Tol-in-Gaurhoth CIII: Big Magic in Middle Earth Arcane Encampment (Game Thread)

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Kath

Well that's rather my point. It was a nothingy statement, so why has it dragged up all this suspicion?

Because it doesn't make any sense to say it! It's the same as if I posted "bananas are yellow". Why would I do that? Except to maybe appear like I was saying something while I wasn't?

[Kath]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Because it doesn't make any sense to say it! It's the same as if I posted "bananas are yellow". Why would I do that? Except to maybe appear like I was saying something while I wasn't?

Because it's Day 1? And no one has anything really worthwhile to say. If you were Nilp you'd leap on and self-vote, if you were Fea you'd appear and claim you were the wolf/cobbler/lover/Saruman. Legate often posts a flipping book so is it any wonder that sometimes parts of it are somewhat nothingy?

I just thought a mountain had been made out of a molehill. And it was a very small molehill to start with.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Kath

Because it's Day 1? And no one has anything really worthwhile to say. If you were Nilp you'd leap on and self-vote, if you were Fea you'd appear and claim you were the wolf/cobbler/lover/Saruman. Legate often posts a flipping book so is it any wonder that sometimes parts of it are somewhat nothingy?

That's true, but the fact that he always does that doesn't make it any less silly or fishy.

[Kath]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

That's true, but the fact that he always does that doesn't make it any less silly or fishy.

Ah now actually surely it does. Is he always a wolf? If yes then fine, he's evil, let's lynch him now. But if not, then we cannot tell that much from it, as he does it when innocent or guilty.

Aaaaanyway. This is a rather silly and unhelpful mini-argument.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Kath

Ah now actually surely it does. Is he always a wolf? If yes then fine, he's evil, let's lynch him now. But if not, then we cannot tell that much from it, as he does it when innocent or guilty.

Aaaaanyway. This is a rather silly and unhelpful mini-argument.

1) No. But I think he's more prone to do it when he's a wolf. Besides, I was not only saying it's suspicious, I was partly expressing my bafflement/frustration at talking nonsense.

2) Yes, it is, but it's even sillier if you take into account we're sitting in the same room RL and typing furiously at each other.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Both times you mentioned it, you basically said the theory has some credit to it. And like I said in my previous post, it's a really useless thing to start talking about in the first place.

Well, I mentioned it as one thing in my first post. It's you who started all these long complaints about it.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

That's true, but the fact that he always does that doesn't make it any less silly or fishy.

Ok, I am fine with silly, but why fishy? Whatever. Enough of this, I guess, I don't find you fishy, and I think this is not very fruitful argument.

Speaking of that, I think I am still considering Cop to be most suspicious of all, but we shall see if she appears and posts more.

EDIT: x-ed with Lommy, Shasta and Cop

[Kath]

Alright, away from arguing with Lommy (however fun it is!). Onto some of these here other players.

Dun:
Here is an interesting sentence: And all must remember to use them in this case. Let us hope all come to their senses.

This in response to Cop saying: I am sure we have various spells and potions available to turn us invisible. Of course, we must bear in mind that the traitors in our midst have these means available to them as well...

So is Inzil hinting to his fellows that someone needs to get out of bed? Could perhaps be that there is a player he fears may not be around when they should be!

I guess he may also look to suspect anyone who votes for Legate, Lommy or myself as he wondered whether the 'rule of three' debate would lead to votes based around that. They wouldn't exactly be using the rule as a reason but it would have led through.

Nerwen:
Says we are likely to have four bad guys, then only lists three 'suspects'. Yes, yes I know it is all under this 'rule of three' silliness but hey, perhaps she knew full well there would only be three but hoped, as someone else mentioned, that seeming unsure of the number of wolves would suggest she was innocent.

Cop:
Not totally sure about this seeming in-game banter: We must attempt to locate the one who is possessed and those whose minds have been taken by Saruman, but what will we do to them when we catch them, and how many of them are in our midst? ...No, this is not the time. <-- It just seems a bit forced.

I do think she is overzealous in assuming there must already be a wolf in the first 8 posters given how many people there were still left to post. Even if more had posted than hadn't it doesn't mean a wolf MUST have posted yet.

