[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Just noticed something - in the narration, last Night was referred to as Night 0, which implies that toDay is Day 0, not Day 1. Any ideas what that means?

Bet it means nothing. Or, rather, that it means that on Night 0, nothing happens but ModDeath, after which Day 1 starts (things happen) followed by Night 1 (things happen).

Originally Posted by Sally

It means the moddess is silly and likes to start at 0 rather than 1, that's all. ToDay is Day 1.

Sawwee!!! How'm I supposed to respond to things systematically as I read if you responded before I got home but after I tried to respond?

Originally Posted by Vanilwa

Ok, so the Night posters totally mixed me up yesterday when I saw people posting, cause I had it written in my day planner that yesterday was a Night phase (yes, I keep track of WW stuff in my dayplanner ).

I freaking love you for keeping WW in your dayplanner. Just sayin'. Not least because I had to schedule it in myself, what with my crazy life. (Brief explanation of: I meant to be around at midDay but got stuck out of town running errands and by the time I got home I had to sprint out the door to get to work on time and only just got onto the 'Downs).

Originally Posted by Izzy

It looks like it was a general mistaken error, and I agree with those whom have said - I doubt someone would knowingly post during the Night, just to make themselves look better.

I concur. While it's plausible that some enterprising individual might try to meta-manipulate like that, the odds of it having any functional and predictable benefit aren't really good enough to warrant bothering. I mean... what are the odds that posting at night is going to convince people you're not evil? It's just trash logic and would be a kinda useless waste of time and energy.

Originally Posted by Gwath

There goes my usual strategy of saying as little as possible. It will be interesting to see how this affects folks' playing styles, since it behooves us all, to some extent, to TRY to attract attention.

Psh... just ask the Bostonmooters: I attract attention even when sick and sleeping. Posting? As if posting was necessary for one such as me! No, but seriously, there's something interesting about the psychology behind trying to avoid being the least favorite and actively striving to be the most loved. Frankly, every time I play werewolf I wish I was studying it as social psych. Because the question comes down to how much you think somebody is willing to alter their normal state in order to accrue popularity. Ie: how much are any of the players here willing to change themselves in order to please others?

Me? Even if I had the time and energy to pretend like I care about being popular, I wouldn't. Because it would almost certainly be detrimental to me to try to attract attention, since urban legend suggests that I'm only vocal when I'm evil. Ergo, I'm playing how I feel like playing based on my schedule and my whim (and Sally's whim), and the rest of you will just have to deal.

Originally Posted by Nog

I just don't see the point of this objection. It looks like you'd wish us not to talk of whom we actually suspect so as to let the wolves skip freely in the shadows? It's the point of the game-mechanics that we vote for confidence, but our goal nevertheless is getting the wolves lynched. Or do you have a different goal?

I view it as drawing negative space. With voting for who you want to kill, you're drawing the subject of the picture. You're making it obvious.

But when you vote for who you want to keep alive, you're filling in your background. The silhouette you reveal is the identity of the person who is least trusted.

In short, I find this argument silly, since regardless of whether you vote for favorite or least favorite, you're still eventually going to have an Undesirable die at the hands of the village.

It's just more like death by negligence instead of death by pitchfork. Just think of us leaving a poor little villager out in the cold while the rest of us party, and coming out in the morning to find them frozen in the snow.

Originally Posted by phantom

And I still can't believe no one has suggested something interesting, such as- "On Day 2, why don't we all agree to dump three of our four votes immediately on a non-player (e.g. Shasta) and then we'll all have only one single vote with which to save someone from then on. It will make votes more meaningful and make things more tense and encourage bargaining and make lists and such much shorter and easier to keep track of etc etc..."

Because I haven't been home until now! I vote for this idea. Then again, last time I tried to convince a group to control votes and kill a known wolf with them, they managed to kill me instead. So frankly, my faith in group think is negligible. No offense to you all as individuals, but it's a proven fact that groups of people are stupid.

What we need here is a benevolent dictator. We shouldn't be voting anybody into Simon, Simon should seize control!

Veni, vidi, vici!