WWJ V: The Broken Souls

[Nogrod]

Answering Enca's post, here concerning the nonposting of the WQ, Naria writes:

Originally Posted by Naria

Even though I am against lynching someone because of their quietness, I would have to agree with this point. She has yet to post in this game and it is making me a little uneasy.

I agree with this feeling of uneasiness. I have the same feeling with Gil-Galad. And somewhat with Valesse.

But I would also like to point out, that someone not posting at all is basically not playing the game. So, at some point at least, I would be ready to leave them be and just ignore them, if we just have anything more sensible to vote. For if someone turns out to be a wolf without posting anything, S/he has not played a fair game and is a moral loser, which I think is the worst kind of losing there is. So then, no problem, even if are dead after all this: we have had a good game which could be called undecided (if someone really wants a verdict). And the cheater would have to carry the guilt.

I'm just afraid, that more probably than not, by lynching these quiet's, we lynch innocents anyhow - and that's the job of the wolves, in which we should not help them at all.

EDIT: As I have already triple-posted and have some RL to live, I'l be off too. But I surely will be around here for a bit more energetic session before the vote.

[Thinlómien]

I will never be able to comment all this! But I try to make points on some things.

I know I was posting pretty much yesterday... I had nothing else to do than play WW so I commented every little thing I thought was worth commenting.

Originally Posted by Encaitare

Sleepy hints at Thinlo having a macabre sense of the beautiful, which could go with the bloody fountain imagery.

Agree that macabre sense of beautiful would maybe go with bloody fountain imagery, but the reson why Sleepy hinted that was probably because of my profession, sculptor specializing in nightmarish birds. If someone makes statues of nightmare-like birds he/she must have a strange sense of beautiful.

One thing troubles me. You're all assuming we have clever wolves. What if we don't? What if the wolves are really stupid?

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Nogrod, the underlined sentence is a quote from Naria

having someone like him around would not help at all... So it's not helpful to have someone around, who really tries to make the difference (I do admit, that my first day performance was not so good: I couldn't make you all to see my point, and I didn't bet on the right horse - it was just so unbelievable that the mod would bring some RL things into a game...). I would like to ask Naria, which kind of people she would see useful around? Maybe a village full of WQ's (no posts) could be nice, or Gil-Galads (one, nonsense)? To whom, might these be of assistance: to the WW's or to the villagers? If you are a villager proper and not a traitor, why do you think that people who try to elaborate over things, who try to find clues etc. are "not of any help at all"? I would find even a elaborate wolf "of even some help" (compared to this "no help at all")!!!

Nogrod, you don't have to be aggressive to be able to converse! Bringing up new things and thoughts is always good, but it doesn't have to be done in an aggressive manner.

It's good for wolves to have quiet people around; not to have anyone who "presses them against the wall" (if you get my meaning), so I think we should take a closer look on those who voted loud people. Those are:
Eonwe - LMP
and Valesse, Valier & Naria - Nogrod.
Of course they all explained why they voted for the one they voted, but you can always make reasons afterwards and cover the real reasons. Was Eonwe's as random as he let us believe? Why did he change tactics today totally abandoning his previous tactics (in his post #142)?

Some people have accused me today because of my vote. I honestly ask you: if I were a wolf, why would I want to be more connected to THE Ka than I already was (=she voted me)? Wouldn't I want not to be connected to her in any way? I personally think that the wolves would try to avoid being connected with their fellow WWs. Maybe later on, when there's less people left, they would take contact on each other, but on first day, it would be totally unnecessary and unnecessarily dangerous for them. So in my logic it isn't sure that some wolf voted for THE Ka, though I don't say it's unprobable. Maybe the wolves just don't use same logic as I do. Besides, if I were a wolf, why would THE Ka have voted for me? I think it's too risky for a wolf to cast the first vote on fellow WW on the first day. She said she had flipped a coin, but surely she could have said it showed WQ if I happened to be her fellow WW?

I think the wolves are rather the non-bandwagoners than the bandwagoners; everyone who has played WW before knows that the bandwagoners get most analysis the next day.

Totally on a different matter - When I read Roa's analysis of myself, I realised I was quite nonsense-speaker; I said something and then said something totally on the contrary. It's just the thing that I'm not very good at deciding, and I rather write all the pros and cons I can make up on one matter rather than only writing a plain yes or no not caring to think about the another side of the matter.

