Werewolf XXXII: The Lost Age

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Durelin

Though, I just realized...how do we know there should have been 5 votes for Celuien?

Eomer, the Lynch Seer last Night, stated that Celuien had five votes. Although I do not discount the possibility that he was lying (and thus Vampiric), I am at a loss to see what good would it do him (if a Vampire) to paint an innocent's vote as a lie.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

And as you're not to believe my word on it (now why would you?) just ask yourself the question would anyone sane enough speak and act (=vote) like I have done if I were a Vampire?

Quite honestly, yes. Taking into account the circumstances prevailing when you stated your vote, a claimed vote for Legate was a "safe" one at the time claimed.

Originally Posted by Noggers

Should I make the list now? Maybe I should. Just a moment...

I look forward to it ...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Shasta

I don't think I'm being overly defensive, when the only evidence against Rikae is overshadowed by better evidence on other people.

So you really think that, having picked up on Eomer's accusation of Kitanna, she suddenly forgot that it was Eomer's point that had prompted this and innocently convinced herself that it was Celuien's (subsequent) post that had prompted it instead?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Noggeridoodah

Although the trhreesome is wrong anyways.

Ah, but since Durelin accused me of posting like you, I had to come up with a triangulation ...

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Well, I kind of see it along the lines of something I actually did a while back... I was typing some evidence or something, and meant to type Nogrod... but on the screen, I had a post of Thinlo's that I was looking at, and I typed Thinlo's name instead of Nogrod... isn't that the kind of slip Rikae's claiming? If not, I may have misunderstood...

[Roa_Aoife]

You know, Nogrod, I really wouldn't have pressed the whole thing if you hadn't kept bringing it up. But since you insist:

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I hadn't any case against Rikae yesterday (RL).

Is that so? Post #42 mentions Rikae in almost every sentence, and though you don't state at first that she's acting strangely, it bears the distinct marks of a lawyer slowly building up to a direct accusation, which in fact, the post does. Here are some excerpts:

Originally Posted by Nogrod

she also came quite close to lying - basically she did it. That's always pretty suspicious.

The point that follows this is Rikae bantering IN CHARACTER with Mac. You even admit that this is the case, yet you still accuse her of lying.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Her suspicion on Gil seems even stranger. Gil suspects her to be sure but retaliation isn't the way a smart villager would react - and Rikae surely is smart. She says:

You then quote Rikae stating that Gil is the one accusing people based on in-characterness. You also state that Gil had been doing no such thing, when his very accusation of Rikae is doing just that. Again you accuse her of lying when she is not.

Also, I find it interesting that you say "retaliation isn't the way a smart villager would react" when you seem quite insistent on suspecting those who suspect you. (Myself, SPM, and some others)

Then:

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I wouldn't like to lose Rikae either, but would be very interested in hearing some explanations on why she downright lied to us...

"Downright lied"? If this isn't a case, I don't know what is. You are the only one lying here, Nogrod.

Originally Posted by Durelin

You know, this whole the vampires don't get to vote thing really isn't an advantage to the villagers. It might be a little bit of a disadvantage for the vampires, but at the same time it helps keep them extremely clean - we can't really get much dirt on them based on their votes, because they're not really voting. About the only warning signs we'd get is if the stated votes added up give a different result than the kill, and the chances of that happening at this point are very slim. And still then we'd only know that there's almost definitely a vampire in a certain voting group....

This post bothers me. The bolded points are misinformation about our voting situation, and they look designed to discourage revealing our votes, without blatantly doing so.
The Vampires not voting is an advantage for the village- they can't vote to save each other, and they can't force the lynch of an innocent.

If everyone states their votes, we can get dirt on the vampires. We'd have their "cases" and the knowledge of who they claimed to vote for, and when they claimed to do so.

We wouldn't just have the chance that the votes don't add up, which is not as slim as this post made it sound, but we also have the times when they add up. And further more, we can look at those who consistently do not vote for the Lynchee, especially those you vote at the end when it's fairly obvious who will be lynched.

As for the last one, we'd have more knowledge from that than we would in a game where the vampires can vote. In those games, we only have a best guess for which voting group the werewolves are hiding in. Further more, by cross referencing with groups where things did add up, we can start eliminating names.

Originally Posted by durelin

I didn't state my vote because I didn't vote.

Care to explain why?

Originally Posted by durelin

Of course there's no way to prove that.

Well, there's one way....

Originally Posted by Nogrod

One could look at this differently as well. At least I think I acted reasonably by withholding my vote on Celuien - which I was going to make - as she was able to post her RL reasons for her incomplete reasoning on her vote which made me to back off from voting her. Sadly it came only twenty minutes before the deadline and so we were in too much a hurry there anyway.

This is a fair point, but I would like to reiterate that people who consistently wait till the last minute and vote for an unlikely lynchee should be looked at very closely.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I mean it's quite frustrating when people make points on poor grounds

That's funny coming from you.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So think people, think yourselves. Why would someone do something?

You mean like, "Why would someone encourage others to not listen to the people who have cases against him?"

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Rikae I'm pretty wary about as well as Gil (so much that I love his new style!). And the newbie-stauts notwithstanding Shasta looks pretty suspicious too...

Why Gil, so suddenly? And isn't convenient that you are suddenly suspicious of Shasta (who is being much more reasonable today) when he just stated that your points against Rikae made you look suspicious?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I hadn't quite made a closer look at you Lommy before this - okay, 23 people to begin with - but this looks pretty bad. So you kind of wish to say that I'm suspicious because I make a suggestion of looking at another direction for a while but you still manage to pick a few from my list to look after as well...

And again you suspect someone who supects you!

Originally Posted by SPM

Rikae: .... Accusing people based on banter

I hate to nitpick, but as I've just been explaining this to Nogrod, I feel I have to remind you that Rikae's only "accusation" based on incharacterness was also incharacter, and therefor not an accusation at all. All the mis-information floating in this thread is really worrisome.

I'll be back in a little bit with another post.

EDIT:Cross posted with alot