Just read the epic post. I think this is pretty fair actually. I only wish there was some kind of summing up at the end so we knew more decisively who she holds to be potential wolves. While there is less ummming and aaahing in the post than many who make these lists posts obviously there are sections without much of a clear decision.

Lottie:
Plus, her Rule-o'-Three squabble with Legate definitely seems like something two innocents would do rather than an innocent and a wolf. Maybe two wolves, but that'd be bold. I'm inclined to think them both innocent just now, with maybe a hesitant question mark tacked onto the end of that statement.
Refusal to make a statement alert! But actually I more wanted to point this out to show that Lottie said she thought any squabble here would not be wolf on wolf - just so we remember it in later Days.

Will focus attention on Zil, me and Nerwen.

Greenie:
I already said I don't think Legate did flip flop within his post but that obviously is in the back of my mind about Greenie.

Little from her so far but then we have been hogging the laptops.

Legate:
Enough said here I think. I didn't think anything of the 'rule of three' discussion that has taken up most of my thought about him. I did check to make sure that in the intervening crossfire he had actually answered Cop's original question about what 'message' he had seen.

Nothing struck me weird on Lottie, if so, then rather about Cop. The flip-floppy chitter-chatter, especially if any of the other ones is also a Wolf (namely, Zil), because it doesn't sound like totally useless banter, but sounds like it might have a purpose (to seem like it's banter, while talking about Wolves, or even if there were two of them, then to seem like banter while talking about packmates).
Lommy. <-- The statement in question. Bolding mine because this is his answer to Cop asking 'what message?'.

Nope, I said nothing about wolf-to-wolf messages.

Which I would say is not entirely true, given the bit in bold.


Obviously we haven't yet seen anything from Shasta (bar turning up!), Eonwe, Boro, McCaber so ignoring them.

Echo is a pass for me toDay unless he pops up and shouts: I am a wolf!
(Just noticed his post - should I amend this to: or votes for me! )

Holby IS a pass, but a reluctant one. I want her to explain that list.


Now I am going to post this, look at what I have written, then draw my ideas down and vote.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Kath

Dun:
Here is an interesting sentence: And all must remember to use them in this case. Let us hope all come to their senses.

This in response to Cop saying: I am sure we have various spells and potions available to turn us invisible. Of course, we must bear in mind that the traitors in our midst have these means available to them as well...

So is Inzil hinting to his fellows that someone needs to get out of bed? Could perhaps be that there is a player he fears may not be around when they should be!

Actually, like I said earlier, I had observed a player visible while looking at the thread, and I was trying to discreetly tell them to remedy that.

[Boromir88]

Actually regarding the "Rule of 3" it's about as good of a place to start on Day 1 as anything else. There are obviously flaws with it, but it's better than a randomized "I'm saying one of the first three alphabetically listed is a sorcerer." That is a truly random grouping. Where saying one of the first three posters might be a sorcerer assumes an anxious "I want to get things started and appearing active" sorcerer in the bunch.

As far as with what there is on most Day 1s, it's a good starting point for seeing how first posters react to a "rule of three" suspicion.

Oh hi, I'm here.

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Kath

Lottie:
Refusal to make a statement alert!

Oh, honey, I never commit to solid statements! I'm a philosophy major.

Seriously, though, this post just made me rather uneasy about her. A lot of the reasoning seems forced, almost like she's trying to suspect people even though she knows they can't be sorcerers. It could just be Day-1 lack of proper suspicions and trying to get traction, but it doesn't sit well with me.

EDIT: xed since Cop's #57...whoops

[A Little Green]

A quick list!

Shasta - Need to see more of him!
Kath - Witch or no, I feel fairly good about Kath. She has shrewd points and I think she seems more cautious when she's a wolf.
Dun - Not as bad vibes as usual!
Nerwen - Not sure what to think about her guessing at four wolves, but I don't agree with Kath that her list of three connects to this in any way.
Cop - Seems relatively fishy (see my previous post) but she also gives innocentish vibes so I don't know.
McCobbler - Who?
Lottie - Half innocentish, half under the radar.
Holbytlass - What?
Echo - WHAT?
Boro - Hello!
Legate - Enough said. (Although - suspecting me for excessive use of rolleyes? Honestly?)
Lommy - Like what I see this far.
Steve - Hello Steve!