[Thinlómien]

Analysing myself (the two latest posts) or, clearing up what I meant: It seems that I am very, very poor at deciding things. First I say: why does everyone we have clever wolves? and in the next post I am assuming that we have clever wolves. Forgive me for making all this confusion, but what I thought was that we shouldn't forget the option (however unprobable it were) that wolves can be stupid. Besides, there's much more analysing in what would clever wolves do than in what would stupid wolves do.

Okay, it seems I have to go now. I will be back before voting time, but don't expect me back soon...

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Ang

for some reason I'd thought Roa had started the movement, not LMP. Thanks for the clarification.

Actually, it was Roa's theory but LMP started voting THE Ka, though he didn't do so because of Roa's theory, unlike other Ka-voters like me.

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by The Verbose One

I think the wolves are rather the non-bandwagoners than the bandwagoners; everyone who has played WW before knows that the bandwagoners get most analysis the next day.

One of the shrewdest things you've said yet. If I were a gambler not a herald, I'd bet on one wolf in either THE Ka's lot or Nogrod's lot, and one going it alone, rather like me.

Of course, it rather depends on a number of outside factors, such as experience and strategy. And the most experienced wolves won't necessarily shun bandwagoning. I've seen an entire team of veteran wolves cling to a bandwagon to protect one of their number in my time...

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

One thing troubles me. You're all assuming we have clever wolves. What if we don't? What if the wolves are really stupid?

An interesting point, rather like one would imagine a clever wolf might say, m'dear...

Actually-as in my examination of the Nogrod movement-I have not ruled out a bumbling werewolf. But we have to be prepared for the worst as well-being strung up a gumtree by some maniacal brain. You and Nogrod, say, could be inviting us onto the dance-floor of decimation through your joint monopolisation of the arena. It is not an impossible scenario, as an unpublished scriptwriter wittier than I once wrote...

EDIT: Cross-posted with your customary schizophrenia in which you debunked your own point, and very well too...

[JennyHallu]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But I would also like to point out, that someone not posting at all is basically not playing the game. So, at some point at least, I would be ready to leave them be and just ignore them, if we just have anything more sensible to vote. For if someone turns out to be a wolf without posting anything, S/he has not played a fair game and is a moral loser, which I think is the worst kind of losing there is. So then, no problem, even if are dead after all this: we have had a good game which could be called undecided (if someone really wants a verdict). And the cheater would have to carry the guilt.

Nogrod, I have two points.

A) Quietness is not necessarily cheating. It is one strategy among many, and it doesn't make her any safer. And, as far as we know, WQ may not have even realized the game has started.

I don't think there is any reason for ad-hominem attacks such as calling a quiet player a "moral loser", or referring to an error as a "lie" (with all the negative connotations therein) without any evidence to prove or disprove whether it was deliberate. As you pointed out earlier, this is, in the end, just a game. You claim to have little patience with rhetoric, so please tone down your own.

B) Your first several posts were urging us to 'put pressure' on the quiet players, even within a few hours of the start of the Day. Now you advise we ignore the quiet? I am confused as to what, exactly, your stance on the issue is?


Thinlo, I believe your contradictions were due more to a stream-of-consciousness writing style, and general boredom. While Roa makes good points (I really appreciate her analysis of the players), my impression of you is generally innocent.

Edit: spelling error.

[Eonwe]

Originally Posted by Ang

If I were a gambler not a herald, I'd bet on one wolf in either THE Ka's lot or Nogrod's lot, and one going it alone, rather like me.

I agree. Though I think Lommy is in teh clear. She's right, there is too much connecting with THE Ka for it to be worthwile for a wolf. Though, of course, that could just be the way she wants us to belive. NOTE: I thought of this last night, and am not just reiterating what Lommy said herself, that would not be good evidence, now would it?

Lommy, you ask:

Originally Posted by Lommy

Of course they all explained why they voted for the one they voted, but you can always make reasons afterwards and cover the real reasons. Was Eonwe's as random as he let us believe? Why did he change tactics today totally abandoning his previous tactics (in his post #142)?

If you read the post you will find I answered this: There is no evidence on day one for me to make an educated guess. As the game porgresses, there is more and more evidece, hence more and more education, hence better and better votes. I'm not going to vote randomly when I suspect someone, but I can't vote pointedly when I cannot suspect anyone. Does that make sense?

