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

[Holbytlass]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Zilalysis

They could, of course, have been afraid he was about to do so, meaning we should probably take a closer look at those of whom he expressed suspicion– Lottie, Kath, Holbytlass and Echo.

ooh, good thinking-even if i'm on the list

but then they will start looking at me..buts its helpful no matter what..but i hate people looking at me..we must find sorcers and kill them..cant we just leave,again..?

What this was probably not: an attempt to frame Lottie (cf. Coppermirror #106). For that to work, the murdered player needs to have behaved in a way that would, in theory, make him look like a major threat to the player being framed. Preferably, he needs to have said things that could have made him look like a Seer who had dreamed her guilty already. There’s none of that in Zil’s posting.

is this a subtle protection from those in league?

yes, maybe if one checks out #21 and #30, could be deflection..ooh using fancy words-and i just said that..but i was agreeing

must huddle and think and look at others

[Kath]

Just posting a couple of things that caught my eye when I read up on happenings on the thread from after I left yesterDay, then I will go and read what has been going on toDay.

Boro asked me yesterDay:
I don't get the connection you're trying to make about Inzil reminding everyone to go invisible.

It was the second part of the sentence – the part about traitors having the same means available to them. Why would he want to remind wolves to go invisible? Yes it is obviously sporting for all players to know not to be visible, but that had already been explicitly stated by Inzil in an earlier post. So why mention it AGAIN? At the time I thought maybe there was a fellow wolf in his pack who still hadn’t figured this out. Clearly I was wrong!

If I were a paranoid person, I might wonder about this in light of Inzil’s death. For here is a very handy suspicion that wolf-Boro or indeed any wolf could go back to and pick up on.

Then later Cop said:
Boro does have a point about Kath's #54, now that he points it out, but I didn't notice anything particularly suspicious in her other posts.

What point exactly? The Inzil one? If so explained above, if not please elaborate.

[Kath]

OH! Oh I have just noticed that I am completely wrong! It was not Inzil that had that sentence about the traitors at all, it was Cop! Sorry Boro - no wonder you were confused.

[Kath]

But, in which case, my paranoia about somebody (and I am now thinking it likely to be Cop) picking up on Boro's all but throw-away remark has grown.

[Kath]

The Legate bandwagon yesterDay I thought was very silly - though I was also very surprised to find I was in the running!

The voters:
Lommy ~ well she had been arguing against his reasoning all Day so she at least had a consistent and personally reasoned reason for voting for him. That is not to say that it makes her automatically innocent. There is nothing to say that she didn't go after him for this very reason. Being the first to vote also means no automatic innocence - it's the safest place to be in the bandwagon.

Cop ~ now Cop already had 2 votes at this point so actually her vote for Legate makes sense, but in two ways. She could know she is an innocent, therefore know nothing of Legate and reasonably assume her death would be no better if not worse for the village than Legate's. Or she could know that she is a wolf, therefore know that Legate is not and therefore need to save her own skin. At this point though, she could also have voted for me and put me ahead as Boro had just given me a second vote. The choice between Legate and me then is an interesting one.

Quick recap on Cop's posts then:
#5: 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...
THIS is the sentence that had me thinking, I had just wrongly attributed it to Inzil. So it is Cop perhaps who needed to remind a fellow wolf to turn invisible. I do think it more than simple banter, only because Inzil had entirely explicitly stated this already.

#7: Began the questioning of how many wolves there were. But did say ‘No, this is not the time.’

#12 Knew nothing of the ‘rule of three’ (and let us please hope we can be at the end of that ridiculous discussion now!) but seemed to take it seriously, stating she would not want to be suspicious of Inzil as usual but would instead suspect Lottie.

#17 Specifically states that she is innocent in response to a jokey comment from Lommy. Overstates the likelihood of a wolf/wolves already having posted. Lommy does later have this out with her. Questions Legate about seeing wolf to wolf communication in her conversation with Inzil – so this could be the start of her Legate suspicion.