EDIT: x-ed with Copper

[Thinlómien]

Coppermirror??!! Kind of wish I hadn't voted yet now, because that last post (#75) was positively weird. Your own tone seems forced to you too, huh? That's apologetic if I've ever seen anything apologetic in my life.

Also, Greenie's list just cracked me up.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Short (emphasis on "short"! In the terms of Legate of Amon Lanc's notion of normal length of posts, of course. Look, two sentences! Three.)

Very innocent:
Kath - also very helpful. Almost suspiciously so, but I mean, that isn't a good reason for suspicion, right? Let's see what she does in the future.

Nothing particularly suspicious:
Lommy - looks like normal Lommy to me
Nerwen - looks like normal Nerwen to me

Uncertain:
Inzil - he doesn't do anything suspicious, but just does not give the "at easy" feel I might have with some others

Fishy, with weird explanation about their votes:
Holby
Echo - gets a newbie pass for Day 1, though.

Something fishy about:
Coppermirror - like I said, the sort of wannabe-banter posting in the beginning and somewhat touchy response make her flash with warning lights in my eyes (and theoretically also her later posts could contain balanced suspicions cast on other people, the sort of "hit and run" or inconclusive suspicions might benefit a Wolf). In any case at least worth watching, possible vote-candidate for me.
Lottie - a bit suspicious because of her possible "avoidance of the heat", but there is not so much to judge her based on just that
Greenie - her sort of balanced walking among posts and the excessive use of rolleyes in the start seemed really awkward to me, but the thing is more like a gut-feeling than an actual suspicion, so probably not having any merit as of now (I'll see if she has posted anything meanwhile)

No idea about:
Steve
Boro
Shasta
McCaber

EDIT: x-ed with about a million people since Cop's list

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Kath

Well then.

++ NERWEN

Reasoning reminder: Says we are likely to have four bad guys, then only lists three 'suspects'. Yes, yes I know it is all under this 'rule of three' silliness but hey, perhaps she knew full well there would only be three but hoped, as someone else mentioned, that seeming unsure of the number of wolves would suggest she was innocent.

Okay, that's actually a point to consider. Although personally I am not sure if I'd use it as sole reasoning (too random), but I'd like to actually hear if Nerwen has anything to respond to that.

Originally Posted by Echo

to be clear....lynch the witch ++KATH......or wolf in this matter of business.

Well, any more reasoning, or do you know more than we do? If you do, then at this rate you might just as well say so.

Originally Posted by Kath

Legate ~ well I would like to see his reply to what I mentioned in the other post.

I didn't realise there was a question. But, to clarify then,

Originally Posted by Kath

I did check to make sure that in the intervening crossfire he had actually answered Cop's original question about what 'message' he had seen.

Nothing struck me weird on Lottie, if so, then rather about Cop. The flip-floppy chitter-chatter, especially if any of the other ones is also a Wolf (namely, Zil), because it doesn't sound like totally useless banter, but sounds like it might have a purpose (to seem like it's banter, while talking about Wolves, or even if there were two of them, then to seem like banter while talking about packmates).
Lommy. <-- The statement in question. Bolding mine because this is his answer to Cop asking 'what message?'.

Nope, I said nothing about wolf-to-wolf messages.

Which I would say is not entirely true, given the bit in bold.

It isn't wolf-to-wolf, it's wolf-about-wolf. Cop talked about what I said first of all like I was talking about messages from one wolf to another. While I was talking about Wolves who want to speak (or have to speak) about other, and are doing it in the way so that it does not look like they are excessively defending them, but also not that they are bringing too much attention to them.

Probably again x-posted with some... but going to vote soon.

[Kath]

Originally Posted by Kath

Dun:
Here is an interesting sentence: And all must remember to use them in this case. Let us hope all come to their senses.