[Gil-Galad]

this is my only time to vote

++JennyHallu


i will explain my reasons when i return

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Gil-Galad

this is my only time to vote

++JennyHallu


i will explain my reasons when i return

Jenny! Your "strategy" seems to be biting you.


This is bad. Not fun gaming at all.

Even with that i will explain my reasons when i return attached...

[JennyHallu]

I don't know what you're talking about, Nogrod. We have been given a single, unreasoned vote from someone who has posted only once in the game, and his comments seem to imply that he will not be back today.

If calm, reasoned, and courteous posts are not enough to convince people of my innocence when accused wildly, on the basis of an error, by one near-silent player and one all-too-vocal one, I don't know what is. I would respond to Gil's vote in my defense, but he has left me nothing to defend.

Nogrod has questioned my personal honesty, in the rudest terms, over and over again, and accepts no explanation for an error. He has even gone so far as to analyse the time between my posts in an attempt to prove I lied about a cross-posting. Yet he expects us to accept his wild and unpredictable accusations, and the terms in which he couches them.

Yes, Nogrod. This is a case of your word, versus my word. But frankly, your total denial of any chance of an error on my part, and an over-reaction on yours, comes across to me as very suspicious.

EDIT: Cross-posted with Anguirel. Really, I swear.

[Nogrod]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by JennyHallu

I don't know what you're talking about, Nogrod. We have been given a single, unreasoned vote from someone who has posted only once in the game, and his comments seem to imply that he will not be back today.

If calm, reasoned, and courteous posts are not enough to convince people of my innocence when accused wildly, on the basis of an error, by one near-silent player and one all-too-vocal one, I don't know what is. I would respond to Gil's vote in my defense, but he has left me nothing to defend.

I'm about totally agreeing with you on this Jenny! I do think that vote by Gil was unfair and bad gaming! I do not think you earned that vote! I only took on joking because you had just earlier defended that kind of gaming (that Gil plays) as a strategy as good as any...

Nogrod has questioned my personal honesty, in the rudest terms, over and over again, and accepts no explanation for an error. He has even gone so far as to analyse the time between my posts in an attempt to prove I lied about a cross-posting. Yet he expects us to accept his wild and unpredictable accusations, and the terms in which he couches them.

Yes, Nogrod. This is a case of your word, versus my word. But frankly, your total denial of any chance of an error on my part, and an over-reaction on yours, comes across to me as very suspicious.

I thought that I was the one who was defined the uptight one here...

I have not refused anything so far. I've just said, that in the end there's just one's word. And I guess that's what this game is about, seeing, who trusts who's word. I do not boast to know, what do you really think - as I think you can't boast on my thoughts. I think it is totally possible that you have not lied a bit. It's probably even more probable, judging the situation at the moment.

And. I've not demanded anyone to "accept my accusations". I've told this already. I want to see, where there are little discrepancies, possible falsehoods etc. and what could be made out of them + show them to everyone to make their own judgements about them.

I'm not accusing you Jenny! Try to understand!!! At this stage I couldn't accuse anyone. I might suspect Valier and Naria, but of the first I haven't anything solid, and with the other I'm coming to suspect her less and less...

But your post really got me thinking. Do I express myself so differently than you, that you all really can't see what I'm doing? I'll have to think about this, and would really like to hear some comments. Or then you just don't read my posts...

[Nogrod]

Amid washing the dishes and cooking I just checked the situation, and must just shortly comment on this.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by JennyHallu

Nogrod, I have two points.

A) Quietness is not necessarily cheating. It is one strategy among many, and it doesn't make her any safer. And, as far as we know, WQ may not have even realized the game has started.

No it's not necessarily cheating. I totally agree. And WQ might be anywhere or know anything or not. We just don't know. But I strongly disagree with you about it being a strategy among many. I call it "not playing". Figure a game where all the players adopt this "strategy" of yours! There wouldn't be a game at all! Those who willfully do not post anything are just hang-arounds, parasites one could call them: using those who really play to their own advantage. People who eat from the pile the others gather. People can do so, I know, but the moral side of it is another thing. Real life hindrances are understandable, sure, and another thing. (Although one should consider beforehand, whether s/he is actually having the time to really play when getting involved!)

I don't think there is any reason for ad-hominem attacks such as calling a quiet player a "moral loser", or referring to an error as a "lie" (with all the negative connotations therein) without any evidence to prove or disprove whether it was deliberate. As you pointed out earlier, this is, in the end, just a game. You claim to have little patience with rhetoric, so please tone down your own.

