[Nogrod]

Okay. I will not repeat all the things said on / by tgwbs yesterDay. I just sum up some of the things that bothered me with him yesterDay.

His bogus case on Lommy and insistence to stick with it.

His stated view that we should not use our time discussing the gifteds and his actions of doing mainly that (and thence making it harder to have any other discussion).

All this “trying to look helpful without being helpful” –stuff. It’s all too easy way to throw accusations around when there is no substance. Admittedly he has made quite a row about the possible substance with Roa after these events...


As Rikae and Macalaure pointed out he also said this:

Roa and I are both known for loudmouths, and loudmouths have a thing for calling attention to themselves and getting lynched for no reason.

Pre-emptive lupine defence?

And most importantly his voting which nicely brought Lommy level with a known wolf. Also it felt like a detached vote: an innocent villager would not be ready to vote for a cabable player (and bring her level to share the lead) early in the game with that bad reasons tgwbs presented at the time. Also I got the same vibes from him the last time and he turned out a wolf then.

Then something from toDay.

#142 There is this “anti-waffling” of him... I mean his continued insistence on the interpretation on Lommy’s vote for Glirdy

To me, with hindsight, this looks very much like a wolf-on-wolf vote. Lommy says her evidence is feeble, so she can distance herself from it in the future, but she still manages to vote for a fellow wolf. Saying her evidence is feeble also decreases the potential of the vote becoming a bandwagon.

Lommy’s vote can be constructed both ways but tgwbs decides to be “sure” it is this way. That I find unnerving. Too decisive people are worrysome.

#143 This has all the good reasoning behind it:

I don't think Nogrod is a wolf. If he were, and presuming Lommy to be a wolf too, I think the sensible course of action would be to vote for me so that there would be a 1/3 chance of an innocent dying, rather than 0.

After Brinn had first appreciated Roa’s terribly bad analysis of me and then brought forwards her confusing theory about myself and Mith wishing to lynch Xyzzy because we were wolves (I don’t of course know about Mith but I doubt it) and Mac had also said Roa had good points and even speculated on it, it felt quite good to read these words of reason. But immediately I realised this psychological effect that it had and started to wonder whether that wouldn’t be just the thing a wolf-tgwbs would need to do? Appease some of those who openly suspected him the Day before. I was a good target as there had been some suspicions raised against me on weak grounds and I would then welcome his reasonableness and lower my suspicions... A bit complicated I agree and am not sure what to think of it.

#147 He still only includes interpretations that back his idea of Lommy and Roa being wolves. I don't deny the possibility, not at all, but a decent villager would note that there are other ways of interpreting things that are equally reasonable.

In general I’ll leave the row between tgwbs and Roa be. I see no reason to dwell in it now. But this argument against Roa in #155 needs to be restated just for fun:

I do not need to analyse you, because your unreasonable obstinance on this matter is more than enough to make me confident of your wolvishness.

There is Finnish proverb that talks about a pot blaming a saucepan while they both are black on the sides...

So what to say about all this?

I have all the reasons to suspect tgwbs. More than others at this point I think. But I must admit that I waver again (even waffle? ). It may be just the differences in style or approach too... unlike tgwbs I can’t say I’m sure.