Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nogrod
That was an intentional "mistake". It just has to be.
So Roa tried to mislead us about her knowledge of the situation - and I can't see a reason what a gifted Roa would gain from that against the wolves at Nights as they would not start thinking she's someone they can afford to ignore from that. But a wolf-Roa might gain the edge in a possible tight voting if people thought she was not up to the situation...
|
Point against
Nogrod. I don't see why something that could have just as easily been an honest mistake (and probably was - did anyone besides me see the very-last minute dropping and adding of people? First there were three wolves, then four, then three again, then four again, etc. ad.) has to be the be-all and end-all,
Roa's guilty, case closed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nogrod
As an ordo I know it. 'nuff said - meaning we're coming to the "uncomfortable zone" here and I'm not willing to argue anything as it's one of those things a player is not allowed to produce evidence for (which is actually just fair). Everyone can use their little grey cells though... and I suggest you all ordos do it and see it yourselves.
|
Point against
Nogrod. You
can't know anything definitively as an ordo, anyway, and if you're (as I suspect you are) referring to the actual text of the ordo role PM, that's A) metagaming and rather unsavory in and of itself and B) highly inconclusive in any case.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eomer
Aye, Nogrod, soon as I saw Roa's counting-mistake I remarked: "intentional". Not sure what it means, though. I wouldn't be quick to lynch Roa because she brings a lot to the table in terms of discussion.
|
I wouldn't go so far as to say this is a point against
Eomer, but the way he subtly backs up
Nogrod by agreeing with him and not really contributing to the conversation other than that strikes me as mildly strange.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roa
What? Huh? Really? First, you spend your posts using in character banter, and now you decide I'm guilty on a number slip? With all do respect, are you on something? This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen yet.
|
Point for
Roa. This reaction seems innocent to me (in fact, it's probably how I'd react in the same situation.
)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nogrod
I must agree that questioning after Boro's "gifted talk" was a bit odd - as Boro talked sense. And it was first Roa and Nerwen who made the questions - and they are two players who should really understand what Boro was saying! As a rule of thumb (which can be broken of course in individual cases) gifted needs to look a bit suspicious so that the wolves think they can get her/him lynched and don't "waste" their Nightkill on that person.
Accidentally (?) it was also Nerwen who popped up to suggest defences for Roa after I voiced my trouble wth her. So a piece of bold team-work?
|
Point against
Nogrod. What makes "sense" to you may not necessarily make "sense" to someone else. Also, an immediate declaration of
Nerwen being
Roa's teammate, as her first defender. Wild accusations on flimsy evidence? Not what I'm used to seeing from
Nogrod...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roa
What Boro said didn't make sense- he said that wolves are reasonable that gifteds aren't, implying that we ought to be lynching the reasonable ones. (By the way, you most certainly do NOT fall into that category.) Reasonableness is a terrible reason to lynch someone. Yes, the gifted need to be somewhat suspected to live, but it's not our job to worry about them.
Now who's trying to continue the debate? Oh, that would be you. By carrying on about the gifted an what they're doing, you are giving pointers to the wolves about how to spot gifted, and you're distracting the village from doing actual wolf-hunting. Not to mention the whole idea of what Boromir says discourages us from voting for people that we find suspicious for fear that they may be gifted, something that you seem keen to press on everyone while at the same time coming up with ludicrous suspicions that have no merit, further distracting the village.
|
Mmm... point for
Roa. However, firstly, I don't recall
Boro ever saying "wolves are reasonable, gifteds aren't" - I believe the point was that we shouldn't dismiss someone from suspicion
just because they're reasonable. The second part of the above quote seems to me like "
Me? Oh yeah, well
you..." This reaction, while not the best and seeming odd (I see a bit of "
Nogrod suspects
Roa, so
Roa suspects him right back" thing going on) has the same tone as her previous post, that of indignant ordo.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nogrod
Am I on something? Well I am actually on bagging us a wolf. And am pretty serious about it.
...