#45 Suspicions, so here is what she said about me and Legate.
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.

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.
So at this point she is clearly more suspicious of Legate than of me, and has a reason separate to Lommy’s. I do agree that Legate’s comment and later explanation were a bit vague. I would suspect that he maybe did get a funny feel from the post and then poked Cop to see what would happen.

#64 Questions Echo – somebody she had stated she was concerned about.

#75 This is the post that raised suspicions in a few people as she states she thinks her own tone was forced, and also defends herself for stating she is an innocent. Yes, she is putting it across as correcting a mistaken stat, but what she has actually done is explicitly state that she is an innocent. If you’re going to do that then fair enough, but don’t then back away from it.

#81 Through her acceptance that things she did may appear suspicious, she clears Greenie of suspicion. If she was beginning to worry about ending up in the noose this would be a nice time to deflect suspicion away from a Greenie-wolf buddy.

#86 Oh, but then turns round and suggests that Greenie might actually be a wolf after all for voting for her.

#90 States that she would be likely to vote for Legate, saying his leaving right after voting is odd. Actually I would say this is all but usual behaviour! Those who vote then hang around gleefully waiting to see what happens are the ones I would worry about.

#94 Then this: Boro does have a point about Kath's #54, now that he points it out, but I didn't notice anything particularly suspicious in her other posts. Which I have already asked for clarification on, followed by a vote for Legate.

Then her first post today:
#106 A pity about Legate. I can see how that happened now and I really should have known better.
I would very much like an explanation of this sentence.

I must say that this read through does not make me feel very happy about Cop. I rather feel that she pushed at Legate quite hard, and did put him back in the running for the lynch when she voted, although her reasons were voting were at least reasoned and well supported.

Holby ~ after I had been voted into the lead for the lynch, Holby then appeared and put Legate back into the running saying: since out of the three hes suspicious to me. Had Legate in her ‘much suspect’ list, but this list was nearer the innocent end of the list than her ‘very suspect’ list which included me and Inzil. So at this point I would suggest Legate was the least suspicious to her. Later says she thinks Legate and Greenie suspicious for bandwagoning on suspicions of Cop. So I suppose that you could say Legate was her highest suspect of the three at the point that she voted. That said, given she thought the suspicion of Cop was odd she could have been trying to save a fellow Cop-wolf and at this point used suspicion of Legate to direct votes away from Cop and to Legate.

Eonwe ~ made the final decision! Brave innocent or uncaring wolf. An innocent would die either way.

This has got overly long. Posting.

[Kath]

And then to those who voted for me:

Echo ~ jumped onto the end of mine and Lommy’s argument over Legate.
Stated: 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 would like to ask Echo where I said that I was innocent. If nowhere, then he has made up a reason for voting for me, which I do not like. If somewhere, then I would like an explanation of why doing so makes me suspicious.

This is his explanation when asked to clarify by Inzil:
I miss quoted with my clumbsy fumbling,..im a blind deaf (and stupid) black smith with my hands full,....or perhaps im just saying this???
Echo, if you are worried that you are being ignored, or not taken seriously, may I suggest that this is why. You have been asked a clear, concise question. Please respond accordingly to gain the respect and co-operation of your fellow players.

At no point on Day 1 did Echo mention suspicions of any player, bar perhaps concern about Holby in an early post. Obviously there is reason for concern here.

Boro ~ supported the ‘rule of three’ (headdesk) argument, so in a way I suppose supported Legate at this point. Votes for me so that I drew in votes with Coppermirror. Now, the reasoning behind the vote itself I don’t particularly contest given that I have now realised I got my quotes confused! However, I do think it very odd that Boro would put me in a position to be in line for the noose without considering Coppermirror, who already had two votes, at all!

