can't forget he can turn someone into a sorcerer in a snap, but I don't think we have to worry about that today. Kath I think for the Echo kill, I'm saying no interest in voting for her.

Cop's gifted reveal makes sense and while I see the point it's a clever move to say "I'm either the Ranger/Hunter" but at this point, Cop was under some heavy suspicion last night and nearly the entire time was hinting at probably having to spill something. I would think a sorcerer would try a fake seer reveal if under threat of lynch.

I think it was Eonwe, or possibly Cop, or both which have questioned McCaber's "other lover reveal." I just don't think that's a move a sorcerer would make, I mean McCaber might have been looked at more since he didn't show the previous day, but it's not like he was starting under serious suspicions. Plus, let's say McCaber is lying, and Legate also wasn't the other Lover. Then that would mean the Lovers would either know eachother at this point, or still be searching for eachother...so it's just not a sensible fake reveal for a sorcerer. I suppose it's possible both Legate and Inzil were the lovers, and therefor no one would be able to reveal McCaber as a fraud, but that would be a cruel twist of fate...and still wouldn't explain why a sorcerer-Cabbie would say he was a lover.

Those who I need to start watching more, but probably something I'm going to have to put off for now...

Lommy
Greenie
Shasta

Those I'm most feeling are suspicious and possibly vote for...

Eonwe
Nerwen
Lottie

Explanations for those two lists will have to come in my Part II.

Shastanis Althreduin

08-27-2013, 01:43 PM

It doesn't appear too much has happened today. It's been pretty well agreed upon that Echo died due to looking like a Seer - the only other thing of real interest is the Nerwen/Eonwe spat, which I'm going to have to take a closer look at.

Shastanis Althreduin

08-27-2013, 02:10 PM

Cop re: #231 - The biggest point in McCaber's favor is that no one has stepped forward to contradict him. If he's not the other Lover, there's no reason for the real other Lover not to speak up.

On to my heart and Eonwe -

The first salvo is Eonwe at #232.

Really? For someone who talks about unnecessary posting, the last two posts were an awfully long way of saying 'a Holby dream was more likely'. And then there's this point:
What you're saying here is that the sorcerers would rather kill a new player whose playing style they know nothing about and which gained him/her a lot of suspicion and confusion instead of someone who everyone thought was innocent and was fairly no-trace after the first day? Considering the normal depth of your analysis, this looks like it could be a sneaky way to make it look like you didn't consider the situation fully to look more like an innocent. I'm starting to see where the Nerwen-votes are coming from. And Holby voting for you as she died does not help.

Not to mention that I thought we'd already agreed on the Holby-dream being the most likely. I don't think anyone actually suggest a Kath-dream to be more likely, except for me within the context of a 'make-it-look-like-we-though-Echo-is-a-seer' kill.

edit: x-ed with Cop

Considering that Eonwe posted three times at the beginning of the day when one would have sufficed... :rolleyes:

In any case, taking this argument post by post I can see the merits of thinking the wolves would rather not have killed new, confusing Echo on the very first night over no-trace Inzil. However, leaping to such a concrete suspicion of Nerwen is just that - a leap.

Nerwen responds -
No. I’m saying that if Kath was a wolf, Echo on Day One would have probably looked more like a gifted to the wolves than Inzil. This is a very simple and obvious point, such as I should have expected an experienced player like yourself to grasp quite easily. The fact that you don’t– or at least you claim you don’t... interesting...

I thought I had better do an analysis just to settle the matter, and just in case there was something more to be gleaned. There wasn’t, but how could I know that until I’d done it?

Again, a simple, routine procedure. And yet, according to you, a sign of wickedness. Really.

You mean Holby..., right?

My dear one is pretty known for her skills at analysis at this point - it's an odd sort of game if she doesn't do at least three. Given that, I'm not sure why Eonwe finds it a wolvish trait.

Moving on, Nerwen continues -

Oh yes–

I haven’t finished with you, yet, Mr Eonwe.

This is what you actually said, earlier in the Day (my bolding):

Here it is, plain and clear: you stated that Echo’s death potentially implicated three players (with “Holby as sorcerer” being the least likely “dream”).

I took the (considerable) trouble to examine the evidence in some detail, in the course of this demonstrating why it didn’t actually support your conclusions.

This, according to you, is a highly sinister course of action, not to mention useless, since–

Who’s “we"? You certainly hadn’t.
Here Nerwen points out a seeming contradiction in Eonwe's logic - calling the evil Holby dream as "least likely", then turning that on its head and saying it was "most likely".

Eonwe responds -
New players are unpredictable. And with the way Echo was posting, I could definitely see the wolves opting to wait another day. If they went for him/her, it would totally implicate Kath whether or not Echo was actually the Seer. In this scenario, they would have been on the alert for seerishness from Echo yesterDay, and, well, they were definitely given it. And anyway, I find it unlikely that Zil was attempt at a gifted at all.

Ok, I know it was late and my wording was less than clear, but the two paragraphs are obviously separate scenarios. In the first one, Holby being dreamt is implicit- why would they fear Echo otherwise? In the second, it's meant to be how a wolf-Kath would approach it, and obviously for her it would be better to get people to believe the wolves thought it she that was dreamt.