Ad hominem means accusing the personal properties or characteristics of the one you are talking with / about...

But seriously. Those two examples by you do not belong to the same category of things. First. Someone who is a wolf, and cheats all people by staying absolutely quiet, is not plaing fairly. And a win achieved by that tactics I would call very unmoral indeed! (Think of it: three wolves, two nonposters, one very careful post/aDay type. While the villagers realize the situation after 3-4-5 innocent lynches + nightly killings, it's too late already. You call that fair game, good game, or morally plausible tactics, when it comes to playing with each other - meaning, trusting each other to play fairly eg. giving others a chance?)
To refer to error as a lie is strong rhetoric indeed, but on the other hand claiming lie to be an error is the same as well. To this instant we don't have but your word and my word. I can confess, I have used rhetorics (to have a reaction from you), but can you confess yours?

B) Your first several posts were urging us to 'put pressure' on the quiet players, even within a few hours of the start of the Day. Now you advise we ignore the quiet? I am confused as to what, exactly, your stance on the issue is?

Please!!! I thought we were over this already! Didn't I say, that in the beginning it would be good tactics to voice an intention to go for the quiet: not to actually kill someone to begin with, but to make the wolves talk!!! If a wolf "knows", that the quiet are suspected s/he starts posting! And that's what we want: posting wolves who could thence make slips etc.!!! So kind of wrenching them away of "your strategy"! It's totally different thing, who we should try to lynch in the evening!

But what comes to this day's situation, it's a bit different already. We already start to have a picture of this mess - albeit a dim one. And please, I said we should ignore them at some point,if we just have anything more sensible to vote.

What you seem not to have understood, is my point, that if the wolves are playing unfair game, we should ignore them (as well as quiet innocents). That way we might lose the game, but we would have played a fair game. So all the moral glory for us, and the shame to those who played without the spirit of playing and sharing the game!

Oh my, how I can't even make a little comment short!

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

What you seem not to have understood, is my point, that if the wolves are playing unfair game, we should ignore them (as well as quiet innocents). That way we might lose the game, but we would have played a fair game. So all the moral glory for us, and the shame to those who played without the spirit of playing and sharing the game!

No, that sort of passive aggression doesn't work. A victorious wolf is a creature without guilt.

If we suspect someone-quiet or loud-of being a traitor, we should slay them. And that's the end of that.

If you like we can adopt a seriously heavy-handed and risky, but undoubtedly amusing, approach and double-lynch Gil-Galad and Witch_Queen. But I rather doubt the result of such an action will be unalloyed victory...

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

If you like we can adopt a seriously heavy-handed and risky, but undoubtedly amusing, approach and double-lynch Gil-Galad and Witch_Queen. But I rather doubt the result of such an action will be unalloyed victory...

That's just the opposite of what I would now want! I was saying more like ignore them (at some point of the game), not: dramatically lynch them at the instant!

Understanding others shouldn't be this difficult...

But really about Gil's vote + message. If his bases for his vote are very intricate and subtle - and he's in a hurry - one could understand the "i'll explain later" -thing. But I would have liked to see even one word of reason, why is he just voting and leaving - and has not been posting practically anything to this moment.

X-posted with Jenny

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by Thinlomien

Some people have accused me today because of my vote. I honestly ask you: if I were a wolf, why would I want to be more connected to THE Ka than I already was (=she voted me)? Wouldn't I want not to be connected to her in any way? I personally think that the wolves would try to avoid being connected with their fellow WWs. Maybe later on, when there's less people left, they would take contact on each other, but on first day, it would be totally unnecessary and unnecessarily dangerous for them. So in my logic it isn't sure that some wolf voted for THE Ka, though I don't say it's unprobable. Maybe the wolves just don't use same logic as I do. Besides, if I were a wolf, why would THE Ka have voted for me? I think it's too risky for a wolf to cast the first vote on fellow WW on the first day. She said she had flipped a coin, but surely she could have said it showed WQ if I happened to be her fellow WW?

I can't be on long (I'm working) but I read this and had to reply. I find this argument interesting, since not so long ago there was a story about a wolf named Ang who voted for his fellow wolf named Thin on the very first day, and got her lynched. He thus avoided suspicion till the very last day. If Val ever comes on, she was there to see it.

