Tol-in-Gaurhoth LII: Star Crossed II: Together for Eternity

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Nog

Well, first you say I'm playing unfair as I go for meta-defence which means you don't like the way I corrected you on meta-level on why your initial accusations - that I'd kill Lalaith or Legate - were totally mistaken (and in this you're correct: I'm already a bit ashamed of my conduct there) but then you say my answer was not very innocent looking...

Eh? Sorry, I think my brain isn't quite working properly or something, but I really have no idea what this sentence means. Too many subordinate clauses, I suppose, but I really got lost. Could you explain it?

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Agan

Sorry - I confused it with another post of yours where you mentioned something about four people talking about voting for her.

No probem.

I should vote quite soon because I really need to get some sleep tonight. I'll make a list (!!!) to clarify my thoughts a bit.

RED ZONE - suspicious
No one here. I wonder what does it tell...

ORANGE ZONE - somewhat suspicious
Groin - Has posted only one post toDay, is that right? And that was an analysis on Rikae's first post. The tone of that post was somewhat odd, especially the "And that was only her first post!" or something of that sort (really too lazy to look up the exact quote) seemed quite like overreacting to me, especially if taken into account that Rikae had already explained that post. I suppose he'll return later toDay.
Gollum - I don't like the way he appears, makes quite vague-grounded suspicions that mainly follow the main stream of the discussion, and bases suspicions on stuff such as what a person's role was in the previous game. On the other hand it seems a trifle too careless for a baddie - especially a baddie who has another baddie to think of as well...
Nog - His points in the "debate" with Mac made me uneasy about him. I don't like the way he considers Mac's point about him sooo bad (or something like that, again too lazy to look it up) and then brings up a very similar point about Sally.
Mac - He, too, brought up a real "grasping at straws"-point, against Nog. The whole debate between the two looked odd to me, I'd like to look it over but I'm afraid I have no time. Mac has looked furrier toDay than he did yesterDay, but I don't know...

(little) GREEN ZONE - innocentish
Agan - Is generally reasonable, not as sneaky and smooth as she tends to be when a baddie, and has good points. No evidence against her at this point.
Brinn - Seems very sincere, there is nothing as far as I can see that speaks against her.
Eönwë - Feels sincere.

NO IDEA -ZONE - let the name speak for it.
Kitanna
Sally
Shasta
Gwath
Rikae
McCaber
Fea
Eomer

I'm slightly worried about the size of my no idea -zone. Based on this, my top suspects would be Groin, Gollum, Nog, and Mac. The problem is that I don't feel very comfortable with voting any of them...

I'll go eat something and come back to vote before I go to sleep.

[Gollum the Great]

Augghh!

My internet connection was severed and now I don't have time to complete my read, or even post. I may get back before DL, but I'm not sure that I will vote.

Vote well!

[A Little Green]

I'll vote now and be off to bed. My vote will be

++ Gollum

for reasons stated in my previous post. I ended up thinking that he's the most suspicious of my four orange zone people.
Good night m'dears.


EDIT: x-ed with Gollum - sorry to hear that. Unfortunately I won't change my vote because he can't defend himself, since neither could the others before I leave, which is approximately now. (Did anyone understand anything about that?)

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But didn't you notice the smilies?

Huh? There is only one "rolleye"-smiley in that particular post #265.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

How would you defend yourself against an accusation which is based on pure speculation concerning your own motives? You could say of course: "no, that was not the way I was thinking...".

That would have been a lot more effective. You could also have explained why my interpretation was wrong, but anyway, I didn't actually expect any elaborate defense (my point really wasn't that amazing), just an honest-looking one. Now that this point has been blown out of its proportion, your in-game defense seems weak...

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Funny you should say that for now you are contradicting yourself - and possibly your aim is to get some others to believe your gusto and disregard the erratic nature of your points and the motivation behind them to just get me lynched because you're a baddie!

(hah: answer that before you demand I should answer your questions on my possible motivation behind my posting).

The contradiction there? Well, first you say I'm playing unfair as I go for meta-defence which means you don't like the way I corrected you on meta-level on why your initial accusations - that I'd kill Lalaith or Legate - were totally mistaken (and in this you're correct: I'm already a bit ashamed of my conduct there) but then you say my answer was not very innocent looking...

Huh? I don't see the slightest contradiction. Bringing in meta-reasons and criticising the meta-reasons given are not the same. I'm giving no meta-reasons to counter yours, mind you! And in any case, the fact that you resorted to meta was only one out of three reasons why I think your post looks evil. What are you talking about?

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard, regarding Rikae's suspicion of Macalaure

Over confidence? It looked like he was just being plain old silly if you ask me.

There is a great deal of confidence implicit in silliness, Groin. I happen to agree with you that Mac seems innocent overall, but you're definitely pushing it a bit here.

Originally Posted by Rikae

Groin, go read what I already said about that post, I see no need to say anything else. *shrug*
I do find myself wondering if the fact that no one has paid any attention to my increasing number of lovers theory means I've stumbled on the truth and those who know it are afraid to tip me off, assuming I know it too - but I suppose more likely you all just think I'm loony.

Rikae seems to be playing up two identities here: that of the martyr, and that of the innocent. The first assumes the reality of the second (which is assuming a great deal), without explicitly stating either. Implied identities are significantly more dangerous than those that have been expressed, as they tend to escape analysis and can become axiomatic before they were ever theoretical.

