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

[Coppermirror]

Overall impressions (unranked)

Shasta: Hasn't said a word so far. This is very concerning.
McCaber: Ditto
Eonwe: Ditto
Boro: Ditto

I regard people who haven't said anything yet with high suspicion...Of course, they're obviously not all wolves, and life is demanding and gets in the way of chances to post, but those who don't post or who show up very late aren't putting themselves at risk they way that other posters are, either toDay or toMorrow.

Echo: Has said very little. Is new, so won't be voted for toDay. They could talk more toDay with no risk of being lynched this time. Currently I have no real opinion about them. Unknown quantity.

Holbytlass: I don't remember anything about Holbytlass's style, but I do know they've been a Werewolf player for a very long time. The lack of content worries me a bit. That list with only names is enough to make the village weep. But I have no idea whether that fits Holby's usual patterns or whether there's anything sorcerous about it.

Kath: Talks about admin and rules issues. There's nothing particularly suspicious about that. She also asks for an explanation of a sentence of mine - and likewise, that doesn't look suspicious of her. Later on, she offers some clarification to Greenie about an interpretation of Legate re the rule of 3 business.

There is really nothing there that looks suspicious, but Kath is not putting herself out there much with opinions about other posters. Of course, it's hard to have a really strong opinion this early on. She could be a careful, thoughtful innocent, but equally could be a careful, cautious wolf.

Inzil: Good joke at #6! Later reminds people to turn invisible (which some people really took their time doing). At #24 he responds to discussion about the rules. The most notable thing he's said is that he feels good about Greenie.

I haven't really got a good idea about Inzilin this game yet. I'm not feeling bad about him, and he hasn't done anything to make me suspect him toDay, but I can't say I'm getting an actual good feeling about him yet.

Nerwen: Has several joking posts, and posts several helpful things in answer to questions. I feel ambivalent about her this time, but there's nothing specific that I can think of as the source of uneasy feelings, even though there are some uneasy feelings.

Lottie: Joins in the fun banter at first. At #32 she comes back with current opinions. I find it hard to draw conclusions about her from that. Will need to look again at that post and at any subsequent ones.

Greenie: She speculates about the speculation about sorcerer numbers. Nothing stands out as very suspicious there. She appeared to take my comment about Lottie seriously, but then, so did Lommy. I don't find her response to Nerwen at #28 suspicious either.

Legate: At #15 he appears to claim that my early banter comments, especially towards Inzil, could while purporting to be pure banter have a hidden purpose of "talking about Wolves" or "talking about packmates". At #27 he claims that that wasn't what he meant and that it was all a general comment about the "avoiding" feel of the banter. I'm not sure I buy that. I also think he's over-reacting to my concern about his intentions, as the situation as I believed it to be (Legate suggesting there could be hidden evil talking-to-and-about-sorcerers in the early banter, but not saying important things such as what or where) was a reasonable cause for suspicion and seeking clarification.

Although I don't trust the explanation at #27, the possibility definitely remains that Legate's wording at #15 just didn't convey exactly what he wanted it to and he's perfectly innocent. Will definitely have to keep an eye on Legate.

I don't particularly find the rule of three explanation that Legate gave to be suspicious. He posts first impressions of several people, which is a good sign. He missed some details about what people were talking about before, which suggests he wasn't reading all of the posts with extreme care. The continuing discussion with Lommy about the rule of three thing looks genuine, but is probably not especially relevant to whether he's a sorcerer.

Lommy: Nothing much of interest in her first post. She then gets on Legate's case about the rule of three thing, and I can vaguely see why, but what I don't understand is why it would be relevant to whether or not he's a sorcerer. It seems like a side issue to me.

She gets a bit pedantic about me using "bound to be" rather than "likely", but when I'd only just been pedantic myself I don't think I can complain.

Gives her suspicions in #34. It's good to have those, but they aren't very firm and don't come supported by reasoning, much as is the same for most people on page 1, although some inferences can be made based on one or two earlier posts. I'm unsure about Lommy.

At present there's nowhere near enough info for me to be anything but unhappy at the prospect of voting for any of the people who've spoken up so far.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

As for the Lovers, I would guess the requirement for them to win is as usual: they both have to survive. That means they can't be counted on by either the baddies or the village. Something to keep in mind.

But, aren't the Lovers both counted as ordos in this game until they find each other? I would assume that means they're not on the side of the sorcerers. Er, could someone explain what the potential risk to the village is from the Lovers?

I have to go for a while now, but I'll be back.

