Tol-in-Gaurhoth XIX: Ang Sagang Daga, bow.

[the guy who be short]

Fine. I, personally, will look up the spawn quotes on Kath. Because I don't trust either of you.

And it's hard not to be ambiguous when spawn was so ambiguous, and my posts thus far have been an analysis of her words.


I shall, in fact, use direct quotes. There's little material on the subject. All quotes from spawn.

Kath's vote seems somewhat weird.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kath
Because (though I think this is repeating a past argument) if he's a wolf then better to get rid of him now, and if he's an innocent we won't be worrying about whether he's a wolf for the rest of the game! A hedging your bets argument it is I'll admit, but it's all I have.

As she admits, she repeats almost exactly the same words as tar-a in her past life. That reasoning got her in a bit of trouble then, but she turned out to be an innocent. Something in Kath's voting feels funny especially because if Eomer is innocent, it's good to keep him around. Post 124.

Why was Anguirel killed? What did he say?

#21, pointed at Kath and Eomer.
"For one, I don't like the stamp of that musician fella."
"The varmint claims to have disguised a were-army of hedgehogs under green shells and hidden them in a turtle farm. What d'ye have to say to that, Empress Kath of the Dread Meerkat Wandering Horde? Ha ha!" ~Ang

"I don't think Ang's early mention of Kath has anything to do with anything. I assumed from the beginning that it was just Day 1 histrionics, and that's why in my summary I barely mentioned it. And now that he's been proven not to have been a Seer, it can't possibly mean anything. She hadn't spoken yet--he was pulling her name out of the air. She may well merit a closer look, but not for this reason." ~tar-ancalime

Actually, at the time when Anguirel mentioned Kath, she had already spoken.

I think it's probable that the wolves don't want to waste their time for frame-ups when there are two Seers around. The sooner the wolves get rid of the Seers, the less incriminating information there is. Possibly makes Kath or Eomer look bad. Post 151

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eomer
So why all this talk of a set-up of Kath? Both Lalaith and Cailín mention that the death of Anguirel so obviously leads back to Kath that it must be a set-up.

Huh?

I find that funny, too. I'd like to point out that not all Nightly deaths are frame-ups. The wolves want to find the Seers, and since there are two of them now, it's even more important for the lycans to quickly get rid of the them. I just don't understand why wolves would see so much trouble in framing someone up. Anguirel might have been killed because of him defending Garin or whatever, but it's weird that these two say that the wolves obviously set Kath up. Maybe Kath is a wolf. Maybe Lalaith and Cailín are wolves who did set her up. Maybe I'll change the subject before I get myself confused.

You're basing all your suspicions on these three posts. Constant reminders? I see only mild accusations. This has made me think the worse of you both.

[Farael]

Suit yourself guy, suspect me as you please... there are a few more "reminders", read up to my post if you want to see where I found them. Then you can go check by yourself.

And why so shrill? have we stepped on a nerve? we accuse Kath and you accuse us.... why TGWBS?

[Cailín]

Fine. I, personally, will look up the spawn quotes on Kath. Because I don't trust either of you.

The feeling is mutual.

TGWBS, if you read my posts correctly (or maybe as I intended them), I do not really believe Spawn dreamt of Kath either. I think she dreamt of Lhuna.

I just really don't think the Seers dreamt of Eonwe.

Edit: cross-posted with Farael, who is beginning to act a little odd.

[Farael]

Cross posted with Cailin.... might be the lack of sleep that I'm not expressing myself properly. I'm just annoyed that I bothered to add a lovely "Post X" before each comment and he went back and must have missed some as I recall to have found more than 3 quotes from Spawn with regards to Kath.

Sorry for the mixup anyway, and now I AM off to bed.... or so I keep telling myself.

[the guy who be short]

I must go, but I want to raise a final, very controversial point before I do so.


We should systematically double lynch the male gender until we find the lovers.

There are 8 men and 10 women. If we systematically lynch men, we get the following:

Day 3 - 6 men, 10 women.
Night 4 - 6, 9
Day 4 - 4, 9
Night 5 - 4, 8
Day 5 - 2, 8
Night 6 - 2, 7
Day 6 - 0, 7

This is the worst case scenario. However, I don't think it will be that bad.


Think about it. There is a 100% chance that there is a lover in the male gender. By lynching 2 men today, we have a 25% chance of finding him. If this fails, we try again tomorrow. We have a 33% chance of lynching him. Overall, we stand a 50% chance of getting the lovers in the first two days!

Some may not view the lovers as as important as the wolves, but they are dangerous dissidents - especially the innocent lover, who appears as an innocent to the Seer. We can bring the enemies of the village down from 5 to 3 rather quickly.


And this is just thinking of the lovers. That maths doesn't count the fact that there are likely to be wolves in the 8 men too.

Each man, at present, stands a 2/9 chance of being a wolf. This means there is an 87% chance (1 - [7/9]^8) that there is at least one wolf in those eight men, possibly two, three or even four.



Taking this into account:

We have a 25% chance of lynching the lovers and a 22% chance of lynching a wolf this day.

If we get nothing, there are 6 men, 9 women left. There is a 4/15, or 26% chance of a wolf, and a 33% chance of a lover.


There's a lot of maths, but overall, if we double lynch all men, we have an over 50% chance of catching village dissidents in two days!

So, is it worth the cost of all those innocents?

I say yes. We increase our overall chances of winning, villagers, if we follow this strategy. More importantly, it is far easier to find wolves once we have got one wolf to work from.