WW LXXIX: Fall From Olympus

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Plus, I was asking about the Romeo & Juliet business above concerning lovers after the death of their partner - which is moot, even more so than I realized, and it seems the same person who was debating over it knew it was moot all along - and which has nothing to do with what you just brought up. Where did this come from?

My R&J thing was in answer to Nerwen, and she made her comments (and I gave my answers) before there was Mod clarification. You may say there was no point in anyone but the Mod answering, but what if the Mod had left alignment to be a choice to surviving lovers? Given that possibility I thought that it was in our best interest to attempt to establish a "proper" way of behaving that would benefit the village (i.e. to establish that lovers should help the village after losing their mates).

So no, the point was not known to be moot. It had the possibility of being important. But once the point was made crystal clear by the Mod the discussion was over.

Originally Posted by Rikae

I'm sure it would take the false seer a while to discover this, though, and in the meantime, any sensible seer would leave a trail.

Do you really think a village would be stupid enough to start at the beginning of the Seer trail and follow it to a lynch without first checking the end of the trail for signs that the Seer knew he was false?

Again- Nog and I were discussing a Seer who knew he was false. That fact completely negates (or should anyway) the idea of following their words to disaster.

[Rikae]

I didn't check when Glirdan answered on the admin thread, I admit. As for trying to establish a proper way of the lovers for behaving, that's what I thought you were doing, and didn't believe in it. But there's no point in getting into that now. Clearly you have a stronger belief in your powers of persuasion than I do.

Originally Posted by Phantom

Do you really think a village would be stupid enough to start at the beginning of the Seer trail and follow it to a lynch without first checking the end of the trail for signs that the Seer knew he was false?

Well, I consider it entirely possible that I might miss or misinterpret a false seer's attempt to hint at being false amid hints at xyr dreams. Most seer hints I've seen were far from explicit and clear. Perhaps that's because I'm stupid, though. I cheerfully admit it: I'm a blithering idiot.

EDIT: X'd with Mac.

[A Little Green]

I'm in trouble. I want to go to sleep soon and in all likelihood won't be back before DL. The trouble is, I obviously have no clue about who to vote, it's so early and so many people haven't even showed yet! I so don't like the deadline. I think I'll be off to reread the little that has been written, and be back with comments and thoughts and vague Day 1 suspicions (hopefully).

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Mac

You could make a similar case for Nerwen's "what the Hades is going on". If I were Persephone, I'd know who to pick first now.

Interesting. Perhaps just a bit of colorful in-character talk, though. Perhaps something else. I would say your interpretation is less likely than the three possibilities I'm considering.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Rikae

I didn't check when Glirdan answered on the admin thread, I admit. As for trying to establish a proper way of the lovers for behaving, that's what I thought you were doing, and didn't believe in it. But there's no point in getting into that now. Clearly you have a stronger belief in your powers of persuasion than I do.

It wasn't just my power of persuasion that I was counting on. Given that the behavior I was attempting to set up was advantageous to the village, I assumed many would come on board just because of that fact (it would be counter-productive not to). And then with the combined weight of the entire village saying "It would be fair and proper and right for the lover to do behavior XY" I figured that would be enough to sway the average lover.

So, I had less faith in my individual persuasive ability than I did in the combined peer pressure power of the entire village. Not to mention I figured there was at the least a very small chance that someone would insist on putting forth the idea and defend the idea that the lover could remain on the side of the WWs out of loyalty to their lost love. Doing that would obviously be to the detriment of the village and thus be a possible flag of a baddie or at the least someone who wasn't helpful.

Originally Posted by Rikae

Well, I consider it entirely possible that I might miss or misinterpret a false seer's attempt to hint at being false amid hints at xyr dreams. Most seer hints I've seen were far from explicit and clear.

Perhaps, but in this case we wouldn't be following Seer hints, but rather false Seer hints. In other words, the clues that he would leave behind pointing to his falseness would logically be easier to discover and agree upon than usual Seer clues due to the fact that he would not have a Seer-level fear of discovery.