Edit: cross-posted with Lommy, and I haven't read the past bunch of posts properly yet.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Hello, all. Bit busy at the moment, but will check in for real soonish. Just wanted to let people know I was alive.

[Inziladun]

I don't know what to make of the interactions between Kath, Legate, and Lommy, beyond that I think there's a reasonable chance one is evil.

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

But, aren't the Lovers both counted as ordos in this game until they find each other? I would assume that means they're not on the side of the sorcerers. Er, could someone explain what the potential risk to the village is from the Lovers?

If the Lovers are capable of winning independently of either the village or the baddies, they are a risk to both sides potentially. I say this because I was burned by SPM/Fea in just that way long ago. Some may recall that, though I can't for the moment remember the game's title.

[Thinlómien]

...since Coppermirror is bravely setting example, I should talk about something else than the rule of three and I'm going to vote soon:

Innocentish
Zil, Greenie - feel fair and don't even look foul on top of that

Neutralish
Shasta, Echo - not much to go on yet
McCaber, Eönwë, Boro - obviously no data
Holby - not sharing her reasons is quite unhelpful, but I'm not sure it makes her wolvish either
Kath - around on Day1, so should give her a pass whatever she says no, honestly, I don't know about her
Cop - I thought her a little fishy earlier, bu despite slight wishy-washiness I think her list post looked fairly innocent

Suspiciousish
Nerwen - too helpful for regular Nerwen, if I can say this without being offensive
Lottie - vaguely makes me suspicious, but to be fair she often does
Legate - I still didn't like treating the rule of three as a credible argument, he feels more like his wolf self than his innocent self and furthermore whenever I suspect him even a little and he doesn't suspect me back I get really suspicious


edit: xed with Echo and Greenillydilly

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Kath

Greenie though, I don't think that Legate is being problematic with his explanation of the Rule of Three. That 'rule' suggests that one of the first three posters must be a wolf. Legate does not say that, but says that sometimes a bold wolf may be an early poster. Therefore one of the first three posters*may*be a wolf but it does not necessarily hold that they*are*a wolf. At least that's how I read what he is saying.

Actually what he said was

Originally Posted by Legate

I think I recall it happening very often.

and

Originally Posted by Legate

But I was mostly explaining and then using my experience to point out that actually WWs*might*very often post among the first people, and giving reasons why they might do it if they are around.

Rather than "sometimes a bold wolf might", it's "wolves very often do" which is a different argument entirely. But anyway, I guess we've said enough about Legate and the Rule of Three for the moment.

Concerning the number of wolves and the speculation about it:

Originally Posted by Nerwen

That last is actually a good question– given the numbers, I’d guess we have four evil ones among us at present, but no doubt the narration will make it clear.

Knowing that there are actually three, and the wolves presumably knew as much, these two might be interesting. First there's Copper, who brings it up in the first place which, as I argued before, might point to her innocence as a wolf might not have noticed that their number wasn't actually clarified on the thread. There is something forced about her tone here though so I'm not sure. Nerwen then - could be bluffing, but if she was, it's a pretty old trick and I'm not sure she'd go for it. Bleh. So much for concluding anything!

Originally Posted by Copper

Heeeey, you are impugning my almost spotless record of innocence! Prior to this game my ratio of wolfhood was 1/4. (Now 1/5)

I'm also not very comfortable with this "ratio of wolfhood" thing, especially the part in brackets. I always find it fishy when someone feels the need to underline their innocence, especially when under no suspicion at all.


EDIT: x-ed since Copper's Overall Impressions

[Coppermirror]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

There is something forced about her tone here though so I'm not sure.

Well, yes. I wasn't using contractions and was trying to stay mostly in-character despite the lack of opening narration. My tone looks a bit forced to me there too.

Originally Posted by A Little Green

I'm also not very comfortable with this "ratio of wolfhood" thing, especially the part in brackets. I always find it fishy when someone feels the need to underline their innocence, especially when under no suspicion at all.

I was being pedantic. Someone says I'm a wolf 2/3 of the time, in jest, and I am compelled to correct them and give them the actual amount, also in jest but also as a pedant, despite being aware it might look a bit off. It's not as if previous stats are relevant to this game anyway, assuming roles were assigned at random.

Your points are reasonable ones that I might have made myself, but I'm at a loss for whether that does anything to make you look better or worse, since evil folks can be perfectly reasonable. No, on second thoughts it makes you look better.

Edit: crossed since Lottie at #71, probably.