WWJ IV: Let the insanity ensue

[Folwren]

I am here. I am sorry it has taken me so long to finally arrive, but I have read all the posts up to this point and have done my best to try to look for guilt and innocence. Reading between the lines is hard. . .very hard in some cases.

However, here are some things said and my answers there to:

Originally posted by Nogrod
Has someone been overtly nice or overtly aggressive? Or non-existent, invisible? I would start on those premises.

In answer, I have noticed two - Jennyhalu is over aggressive, and Sleepy Ranger is overly nice. As of yet, I have not formed any accusations thereof, but it’s an answer to your question as I see it.

Originally posted by Mith
I am sorry that RL has made Firefoot have to rush hers though, since on the surface she does seem slightly more suspicious than anyone else - posting first always looks suspicious to me. Also she has posted a lot and slightly contradictorily - first saying that there is no plan then suggesting we limit the vote (which as I am sure our resident professor could confirm) is unlikely to improve our chances.

This is all very well and good. You can choose to accuse and suspect who you will, but I do not find Jenny's response acceptable, really. After Mith suggested we look at Firefoot, Jenny, who up this point is all very well and happy to be friends with Firefoot, leap upon her immediately, pulling out evidence that's hardly there and weaving a net that Firefoot has absolutely no chance of escaping, especially since she has had to go.

Allow me. . .

Originally posted by Jenny

She goes on to suggest the best plan is to enjoy the benefits of a wide and active discussion, and suggests voting for whomever seems most wolvish to one's self at the end of the Day.

Firefoot's first post made sense. Strategies are just about impossible to make the first day. If you try to make them, they often fail, and then whoever attempts to make them gets looked at and in the end, probably lynched, and they probably turn out to be innocent innocents who are only trying to help.

Originally posted by Jenny
Later, she bemoans the silence of the village, but I have no experience to tell me whether or not our little village was truly relatively silent. More interesting, to my eyes at least, is her suggestion that we limit our voting by selecting a range of four random people. This seems an about-face from her earlier suggestion to vote by individual conscience, which would, in the absence of any real evidence, ensure a fairly wide spread of votes.

Silence is bad. If no one talks, or if everyone talks but very little, nothing can be derived from their words to either prove their innocence or guilt. Firefoot, and any other good player, knows that.
As for the four votes. . .well, that's better than everyone being a candidate for lynching, isn't it? She says, let's not all bandwagon on one, but she also says, let's not try to lynch everyone at once. Go by your instincts, and it's likely that people's instincts will lead them to, as she said, about four or five people. A well spread out vote is four or five.

Her vote for Gandalf the white is not too bad. I had a few doubts when I read his first post, but I have more time and won't vote immediately, he'll be able to talk more. Firefoot, however, did not have more time.

There. That rant was to both show how much Jenny is desperate to point her finger at someone, and to say that I don't think Firefoot is guilty. If she is, at this point, I consider it pretty impossible to tell, and it'd be a daft thing indeed to be rid of her this early in the game - especially when this first lynching will be a guess in the dark. Don't kill her. She'll be valuable later on. Especially if she turns out innocent.

Originally posted by Jenny
Perhaps we should simply vote for the last person to lend their voice to our discussion.

Bad idea, actually, because if I happen to be the last person here, it means I’ll be lynched, and that’s terribly unfair because I haven’t had internet access before now. And that could be the case with every other person here.

As it is - I will back up what Firefoot said earlier - we need more long posts! Not a lot of short, little posts that say nothing except 'Here I am.' 'Yeah, she looks guilty.' No. We need some real posts! And for the people who don't start giving real posts, I will look at closely, I can promise you. If it is your character to write short posts, perhaps it's overlookable, but. . .maybe not.

-- Folwren

EDIT: Cross posted with Roa

[JennyHallu]

Honestly I agree that my earlier idea of simply voting for the last to speak was, in a word, absurd. And honestly, it was Firefoot's explanation that brought me to that realization.

I see nothing suspicious in Gandalf's post except perhaps flippancy, but then I am myself overly wordy. It is hard to read between the lines when there are only three lines to read.

