Werewolf LIII: The Republic

[Aganzir]

Garr I suppose it's useless to ask people to post less. But it took me this long to read through it all and write a post.

Guilty
Lommy. I know I tend to suspect her, especially on the first days. And to me she almost always seems overreactive and suspicious. But it happening always is not an excuse for me to put her in the Neither cathegory so she's happily here again.

Originally Posted by Lommy

If we really have to try filibustering, why not toDay when there's (probably) the least action and the smallest chance of lynching a wolf?

I found this comment not necessarily suspicious but weird. Is filibustering something you "really have to try"? Aren't there any possible advantages to it? You say the only purpose you can see it serving is chaos-creating, and I think that's exaggerating.
In addition to that, the following looked a bit overreactive, as did the things concerning the votes Brinn got, which I posted already in my previous post.

Originally Posted by Lommy

To be honest, this whole Boro-phantom-Legate triangle baffles me. What are these guys up to? I don't mean to say that they're evil, nor that even one of them is evil, but such behaviour does make me a little cautious. I would say I'm keeping an eye on them, but in this village, one can hardly avoid paying attention to those three.

For I couldn't really see any triangle between them. Could either Lommy or Shasta, or both, explain to me where it came from.

Eönwë. I think he's always more or less like that, but usually I don't find him suspicious. At least I don't remember doing it, although I may have contributed to his lynching once. However, he feels different this time. Somehow more self-conscious. His remarks seem to come out of the blue and it's hard to read him because he doesn't give much substance.

Shasta. Don't really understand where that phantom-Boro-Legate triangle came from. It reminds me a bit of Nerwolf's "their interaction makes me think there might be a wolf involved" in some game ages ago.

Legate. I don't know. I just somehow don't like him. I'm at a loss as to why he voted against filibusters because I myself can't see anything wrong with them (if someone is filibustering when I want to go to sleep, then I just don't vote), and his anti-phantom thing looked fabricated (which it probably was), as well as his wavering and 180 turn later on. However, his reaction to Boro's questioning looks rather innocentish.

Innocent
phantom. He doesn't give any bad vibes although I am perfectly aware that he could appear innocent even if a wolf. For the sake of my sanity I'm not going to concentrate on him for now, I am sure others will do it more than enough anyway.
Brinn. I agree with her that there shouldn't be very few reps. I'm feeling pretty good about her now that I saw her response to my question why she voted me.
Boro amuses me a lot. He looks innocent and I find myself agreeing with him on several things, but it was the same last time I played with him, and he was a wolf. I'm wary of him based on those past experiences, but I find him more innocent than not for the time being.

Neither
Nog. I won't concentrate on him now, either. Although he has posted a lot, I have hard time trying to get a read on him.
Greenie. It's always difficult for me to form an opinion on her. Somehow I'm a bit uneasy as to why she followed me so quickly on voting Brinn for a rep. Not that it was necessarily suspicious, it just seemed too easy.
Gil. I wrote on his wall on Facebook and told him the game has begun so hopefully he pops up sooner or later.
Ka. No idea. Hasn't posted much about her opinions and suspicions yet.
Cab. Looking forward to seeing your list since it's the second half of the day now.
Kath. No idea.
Di. I noticed the confidence but don't know what to think of it.
sally. No read.
Ilya. Why do you think everybody seems to trust Brinn?
Gwathagor. No idea.
mormegil. No idea.
Nerwen. If it was anyone but Nerwen, I could say I was a bit more inclined to consider her innocent.
Rune. No idea.

**

Okay, I've now proceeded to Page 7. As for the posts made while I was travelling through the thread...

Originally Posted by Lommy

Could be. I have no doubt it will useful to go through all the reasons for the rep votes. But on the other hand, there's lots of other stuff that would be useful too, like for example wolf-hunting...

Err? Your response looks rather empty. About whatever we do here is wolf-hunting, and at least I would consider going through the voting reasons wolf-hunting as well. You seemingly don't.

Originally Posted by Lommy

It was rather great taking into account how little she had said. Neither of you spared postive adjectives when describing her capacity to take up the task. Also, it is kind of curious that the first two rep votes go to the same person.

We didn't spare positive adjectives?

Originally Posted by me

Because I agree with her that the less reps there are, the more room for errors, and because she's a player who is generally trustworthy although I always find her so suspicious, and because she probably won't be the centre of attention.

Originally Posted by Greenie

because she is a good sensible player, seems innocent, and has already received one vote so is certainly through.

I found only one in my post. I can't speak for Greenie but I wouldn't call her use of positive adjectives great trust, either. If we have to vote early and you know it, why on earth are you telling us later that we trusted her way too much given how much she had posted?
I find it worth noticing too that the first votes went to the same person, but I wouldn't call it great trust.

Originally Posted by Lommy

Slight exaggeration has always been a part of my way of talking, you should know that. But honestly, I don't think I've been exaggerating anything in this game.

What if I said I didn't know that?
Of course I can think of situations where you speak in an exaggerating manner. That's probably one of the reasons I suspect you in every game. However, I don't know of it always having been part of your way of talking.
And I do think you've been exaggerating. Trying to make small issues sound bigger than they are.