Lottie ~ so now that we know Legate is innocent, that comment that was pretty explicit about Legate and Greenie’s argument being the work of two innocents (definitely – her words) becomes interesting. Putting in a subtle defence of Greenie early on perhaps? After I throw some suspicion her way she says this:
A lot of the reasoning seems forced, almost like she's trying to suspect people even though she knows they can't be sorcerers.
And how precisely do I know they can’t be?

Very sure of Cop’s innocence and says Legate is innocent as well. This is a pretty clear path then to when ‘forced’ to choose between them and me ending up with voting me!

So of these three I would like far more actual information and sense from Echo, but it is Lottie’s reasoning that strikes me as interesting.

[Kath]

sally as you are here could you please make clear the rules surrounding potential double lynches?

[Coppermirror]

Originally Posted by Kath

What point exactly? The Inzil one? If so explained above, if not please elaborate.

Originally Posted by Kath

OH! Oh I have just noticed that I am completely wrong! It was not Inzil that had that sentence about the traitors at all, it was Cop! Sorry Boro - no wonder you were confused.

Yes, it was the point about Inzil which looked odd there. So your explanation for it is a combination of thinking that it was overdone for Inzil to mention invisibility in two posts as he did, and a mistaken belief that he said a line he didn't. Although in the actual post where you detailed your suspicion, the attributions were clear and quoted in your own post right in front of your speculation, so I think it would be difficult to have been mistaken about the latter.

I find it strange that Inzil reminding people about their invisibility would be taken first and foremost as a likely hint from a Sorcerer-Inzil to members of his pack. The same goes if it's true that Kath was mistaken about attributions and what bothered her was my banter on the topic. If saying anything about invisibility is really that suspicious, I have to wonder why Kath doesn't find my specific reminder toDay to Nerwen about her invisibility to look really bad. (Could Nerwen and Kath be part of a pack?)

Originally Posted by Kath

But, in which case, my paranoia about somebody (and I am now thinking it likely to be Cop) picking up on Boro's all but throw-away remark has grown.

That's interesting, because I don't think a remark that is part of someone's rationale for his vote and one of the two points he thought was most suspicious is what I'd call "all but throw-away". You do seem to be distancing yourself from your remark at #54. Blimey if I can tell whether it's sorcerous distance.

Let's see, before I get back to my analysis I think there were a few more things that people were asking me.

Originally Posted by Kath

Then her first post today:
#106 A pity about Legate. I can see how that happened now and I really should have known better.
I would very much like an explanation of this sentence.

Legate looked okay to me aside from the one point that looked really bad, which meant that there was a risk of him being a confused innocent who had just failed to explain himself. In retrospect it would have been better to give him the benefit of the doubt for the Day. All the same, I don't regret placing that vote, because Legate was still the person I suspected the most at the end of that Day.

Originally Posted by A Little Green

I'm pretty sure you're right about what she meant. Interestingly though, what you do not mention is that Lommy, too, switched quickly to stronger suspicion after your #75.

And I find it interesting that you think that that point about Lommy was something I should have mentioned when explaining what I think Holby meant when she was saying it looked as if you and Legate were bandwagon jumping.

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

Given that Cop herself was in the running for the lynch, it's hard to suspect her for trying to push Legate ahead of her. However, I am a bit curious as to why Cop didn't simply take the "self-preservation" out.

I considered voting for self-preservation. However, before I voted, the only person I was tied with was Kath. Although I thought that Boro had a point, it wasn't enough for me to vote for her. Also, Boro had posted very little, which left me unable to make any sort of conclusion about his guilt or innocence. My suspicion of Legate was much stronger.

[Boromir88]

Well, I see a Zilalysis was already...dun.

I won't go linking and quoting him all over again, especially since I think Nerwen's analysis is true (and in general after reading today's posts, I feel good about Nerwen and Shasta. (nice to have you here finally )).

I'm from the "kill the seer right away" school of villainy...but that's also based on I'm always trying to stay upfront and loud. And even if the seer isn't hitting baddies, the more dreams the more information works against the wolves no doubt.