This in response to Cop saying: I am sure we have various spells and potions available to turn us invisible. Of course, we must bear in mind that the traitors in our midst have these means available to them as well...

So is Inzil hinting to his fellows that someone needs to get out of bed? Could perhaps be that there is a player he fears may not be around when they should be!

I guess he may also look to suspect anyone who votes for Legate, Lommy or myself as he wondered whether the 'rule of three' debate would lead to votes based around that. They wouldn't exactly be using the rule as a reason but it would have led through.

Okey pokes, here is the post which caused me such issues. I have bolded the sentence that threw me when I was thinking about the implications. I read it back to myself as 'Inzil said this in response to Cop' rather than 'he said the above after Cop posted this'.

And in looking back I noticed something else. Holby still has not explained her list, despite requests and even a bizarre interpretation by Echo. I am getting a little fed up of having two players who seem totally uninclined to actually respond to anyone else.

[Kath]

Oh and unless anyone comes out to refute it I am willing to accept McCaber's claim of being lover. Assuming this means he is now on the side of the village entirely then please McCaber vote toDay so we have no modfire of an innocent!

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Shasta

So you*aren't*going to attempt to fry the lone fish in your fourth (and most suspicious) category? You're not really helping me think you innocent,Greenie.

I have formed some kind of an opinion on Cop - or, at least, I have a pretty shrewd idea of what she's said and done. I can't claim the same of many others. I was talking about how I'll try to use my time, not who I'll attempt to fry. I may fry her still toDay, but concentrating on one person only has rarely ended well in my experience so I'll try to look at other people too. Does that make sense to you?

That said, I'm off to try to be a man of my word and do some rereading. Back soon!


EDIT: x-ed with Kath and Lommy

[A Little Green]

Oh, and I forgot to say that I believe McCaber; if he's a wolf he's insane.

[Thinlómien]

Likely packmates
- Copper and Echo (what I said about Cop speculating about Nightly talk)
- Copper/Holby/Eönwë and Kath (any of the three could've been trying to save Kath yesterDay)
- Lottie and Echo/Holby (she's giving them free passes a tad too happily)

Unlikely packmates
- Echo and Kath (the witch-hunt and the latter's frustration with the former - I feel that is Kath was Echo's packmate, she'd rather try to encourage/tutor them than just straightaway give up on them)
- Boro/Lottie and Kath (both clearly put her in the risk of being lynched yesterDay)
- Copper and Nerwen (the invisibility thing would make no sense)
- Echo and Holby (or then I'm not giving Echo enough credit, but their jump on Holby toDay is quite aggressive to be wolf-on-wolf)


edit: xd with Greenie's last

[Coppermirror]

Originally Posted by Kath

Oh and unless anyone comes out to refute it I am willing to accept McCaber's claim of being lover. Assuming this means he is now on the side of the village entirely then please McCaber vote toDay so we have no modfire of an innocent!

But, if one of the Lovers is killed before they find each other, they remain an innocent ordo in things like narration and to the seer. Do we really gain something by voting for him now?

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

You people are thinking in weird ways, this scenario for example would never have occurred to me.

If you're innocent and you weren't thinking about that scenario and associated points, you're worrying me, Lommy. If you're a sorcerer, then that was a canny comment to make, to cast suspicion on people who are trying to work out what the sorcerers' plans are likely to be.

I may make a post towards the end of toDay explaining a bit more about what I think you're overlooking, if I don't have to leave earlier than that, because there are some things you really ought to have in mind toDay.

Edit: crossed with Lommy since #166.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

If you're innocent and you weren't thinking about that scenario and associated points, you're worrying me, Lommy.

What?! Why?

[A Little Green]

LOTTIE
(Not including Serverman banter or other irrelevant stuff)

The first actual impressions on people, early on Day 1, are that she feels "pretty good" about Cop, is shaky on me but leaning innocent, and thinks my Rule of Three squabble with Legate looks innocent-on-innocent. Lommy strikes her as "a little less innocent, but nothing that shoves her into 'terrifying sorcerer' territory just yet". Has no read on Zil, Kath or Nerwen.