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Also, Boro is acting weird. I think he must have a special role of some kind. Loslote, too. And especially Nerwen, Wilwa, Eonwe and BeiGe. Phantom, however, just seems like a clueless ordo.

Win.

As for the False-Seer debate, if the False Seer realizes who they are, they could leave just as many hints telling us this as they left hints telling us their dreams. Seer-hints are always shaky things to rely on, and if we find hints telling us that that Seer's false, we're hardly going to try to ferret their dreams out. I don't think the False-Seer should reveal.

EDIT: xed with Steve and Foley - xe is a gender neutral way of saying "he" or "she". It's used instead of "they"...although I used "they" in this post, so nyah.

[Folwren]

Thanks, Loslote.

Okay.......I really hate doing this. But I'm about to leave and highly doubt I'll have any access to a computer or internet for the rest of the day. So I'm voting.

I have nothing real to go on. Please don't read too much into this vote.

++Eonwe

Best I can say is that I just think that of everyone that's posted....he seems most like the one who is trying to be natural and is almost succeeding but isn't quite. Pathetic, I know. I have nothing better to offer.

Have fun without me.

[Loslote]

Foley, you have to highlight your vote for it to count. The format is [ highlight] words [ /highlight] but without spaces.

[Eönwë]

Finally managed to catch up with the thread. Ok.

Originally Posted by Folwren

I have nothing real to go on. Please don't read too much into this vote.

Now that to me seems a bit like one of those "Oh, I don't know what's happening, let me just randomly vote this person, and if they're innocent it's not my fault" kind of wolf-votes. Though, on the other hand, it was really quite early, so I don't think it's really incriminating.

Originally Posted by Loslote

EDIT: xed with Steve and Foley - xe is a gender neutral way of saying "he" or "she". It's used instead of "they"...although I used "they" in this post, so nyah.

If anyone still wants more detail on this, and Rikae's link isn't explanative enough, this might explain it. Blame tgwbs for this (And I didn't even play in that game in the end!).

I had originally quoted lots of false/true seer posts to reply to, but it seems that that topic's been almost exhausted now. I'll just say that I think it's hard enough to interpret well-hidden seer hints successfully, so hints for xem being false will be even harder. Especially as they wouldn't know if xe's the True or False Seer until later. And also, why are we assuming that the False seer knowing that xe's false. We could easily end up with the False Seer not realising xyr nature. That's the problem I was trying too address. And then, what about false Seer reveals? Having two Seers just makes that even more complicated.

Originally Posted by Loslote

There are revenge-kills in play, too. We'd flush out the Seers and leave them to die at the hands of angry lovers. I think, besides the fact that it is rather unsportsmanlike, it's too dangerous.

Wait, so do revenge kills go through even if the target is Ranger-Protected?

Originally Posted by Rikae

As I said to Loslote, you were talking about wolves who have dreamt of the "seer". They would have a whole night to go over the quotes of this alleged seer and decide whether or not to kill xem, and, if they're in a situation where their choice of kill is especially important (which you're assuming) there is no reason to suppose they'll miss something that will be obvious to the villagers the next day, with exactly the same information.

Exactly. There's almost as much chance of the wolves seeing any false hints as us. And with the Lovers talking to them as well (I assume they also don't want the Seer finding their Lover a Wolf), they have 7 of them (Of course, we have 13, but we're not all united in one purpose like they are- in this case, killing the Seer).

Originally Posted by Loslote

As we're all throwing out our suspicions of what Nerwen's role is based on her slip, may I just say that no one's suggested she might be Persephone, trying to find Hades? This is my current theory, anyways. I'd be up for lynching Nerwen, because if Persephone dies, so does Wolf!Hades - and I think Nerwen might be Persephone. If we don't come up with a wolf, that's where my vote will probably go.

This is what I originally thought. She could be hinting that she wants Hades to talk to her. Of course, this whole Nerwen thing could be blown highly out of proportion, especially considering the thing below.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Why not just say "I'm ill"?