Although, over the years, I've also seen the folks who are quiet, lay low, and are great at avoiding eyes don't always have the seer as "priority number 1" for the first kill. If say their list of possible seers none are drawing attention to their mates, or if they think whoever the seer, caught the eye of the ranger too and thus would be protected, then the sorcerers would much rather go to get their first kill instead.

Inzil seems to fit this...no one was mentioning as a suspect, he was active, and with others throwing around more obvious gifted vibes, they thought Inzil wasn't going to be protected.

I agree with Nerwen it doesn't look like a frame of Lottie or anyone that Zil was suspecting yesterday. Her reasons why are sound.

My bad feelings on Holby are pretty much based on her post #33:

how 'bout voting for these confusing debaters of the "rule of three"-too bad we cant "lynch of three"

It might have been a jest and maybe an innocent would think "hey three evil sorcerers, too bad we can't lynch all three." But it doesn't come off that way...it comes off as "let's vote this group of people (those debating the rule of three) and too bad they all couldn't be lynched...which comes off...bad for Holby.

Lottie it's not any sinister looking quotes like with Holby, but several textbook looking sorcery. Kath's post #54:

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.

I thought this looked off for Kath, because I didn't think Lottie was refusing to make a statement...I mean I followed Lottie as saying she thought for the time being Legate and Lommy's argument were two innocents.

Although, I don't think I read Kath's statement clearly at first, because I overlooked the Kath just so we would remember it "in later Days." Well, Legate was innocent, so Lottie was right it wasn't wolf-on-wolf but these sort of statements where someone acts as the objective observer outside of the argument (Lottie in this case, but I've done it too).

No matter the true roles of the two arguers (2 innocents, 1 wolf 1 innocent, wolf-on-wolf) it makes Lottie look objective and reasonable. "Alright folks let's not get distracted by this, because it's probably just two innocents in a silly curfluffle." Or it's a a small defense/cover for one of Lottie's mates (Lommy). Since it turns out Legate is innocent, more than likely the matter of Lommy's role would be dropped completely.

But again, no matter Lommy's guilt/innocent it makes Lottie look like an objective observer who wasn't part of the argument...and that "I'm inclined they're both innocent" is 1 suspicious mark against Lottie.

Another is in the voting yesterday, I think it was Shasta today who said Lottie seemed almost thankful to have her choices limitted down out the end...which doesn't look innocent. You probably can't tell with my posts, but I was sitting there for the longest time debating in my head whether I had enough bad feeling to put Kath up in a tie, or would it be better to vote Cop/Legate when I wasn't as suspicious and I'm wary of DL wagons...or completely do a copout and vote for McCaber. No one ever makes Day 1 voting easy, but I agree with Shasta, Lottie seemed calm by it all. (Lottie's 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.

And I've got to be heading out now...so it's going to be:

++Lottie

Edit: crossed with Kath, bolding names

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Well, I see a Zilalysis was already...dun.

I love you.


I'll be catching up on narrations throughout the day. Thank you all again for your patience with my stupidly busy schedule during the last few days.

[Nerwen]

Back again.

I’ve been thinking about Loslote and Coppermirror’s reactions to Zil’s death, and neither of them are sitting right with me.

Cop says (#106)

And man, Inzil's killed the time he's finally innocent? We're clearly dealing with very sadistic sorcerers here. Anyway, why might Inzil have been killed? The only things which come to mind are that nobody really suspected him this time, or that they might have thought he was the Seer. Or it could be to lay a false trail to Lottie, I suppose.

Now, this can be interpreted two ways. (That, by the way is the problem I’m having with Cop in general– practically all her posts this game seem to have alternative good/evil readings!) She could just be citing common reasons for a Night One kill. However, from another angle it does have something of a fragment-of-the-nightly-discussion look.

Meanwhile, Lottie says

Maybe this could have been seen as a Seer hint? For the most part, though, Zil was fairly non-committal. He certainly didn't jump in guns blazing saying "x is evil", so I think he was probably a no-trace kill.