Then, speaking about Kath accusing her of refusing to make a statement:

Seriously, though, this post just made me rather uneasy about her. A lot of the reasoning seems forced, almost like she's trying to suspect people even though she knows they can't be sorcerers. It could just be Day-1 lack of proper suspicions and trying to get traction, but it doesn't sit well with me.

Finds Cop's reaction to the whole "my tone looked off to me too" -discussion "wonderfully innocent" and is fairly certain Cop is innocent. Is also "leaning innocentish" on Legate, though with some reservations.

Then moving on to her famous vote post:

So we have a triple tie between*Cop,*Kath, and*Legate, with no clarifying rules on tie-breakers? Well then.

++Kath*

I find her far more suspicious than either*Cop*or*Legate.

I get Boro's (and was it Shasta's?) point about this looking as if she was relieved about the choice being limited. However, in light of what she said prior to this, the vote makes perfect sense. Kath was the only one she suspected anyway, whereas Cop and Legate were ones she had specifically mentioned looked innocentish to her.

Moving on to toDay, she suggests that a quote from Inzil might have been taken for a Seer hint or else that he was a no-trace kill. I don't really buy the Seer hint theory but it doesn't really tell me much about her innocence or guilt.

She thinks Echo comes off as a nervous newbie (though "frustratingly and purposefully vague") and is willing to extend his newbie pass. Holby alarms her, but she "gets the impression that's just her style". These reactions look to be following the same trend of being noncommittal and diplomatic that Kath accused her of yesterDay.

She then argues slightly with Kath and revises her opinion of Holby, saying she isn't sure anymore. She ends the post with

YesterDay,*Kath*was my strongest suspicion, and I suppose she still is, but only by default. I'm mostly on the fence with her, leaning just a bit towards eeeeevil, but I'll probably spend more time looking over her posts later on to maybe see if I can work out where that feeling is coming from and whether or not it's justified.

Which is pretty much what I was thinking, too: where is this Kath suspicion coming from? Apart from the one post on Day 1, she doesn't really give reasons for her consistent suspicion of Kath. I hope she returns to elaborate!

And in her latest post to date, she comments on McCaber coming out:

I...don't think this is a move a sorcerer would make, especially not on Day 2 - it seems too risky. Can we be confident enough in that to write him off as a known innocent?

Which is more careful than most others, but seems sensible for both innocent and wolf.

Conclusions? On the whole, I think Lottie looks pretty innocent. She is at times over-diplomatic and her Kath-suspicion is a bit odd, but her general behaviour especially yesterDay seems logical and sensible. She's down to the Relatively Small Fish -category with Steve, I'd say.


EDIT: x-ed since Lommy's 172

[Kath]

Argh and I have somehow Lommy, which is ridiculous given how much we have spoken all Day! In all our debating I have not felt that she is particularly guilty, nor that she has any major vendetta against Legate.

So:

Ignoring:
Shasta
Eonwe
Boro
McCaber
Echo
Holby

Largely innocent:
Cop
Lottie
Lommy

Perhaps guilty:
Inzil ~ but more in a 'look out for him on future Days' way. I'm not sure there is anything that suspicious yet but I would want to check back with how he follows on from toDay.
Legate ~ well I would like to see his reply to what I mentioned in the other post.
Nerwen ~ it is pretty tenuous but it's something.
Greenie ~ largely from the debate we had earlier.

Vote in the next post, I want to check for any cross posting first.

[Kath]

Well then.

++ NERWEN

Reasoning reminder: Says we are likely to have four bad guys, then only lists three 'suspects'. Yes, yes I know it is all under this 'rule of three' silliness but hey, perhaps she knew full well there would only be three but hoped, as someone else mentioned, that seeming unsure of the number of wolves would suggest she was innocent.

I would say it's fairly shoddy as it goes, but with my other suspects the suspicions I have need a bit more time to percolate!

[Eönwë]

Ok, I'm here now.

With all the talk on the admin thread, I did not expect the game to start so soon, so today has been a bit difficult time-wise, and I only managed to get a few glimpses at the thread until now. Will post thoughts in a bit.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Echo

to be clear....lynch the witch ++KATH......or wolf in this matter of business.

