Tol-in-Gaurhoth IV (The Saga, erm, Still Continues...)

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Why have I accused Anguirel and Lalaith?

Hmm.....

As this appears so blindingly obvious to me, I'm not going to answer you directly, at least not for a while. I am going to wait until every other person speaks (or at least most other people).

For fear of wasting my time.

You wouldn't grasp at such feeble straws for no reason, now would you Miss Fea? This is precisely the fallacious reasoning I talked of earlier. From my perspective, you are probably innocent: don't ruin that by taking the bait meant for werewolves.

[the phantom]

Why have I accused Anguirel and Lalaith?

Hmm.....

As this appears so blindingly obvious to me, I'm not going to answer you directly, at least not for a while. I am going to wait until every other person speaks (or at least most other people).

I know what you are doing.

Good call.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I think it would have been, had a certain someone not called me on it.

But anyway........that Nilpaurion Felagund always struck me as a troublemaker. Let him speak!

[the phantom]

How does he or she convey this information to the rest of the innocents without the wolves finding out also?

The seer would have to step forward and expose his/her identity. But there is a point that, if reached, it won't really matter if the wolves know who the seer is.

So don't bother with the condescending and infuriating...

What about my "arrogant healer" role don't you understand?

And now let's look at your math skills...

Sure it will, math-boy. If we take one innocent out of the pool, then there are less people for the wolves to kill, thereby increasing their chance of randomly selecting someone we want to keep. If you need smaller numbers, here are some.

There are three fish in the pond, a blue fish, a red fish, and an orange fish. The fisherman is guaranteed to catch one. He has a 1:3 chance of catching the blue fish. If we take out the orange fish and leave it on the shore to die or something equally gross, then there are only two fish left. It means that the fisherman now has a 1:2 chance of getting the blue fish. Capiche?

I can see how this might seem logical to you if you don't think too hard, but there is a huge mistake in your little fish-catching analogy.

You are assuming that it is possible to fish without one of the fish being taken out. That is not the case today. You said-

If we take one innocent out of the pool, then there are less people for the wolves to kill

But what you forgot is that someone will be taken out of the pool NO MATTER WHAT, whether my plan is instituted or not! So your little fish thing doesn't apply at all.

Don't try to beat me at math.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

No. See, we already know that a fish is coming out. That's a freaking given. If we take out our own fish, we definately help the wolves. If we take an educated guess, we probably help the wolves. There's quite the difference there, being that if we guess right, we aren't helping them. There's that margin of hope that we can't over-look.

Don't try to beat you at math? Fine. If you agree to stop trying to beat me. Period.

And did you realize that we're stealing the show? How's about a temporary truce (you're still dumb ) so that we can force some of the others to take action?

[the phantom]

There's that margin of hope that we can't over-look.

But with that margin of hope comes an even larger chance of giving the wolves a huge boost, since as I said before, there is a greater chance of lynching a gifted villager than there is of lynching a wolf.

you're still dumb

*sigh*

You realize that only someone dumb would call the phantom dumb?

How's about a temporary truce so that we can force some of the others to take action?

As long as you promise to behave yourself.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

It was bait. It was bait for the werewolves. Werewolves who are intentionally trying to sway the votes and by that means lynch an innocent. Why should you be desparate to take the opportunity to set me up? It was designed so that a werewolf may set me up, not an innocent. Said werewolf would be clutching at straws. Any innocent would have no reason to go anywhere near the straws. By the way, (couldn't help but notice) you did point out my accusations while the phantom was grilling you, despite the fact that I had accused Ang about 30 posts ago. Did you just 'notice' it there and then, yes?

At least come up with a lie when called on it? I don't see the point: everyone can see the game now anyway. I'll lie when it suits me, not when every werewolf has realised what I was plotting. As for subtlety, it seemed subtle enough to fox you. You should have just played along and then maybe, just maybe, we would have a trap for the wolves. Why should you be opposed to this trap? I mean, you are already so opposed to the phantom's. Can you offer any worthwhile suggestions in catching a wolf? Or do you just want to hang those who are trying?

Apparently I said something along the lines of "I just changed my mind about your innocence because you pointed out my mistake".