I am afraid that my aggressive nature is a personal fault, but it is hardly Wolvish. To be frank, I think that it is the product of idleness. My coins are all carefully catalogued and counted (trans: my RL job is simple and consists mostly of being next to the phone), and I have a lot of time to devote to trying to understand who could do this to Kitanna. If I am reading too much into Firefoot's statements, forgive me, but there did seem to me to be contradictions. My only experience of Werewolves has been tales I have heard elsewhere, and so I have no way of knowing if four candidates is a wide spread or not.

I find it interesting that while some insist on longer posts, attempts at analysis, and posting often, taking this advice to heart only brings suspicion. Villagers, I only meant to ask what others thought of Firefoot's statements.

I am sorry, Folwren, that I seem desperate to accuse anyone. But all I really want to do is stir up enough thought among my fellow villagers that I may learn what are clues and what are red herrings.

I mean, really, if I were a wolf, it seems obvious that it would be stupid to be quite so vociferous. It certainly seems to bring suspicion immediately on my head, which is not at all my intention, as I am innocent.

[Folwren]

Eh, that is good, your explenation, and it likely is the truth, though it's hard to tell. Some wolves can be very cunning, and from a bit of study on you, your a smart person. . .

Be that as it may, I wrote my last post and rant mostly to clear Firefoot of suspicion. I will admit, though, that I had few scruples against bringing doubt onto you.

I have nothing more to say. And. . .if there is anything between this post and Jenny's last post, that means I cross posted with someone and I'm too lazy to want to Edit my stuff.

-- Folwren

[Valier]

Whoa is me!!! So much has happened since I woke up! I don't see the point today of making long winded posts because there is nothing to go on. People who post alot with alot in them tend to get lynched soon because they bring themselves into the spot light more...But then again all the quietness makes me nervous!

I will have to vote in an hour or so....so I wish there was some one else around to help with some speculations.

[JennyHallu]

Sleepy, you have taken everything I said out of the context in which I said it.

Compared to that I find Firefoot's idea of voting for the last person to vote saner but not something I would do yet it doesn't earn her a spot on my suspicion list.

Firefoot never suggested we vote for the last voter. Firefoot suggest we select four names at random and divide our vote between those. How can you vote for the last person to vote anyway? You can't vote before that person has voted, but you can't vote until everyone else has either.

What are you trying to say? We should stop making theories and analysis because that arouses suspicion? We should keep our posts short and shouldn't post often just because it arouses suspicion? Posting less, short and nothing to do with the game also arouses suspicion.

Being in this village, today, arouses suspicion.

As for Gandalf, I did not mean to criticize the brevity of his post at all. I was questioning why Folwren felt that post made her suspicious. And I intended "overly wordy" as a crack at myself. I'm a windbag.

Why are you isolating Firefoot?

I am not the first to have singled out Firefoot. Mithalwen was the first to bring her up, I merely looked back at Firefoot's posts to see if I agreed. With Mithalwen's reasons I did not agree. But I also found Firefoot to be occasionally confusing. I never accused, I merely made my points and asked other villagers what they thought. Nogrod and Folwren responded in kind by questioning my aggressiveness, and I took this as advice to sit back and be more patient.

At this point, the chance, in my mind, of Firefoot's guilt, stands exactly where it was before I took a closer look at her posts: 1 in 13.


Please be more careful, however, when you refer to what someone else has said. Firefoot never advocated the strategy you said she did, and your entire point in that area made no sense.

EDIT: cross-posted with Roa

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by Valier

Whoa is me!!! So much has happened since I woke up! I don't see the point today of making long winded posts because there is nothing to go on. People who post alot with alot in them tend to get lynched soon because they bring themselves into the spot light more...But then again all the quietness makes me nervous!

I will have to vote in an hour or so....so I wish there was some one else around to help with some speculations.