Because the gods do not fall ill. The only way they succumb is to alcohol and poison. My sleep-deprived brain tried to make an in-game analogy, and look what it's turned into! And why would I be so obvious as well? Because I didn't think of it as a hint, I seem to have ignored the fact that any reference to Greek mythology could refer to one of the roles, and that suspicions have been based on many of these. In fact, I even commented on one of these in that very post. So why would I make it so obvious? I might as well have just said "Lynch me! Lynch me!" all day.

And Nogrod, if you are innocent, why would you mention that I could be Cursed if no-one had picked up on it yet? If I had been the Cursed, you would have just advertised me to the wolves. Of course, it is true that you may have found it harder to convince others of it later if the Cursed does turn, but probably not much more than you did toDay. Though then again, if there would be less evidence later, you might have realised that it was just a bad choice of words.

Yes, sorry village. And the problem is that now you've wasted your time debating over me instead of the real matter at hand- the wolves.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Do you remember his first post

And then there is the Dionysos-stuff.

Both scream "see who I am wolves!" to me. So he went all he could trying to get their attention and to make him their target.

Much too obvious, as I said. And because he's sticking to this so much, maybe Nogrod's a wolf who's trying to double-bluff by suggesting that I'm the Cursed so that if it turns out that I am, he could seem like he was trying to help the village, while totally distancing himself from the wolves (who would probably try to keep it quiet). In fact, maybe this whole thing is something Nogrod decided to latch onto because doing this would make him seem so un-wolvish.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Well then.

I'm pretty sure Eonwë is the cursed villager and he wishes to be a wolf.

Now honestly, I wouldn't do that as a Cursed. Until xe is tured into a wolf, the Cursed is on the side of the village. I always try to play fair in WW, so if I was the Cursed it would be completely against my role, and the moral obligations of the game of Werewolf in general. So no, it would just be wrong to do something like that.


Some more comments:

-Mac is strange(r than usual) in this game. Sometimes he seems innocent and helpful, other times he seems very calculating and sneaky (And I'm not sure which the "Day in Three Parts" or whatever list comes up in. Probably both. At first I thought it looked good but now it seems that maybe he's trying to look helpful too much. But it is quite an original idea, so maybe not.) I'm currently leaning towards an Innocent, but quite possible an Innocent Lover.

-The BG bandwaggon is bad. Very bad.

-Greenie also seems like there's something strange about her. Not evil, per se, but not totally innocent and looking out for the village. So I also suspect Lover, though Innocent or Wolf I cannot tell.

edit: x-ed with this entire page.

[A Little Green]

Okay, I'm so confused I'll make a list. I don't think I've ever done it this early in the game, but at least I'm making sure I don't forget to consider somebody. I think the names of my two categories pretty much sum up my feelings at this point.

Won't vote:
Wilwa - Will definitely not receive my vote toDay. I have seen nothing that would make my alarm bells ring, and she's helpful and makes sense.
Lottie - I'm leaning towards finding her innocent.
Eonwe - Looks genuine this far.
Nerwen - Leaning innocent too - a bit less calculating than an evil Nerwen would be. I think.
Folwren - Posts sense and brings up points from an innocentish point of view. Definitely not going to vote for her toDay.
Lalaith - Her one post this far could go either way. I'm debating. But as I have nothing definite I will probably not vote her toDay. (She's playing her first game in ages, and it would seem unfair to lynch her randomly on Day 1. If I start to find her wolvish, though, I'll stop playing it fair. )

Confuses me:
Kath - She made it to Day 1! I'm proud of her. Other than that, I really can't say this or that about her, she hasn't said much.
Boro - Is confusing me to no end. His great Zeus left me quite baffled, as all the reasons I can think of for him saying that make no sense whatsoever.
Mira - I'm mainly confused about her not posting as Mira. She's posted once this far, so I believe I'm excused for having no effing idea.
Zil - I'm always bad at reading him, and this far this game doesn't look like an exception.
Blind Guardian - Nothing of substance this far. No idea, therefore.
Nienna - Has posted once but posted sense. I know she's excellent at posting sense even when a wolf though so I'm making no assumptions about her role.
autume - A one-liner and a two-liner. In other words, too little to say anything definite especially as I haven't played with her (I assume it's a she?) before - but just judging by the tone I'd say she is not a wolf. She seems - well - too little excited and tense, like, even a bit bored?
Rikae - Active and keeps the conversation running, I like it. That has nothing to do with her role, though, I have no idea about that! Confusing.
Shasta - Haven't seen him this far. Sad.
Mac - Makes sense, but also makes me raise my eyebrows a bit. Especially the following:

Originally Posted by Mac

You could make a similar case for Nerwen's "what the Hades is going on". If I were Persephone, I'd know who to pick first now.

So he's implying that Nerwen is Hades (ergo a wolf), but doesn't make a move to actually start suspecting her? If you think you've caught a wolf, why just mention it offhand instead of making a case and trying to get your supposed wolf lynched? Fishy, I'd say.
Nog - For some reason I have no opinion on him whatsoever. (Usually I'm at his throat already at this point of the game.)
Phantom - I could copy-paste what I said about Nog as it pretty much applies to phantom too. If I had to voice an opinion I'd say I was leaning towards finding him innocent, though.
Sally - Confuses me, as usual, or more than usual, actually.


EDIT: x-ed since Lottie's #95

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by the phantom

So, I had less faith in my individual persuasive ability than I did in the combined peer pressure power of the entire village.

I lack faith in that as well, at least not in this village. There are quite a few people here I wouldn't at all expect to bow to peer pressure.

I can't say it's really harmful for you to have tried it, though, as long as it wouldn't have resulted in a general blind trust of people who may not be on the village's side after all.

Originally Posted by Phantom

Not to mention I figured there was at the least a very small chance that someone would insist on putting forth the idea and defend the idea that the lover could remain on the side of the WWs out of loyalty to their lost love. Doing that would obviously be to the detriment of the village and thus be a possible flag of a baddie or at the least someone who wasn't helpful.

Yeah, I suspected as much. It's a neat way to create a suspect, isn't it? But I do mean create, and not find, since it's very much a matter of style and philosophy whether someone considers it a good thing to forge a general agreement of how certain players should act that goes beyond (at the time) the admin thread. It could be argued (by an innocent) that such agreements are unfair, or misleading, or an attempt at distraction.. I think I can recall you innocently attempting to reach similar "peer pressure" agreements before, though.

Originally Posted by Phantom

Perhaps, but in this case we wouldn't be following Seer hints, but rather false Seer hints. In other words, the clues that he would leave behind pointing to his falseness would logically be easier to discover and agree upon than usual Seer clues due to the fact that he would not have a Seer-level fear of discovery.

Ah, but this would interfere with the false seer's ability to fool the wolves, which was, if I understood you correctly, the whole point of not revealing in the first place.

Originally Posted by Folwren

Okay, folks, someone explain to me what is going on with the random 'xe's' in posts?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xe

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Ah, but this would interfere with the false seer's ability to fool the wolves, which was, if I understood you correctly, the whole point of not revealing in the first place.

I'm not sure about that. In hindsight, hints like that don't have to be blatant. They can be subtle enough to fool wolves while being noticeable enough to stand out to those looking for them.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Loslote

I'm not sure about that. In hindsight, hints like that don't have to be blatant. They can be subtle enough to fool wolves while being noticeable enough to stand out to those looking for them.

Not in the case Phantom was talking about - the wolves dream of the false seer's role as seer. Why would the wolves be any less able to see the hints, in that case, than the village? There really is no benefit to the false seer keeping quiet in general, although in some circumstances there might be.

EDIT: X'd with Nog and Loslote, also somehow attributed Lottie's quote above to Folwren.

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Not in the case Phantom was talking about - the wolves dream of the false seer's role as seer. Why would the wolves be any less able to see the hints, in that case, than the village? There really is no benefit to the false seer keeping quiet in general, although in some circumstances there might be.