I see there a reasonable remainder that we easily lynch gifteds as they need to look a bit suspicious in general (an especialy more inexperienced players may actually be a little nervous overreacting to things and thus look guilty, that can happen to a veteran as well) - and that wolves playing reasonable are easily slipping under our radars early on. To me that doesn't imply we should lynch the reasonable ones but to be careful / to remember there is this side as well.
|
Point for
Nogrod. I believe this to be a more accurate representation of what
Boro actually said/meant... that said, I still don't think a different point of view to be a sign of wolvery.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roa
The only one doing that is you. I never suspected Boromir, I only disagreed with him. You're the one turning this into a huge deal and carrying on with it. Not to mention the whole number slip thing. That's not making a mountain out of a molehill?
A reasonable reminder of what, exactly, Nogrod? That we don't want to lynch gifteds? Well, duh, we all know that. What do you make of the second part of his statement? That wolves slip by on reasonableness? How do you take that?
|
I'm unsure what to think here. On the one hand, it's the same indignant
Roa whom I feel to be innocent based on her reaction. On the other, it seems as if she disagrees with
Boro about wolves being able to slip by on being reasonable (if I'm wrong, please correct me) and I can't figure out why.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nogrod
Btw. I'm not too interested in you suspecting or just disagreeing with Boro. That's quite off the mark.
...
But to be honest. It actually is, at least in part, meta-reasoning and I said so earlier talking about an "uncomfortable zone". I'm convinced of her guilt and can't / shouldn't act otherwise. But I'm not going to state anything more on that side of the issue but will continue trying to find any other things there could be (in a few hours as I now have to get off for a while).
|
Point, point, point against
Nogrod. Are you saying all that you have to convince you of
Roa's guilt is the fact that she said "three" instead of "four"? Also, saying that you won't state anything more on the metagaming side of the issue is like saying "
Roa is evil, but the rules prevent me from telling you why." If you legally can't say anything, you never should have brought it up - all it's been is a big distraction.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roa
I am now convinced that the secret role is the cobbler, and Nogrod is it. He's clearly hinting at being the seer, which the seer Nogrod wouldn't do, because he knows better than to do something so risky. Further more, he can't be the seer, because he most certainly wouldn't attack me like this if he was. Make no mistake, this is a cobbler planning a false reveal.
|
Point against
Roa. Much as I think she's innocent, this theory is quite a stretch. Firstly, there is no Seer, so telling us what the seer-
Nogrod would or wouldn't do is pointless. Secondly, saying that he can't be the Seer because he wouldn't attack you if he was, while probably true from your point of view, is unprovable/has no meaning for the rest of us. Unless you're trying to say that the secret role is in fact a cobbler,
Nogrod received it, and is planning to reveal himself as the secret role-Seer (which makes no sense because as soon as you died we'd go after him, thus rather a waste of a secret role), I don't see where you're coming from.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eomer
Roa and Nogrod could easily both be innocents. If so, they could be stoking the flames in order to gauge our reactions to the fight, or they could just as well be too stubborn for their own good.
Roa, Nogrod is not going after you solely because of that 3 wolf/4 wolf thing. He didn't like your reaction to Boromir's posts and he also is taking what you said personally (you called him unreasonable). He's got the idea in his head, and you're not exactly trying to appease him with gentle words.
Nogrod, if Roa is innocent then she is rightly baffled by your conviction of her guilt - as, I should think, most of us are. It was a very bold thing to say and now the village has to make a decision on it; if you had not mentioned conviction, we could easily have left this to simmer for a few days.
And now, I don't want to concentrate on these two any longer. There could be a villain or two among them but I don't want to make a rash decision in killing off one of the two most vocal players.
|
There are one or two things I find strange about this post, but I'm finding it very hard to articulate them... for now, calling it a "general area of bad feeling".
So right now, having typed this beast up before
Nogrod's latest post (in which he clears up some ambiguities), I would: rather not vote for
Nogrod, but will if I see no other option/someone I think to be "more innocent" (that's not the correct term but it's slipped my mind at the moment) is up for execution; not vote for
Roa at this time, and; would be willing to vote for
Eomer.
X'd with
Bes.
11-30-2009, 02:07 PM
Hybrid Mode