Ok, ok, this is amusing. Please refer to the mistake of mine that you pointed out. I don't recall it. lmp's point (and teasing) was noted and laughed at. It is his repetition of the point that I am wary of. Why should I be called on the slip over and over? If you see that as a werewolf's slip then suit yourself. Just remember to look at the context of the post; you will see (hopefully) that it was an honest mistake.

Oh, and I didn't say that lmp was guilty. I merely pointed out what I believe to be suspicious behaviour.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Well, what a tangle. I'm not sure what to make of some of this...
But I will place myself firmly against the idea that one of us innocent villagers volunteers to be lynched. As said before, if it's such a great idea, why doesn't Phantom volunteer.
Also, I still don't understand how a guaranteed innocent death is any better for us than risking lynching an innocent. I personally would rather lynch one of my fellow innocent villagers accidentally, without having them volunteer. If we lynch by vote, we at least have some chance of actually picking a wolf. If we lynch a volunteer, we're guaranteed to lose an innocent, therefore lessening the villager-to-wolf ratio. I bet they'd laugh in glee.
I vote for at least trying to lynch a suspicious character rather than lynching a known innocent.
There may be a "statistical disadvantage" as Phantom calls it, but to my mind, a chance is still a chance.

EDIT: In fact, we're guaranteed to lose two innocents before we get to vote again, if we take Phantom's method: one would die and one would be killed at Night. On one hand, we definitely won't lose one of our important villagers, such as a seer or a guardian during the day, but at Night, anything can happen. I'd say we have about the same chance of lynching someone important as the wolves do of killing one tonight. It would be a shame to lose a seer or guardian or hunter this early in the game, but I prefer to take the route that provides us with a possibility of lynching a wolf instead of definitely losing an innocent villager. If we vote, we at least have a chance of success.

[the phantom]

As said before, if it's such a great idea, why doesn't Phantom volunteer.

You're right. That was "said before", and it was also answered before, so it was rather pointless for you to repeat, unless you are merely trying to plant a bug in people's ears that I should be the one to die. But why would you want to do that? Hmm...

If we lynch a volunteer, we're guaranteed to lose an innocent, therefore lessening the villager-to-wolf ratio. I bet they'd laugh in glee.

We're going to be lessening the villager-to-wolf ratio even if we don't follow my plan (odds are).

There may be a "statistical disadvantage" as Phantom calls it, but to my mind, a chance is still a chance.

So you are willing to do something despite a statistical disadvantage? That doesn't sound too smart.

On one hand, we definitely won't lose one of our important villagers, such as a seer or a guardian during the day

Yes, that is the plan's strong point.

but at Night, anything can happen

That is always the case, plan or no plan, so that doesn't really matter.

Also, if the seer is killed during the night, all we will have to do is look back at his/her posts to see what hints were given and we will at least have a bit of guidance.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

You wouldn't grasp at such feeble straws for no reason, now would you Miss Fea?

I never do anything without reason. And since it was "bait", and a set intentionally, how can you call it grasping at a straw? I noticed something odd, and called you on it. What's wrong with that? M'boy, m'boy... if you want to set a trap, you need to be more subtle. And at least come up with a lie when you get called on it, instead of saying "I just changed my mind about your innocence because you pointed out my mistake." It's the same thing you did to LMP. Because he found a [Freudian?] slip and is teasing you about it, he's guilty. Way to play.

[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

Hold your horses, only fools rush in, when in Rome and a couple of other useful proverbs! You are causing me a headache. I have my own theories, too, but I won't say more yet nor give any reasons because that would lead me to "an incredibly boring death". A part of me agrees with phantom's plan but it'll be useless if we lose our seer within next couple of days or nights.

We have a 17.6% chance of picking a wolf.

Well, the Seer has 18.75% chance to pick a culprit in case s/he didn't dream of a wolf last night - otherwise the odds are a tad better... But the problem is that we wouldn't probably believe him/her anyway and we'd lynch him/her as a wolf.

There are just too many "what ifs". Sigh. I'm off to bed now. Please, more reasoning and less fighting. And let's wait for those who have remained silent.