Also, declining to answer another player's objections under the excuse that the issue has already been laid to rest looks to me like a sneaky way of suppressing suspicion.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I don't like the way Nogrod labeled the kills "good". They were only good for the wolves, not the innocents, and the fact that "good" is the first thing Nogrod was able to think in regards to the kills appears like a Freudian wolf-slip. I mean, sure, that is done not unfrequently by others, but the way Nogrod emphasised it is strange. Then again, wouldn't a wolf be extra-careful not to formulate it this way?

I don't have any problem with Nogrod's use of the word "good" in this context. It is natural to understand the lovers' actions in terms of what is "good" for them.

[Aganzir]

I should be voting soonishly too.

The problem is that I'm still quite undecided. I want Gollum and Groin to have a chance to answer to me first but I don't know how likely it is that they turn up while I'm still online.

My other main options are Mac and Fea.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

My other main options are Mac and Fea.

Bad options, I assure you. Or at least bad option, singular.

Originally Posted by Shasta

Fea's reaction to this - or should I say, overreaction? - seemed kind of unnecessary; a case of "the Lover doth protest too much"?

Stop that. Really, no matter who you are you don't want me lynched. Cross my heart and promise. The wolves want me alive, the village wants me alive, and when it comes time for my death, you'd better believe that it's best for everybody if it's on my own terms. I'm blowing off my night class and going shopping. Don't kill me while I'm gone.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

"Best for everybody"? Lovers included? So, what you're saying is, you're neutral?

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Lommy's, which I helped to mod. But there the point was that no one knew that there were three of them, except the ordo lover. I don't think something like that would work here - with a gifted, ordo, and wolf.

Right, not necessarily a cross-alignment trio, but I remember that in that lover-trio, one of them died and the other two remained alive, but another died and they died together. Am I making sense? The mechanic could be the same.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Agan

This is actually a good point. It could be interpreted as a wolf trying to look helpful and normal and innocent and all. Then on the other hand it's also possible that sally's just so used to the idea of ties being bad that she kind of automatically thought "No ties" when voting.

I could be wrong, but haven't the last... three or four games had the same "first person to tie is executed" rule?

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

Right, not necessarily a cross-alignment trio, but I remember that in that lover-trio, one of them died and the other two remained alive, but another died and they died together. Am I making sense? The mechanic could be the same.

Possible but I don't know how likely it is. As for our game, the ordo lover was the most important - had she died, the others would have died too. She stayed alive as long as at least one of her lovers was alive.

Fea, your post made me feel more like voting for you than I did before.

edit: xed with Shasta & Eomer

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Gwath

I don't have any problem with Nogrod's use of the word "good" in this context. It is natural to understand the lovers' actions in terms of what is "good" for them.

Don't just look at the original point - I never claimed it to be a good one - look at Nogrod's reactions to it (and his reaction to my reaction...): those are what makes me suspicious.

Originally Posted by Gwath

I agree, and will take the assertion even one step farther: trying to analyze a player apart from the context of their past games is as futile as trying to appreciate an artist apart from his body of work.

Just to clarify: I don't think that arguments like "A plays differently than usual" are meta-reasoning - they're still concerned only with our in-game-personalities. In the case here, it reached out to out-game-personality ("Winning is not that important to me..."), and I don't think it's good to go there.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

So, as I pointed out earlier, one of the things that caught my eye today was Kitanna's post. Let's have a look at reactions today, to the killings of Legate and Lalaith.

1) Rikae: Both classic wolf kills. No trails.

2) Brinniel: Lalaith, no trail. Legate, maybe he was a gifted.

3) Shasta: Legate, they thought he was a lover.

4) Eonwe: Lalaith, no trail there.

5) Aganzir: Legate? Probably thought he was a lover.

6) Sally: Legate? Hmm, I think they thought he was.... a lover!

7) Aganzir: lalaith could have been gifted, mind.

Then we have Kitanna, who pops up to say that o yes indeed, lalaith was an obvious kill given her "quietness" and that Legate was, like others thought, believed to have been a gifted.

I don't know what there is about this post but it just seems so throwaway, like Kit is merely going through the motions. Also, it's my time to betray her now. She's had it her way for too long.

String her up!

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

So, as I pointed out earlier, one of the things that caught my eye today was Kitanna's post. Let's have a look at reactions today, to the killings of Legate and Lalaith.

1) Rikae: Both classic wolf kills. No trails.

2) Brinniel: Lalaith, no trail. Legate, maybe he was a gifted.

3) Shasta: Legate, they thought he was a lover.

4) Eonwe: Lalaith, no trail there.

5) Aganzir: Legate? Probably thought he was a lover.

6) Sally: Legate? Hmm, I think they thought he was.... a lover!

7) Aganzir: lalaith could have been gifted, mind.

Then we have Kitanna, who pops up to say that o yes indeed, lalaith was an obvious kill given her "quietness" and that Legate was, like others thought, believed to have been a gifted.

I don't know what there is about this post but it just seems so throwaway, like Kit is merely going through the motions. Also, it's my time to betray her now. She's had it her way for too long.

String her up!

So... Forgive me for stating the obvious, but I'm confused. Are you and Kitanna lovers? And if so, why would you betray her? Doesn't seem very sportsmanlike.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

So... Forgive me for stating the obvious, but I'm confused. Are you and Kitanna lovers? And if so, why would you betray her? Doesn't seem very sportsmanlike.

It's ok, Shasta. It's meta.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Actually, yes. There's no way I'm staying up any later.

Kitanna always gets the last laugh. At least some of you should know that by now. Maybe it's because of that dodgy post earlier today; maybe it's just because she's a survivor; maybe it's because she has a history of slaying an entire village with her lover (who would that have been... ). All these are exceptionally valid reasons with little to no need of supportive evidence.

Hmm, now I'm the annoying guy who votes first and is exempt from talk of bandwagoning.