Also, about the quiet ones- if someone does not post with in two days, they are not playing the game, and the great MOD-GOD of Awesomeness should remove that person. Not posting=not playing, unless one has given a reason in the other thread concerning one's absence. I think Val left one for herself, and I believe it says she'll return before the end of today. I don't think W_Q is intentionally not posting as a tactic, (I like to give my fellow players more credeit than that) but the fact remains she isn't playing. She could easily see the start date on the other thread, and if she signed up for it, she should take responsibility in checking it. If she thought this would happen, she shouldn't have joined.

[Valesse]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

I can't be on long (I'm working) but I read this and had to reply. I find this argument interesting, since not so long ago there was a story about a wolf named Ang who voted for his fellow wolf named Thin on the very first day, and got her lynched. He thus avoided suspicion till the very last day. If Val ever comes on, she was there to see it.

Also, about the quiet ones- if someone does not post with in two days, they are not playing the game, and the great MOD-GOD of Awesomeness should remove that person. Not posting=not playing, unless one has given a reason in the other thread concerning one's absence. I think Val left one for herself, and I believe it says she'll return before the end of today. . .

I did see it, and it is eerie, though I have my suspicions elsewhere at this time.

Yes, I did leave a note saying that I will be back for... well now. And I am! See? Though I might also be needing part of this weekend (parties are hard in the middle of the week.)

For the best of the game, and nothing personal against W_Q it is rather upsetting when someone does not post at all in the first two days of this game. I wonder if she is unable to get to a computer, or online? (Remembering that the Mod-god Sleepy himself was internet-less for a while, perhaps the same thing has happened to W_Q). If she is unable, then it doesn't do us very much good for her to be in the game, but if she does show up here soon I would like to hear the reason of her absence just as much as everyone else.

[Roa_Aoife]

(Remembering that the Mod-god Sleepy himself was internet-less for a while, perhaps the same thing has happened to W_Q).

I remember that too, but Sleepy was gracious enough to step down and give his chance of modding to Glirdan and Gil-galad, who did implement the no-posting rule. (That being that if someone fails to post in two days time, the are removed from the game.) If W_Q thought something would happen, she shouldn't have signed up. If it's an unforseen technical difficulty, then I understand the problems of that. But the fact remains she isn't playing, and should be removed.

[JennyHallu]

A two-days rule does give W_Q just under three hours to arrive and enter the game. I think this sounds reasonable--let's wait for some more villagers to chime in on the point, and perhaps appeal to Sleepy at the end of the Day.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but is Gil the only one to have voted today?

EDIT: xpost with Holby.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

I can't be on long (I'm working) but I read this and had to reply. I find this argument interesting, since not so long ago there was a story about a wolf named Ang who voted for his fellow wolf named Thin on the very first day, and got her lynched. He thus avoided suspicion till the very last day. If Val ever comes on, she was there to see it.

I don't deny this scenario! I know it happened. But Anguirel's vote wasn't the first one! I had many votes already, and it was pretty certain that I was going to be lynched. There's a big difference. Ang didn't spot me from all people and start voting for me. I hope you understand my logic.

I see I'm accused a lot because of my babbling yesterday and the bandwagoning. I'm sorry if the babbling irritated you, but I think it's much better than Gil-like hiding. I don't want to be silent just for the reason I would be suspected if I wasn't! And should I have voted someone else than THE Ka just to be less suspicious, regardless of that I believed in Roa's theory about her wolvishness? Sorry, comrades, but I don't understand.

And as for my suspicions, I really don't have an idea! Strangely, it was easier yesterday. My vote might be quite random, if I won't get any good ideas when rereading the posts.

[Nogrod]

Well fellow-villagers.

It's 2-2 between me and Valier.

Valier will surely vote for me - she's been counting on it from the first day. As a self-defence - and she being my first suspect - I will naturally vote back. With double lynchings, it will be both of us off with three votes.

Think about your decisions...

Good luck, everyone. My computer now changing hand once again.

++ Valier

[Thinlómien]

Okay, if Valier's gonna vote Nogrod as he predicted, the it's me and Eonwe there to decide, will we agree the double-lynching. If they're both (Valier and Nogrod) innocents or gifteds, it's a big loss to the village. So, Eonwe, what do you say? I don't want to make the decision alone if it's not necessary. I don't believe that both Valier and Nogrod are wolves, so in my opinion it doesn't make sense to lynch them both, but now I'm wondering which one is more probably a wolf. Eonwe, I think I need your co-operation.