Tol-in-Gaurhoth LII: Star Crossed II: Together for Eternity

[Aganzir]

I don't know if it's because reasons to suspect somebody are always so fabricated this early in the day, but sally doesn't look innocent. A post full of nice little rhetorical questions: Is Lommie crazier than usual? Legate has a nice little organized list. Very nice. Too nice mehbe? Vague things that are intended to make people feel bad about someone.

Yes I'm fine with trying to lynch you Mac, unless I come up with someone better.

Originally Posted by Mac

If you look back on my past wolf appearances, you will see that the bursting and overconfident wolves usually ended up as very early roadkill. Why should I play like that if I was evil?

Because of getting to say this. Some people just can't get enough of risks. That's a bad defense really.

And Rikae and Mac, it's not that black-and-white. Who knows if one of you is an ordo and the other a gifted? Mac's response to Rikae looks a bit like, I don't know, wolfish (I am going to use this word despite there being no werewolves, period).

Originally Posted by Mac

Last time she semi-randomized the roles, so it might actually be possible we're on the same side at last. Otherwise, since I know I'm innocent, you're evil, which would mean that I would have to try to get you lynched, which I rather wouldn't.

I can't put my finger on it really. Dunno. Mac just seems to be too quick to forget the gifted factor, like a wolf trying to think like an innocent but not wholly succeeding. Does anybody understand what I mean?
And no, it doesn't really matter whether I speculate about gifteds at the beginning of day 1 - especially as we don't even know for certain if there are any. If someone has something against it, lynch me, that's the only way to get me to shut up.

edit: xed with Rikae and two Lommys
edit2: typo

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Would you like to trade situation with me? I haven't seen anyone who looks suspicious... ("Particularly suspicious, would be a better phrasing, though.)

No.

While I agree that rule-talk can lead to talking much without revaling your own alignment, it's not a bad thing to know the rules. It's easier to get rid of someone when you know what you're looking for. It doesn't matter so much now, but on say Day4 it would be nice to know how big a percent of the fellow villagers are your enemies and how many are not.

But we won't get to know the rules, no matter how much we talked about them! We won't get to know what we are looking for - except that there are lovers. We don't know if the lovers work in pairs or if there's a creature team, every one of them having a lover, and we won't get to know it.
What was the actual point of your response?

Easily. By the way, I find it mightily amusing, that in this game everybody is calling each other "dear", "darling" or "love". Makes me paranoid.

Well since we're all looking for a partner or two, it should be normal.

edit: xed with Fea

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

But we won't get to know the rules, no matter how much we talked about them! We won't get to know what we are looking for - except that there are lovers. We don't know if the lovers work in pairs or if there's a creature team, every one of them having a lover, and we won't get to know it.
What was the actual point of your response?

Well, we don't get to know the rules, but surely we are not in total darkness even now. We know there are lovers. We know there are no werewolves as such. It's almost safe to assume that we have some gifted. So there is stuff to discuss. (But we have done quite a lot of that already, yes, and I'm not implying we should do more of it.) And besides, you didn't ask "what does it matter if we talk about the roles" but "what does it matter whether we know them or not", and there's a big difference.


edit: xed with Groin and Rikae

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I should also just mention that every single player knows exactly what her or his role is and discussion of so-called hypothetical roles runs a very high chance of getting somebody to accidentally spill more than they intended about things they're not supposed to know about.

It goes along with the phantom's theory of lists: only ordinary villagers can create suspicion lists without motive. A bad guy creating a suspicion list must by definition use the list to cast suspicion intentionally. By the same principle, a bad guy creating hypothetical constructions of game roles can't possible hurt us while it can very easily give us information.

Ergo, anybody denying the validity of creating hypothetical lists either doesn't understand the significance of seeking motive, or doesn't want to have to construct posts which look more innocent than they are.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

I should also just mention that every single player knows exactly what her or his role is and discussion of so-called hypothetical roles runs a very high chance of getting somebody to accidentally spill more than they intended about things they're not supposed to know about.