Well...that's direct. Nice to meet you, welcome to our community Echo.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Legate

I am not advocating it and never was. Read my posts! And "all the time" is certainly overdoing it, because I mentioned it like once and then once answered to you, that's all (where I spoke about it only because you did). So I don't know what you are calling "all the time".

Both times you mentioned it, you basically said the theory has some credit to it. And like I said in my previous post, it's a really useless thing to start talking about in the first place.

PS. Holby and Echo, I made an explanatory post about the nicknames on the admin thread, check it out here if you're confused.

[Coppermirror]

Overall Impressions (ranked)

Not worried about
n/a

Feeling neutral about
Inzil
Kath

Slightly suspicious of
Lottie
Lommy
Greenie
Nerwen
Holby ("confused about" might be more apt)

Middlingly suspicious of
Legate
Echo - I'm worried about the reasoning for their vote.

Red hot worry
McCaber
Boro
Eonwe
Shasta

Originally Posted by Inziladun

If the Lovers are capable of winning independently of either the village or the baddies, they are a risk to both sides potentially.

I can't see anything in the admin post which suggests winning conditions for them, only that the day after they reunite there'll be no sorcerer kill. So the effect's like a perfect one-time ranger. It's a minus for the sorcerers and a plus for the village, so perhaps they're aligned to the village. I suppose there's no real way of knowing right now.

Edit: crossed since Lommy at #51

[Coppermirror]

Am I correct in assuming that there are three hours until the deadline? I'm really not confident when it comes to time zones.

Edit: cross-posted with Boro

[Echo]

to be clear....lynch the witch ++KATH......or wolf in this matter of business.

[Coppermirror]

Originally Posted by Echo

to be clear....lynch the witch ++KATH......or wolf in this matter of business.

You sound very sure about that. Could you tell us more about your reasoning?

Edit: cross-posted with Eonwe.

[Kath]

Boro, Boro, Boro ... LOOK! I did it without a reminder this game! (And the fact that I am staying with 3 people who are also playing sooo doesn't count as a reminder.)

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Kath

Boro, Boro, Boro ... LOOK! I did it without a reminder this game! (And the fact that I am staying with 3 people who are also playing sooo doesn't count as a reminder.)

KATH KATH KATH! Hi...woah it's been a long time. Too long. Maybe too long that you forgot how forgetful you usually are about appearing in these villages?

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Kath

Argh and I have somehow Lommy, which is ridiculous

What is this? First you forget me, then you forget the verb from my sentence? Outrageous!

Great to see Boro and Eönwë. A pity to go now that stuff starts happening, but I should slooowly start going.

Here we go:

++Legate

The combination of vague points against him and a vague bad gut feeling is the best bet I've got this far.


edit: xed with several

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Here we go:

++Legate

The combination of vague points against him and a vague bad gut feeling is the best bet I've got this far.

Hm. As I write this I'm listening to Sibelius's Concerto for Violin and Orchestra Op. 47. Is that a sign to "follow the Finn?

[Coppermirror]

Vote tally so far

Kath -> Nerwen
Echo-> Kath
Lommy -> Legate

[Echo]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Because it doesn't make any sense to say it! It's the same as if I posted "bananas are yellow". Why would I do that? Except to maybe appear like I was saying something while I wasn't?

This is quite a good point, kath is suspicious with all the nonsense chatter and trying to point out that she's "innocent
". She doesn't sit right with me.
++ KATH

[A Little Green]

Echo, you should bold your vote for it to be valid!

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Echo

This is quite a good point, kath is suspicious with all the nonsense chatter and trying to point out that she's "innocent
". She doesn't sit right with me.
++ KATH

...? I was talking about Legate in that quote, not Kath!

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Echo

This is quite a good point, kath is suspicious with all the nonsense chatter and trying to point out that she's "innocent
". She doesn't sit right with me.
++ KATH

Wait a minute, why are you voting for Kath on the basis of something she didn't even say?

Originally Posted by A Little Green

Echo, you should bold your vote for it to be valid!

That too.

x/d with Lommy