Thing is, as I said in my analysis of Zil, his posts taken together might well have given off a gifted vibe, but that one by itself actually doesn’t look much like a hint. Through paranoid eyes, this looks rather like someone who has, in fact, studied Zil’s posts in detail, but wants to appear as if she hasn’t– and is also trying a bit of misdirection.

Again, this is one of those posts that can be can be read different ways, so I really don’t know. And of course, Lottie’s criteria for “looking Seerish” may be quite different from mine anyway– there’s always that.

Still, thought it was worth mentioning.

EDIT:X’d with a host.

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Cop

The first post where Lommy expressed some suspicion of me was #34, so are you referring to your post at #13 where you said "And as for everyone else, I always find Cop suspicious but try no to do so now unless given some reason to do so."? I'm guessing you mean something else.

No, definitely not referring to that!

Originally Posted by Cop

In any case, I'm pretty sure that Holby was talking about your post at #80, where you said you agreed with Lommy's post at #78, and placed your vote. Your most recent post before that one was at #76, where you said you were getting both innocent and guilty vibes and so didn't know about me, so your post at #80 represented a quick swing to stronger suspicion. It looked pretty wagon-jumpy to me, but currently I still can't tell whether it was an innocent wagon-jump from you or an opportunistic one.

Ah. I'm pretty sure you're right about what she meant. Interestingly though, what you do not mention is that Lommy, too, switched quickly to stronger suspicion after your #75. The previous thing she had said about you was

Originally Posted by Lommy

Cop - I thought her a little fishy earlier, bu despite slight wishy-washiness I think her list post looked fairly innocent

She uses the past tense in talking about finding you fishy, indicating that she doesn't any longer. What I had said prior to my list post (the #76 that you mentioned) was that I found your tone forced in one post and that I found your need to underline your innocence fishy. If you look at my list at #76, you, Echo and Holby were the ones I had any issues with, and since Echo had a newbie pass and Holby a newly returned -pass, you were the one I considered voting anyway. Your #75 (which I cross-posted with) made you look very fishy instead of somewhat fishy. Lommy had the same reaction as me but posted it before I did. If that's bandwaggoning, fine.

Other than that - Boro, that was an awful pun!

[A Little Green]

Sally my love, could you clear the lynch thing up? As in, what happens in the case of a tie?

[A Little Green]

A quick list on how fishy you folks are!

1) TINY FISH
Shasta - I quite like what I've seen of him toDay, although the Legate-confusion is slightly odd. Possibly just an innocent blunder though, can't see any great profit in purposefully doing that as a wolf.
Kath - I'm still of the same opinion as yesterDay - she seems more relaxed and chatty than she does when she's evil.
Lommy - Quite comfortable with her still, though she's fooled me before.

2) RELATIVELY SMALL FISH
Steve - I'm not sure. Leaning innocent?

3) MEDIUM FISH
Nerwen - I don't have a read on her, which is not really news. I'll take a look at her if I have time.
Lottie - I'll try to take a look at her toDay, she's under my radar even though she's been quite active.
Boro - He makes a reasonable case against Lottie, but I'd need to reread her first to form an opinion of him.

4) BIG FISH
Cop - What was fishy yesterDay is still fishy toDay. Nothing has particularly jumped at me from her toDay's posting to change my opinion either way.

5) CONFUSING FISH
Echo and Holbytlass - I don't know what either of these two are doing!

6) NO FISH
McCaber - Does he know the game is on?

Therefore, my aim for toDay is to reduce the size of the third and fifth categories, preferably to zero though I'm not sure that's a realistic goal!


EDIT: x-ed since Sally's rule clarification.

[Kath]

Another question for sally - if McCaber doesn't appear toDay will he be modfired? 'Cause if so and he's innocent the numbers get scarier.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Kath

Another question for sally - if McCaber doesn't appear toDay will he be modfired? 'Cause if so and he's innocent the numbers get scarier.

