[Eönwë]

Ok, Legate and Shasta, the great debate of toDay

So if I'm not mistaken, their main bit of clasing starts toDay. In his first post, Shasta completely attacks Legate, and by his next post (3 minutes later), he is already saying that:

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

some things Legate have said have been so far off the mark and unlike how I know Legate to act that it's basically Nog vol. II to my eyes at the moment.

(That is to say, I thought Nog was suspicious for defending G55's outburst, in total counter to how he would normally act, and now Legate, normally quite sensible, has been acting very crazy.)

So basically, he starts the Day off by attacking Legate strongly. Also he gives it exactly two hours before he posts, so he could have easily written the first post in that time, but exactly two hours? Don't know whether that's enough to call it suspicious, but it could be a calculating wolf trying to make it look like he didn't write it at Night (i.e. avoiding the whole thing Nog tried to call G55 out on about being certain of living the next Day) , though I don't think Shasta would be that obvious. But the point is that he starts the Day with what could very well be a premeditated attack on Legate.

Then he claims that an innocent-looking (Acoording to him) post from Legate makes him actually look more guilty:

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

The main reason it caught my eye, actually, is how Legate can post well-thought-out points like this and at the same time be as wildly off-kilter as he has been? My overall conclusion on this is while the point makes him look slightly better, the dichotomy makes him look worse.

To which Legate responds:

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Isn't it rather the sign of an innocent to have conflicting opinions about something? I mean, innocents, in contrary to some others, have no information whom to trust. I suspected Eönwë before, but I tried to post with the best intentions in mind, just as now. If you are following a certain pattern you set for yourself like a Wolf (e.g. "I will suspect person X, then I switch to person Y, then I will try to make the village lynch Z"), you usually post very "consistently" in the sense that all the time, the main intention sort of "behind" your behavior can be tracked as: "Yes, he wanted to lynch X." With innocent, the intention behind all the behavior should not be "He wanted to lynch X or Y", but "He wanted to do what was the best for the village from his current perspective." That's what I am doing. That's what I also often get suspected for.

Now, I don't know, but this would be quite a risky wolf-on-wolf, considering that Shasta's essentially forcing Legate to explain why his behaviour isn't wolfy, and bringing up the idea that Legate could be faking suddenly. Legate's response could be either, since he could either be just talking about his experience, or be defending his current pretending-to-be-an-ordo style. And if the latter option is the case, considering Shasta as a wolf as well might be interesting in the sense that Shasta is calling out Legate on his bad disguise, or even giving Legate a chance to defend himself while making Shasta look good in the future because he's accusing him. Risky, though. Of course, they could just both be Ordos arguing over playing styles.

Legate's same post starts with this:

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Okay - on general evaluation of what's happened toDay, I am growing steadily more suspicious of Shasta. It's not about his way of arguing, which is faulty in many ways (like many have already mentioned - e.g. the "Eonwe was not suspected yesterDay enough..." I can vouch for myself that I indeed had suspected him, and I recall there were many others) - that does not necessarily say anything about guilt; but mostly the fact that he had pushed for a second lynch going at the same point yesterDay with Steve, therefore threatening to threaten him (to make a double lynch).

To which Shasta responds with:

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

I already pointed out how much rubbish this point is. In fact, since I voted Inzil, I'd be very interested to hear how I supposedly threatened Eonwe yesterday.

I don't want to think I'm basically OMGUSing Legate here - I might be, certainly, but he's seemed completely (not a bit, not some, pretty much completely) off to me since the beginning.

----Ok, so here I will make a note to myself and others reading this to see what Shasta said about Legate before toDay, and vice versa. Now, onwards.


Then Legate responds:

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Maybe I did not word it very well this time - but you were offering ground for double-lynch in any case, be the other subject Eonwe or Zil. In any case, it would still not be good for the village - only leave the uncertainity for the future. And also (I don't know how exactly was the voting around that time you were proposing that, or when you voted), if there were still some Wolves left to vote after you, with enough numbers, they could still do a double-lynch in that way. That's of course probably unlikely, but the general point is that splitting the vote (especially for somebody completely random) was not exactly helpful in that situation.

And to the last bit of Shasta's previous post:

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

How nice. I, on the other hand, thought initially you were pretty good.

To which Shasta responds:

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

Wrong. I never said I wanted to lynch Eonwe, in fact I never mentioned him in the slightest. Why would I want to lynch the Seer, in any case? Yes, I mentioned that a double lynch of Inzil and Nog might be a good idea, after someone mentioned it (I'd originally forgotten about double lynches at all), but how would that have "left uncertainty"? Nog would have been just as dead. Your other point is still not very good - I already gave you the numbers to prove that even if it had been possible for the wolves to double-lynch Eonwe, they all would have been revealed after that and the game would be over! See, Legate, you keep trying to make this into a reason that I'm suspicious and it's just not working. That's what I mean about how completely off you are. I didn't mean to insult you or anything, if that's what you thought (as your last comment leads me to believe.)

I will just point out that I was the one who originally mention double lynching, but only because I was arguing against it because that's what I thought Shasta was after yesterDay. Make of the rest what you will.

