Werewolf XLVIII: When Virtual Becomes Reality

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Eomer

I was surprised to find that the Elf Warrior was an ordo. He seemed so obviously bad.

Well aren't we perceptive, considering that EW made exactly 5 posts in this topic; two of them banter, two of them votes, and the last making a note of his gender. Clearly, pure evil right there.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

Well aren't we perceptive, considering that EW made exactly 5 posts in this topic; two of them banter, two of them votes, and the last making a note of his gender. Clearly, pure evil right there.

I dislike disrespecting the dead, but EW's posts were so remarkably unhelpful that he was practically asking the village to lynch him.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

I dislike disrespecting the dead, but EW's posts were so remarkably unhelpful that he was practically asking the village to lynch him.

Which is something a wolf would obviously NOT do, so...

I'm sorry, I still fail to see the logic behind this.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Not obvious, and I did rather think he was the cobbler. If he was obviously NOT a wolf then you, Shasta, must be seriously hacked off at the village right now.

Or perhaps you, with secret knowledge, have climbed to the moral high-ground here?

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Not obvious, and I did rather think he was the cobbler. If he was obviously NOT a wolf then you, Shasta, must be seriously hacked off at the village right now.

Or perhaps you, with secret knowledge, have climbed to the moral high-ground here?

"Not obvious"? So a wolf would ask the village to lynch them? And if you thought he was the cobbler, you would have said as much, because the cobbler counts as an innocent in win-lose calculations, doesn't it? And I'm not "hacked off", but I am a little bit irritated, both at the lynch AND the wolf-kill, because both were aimed at people who through no fault of their own (definately in the case of Kath, probably in the case of EW), but rather RL-issues, were unable to really play.

And I don't understand your last comment. "Secret knowledge"? Just what are you implying, Eomer?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

"Not obvious"? So a wolf would ask the village to lynch them? And if you thought he was the cobbler, you would have said as much, because the cobbler counts as an innocent in win-lose calculations, doesn't it? And I'm not "hacked off", but I am a little bit irritated, both at the lynch AND the wolf-kill, because both were aimed at people who through no fault of their own (definately in the case of Kath, probably in the case of EW), but rather RL-issues, were unable to really play.

And I don't understand your last comment. "Secret knowledge"? Just what are you implying, Eomer?

A Wolf would not ask to be lynched (in normal circumstances) but a Wolf would quite easily want to be unhelpful. That's why it was not obvious that EW was innocent.

''Agree with many others here. Elf-Warrior has to go. He is clearly up to no good, whether he be hacker or spammer (and I am inclined to think he is more likely spammer).'' From post 203.

I did say as much.

You assumed that EW wasn't unhelpful, just short on time. You look at it one way, I another.

And I'm implying that you are a Wolf, eager to make himself look good by making a lot of other people look bad. We got it wrong, but at the time a number of us thought EW was guilty. I also noted that you found me suspicious yesterday and have found another reason to criticise me.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

A Wolf would not ask to be lynched (in normal circumstances) but a Wolf would quite easily want to be unhelpful. That's why it was not obvious that EW was innocent.

''Agree with many others here. Elf-Warrior has to go. He is clearly up to no good, whether he be hacker or spammer (and I am inclined to think he is more likely spammer).'' From post 203.

I did say as much.

You assumed that EW wasn't unhelpful, just short on time. You look at it one way, I another.

And I'm implying that you are a Wolf, eager to make himself look good by making a lot of other people look bad. We got it wrong, but at the time a number of us thought EW was guilty. I also noted that you found me suspicious yesterday and have found another reason to criticise me.

I took the liberty of adding the underline to your post, above. I don't understand how it was so "clear" to you that EW was bad, because I still think five content-less posts is hardly enough to use to be clear on someone's guilt or innocence.

And I never said that it was obvious that he was an innocent. I said that if it was clear to you that he was, quote, asking to be lynched, unquote (again, asking to be lynched in five posts?), then it should have been equally clear to you that no Wolf in their right mind would act in such a manner that was likely to lead to their lynching.

Also, I am not "making" anyone look bad. You're managing that quite easily on your own.

Edit: X'd with the second Eomer.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

I dislike disrespecting the dead, but EW's posts were so remarkably unhelpful that he was practically asking the village to lynch him.

Sorry, can't sleep, so I figured I'd have a go at this.


