Tol-in-Gaurhoth XXVI - Úcenite Valto

[Anguirel]

phantom, in your, for want of a better word, analysis of Fea's narrative, you are either being misleading (no doubt in line with one of those incredibly helpful wolf-trapping ploys of yours) or, the more likely alternative, in my opinion, continuing your trend of maliciously loving mockery towards Ms. Dark Lady.

You read deep significance into lines like "You have been brave, but not wise" to suggest that a wolf, or both, was "in the thick of things" and that one might even have narrowly escaped lynching...an argument which implicates especially, as Esty noted, that naughty minx Audrey. If people start believing this stuff, you'll get her lynched as you failed to do yesterday, and if you're innocent then that's a pity, because I think Diamond is no wolf and your case is bunkum.

I mean, really. You're suggesting that not only is Fea giving us clues in the narration - a course of action that has never been successfully implemented - but that she's actually telling us in what style and quantity they've been posting lately. With the odds already so heavily agains the wolves, I find it inconceivable that the Dark Lady would weaken her entertainment by attempting such a thing.

"Brave but not wise" no more refers to a wolf's playing style than the tears on Diamond's face reflected her feelings about the lynching of Boromir.

[Anguirel]

One other thing I forgot to add - like Nogrod, I find the mention of newest slaves rather worrying. If an extra wolf was to be thrown into the mix, this would I suppose be a valid thing to hint at in the narration.

Could there be some correlation between lynched innocents and new wolves?

On the other hand, the adjective may have been chosen simply to scintillate the spines of the paranoid.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Ang

I mean, really. You're suggesting that not only is Fea giving us clues in the narration - a course of action that has never been successfully implemented - but that she's actually telling us in what style and quantity they've been posting lately.

No. Remember I started by saying this-

First, keep in mind that the narrative may be meaningless.

Only after saying that did I proceed to break down the narrative on the unlikely assumption that everything in it was true and could be used as evidence.

In a normal village I wouldn't even think about using the narrative as a clue. But this is Fea we're dealing with, and I don't think she ever said anything about her narrative being strictly a narrative. Or did she? If I'm wrong please let me know.

But the fact is, in the game I modded, I made sure and announced that my narrations were not meant to be used as evidence. Fea never made such a statement. And seeing as we are blind with no guide, perhaps the narrative is designed to be our lone source of real information.

Of course if that is true then I fully expect that I have come to the wrong conclusion about it, as I'm certain Fea would use every bit of her substantial writing skills to lead us astray.

Originally Posted by Ang

You read deep significance into lines like "You have been brave, but not wise" to suggest that a wolf, or both, was "in the thick of things" and that one might even have narrowly escaped lynching...an argument which implicates especially, as Esty noted, that naughty minx Audrey.

It implicates me too, does it not? And maybe SPM and lmp to some extent. So no, my interpretation of the Dark Lady's words was not meant to point at Di specifically.

It wasn't meant to point to anyone specifically. I was just trying my best to glean meaning from the Dark Lady's words.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Ang

One other thing I forgot to add - like Nogrod, I find the mention of newest slaves rather worrying. If an extra wolf was to be thrown into the mix, this would I suppose be a valid thing to hint at in the narration.

If Fea is truly sprinkling additional WWs into the mix without telling us, then frankly she is flushing the village down the tubes and making the whole thing a complete joke. She would be ruining her own game.

I'm not going to worry about the possibility. Unless Fea tells us she is making new WWs, I'm going to assume that she isn't.

[The Saucepan Man]

Very briefly, as I should be loyering.

Can we please work on the assumption that morm was innocent and that there remain two Wolves, but no additional third one.

All this speculation is just taking up time better spent actually trying to find the Wolves.

With regard to the narrative, I do not discount the possibility that there are clues there, as the Dark Lady herself specifically mentions on her blog the possibility of hidden clues, or pointers at least, being there (ie on her blog). At the same time, she would have to be very subtle to avoid making anything too obvious and spoiling the game, in which case the chances are that we won't find it.

In any event, all this wild speculation is completely pointless. Sure, if there is anything there which you think may credibly provide us with a clue as to the identity of a Wolf, then please feel free to raise it. But all this flimmery and flammery about what the Dark Lady may or may not have meant by particular phraseology is likely to get us nowhere fast (not that we are going anywhere at the moment).

I suggest that we concentrate primarily on what our fellow villagers themselves have said and done is this village, since therein, I should imagine, lie the greatest clues.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by me

Can we please work on the assumption that morm was innocent and that there remain two Wolves, but no additional third one.

I meant to suggest that we work on this assumption unless and until we are specifically advised otherwise.

Darn anti-edit rule.

[Anguirel]

I will be rather irritated if the Meaning of Existence is revealed to us on a blog which my school server blocks...

phantom, your response is adequate, I suppose. I shall return in quite a long while, I'm afraid, with a summary of my thoughts and probably a vote.