The next sentence of my post holds the answer (i.e. what I just said above):

Ok, I've actually had a bit of a change of heart about this. I don't think you were posting just to look like you were being helpful. With all the confusingness that is Echo, we need as much clarity and certainty as we can get. Sometimes it is better to be safe than sorry.
What does whether or not the kill of Inzil was aimed at taking out a gifted actually matter in the current situation? This first paragraph really smacks to me of wolvish thought-process. Not something I normally put much stock in when considering someone's guilt or innocence, but this is really blatant.

I'm not understanding the second paragraph much, either. It would be better for Kathwolf for people to believe Kath was dreamt? Or Holby? If Kath, it doesn't make any sense - either way, Kath is basically outed as a dreamed wolf.

And then Eonwe proceeds to back off entirely. An innocent refocusing his energies, or a wolf realizing he's bit off more than he can chew? At the moment I'm leaning towards the latter.

Nerwen responds -
Sure. You’re under no obligation to agree with my reasoning. That’s not the point, Steve.

I am aware that you were describing two separate scenarios. However, you said:
"If Echo were a Seer, the most likely dreams would either be Kath as innocent or Holby as a sorcerer. Given the sudden change, and lack of Holby suspicion on D1, the former would be more likely”
Here, yes, you’re talking about your double-bluffing scenario (where Kath is a wolf killing Echo in order to look better). But your statement that Kath would have been the supposed Seer-Echo's “most likely dream" is a general one, not specific to that scenario.

Therefore, the contradiction remains.

Now, again, you don’t have to agree with me on why Echo was killed. I could be completely wrong. Despite the evidence, it may be that the wolves killed Echo for some other reason entirely. Who knows– except them, of course. What I do not appreciate is being heavily attacked simply for analysing the posts of a dead player, and especially for examining them in the light of scenarios suggested by you yourself.

Yes, you’re trying to back away from it all now– but you were ready to scream “sorcerer” at me before. On that note, I particularly don’t care for that little bit you threw in about, “Holby voting for you as she died”. No, not just on personal grounds– I'm actually wondering now if that was something cooked up overnight– “I know, let’s try and pass off Holby’s vote as wolf-on-wolf, heh, heh..."

Nothing too much to say here, this is pretty solid. Although I don't really know if I buy the whole "wolf on wolf" thing.

The radiant moon finishes by voting Eonwe -
True– but I have been burned quite a few times through thinking “a wolf would never vote like that”.

Anyway, since I can’t put it off any longer

++Steve.

This may look like retaliation, but even before he made that odd attack on me, I’d been uneasy about him because his speculations on the Night-kill seemed rather forced, as though perhaps he was just trying to get the village to waste time on Echo's posts. And the attack on me also seems forced– as I said, perhaps from a wolf looking for a way to capitalise on Holby’s dying vote.

That’s one way of looking at it. To be fair, another is this: Innocent Steve is highly suspicious of Greenie and Cop, to the point of seeing my Echo-analysis as somehow a defence of them (which it isn’t– I merely argued against his theory that the kill itself actually points to them), leading him to suspect me as well.

Sorry I don’t have anything better, but nobody else has been around most of the Day, so I just haven’t have much to go on.

EDIT:X’d with moddess.

The vote is fair enough here. What I'm not sure I approve of is how apologetic Nerwen seems to be about it, both bringing up an instance of how she could be wrong and apologizing for the vote itself. I don't feel like this is typical Nerwen behavior.

Of the two, I do feel Eonwe is more suspicious. However, that last post of Nerwen's does have traits of "oops, my counterattack worked too well, I hope he's not mad."

Thinlómien

08-27-2013, 02:31 PM

I'm having the strangest of feelings that Nerwen and Eönwë might both be wolves after all...

Eönwë

08-27-2013, 02:33 PM

I don't like this list at all. It seems lazy and mostly just echoing other people's opinions, especially lumping Holby and Echo in one category of confusion, it feels like Eönwë is trying to fish sympathy or goodwill (maybe not consciously) by joining in OMGing over Holby and Echo's weird behaviour. (Seriously, I think their "weirdness" was greatly exaggerated in this game and I admit taking some part in that too.) Well, that was just how I saw it at the time. I had actual suspicion for Cop and Greenie, I had bad feelings about Nerwen and Lottie, and at that point Boro seemed a little less innocent than the others. I didn't really think it worth it to focus on Holby and Echo, because playing like that would either get them killed early on (in which case trying to analyse their posts would not count for much) or keep them in for a long time (in which case I'd have more time to look at them more carefully). Either way, my time was very limited that Day (less than an hour), so it did not seem wise, especially when even if they were both guilty there'd still be another wolf about.

Speaking of the vote count above, it's pretty weird Holby didn't vote for Cop and try to save herself but instead went for Nerwen who only had one vote. Does this mean Cop is guilty, or that Holby was just being a bit careless (which she was before)?
Holby's actions could be used to argue for either (or both) Nerwen or Cop's guilt or innocence. It's probably best not to put too much stock in the vote of a dying wolf.

Still, I'm baffled that Eönwë and Nerwen have both completely ignored Copper's reveal. :confused:
Well, Cop basically already revealed yesterDay:
Eonwe, if you've decided on a vote, if it's me I want you to tell me it in advance before you send it.
And it's quite a sneaky reveal because if she's not, it requires two reveals to disprove, which isn't going to happen. So we can't do much until more comes to light. And I was a little preoccupied...

edit: x-ed with Lommy