I'm going to give him a bit of time to show up. I just sent him a message on FB to let him know the game's started, so I assume he'll shuffle over in due course.

[Thinlómien]

Shasta - in general, he seems quite fine, or maybe he's just buddying me up effectively. (I interpreted QTF in the positive sense since google gave me two different meanings for the acronym.) Also there's the confusion about Legate not being dead which would be weird coming from a wolf.

Kath - I don't know why she's getting so much suspicion her way, she seems rather innocent to me. In my experience, wolf!Kath is more wary, and quieter. Although now I maybe have to admit that I didn't really get one of her long posts yesterDay at all, which made me consider her a little weird, but it's been revealed toDay that she's been confused anyway, so maybe it makes sense that she doesn't always make sense. (Cookies to everyone who understood that sentence.)

Nerwen - yesterDay, she was being a bit too nice to my liking. ToDay, she is writing about the wolves' thoughts with a little too insight-ly tone for my liking. She isn't very blatantly wolvish at all and makes a lot of sense but it's the little things.

Copper - I keep flip-flopping on her. Right now I'm kind of wary of how much she's paid attention to what people have been saying about her.

McCaber - hasn't posted at all, has he? I'll contact him on Facebook and ask if he knows the game has started.

Lottie - I suspected her for her standard Day1 fishiness (sorry dear!), then she seemed ok, and now Boro made me suspicious about her again. I need to think, apparently.

Green - is kind of under my radar. I mean, I see her posting, she looks innocent and I don't pay her any more attention. Or like, I pay more attention to her points than to whether she might be a wolf, which is slightly alarming.

Echo - obviously a newcomer, and to be fair, I was a lot less reasoned in my first game. Still, we shouldn't have to dig in order to get his/her reasoning out of him/her. Also I have absolutely no idea what to make of that post explaining Holby's list. Was that serious???

Boro - my bororadar is not concerned at the moment. My gut-feeling about him is good and there's not factual evidence that would make me doubt my gut-feeling. So far, so good.

Eönwë - like a mixture of Boro and Greenie: good gut-feeling and I have no points against him which almost makes me ignore the option that he's a wolf. Will pay more attention to him in the future.


...and in that bunch, there are three wolves? Gosh, I need to start thinking sharper.


edit: xed with all the short posts after Kath's essay

[Kath]

As to Inzil, I would say his questioning about how Saruman would appear to the Seer would have been a clue that he was not the Seer. That is a question far better directed to the mod in private I would have thought!

Shasta seeming to believe that Legate is still alive at the beginning of Day 2 is, I think, suggestive of innocence. If a wolf the Nightly discussions would surely have made it clear to him that Legate was dead as he would not then have been a kill option.

Aaaand that's about all I have right now.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Kath

Echo ~ jumped onto the end of mine and Lommy’s argument over Legate.
Stated: 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 would like to ask Echo where I said that I was innocent. If nowhere, then he has made up a reason for voting for me, which I do not like. If somewhere, then I would like an explanation of why doing so makes me suspicious.

And toDay (#126) Echo says you were “talking about things other than the game”, which again doesn’t seem to tally with anything you actually posted. I’m starting to wonder if Echo even knows who you are!

Originally Posted by Kath

As to Inzil, I would say his questioning about how Saruman would appear to the Seer would have been a clue that he was not the Seer. That is a question far better directed to the mod in private I would have thought!

True, but I was thinking of it maybe being taken as part of that obsessed-with-your-role syndrome that gifteds can fall into. (Overall, the evidence of Zil’s “Seerishness” is pretty thin anyway, though.)

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

*cough* *cough* My best beloved, Legate is, tragically, in no condition to answer you.

For the record, I believe it was something he got out of Cop’s early banter.

...Urr. My bad. I completely forgot that I'd typed that in my post as I read down the page.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

In fact Cop (not me) first pointed out the problem very early (#7, the fifth post of the game), so there was no time for anyone to “elect to remain silent” (or to give themselves away through knowing too much). This, in turn, makes me wonder if the village really should be giving either of us “innocence points” just for having drawn attention to the fact.