Then:

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Not taking it as insult, never mind then. But okay, then tell me clearly: first you did not plan to make it double-lynch, then you did, so can you go over it once again - what exactly had you intended? Did you intend to make a double-lynch (of Zil and Nog), then? Why exactly, i.e. what good would it be? Also, how did you hope to achieve that? What if one got one more vote than the other? What would you think if only Nog was lynched? What would you think if only Zil was lynched? Had you considered those two possibilities at all? Answering shortly, briefly in points is fine, if I can ask you for that...

And anyway, yes, I am willing to see also something more - something else - from you to make me evaluate you better. E.g. if you list briefly whom do you currently suspect and why... or whom do you trust the most and why...

So Legate ignores the reality and shapes it into his own in order to attack Shasta,since it's pretty clear what Shasta was planning- just to lynch Zil. Of course, that's pretty bad in itself, but misrepresenting it... But maybe if they're both wovles Legate's just giving Shasta a chance to explain himself again, which he does. In a lot of detail:

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

I sense the beginnings of a witchhunt, but fine, I'll answer.

I had originally forgotten about the fact that we could double lynch - I wanted Zil gone over Nog because I felt both were bad for the innocents, but killing Inzil would have dropped the nightkills from two to one (I still thought the Acolyte was going to kill the next night.) Then, after I voted, the idea of a double lynch was mentioned, which I thought was a fine idea - kill both with one lynch.

Sidenote, Legate - it was not going to be very easy to make a double-lynch all by my lonesome, as you're implying. I knew Nog had four or five votes by then and I knew no one else had voted Inzil, but I figured it was worth a shot, and if I didn't manage it then Nog would be lynched anyway and that'd be one baddie down.

Had it been possible, yes. Once Lommy voted right after me, though, I didn't really think it was possible. Still, since there wasn't a vote tally up and I wasn't sure how many more votes were coming in, I felt like there was still a chance and I urged people to consider it.

Seriously? We'd be getting rid of a wolf and the Acolyte, who I thought (and still think) was dangerous.

If you're asking me this, then you're implying there wasn't a way to achieve that, which means your point about me endangering Eonwe, is, like I said, pretty leaky. That said, I'll answer - it would have required the cooperation of the people after me to vote; like I said, once Lommy voted I figured the chances were slim, but there was no harm in trying.

What about it? In my view, either way we were getting rid of someone who was a danger to the village. If Nog was lynched, fine - we'd gotten rid of a wolf. If Zil went instead, that was fine too - that'd be the end of the Acolyte and we could lynch Nog the next day; if Eonwe had managed to find another wolf with his dream, we could just double-lynch them, so we weren't even losing any time.

Who do I suspect? You, currently. Boro, because I think he was bussing Nog. Inzil I still suspect of Acolyte-ism, but I don't think he's a wolf, unless his "lynch me instead of Eonwe" yesterday was just a very clever wolf-front. I still have some suspicions of Lommy as well.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Wait a second and stop presuming. I was asking exactly and only what I had asked - because it is NOT easy to achieve a double-lynch. I assumed there WAS a way to achieve that according to you, otherwise you wouldn't have proposed it, obviously. Therefore, I wanted to hear about it.

These were only questions, and completely "freely" phrased - a mere civilized way to ask you about something. Yet you are answering with rather defensive and sort of jumpy way at some moments. In contrary to what you say, I have *no* intention to lynch you for the sake of itself. But at least on first sight, I can't help to think you are making stuff up, or clutching to some pre-made points of your own.

This in particular sounds rather fabricated. And the whole Acolyte thing of yours is just weird - I mean, if you are innocent, then I suggest checking whether you aren't simply paranoid. I understand it might be good to talk about the Acolyte if nobody seems to worry about it, but nowhere was written that Acolyte is evil. Nowhere was written that even if he was, he's killing every Night. (Yes, I know, no need to repeat your thoughts on the matter, I've read them several times already, just stating this for the sake of completion.) Nowhere was written that even if all that was so, Zil was the Acolyte. I.e.: Your idea - as you claim it was - of making a double-lynch, or lynching Zil over Nog, was based on the possibility that Zil was the Acolyte, on top of that evil Acolyte, on top of that that the Acolyte is killing people and therefore it is better to kill him than Nog. My motto is "never tell me the odds" and I am against all maths and all that, but seriously, the chance that even if you were right about the role that you would actually even lynch the real Acolyte was far lesser than that you would help the village to achieve something by lynching Nog. Also, if you indeed are innocent and interested in the good of the village - had it never occured to you that the game would be imbalanced like Angband if there was just another evil every-Night-killer? Even if he were to choose his side in the beginning, such a role would really be completely over the top.