My dear. . .Valier. . .oi. . .I know not what to say. If you don't want quiet and you don't want long winded posts, what do you want? If we have nothing to go on, why shouldn't we make long winded posts and give something to go on? Yet, if we none of us made any long winded posts, then tomorrow would be the same as today, and there would STILL be nothing to go on! Are you afraid of people making long posts and then turning around and wondering why you aren't making long posts? And are you afraid to make long posts because if you do, you will bring the spotlight onto you? Only wolves should be trully afraid to bring the spot light on themselves. An innocent usually has ways of defending himself. . .or, at least, is usually convincing enough to defend himself, because if he's innocent, he hasn't done anything wrong. And the lack of guilt and guilty concious in his posts will vouch for him. Therefore, the only person who should be really afraid of drawing the spot light are the wolves. Or, well. . . maybe the seer, but not so much so.

But then, sometimes, wolves are smart and extremely cunning with their words, and can afford to make long posts and draw the spot light, and deflect the guilt. Sometimes.

And a word to the lot of us. . .we might want to be careful not to bandwagon this evening.

-- Folwren

[Folwren]

My last post cross posted with Jenny, and I'm making a new post and therefore may be double posting because she said something that I didn't realize needed addressing but now that I do, I will make a new post.

Originally posted by said Jenny:
As for Gandalf, I did not mean to criticize the brevity of his post at all. I was questioning why Folwren felt that post made her suspicious. And I intended "overly wordy" as a crack at myself. I'm a windbag.

I can't say exactly why it made me feel suspicious. Only that, he claimed not to be so smart, therefore couldn't really be a cunning would, also says that he'll vote later on today at random and that he can't have any suspicions (sp) (also a ridiculous thing to say because regardless of who you are, you're going to have some sort of suspicion)(just look at us). He offers no help, no words, no nothing.

But, I will not judge simply from his two posts. I said I was doubtful of him, but it was mainly on a gut feeling. You can't really derrive much from just a couple of sentences. It could be Gandalf's natural character to remain quiet. I've seen people killed because they were naturally quiet and turn out to be someone gifted. However, I don't blame Firefoot too much for voting for him, seeing as she didn't have too long, and she did end up voting mostly at random, I should guess. At the time, he seemed the less useful and (p'raps) the most questionable.

-- Folwren

[JennyHallu]

Thank you very much Folwren, for elaborating.

[Valier]

I know I know!! Folwren I just some times get confused with the longer posts! But I guess some people are better comunicators. I guess I do some times make long posts, but not often. That's just me! So I guess others are the opposite.

I do agree that we shouldn't all bandwagon today, lets spread it out and make the wolves jumpy, they might slip up with something incriminating if they are under suspision. I have seen it before.

About not wanting to be in the spotlight myself.Nonsense....I love the spotlight!! Being the magnificent dancer I am! But Alas I must depart very soon.....Who to vote for on this day of all days?

Edit: Cross posted with Folwren

[Nogrod]

Sorry to be making these short posts just after Folwren has quite eloquently argued for longer ones. Just some more pipeweed to attend to. I will be back well before the voting time runs out and try to make some more contributions.

But just here. As an example of how schitzophrenic this situation is to begin with, is that you could see Folwrens' message both ways: as an attempt to free an innocent Firefoot from the aggressive WW JennyHallu, or then Jenny had it right in the first place, and now one WW tries to save another with rhetoric...

Well, my first instinct would go more for the former than the latter, but I really do not have any grounds for this. Propably its neither...

But still I would go for a principle, rather than the rolling of the dice. The WW's will gain most if we just spread our votes randomly: it's then anybody's game (chances 3/13). This all presupposing, that we have an idea for the principle.

I'll have to go through this thread once more as I have time (if I have it) to see, whether there is something along these lines of being overtly nice and lovable, being really aggressive, or being totally non-existent (is there anyone besides Thin, not posting anything yet?).

[Sleepy Ranger]

Alright after going over the posts that have been made I've decided its time to start speaking sense. Ok now due to the lack of time I may not be able to reply nor may I be able to back up my statements so don't get mad at me if I mess up a bit here and there. Now judging by past experience I have always been one of the most contradictory players and have always added some flavor to the game. However I am yet to start using my twisted logic yet (and odds are I won't in this game due to time restraints) so chances are there won't be any good long posts attacking me or defending me while all together ignoring the wolf threat. ^_^

Honestly I agree that my earlier idea of simply voting for the last to speak was, in a word, absurd. And honestly, it was Firefoot's explanation that brought me to that realization.