That's a fair enough point.

Re: Greenie @ 122 - Fair enough. I just think the two posts taken together look strange.

Originally Posted by Lommy

Good to see more of Shasta, who is fishing mild aww points by talking about my lovely voice (without saying it's lovely, gah, if I could quote with this phone I'd just have quoted what he said and commented 'aww' instead of writing this silly rant).

But your voice is lovely, my dear. I thought that was implicit in the fact that it's you.

Originally Posted by Boro re: Holby

It might have been a jest and maybe an innocent would think "hey three evil sorcerers, too bad we can't lynch all three." But it doesn't come off that way...it comes off as "let's vote this group of people (those debating the rule of three) and too bad they all couldn't be lynched...which comes off...bad for Holby.

I don't know that I buy this. I've seen things said purely in jest taken as "evidence" before, and I think it's very rarely ended well.

This, however -

Originally Posted by Boro re: Lottie

But again, no matter Lommy's guilt/innocent it makes Lottie look like an objective observer who wasn't part of the argument...and that "I'm inclined they're both innocent" is 1 suspicious mark against Lottie.

I tend to agree with. I'll want to look at Lottie more today.

Originally Posted by Kath

I must say that this read through does not make me feel very happy about Cop. I rather feel that she pushed at Legate quite hard, and did put him back in the running for the lynch when she voted, although her reasons were voting were at least reasoned and well supported.

Given that Cop herself was in the running for the lynch, it's hard to suspect her for trying to push Legate ahead of her. However, I am a bit curious as to why Cop didn't simply take the "self-preservation" out.

Originally Posted by Kath

Echo, if you are worried that you are being ignored, or not taken seriously, may I suggest that this is why. You have been asked a clear, concise question. Please respond accordingly to gain the respect and co-operation of your fellow players.

QFT.

Originally Posted by Greenie

Therefore, my aim for toDay is to reduce the size of the third and fifth categories, preferably to zero though I'm not sure that's a realistic goal!

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.

[McCaber]

So there I was, relaxing by the figurative beach, when I got the feeling I had forgotten about something. All of a sudden alarm bells started ringing all over and when I checked my phone it told me that not only had the WW game started, but that I had missed one entire day of action! This is not a good start to my comeback, let me tell you.

But I'm here now, and I'm hurriedly reading the thread. Hopefully you guys didn't do anything too drastic while I was gone.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Holbytlass

is this a subtle protection from those in league?

It's hardly very subtle. Whatever her intentions, she wants us to remember it.

Originally Posted by Kath

THIS is the sentence that had me thinking, I had just wrongly attributed it to Inzil. So it is Cop perhaps who needed to remind a fellow wolf to turn invisible. I do think it more than simple banter, only because Inzil had entirely explicitly stated this already.

This actually seems to be a general theme with Cop. Most of her early early banter was very weird and far too real to be able to be passed off as real banter when it should have been, and not serious enough when broaching important topics. It still doesn't sit right with me.

edit: x-ed with Kath.

[Kath]

++COPPERMIRROR

Based on all previous suspicions mentioned.

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Cop

No need to panic, I'll explain before the end of the Day if I have time, even if I get lynched. There are reasons why it should be then. If I don't have time and I get killed, it's my devout hope that somebody else will be able to explain the point instead the next Day, since I think it's a point that people should at least be aware of.

Most mysterious, like Lommy said. Now trying to decide if it's in an innocent way or if it's a bluff.


EDIT: x-ed with McCaber and Kath

[Thinlómien]

++NERWEN

Like I've said earlier toDay, there are little things in her behaviour that bother me and unfortunately that's the best I've got as I've started wavering on Cop, I don't feel like I can trust Boro on Lottie and Echo and Holby are still quite enigmatic.


edit. xed with Loss Nech