Okay, I typed this as I read through, so it might be a little messy. Also, I'm going to go back through, now that we're near the end of Day 1, to analyze a few people who have peaked my interest. These are people that don't sit right with me, so I'll be back. Also, I apologize for my long absence- I was kept busy with some RL things.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by phantom
Well yeah, but if that situation comes up a clever villager could preempt the WPs and step forward and claim to be a WP and demand that the Cobbler vote with him. Then perhaps a real WP would step forward to contest the claim? Then it would be up to the Cobbler to decide who was the real WP.
|
In your scenario, the other villagers would have to figure out which WP was which as well, thus creating general confusion. It would hurt the village more than it would hurt the WP's or the cobbler.
To everyone- I believe spawn already said this, but the seer knows what he/she is doing. Leave them alone, and let them figure out their own plan. It's up to them if they drop hints or keep quiet. I've seen both be useful to the village, and it will depend on the seer and what they wish to do.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Boromir
Roa there is a common misconception about theories, everyone seems to think it's just baseless and preposterous. Now a true theory is a hypothesis based UPON facts. So, the facts are sitting out there and then based on those facts you form a hypothesis which = theory. And for everybody except the wps and the Seer all we have to find the penguins are theories. Which means taking facts, like what people say, how they vote, who's killed...etc taking that knowledge and using it to present a hypothesis that is backed up by facts (aka a theory).
|
I never said I disliked theories, just that I'm better at analysis and summaries, like the one Lal provided. The truth is, you can postulate all day long, but in the end hard evidence, like what is provided in summaries and analysis, can't be denied with any sort of reasonableness, unlike a theory which can be shown false. In the end, you can't deny a fact. But that is neither here nor there- we all have our own way of playing, and we are all pretty good at it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kitanna
Once again he brings up the phantom and his natural distrust for him. Seems like overkill, he made it clear he doesn't trust the phantom in his first few posts, but he brings it up too often for comfort. We all have certain players we distrust because of what has happened in the past, but there is no need to reinstate that point in almost all one's posts.
|
While I trust Ang about as much as I trust anyone (ie, not at all), the point made here is faulty. Ang was answering the suspicion against him stated by Spawn, not trying to continually point out his distrust for phantom. His repeat of Spawn's focus on him is suspicious, but not this. After all, he was questioned for it- we'd suspect him more if he refused to answer.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Boromir
Roa has come in established a presence in the village, but really hasn't if you know what I mean. Also, as I remarked before I don't agree with the "don't throw around theories or baseless arguments," and what do I propose you want us to do to catch a penguin miss Guardian?
|
As I stated previously- I said I wasn't one for theories, but I never said don't state them. I did, however, say that we should be wary of baseless arguments, because they are, in fact, baseless. Trying to get someone lynched with no real reasoning is highly suspicious to me. For example- I will be the first to say Valier's instincts are scarily accurate, but I won't simply go along with her suspicions if she is unable to back them up in anyway. I cannot, and maintain my intellectual integrity. Are you suggesting that we simply ignore reasoning all together? I will not follow an illogical suggestion.
EDIT: Cross posted with Diamond and Enca- don't worry, I'm here, I've just been tied up.