And your point is? There are plenty of absurd theories on day 1. The last game I was on people were attacking other people based on their occupation. Sure just commenting on it is fine but really they took the occupations a bit too seriously. Compared to that I find Firefoot's idea of voting for the last person to vote saner but not something I would do yet it doesn't earn her a spot on my suspicion list.

I find it interesting that while some insist on longer posts, attempts at analysis, and posting often, taking this advice to heart only brings suspicion.

What are you trying to say? We should stop making theories and analysis because that arouses suspicion? We should keep our posts short and shouldn't post often just because it arouses suspicion? Posting less, short and nothing to do with the game also arouses suspicion.

I see nothing suspicious in Gandalf's post except perhaps flippancy, but then I am myself overly wordy. It is hard to read between the lines when there are only three lines to read.

Oh dear... You're asking him for a longer post just before going on a rant about how people shouldn't be asking for longer posts? You baffle me, congratulations.

Villagers, I only meant to ask what others thought of Firefoot's statements.

Why are you isolating Firefoot? Granted shes made some contradictions but going straight out and asking others for their opinions on it so early seems a tad bit suspicious to me.

I am sorry, Folwren, that I seem desperate to accuse anyone. But all I really want to do is stir up enough thought among my fellow villagers that I may learn what are clues and what are red herrings.

You're basing your attack on a couple of posts from a single person and you're trying to divert all attention to her. Seems fishy.

I mean, really, if I were a wolf, it seems obvious that it would be stupid to be quite so vociferous. It certainly seems to bring suspicion immediately on my head, which is not at all my intention, as I am innocent.

Really? So are you trying to say the wolves won't call attention on themselves? Firefoot did, yet you're saying shes a wolf. +5 Suspicion points for you ma'am.

Jenny seems to be quite an exciteable person and is currently the sole occupant of my suspicion list. I won't be so quick to jump on Firefoot, its probably just a gut feeling but I believe shes innocent.

Since I don't know if I'll have a chance to post again heres my vote-

++JennyHallu

[Roa_Aoife]

Though I wouldn't take my eyes off Sleepy for moment, I do agree that Jenny has been the most agressive player for the day. She has singled out Firefoot after our stabler's departure, in the same way a few did to another poor innocent in the last game, one those few being a wolf.

However, Sleepy seems to be attacking her over the smallest things.

What are you trying to say? We should stop making theories and analysis because that arouses suspicion? We should keep our posts short and shouldn't post often just because it arouses suspicion? Posting less, short and nothing to do with the game also arouses suspicion.

I think here Jenny was trying to say that she'd been following that very advice for the good of the village, and it wasn't anything wolvish about it. (That, of course, remains to be seen. But it wasn't anything worth jumping on with that sort vehemence.)

Oh dear... You're asking him for a longer post just before going on a rant about how people shouldn't be asking for longer posts? You baffle me, congratulations.

A sentence is hardly a rant. While pointing to Gandalf's short post and then Firefoot's vote for him both as objects of suspision is contradicting, and highly suspicious itself, your accusation of ranting is overly agressive. What a switch from the politeness you were showing earlier! Is that because it was drawing attention? You're jumping around quite a bit.

Why are you isolating Firefoot? Granted shes made some contradictions but going straight out and asking others for their opinions on it so early seems a tad bit suspicious to me.

You're basing your attack on a couple of posts from a single person and you're trying to divert all attention to her. Seems fishy.

Besides Jenny, Firefoot has had the most posts to go from. As I said, I agree that Jenny seems overly agressive in this, and has jumped around quite a bit herself, but those few posts from where she's drawing suspicion is also the biggest source of information right now. You're pretty nitpicky about that. Was it just easier to jump on the most obviously suspicious person? I expected better from you.


I would still like to hear from Thin, and a few others wouldn't hurt to do more meaningful posts, even if they aren't very long.