That wasn't Foley who said that, it was me. And I'm not talking about the case The Phantom was talking about - I'm talking about keeping the False Seer hidden to provide another layer of protection for the real Seer.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Rikae

I lack faith in that as well, at least not in this village. There are quite a few people here I wouldn't at all expect to bow to peer pressure.

Well definitely they wouldn't once it is called out for what it is, but had things proceeded unhindered I think it would be a fair bet that at least half would follow the common logic. I would most likely do so myself, as I would consider it in bad taste to go against what is perceived as the proper balance of things etc.

Originally Posted by Rikae

Yeah, I suspected as much. It's a neat way to create a suspect, isn't it? But I do mean create, and not find, since it's very much a matter of style and philosophy whether someone considers it a good thing to forge a general agreement of how certain players should act that goes beyond (at the time) the admin thread.

But in my mind arguing against the point out of a sense of "style" would be bad form, as the first priority of a good villager is to do what is possible to win. If there is a situation that arises where there is clearly one side that is an advantage to the good side, the good villager should take it. Not doing so would run contrary to their whole alignment thus disturbing the balance set up by the Moderator. At least that's how I view it.

Originally Posted by Phantom

Perhaps, but in this case we wouldn't be following Seer hints, but rather false Seer hints. In other words, the clues that he would leave behind pointing to his falseness would logically be easier to discover and agree upon than usual Seer clues due to the fact that he would not have a Seer-level fear of discovery.

Originally Posted by Rikae

Ah, but this would interfere with the false seer's ability to fool the wolves, which was, if I understood you correctly, the whole point of not revealing in the first place.

I assumed someone would say this, and the answer- there still remains a difference between hinting and outright revealing, and that difference is primarily an issue of time and being thorough. It is possible for Werewolves to miss hints, as at busy stages of the game it is nearly impossible to examine every last post of every person in complete detail, where as on the other hand no way would the WWs miss an open reveal.

So, a hinting false Seer can leave hints that, if you know to look for them, can be found, but if you don't know to single out that individual you may pass over them.

(looking back I see that Lottie appears to have made this exact point)

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Rikae

the wolves dream of the false seer's role as seer. Why would the wolves be any less able to see the hints, in that case, than the village?

Under that circumstance the advantage to keeping quiet has already been won, due to the fact that the WWs were forced to waste a dream on the false Seer (who must have taken our advice and NOT revealed).

But anyway, I need to leave right away. I'll be back for the final couple of hours.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

So perhaps it would be better for the False Seer to come clean after all if xe realises that that's what xe is.

I think I agree with this. When the false Seer still believes xemself to be the real one, xe might well leave hints for the village to follow in case of their death. If xe discovers, through the death of one they'd dreamed, that they are the false one, they need to come clean to stop us making anything of their comments or votes.

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Perhaps Pan and Eros could take turns in protecting both of the Seers until we work out who is the real one (or one of them gets Night killed- there would be no sense whatsoever in not revealing in this case). Is this allowed? (The repeat protection by the Ranger and Hunter Guardian taking turns.)

I would think they could protect anyone they like, except maybe themselves, for one Night at a time. I guess that's another question for the mod though, as I didn't see it in the Admin Thread.

x/d with phantom and steve

[Folwren]

Okay, folks, someone explain to me what is going on with the random 'xe's' in posts?

I have nothing of substantial weight or purpose to add.

-- Foley

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Thanatos specifying the rules

Eros: Will NOT be able to guard himself (as he is also part Hunter)

Pah: WILL be able to guard himself but may only do so once.

So there is no ruling to deny the group-work from Eros and Pan? Really? Well, hey, we've used any loophole in the rules before as well - even if I have thought double-rangers always been against the spirit of the game...

So both seers reveal, we make a deal that Pan protects A and Eros B and the other way around the next Night and so on - until the wolves figure out who either Pan or Eros are and do away with one (they need not come forwards, just silently stick to the plan we others come up with). Well that's a head-on tactics which would surely cause a stir, and be a bit dangerous: just one of the guardians need to mess up with the rangering and we have the seer flushed out very early on and the wolves having a chance to go at her/him... but then again the wolves would need to check that out every Night (whether one of the rangers is missing her/his duties) and thus waste their kills... and thence not be able to find them just trying to kill the seers - unless we try to lynch one of them rangers of course... hmm.

