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

[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.

[Shelob]

"Shelob saved our p.m.'s, so she could find out specifically why we chose you, Mormegil, on that particular night." ~Holbytlass

Yes I did, unfortunately due to being rushed often they're not all in order...which makes reading them a headache...

If you are curious though the reasoning behind Mormegil's death was that either Mormegil or Fordim would be the best kill that night and that Fordim was probably "out of the running for our next kill because he has hit closest so far and it would be suspicious for him to die...we'll risk a lot keeping him alive I just think we'll risk more should we kill him..."

If you want for us to go through and list why we killed who we killed I'll gladly do it, but unfortunately I likely own't be able to get it posted before saturday morning (I've work this evening and school tomorrow--so maybe Friday evening I can do it)...but let me know.

[the guy who be short]

I would like to know if there was more behind choosing me that first night than just randomly pointing a finger. However, I'm in no hurry, so take your time.

[the phantom]

Feeling that this comment is directed at me

You weren't the only one, so don't take the entire weight of my comments upon yourself. There are those you should share it with.

My main suspicion was based on you notorious flip-flop with your reasoning given.

Then why did you not mention it even once on the day you lynched me?

You asked why I did it on day one and I explained my reasoning, and I considered it pretty much burried after that. Plus, why would you be more suspicious of someone who had reversed positions on a seer-killing plan more than someone who had written a seer-killing plan? If that day one plan was you big concern, you definitely should've been gunning for Fordim.

But since you didn't mention it on day three I don't see how it was a factor.

However, I can see how someone looking back trying to justify their vote could think "Hmm, well... I must've suspected him because of that day one flip-flop. Yeah- that must've been it" when actually you weren't thinking about that at the time I was lynched.

I'm not sure if that is the case with you or not. Either way, it seems odd that my reaction to the plan was never mentioned if it was indeed the primary reason for your vote.

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.

The fact that it was forced is what makes all the difference!

If there is no choice involved then there can be no guilt assigned.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

My dear dear Phantom.

Still at it, I see.

Rather than expending all your energy on explaining why we shouldn't have found you a suspicious character, perhaps it would be better spent on looking in the mirror and deciding how to amend your gamesmanship so that you do not appear guilty in the future....

[the phantom]

perhaps it would be better spent on looking in the mirror and deciding how to amend your gamesmanship so that you do not appear guilty in the future....

Well, if I were to assume that I was at fault, my corrective action would have to be this- in the future, if someone accuses me of being guilty for a non-reason, I should not object.

Hmm... that sounds like a very silly plan, Fordim.

It is an indisputable fact that the main reasons people stated for lynching me on day three, while I'm sure they sounded good upon first hearing, do not logically hold any water when examined carefully.

It is ludicrous to expect someone to sit back and accept such a thing.

If, in the next game, several people say they think you are a wolf because your name starts with an "F", would you honestly not tell everyone "That is a very silly reason!"?

Of course you would tell them that, and I would be right there beside you telling them to leave you alone.

When false evidence is used to sentence someone to death, the rational reaction is to jump up and point it out.

When it appears that your objections were not understood, it is the rational reaction to restate it again forcefully.

When the second attempt is seemingly ignored, it is the rational reaction to become completely frustrated and desperate.

Why should I amend my completely rational behavior?