Tol-in-Gaurhoth III (The Saga Continues...)

[Holbytlass]

TGWBS: No, we didn't have our plan that early on. I suppose now I shouldn't necessarily put you on that list. I have misplaced my notes from the first days, I will have to get together with Oddwen and Shelob and write up why we killed a person when we did.

[the phantom]

your defensiveness in response to the accusations made against you

I entirely reject the notion that defensiveness is suspicious. If you are a common villager then the only thing you know for sure is that you are innocent, therefore when there is no reason for people to lynch you, you should be extremely adamant about it.

Certainly more adamant than you are about who is a wolf, since you obviously don't know who is, where as you do know you are innocent.

Surely that makes sense?

Especially in my case, where (as I explain in my review) I had no concrete evidence against me. I would be a fool not to scream it out.

I don't regret using that strategy and I still think it is a good one

Yes, it was a perfect strategy. If you don't say anything then logically there will never be more evidence to lynch you than to lynch someone else. As a matter of fact, if all our lynchings had to be based on some sort of evidence (votes or statements), then the perfect strategy would be not to post at all.

But that's a bit silly and it is why my friends and I play with a non-participation rule.

What's going to happen if a future pack of wolves decide for all to be 'loud', will there be a 'limited number of posts' rule?

I doubt it. This game is all about finding wolves based upon who people have been implicating, defending, and voting for, therefore it is unlikely anyone would ever object to people being extremely forthcoming and forceful with their thoughts because it clearly defines their position. The purpose of a non-participation rule is to ensure that everyone takes some sort of position. After all, we are supposed to be making our accusation based upon the positions of others. So, there will probably never be a rule against having a very clear position. Only having no position is a significant obstacle.

That is why I suggested killing all of you on day two. I saw the lack of information coming from the quiet ones as a large obstacle, whether you were guilty or not. But, as I said on my review, there was no way I could possibly orchestrate a mass lynching, so it didn't matter what I wanted to do.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by the phantom

I entirely reject the notion that defensiveness is suspicious. If you are a common villager then the only thing you know for sure is that you are innocent, therefore when there is no reason for people to lynch you, you should be extremely adamant about it.

I will have to disagree Phantom. As one of the leaders in the "lynch phantom" corner I saw your squirming similar to Firefoot's when I was the seer and knew her to be the wolf. She herself said so this game too.

I don't see a problem in defending yourself but the louder you shout "I'M INNOCENT" the less likely I am to believe you.

[the phantom]

I saw your squirming similar to Firefoot's when I was the seer and knew her to be the wolf

I wasn't "squirming". I was forcefully stating facts.

I don't see a problem in defending yourself but the louder you shout "I'M INNOCENT" the less likely I am to believe you.

Why? Saying it louder or softer does not change any the evidence, votes, facts, and such.

If two people say the same thing they should be treated equally. If you suspect one of them more than the other based on something other than what they have said and what it means, you are obviously allowing something other than information to influence your thinking.

It doesn't matter if they use caps to make their case. The only thing that should matter is what they say.

And I would remind you that the reason I started getting so loud was because all of the things I was saying appeared to be bouncing right off everyone and not sinking in.

If people are ignoring my points don't be surprised if I get loud.

[The Saucepan Man]

But you have to adapt to take into account the attitudes of the people you are playing with, phantom. If people (rightly or wrongly) regard overly defensive behaviour as suspicious, then you have to take that into account.

Personally, I do regard a overly defensive behaviour as a possible sign of guilt, because in my view Villagers shoud be prepared to die (either by the noose or the claw) if it will help the other Villagers to win. It can also be counter-productive if a Villager spends so much time in defence that they neglect to try to find the clues. That's just my opinion, but it will have a bearing on the way that I play and, if it is shared by other players, then the overly defensive do risk finding themselves under suspicion.

[mormegil]

Well I will admit that I'm rather dull witted but I will say that the reaction I saw in you gave me more reason to assume your guilt. I know that you don't agree with it but that's the impression I had.

[the phantom]

Personally, I do regard a overly defensive behaviour as a possible sign of guilt, because in my view Villagers shoud be prepared to die

But only for a good reason, my dear SP.

My death offered nothing since both of my previous votes had been forced, not to mention, as someone pointed out on that day, I was very distanced from everyone else so my death would not implicate anyone.

Even if you do think that we should consider how people say things, how something was said should never take precedence over what was said.

The primary charges leveled against me on day three were 1) I had received votes before, 2) I had voted for the two people who were lynched, and 3) they had voted for me, too.

I demonstrated quite logically that those three points were meaningless (now that the game is over I hope everyone can now see that), but since people were letting what was said to take a back seat to other things, my logic went right past them.

Then, hoping that people would take notice of the substance of my arguments, I repeated them all with a raised voice. But it did not make them listen. Instead, they said that raising my voice made me look guiltier.

At that point I wanted to strangle everyone and began to feel rather hostile towards my own village, so I screamed my arguments again out of desperation hoping that what I said would finally be noticed.

But the what remained firmly behind the how in the minds of the villagers, and I was lynched.

Not putting an emphasis on what I said resulted in an extremely useless slaying, and I imagine that similar behavior will result in similar results in future games.

[mormegil]

The primary charges leveled against me on day three were 1) I had received votes before, 2) I had voted for the two people who were lynched, and 3) they had voted for me, too.

I demonstrated quite logically that those three points were meaningless (now that the game is over I hope everyone can now see that), but since people were letting what was said to take a back seat to other things, my logic went right past them.

Feeling that this comment is directed at me I will say that those weren't the primary factors in my vote. I suspected you since day 1. My main suspicion was based on you notorious flip-flop with your reasoning given. Also you have stated that votes are solid evidence so why not look at the fact that you voted for two innocents whether your vote was "forced" or not. It's easy to say that you were forced to vote that way but it could have also been that you were a wolf and were waiitng to see who you could kill to save yourself.