Surely it's up to the seers to decide on this.

Being a sporty player I do personally dislike the automatic protection -idea. In a way it's a bit unfair - but this has it's dangers as well. So at least discussing it wouldn't be that unsporty? It would be quite a fool-proof way to grant our seer multiple Nights to dream - unless we had real bad luck or someone really messes up what s/he's supposed to do...


So what say you?

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So what say you?

There are revenge-kills in play, too. We'd flush out the Seers and leave them to die at the hands of angry lovers. I think, besides the fact that it is rather unsportsmanlike, it's too dangerous.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Loslote

There are revenge-kills in play, too. We'd flush out the Seers and leave them to die at the hands of angry lovers.

That's actually a good point (had to check the rules once again). And what's most dangerous, it's the wolves from the lover-pair that have the revenge-kills - so they'd have every reason to go for our seers - unlike if the revenge-kills were with the innocent parts of the love-relationships. True.

It requires the lover-pairs to have found each other though and the innocent one of them dying so it might take some time things get that far, but anyway you're right, it looks a bit too risky.

So let's forget the idea.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So there is no ruling to deny the group-work from Eros and Pan? Really? Well, hey, we've used any loophole in the rules before as well - even if I have thought double-rangers always been against the spirit of the game...

So both seers reveal, we make a deal that Pan protects A and Eros B and the other way around the next Night and so on - until the wolves figure out who either Pan or Eros are and do away with one (they need not come forwards, just silently stick to the plan we others come up with). Well that's a head-on tactics which would surely cause a stir, and be a bit dangerous: just one of the guardians need to mess up with the rangering and we have the seer flushed out very early on and the wolves having a chance to go at her/him... but then again the wolves would need to check that out every Night (whether one of the rangers is missing her/his duties) and thus waste their kills... and thence not be able to find them just trying to kill the seers - unless we try to lynch one of them rangers of course... hmm.

Surely it's up to the seers to decide on this.

Being a sporty player I do personally dislike the automatic protection -idea. In a way it's a bit unfair - but this has it's dangers as well. So at least discussing it wouldn't be that unsporty? It would be quite a fool-proof way to grant our seer multiple Nights to dream - unless we had real bad luck or someone really messes up what s/he's supposed to do...


So what say you?

An interesting idea. I suppose it's not any more risky that the rangers will get killed than that the seers will, and at least this way we'll have the benefit of all the seers' information out in the open, all the time.

But what's to prevent a false reveal from tying up one of the rangers?

EDIT: X'd with TP & Nog.

[Rikae]

Phantom - although I'm beginning to think this whole discussion better be wrapped up, so we can get on to more useful things - half the village may or may not matter, depending on which half the lovers are in.

And you talk about matters of "style" being bad "form" while you consider it bad "taste" to go against the dictates of the majority. Well, I reply that it is bad "taste" and "form" not to allow individual players to play according to their own "style", unless, that is, you prefer to play with a village of robots. Furthermore, if the lovers had indeed been barred from winning and without an alignment after their partners' death, trying to obscure that fact would mean, as you put it, "disturbing the balance set up by the Moderator."

But in general, I will say that I always put good form and fairness, as I see them, first - ahead of my own victory. If that makes me suspicious, so be it.

Originally Posted by Phantom

It is possible for Werewolves to miss hints, as at busy stages of the game it is nearly impossible to examine every last post of every person in complete detail, where as on the other hand no way would the WWs miss an open reveal.

As I said to Loslote, you were talking about wolves who have dreamt of the "seer". They would have a whole night to go over the quotes of this alleged seer and decide whether or not to kill xem, and, if they're in a situation where their choice of kill is especially important (which you're assuming) there is no reason to suppose they'll miss something that will be obvious to the villagers the next day, with exactly the same information.

EDIT: X'd with Phantom.