I have a big problem with this way of thinking. "So and so isn't being helpful, so let's kill him" is a baseless argument. Granted, by the time I voted there were three candidates and I didn't want to kill either of the others, hence why I voted why I did, but even I don't see the reasoning behind it (do with that what you will, it's the truth. I even said when I voted that I was picking the lesser of three evils)
Just because a person isn't posting much or isn't being helpful doesn't mean they're evil. That's along the same logic as "Donna posted tenth and the tenth post is always made by a wolf" or "Jackie didn't vote until David did both days so she must be following instructions from him". I just don't see the logic. (Granted, there are quiet wolves, but being only Day 2 it seems rather strange to accuse a person of unhelpfulness and lynch them for it. Again, being a bit of a hypocrite but as I said, I did what I thought best at the time.)
So the moral of the story is if you want to suggest lynching someone, fine, but find a better reason to do it than that they are not being as helpful as you'd like. Sorry if it's a bit blunt, but....erm, it's 3am, so bear with me.



Also, please do explain the post I quoted above. I realize I'm probably just stupid, but I'd appreciate it if you'd rephrase it so I don't misunderstand what you're talking about. Thanks in advance.


EDIT: Ignore my second example (regarding such people as Jackie and David). My brain frazzled in the middle of it and I actually put something that made sense. Obviously I'm leaving it in, but mostly so you all can laugh at my ineptness.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by satansaloser2005

I have a big problem with this way of thinking. "So and so isn't being helpful, so let's kill him" is a baseless argument. Granted, by the time I voted there were three candidates and I didn't want to kill either of the others, hence why I voted why I did, but even I don't see the reasoning behind it (do with that what you will, it's the truth. I even said when I voted that I was picking the lesser of three evils)
Just because a person isn't posting much or isn't being helpful doesn't mean they're evil. That's along the same logic as "Donna posted tenth and the tenth post is always made by a wolf" or "Jackie didn't vote until David did both days so she must be following instructions from him". I just don't see the logic. (Granted, there are quiet wolves, but being only Day 2 it seems rather strange to accuse a person of unhelpfulness and lynch them for it. Again, being a bit of a hypocrite but as I said, I did what I thought best at the time.)
So the moral of the story is if you want to suggest lynching someone, fine, but find a better reason to do it than that they are not being as helpful as you'd like. Sorry if it's a bit blunt, but....erm, it's 3am, so bear with me.



Also, please do explain the post I quoted above.


EDIT: Ignore my second example (regarding such people as Jackie and David). My brain frazzled in the middle of it and I actually put something that made sense. Obviously I'm leaving it in, but mostly so you all can laugh at my ineptness.

Yeah, I really think your analogies don't work.

Elf Warrior was adding too little, and what he did add came with no insight or thoughts. I find such behaviour suspicious. I don't see what the big deal is here.

As to my post earlier which you claim not to understand, it basically amounts to this:

1. I suspected Mithalwen. Ranger stopped kill.

2. I thought I might have been targetted, due to Mithalwen's being wolvish and thinking I'm seer. Kept saying I was suspicious of Mith.

3. Did not get attacked, so wolves don't think I'm a big threat. Mithalwen probably innocent.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Yeah, I really think your analogies don't work.

Elf Warrior was adding too little, and what he did add came with no insight or thoughts. I find such behaviour suspicious. I don't see what the big deal is here.

As to my post earlier which you claim not to understand, it basically amounts to this:

1. I suspected Mithalwen. Ranger stopped kill.

2. I thought I might have been targetted, due to Mithalwen's being wolvish and thinking I'm seer. Kept saying I was suspicious of Mith.

3. Did not get attacked, so wolves don't think I'm a big threat. Mithalwen probably innocent.

Heh. Indeed they don't.

Okay, that makes a bit more sense. Like I said, a bit tired, and it looked as if you were saying that....well, it doesn't matter now, I've figured it out. Thanks for clarifying. (P.S. It's not that I claim to not understand it. Heh, I really didn't. Hey, I warned you I'm a bit slow on the uptake didn't I? )

And on that note, I am really going to bed. I swear. Probably be back in *weeps* five hours or so. Night (again) everyone!

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Eomer

And I'm implying that you are a Wolf, eager to make himself look good by making a lot of other people look bad. We got it wrong, but at the time a number of us thought EW was guilty. I also noted that you found me suspicious yesterday and have found another reason to criticise me.

Isn't it a common wolf tactic to try and redirect suspicion onto the person suspecting you?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

Isn't it a common wolf tactic to try and redirect suspicion onto the person suspecting you?

I'm all-too-aware of this, that's why I'd be going far softer on you were I a wolf. My innocence gives me a freedom I'm not used to. I'm not at all concerned about being lynched, and as long as I'm battling in public the wolves should leave me alive.