I think we have (and you have also answered about it to others many times) been talking this over many times, so I think we can drop the subject, there is probably nothing much new to add anymore (unless, Shasta, you have something that you haven't said yet to comment on what I just said, of course). But it helped me to hear all your arguments in some clearer order, and the basic impression I have about you right now is that of being somewhat suspicious. Based on that if I compare the possibility that you sincerely were thinking the thing you are now telling us you were thinking, and the possibility that you were thinking something completely different and are just making this all up now that you had to answer about it to other people, I must say the other one sounds far more probable and logical. Of course, the question is then what did you really think in case what you are saying is fabricated - since I am not sure if, as a Wolf, you'd believe you could pull that off (saving Nog, that is, or evening the odds by double-lynching him in case Zil is innocent). Of course that's already second rather daring move you'd do in this game (after Day 1 Bom lynch), so if you believed you could pull that off again? Anyway, will be looking at what else you are going to post toDay.

While the first paragraph seems pretty reasonable (other than the "this is fabricated"), the second seems pretty bad. I mean, he's basically just saying that Shasta's lying about what he thought yesterDay based on things now, which is clearly not true when that is basically what Shasta said yesterDay. Whether he was lying or not then is another matter, but Legate seems to want to draw attention to this. I don't think this would happen if Legate were a wolf and Shasta an innocent, as he's be more careful (hopefully), and since I suspect Legate and it seems pretty likely he's going to die, it might just be Legate again trying to make Shasta seem attacked unjustly, so that when he dies, at least Shasta looks good. While before he was supporting him (or se he claims with the "I liked you earlier on"), now he knows that he has to throw Shasta as far away as possible from him in order to make him look good.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I would like to also take a look at other people, but the best would be to see somebody else post as well...

So now he's making it look like this fight was unintentional, but was it really? I mean, he's trying to play it down with this bit, and I don't like it when it's clearly taken up most of Legate's posts today.

Shasta's response:

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

"Defensive." "Jumpy." "Making stuff up." What did I tell you? Witchhunt. All me answering your questions did was give you more fodder for your witchhunt against me, because all you've mentioned are opinions that are designed to look like hard suspicions. Look at this -

And in regards to fabrication:

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

Now, you say this sounds fabricated. Obviously there's nothing I can say to that, since it's not fabricated. But it gives you an easy way to continue to suspect me, doesn't it?

I'm going to skip over all the bit about the Acolyte because it's clear that, whether you're innocent or evil, we just flat are not going to agree where he's concerned.

and also:

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

This is just the same point, restated in order to make it look like you have a bigger argument against me than you already do. Also, I said basically the same thing earlier in the day when I replied to Pom, so there's further proof I didn't make it all up just now.

So again, Shasta is giving his proof again that he thought so yesterDay. So even though his points were bad, surely the fact that he thought them yesterDay make them better, right? Right? No.

Legate responds:

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I was afraid you will say something like this, and therefore I am not talking anymore to you about this, because you are convinced I am evilly trying to frame you, which I said already last time I am not. So until you are willing to reevaluate and reconsiderate the possibility that it is not so, the debate makes no sense. If you have pre-determined opinions, you can hardly believe you are deciding objectively (or, as much "objectively" as one can). That is not asking you to stop suspecting me, by any means, but merely appeal to bring that to your attention that it might not be as you project - at least on the level of discussion. If you are innocent, I am warning you that you are having a tunnel vision in that I am writing everything with some evil intent. Your unwillingness to acknowledge this thus far (despite me telling this to you already before, only in different words) makes me only support my belief. And no, that is not predetermined answer (as you would most likely say based on how you've been reacting this far), but direct response based on this and only this reaction of yours. In case you are a Wolf (which I now believe), it of course makes perfect sense, because you try to disqualify suspicions against yourself (or pass it on me, if you can, even better).

For the first time, this in some ways makes Legate look actually genuine. Though of course that doesn't change anything between the two of them, and if they are both wolves it could be Legate warning Shasta that he's seemed to focused on this toDay.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

For further reference: If Shasta is really a Wolf, this makes Nate look rather good in my book. However, in case he wasn't, then if Nate was a Wolf instead, it would be very nasty way to connect two innocents.

Trying to implicate Pom if Shasta turns out to be evil, or just a genuine statement (doesn't make him not a wolf- in fact, it would be good for him to make some points that are good for the village.






So yeah, here ends their discussion (it just fizzles out there). Now, I was looking at it from the possibility of it being two wolves.

Innocent vsInnocent: Could very well be the case considering just their discussion, but since I already find Legate very suspicious based on other things, I'm inclined not to believe this.

Wolf-Legate vs Innocent-Shasta: Could have a case made for it because of the way Legate stretches his points, but on the other hand I don't think a wolvish Legate would be so uncareful. Shasta would just be defensive here, which seems about right. But the actual content of his posts and focus on the acolyte instead of the wolves seems bad. But that's not in the context of this discussion.

Innocent-Legate vs Wolf-Shasta: Could explain some of the less careful arguments against Shasta, but then why would he be so certain and just throw in as much as possible? And I find it hard to see Legate being innocent.

Wolf vs Wolf: I'm warming up towards this idea. I mean, they both seem suspicious for their own reasons, and this thing could potentially make either of them look very good if the other turns out to be a wolf. Very risky, but the rewards are great enough when they're both being so suspected.

edit: x-ed since Greenie's return