An excellent point - shame you had to mention it.

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

But we won't get to know the rules, no matter how much we talked about them! We won't get to know what we are looking for - except that there are lovers. We don't know if the lovers work in pairs or if there's a creature team, every one of them having a lover, and we won't get to know it.

Am I wrong to assume that this game is supposed to go something similar to Di's last game, and in that game weren't there multiple lovers working in pairs? Or perhaps we should completely throw that last game out the window and assume that anything is possible?

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

I should also just mention that every single player knows exactly what her or his role is and discussion of so-called hypothetical roles runs a very high chance of getting somebody to accidentally spill more than they intended about things they're not supposed to know about.

I really doubt that. I was a wolf once in a game where roles were kept secret - we knew there was another wolf team but the village didn't, so we had to pay extra attention so as not to slip anything (and we succeeded in that). I don't think our baddies would be any less careful.

Originally Posted by Brinniel

Am I wrong to assume that this game is supposed to go something similar to Di's last game, and in that game weren't there multiple lovers working in pairs? Or perhaps we should completely throw that last game out the window and assume that anything is possible?

She said some changes might be introduced but didn't tell anything more. It might or might not be like the last game. We can't know.

edit: xed since Legate

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Rikae

An excellent point - shame you had to mention it.

Being truthful doesn't make the strategy any less effective.

If we let people be silent by agreeing that there's nothing worth discussing, we have nothing to go on. If we force discussion about a specific topic, we force what will essentially be a series of lies from people who know more than everybody else about what's going on. The more lies a person is forced to tell, the easier it is to pick out inconsistencies, as well as it being easier to glean knowledge we probably wouldn't otherwise have. Plus creative thought spawns creative thought.

Ergo, my suspicion is:

There are no werewolves, but there are presumably bad guys who exist as metaphorical werewolves as we know them. There are lovers for at least a portion of the bad guys. The bad guys may or may not (as Agan pointed out) work with both each other and their lovers: so there may be a tangled web of non-ordos with victory in mind, trying to kill everybody but themselves by manipulating others. Does that make sense? I think it does, but I'm not sure.

In that hypothetical situation, say there are like four wolves, all of whom can work together. And we know there's at least one lover, because this is a lovers game. So of those wolves, in this situation, one of them is working with the wolves to kill all of the ordos except for the lover. So in this case, as I see it, the lover-wolf would have to be careful not to reveal which ordo is the lover, because the wolves don't want them to win any more than they want the ordos to. My god this is complicated.

Okay so, so far if we go with Agan's theory that there's a creature team as well as individual sets of lovers, than the bad guys should be even more crippling to each other because they'd have to work together while trying not to. I wish I could be a fly on the wall for those PM sessions if that's a reality. Can you imagine?

Agan, just questioning: was there something you read that made you suspect there might be both a 'wolf' team as well as individual lovers? Was that something that happened in the last game?

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

If you want anybody to be able to follow what you're saying, you need a valid starting point. Attempting to create a solid start point (trying to figure out what roles exist) makes it a lot easier to follow when you start positing theories. I mean, how can you suspect people when you don't even know the crime?

There are lovers who kill, that much should be clear although Di hasn't dold anything, and in my opinion that's all we need to know. How does speculating about what roles there might or might not be help to make a valid starting point? Do you want to make a dozen different theories about what roles there are, and then a few theories about how different players would fit in those roles?

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Quite a jumpy statement.

Why?

Originally Posted by Rikae

Bolding mine -
where did that come from? Kind of out of the blue...

It came from my head and the point is that there might be anything and we wouldn't get to know it so why speculate at all.

edit: xed since Fea

[Rikae]

Yellow light means -go very, very fast.

Methinks Aganzir, Macalaure, and Lommy are all baddies of some sort. I have a pesky 'lil paper to write on Machiavelli (who is a cobbler), ya know, so I'm going to have to skedaddle for a bit, gosh darnit, but if I keep talking like this, well, heck, somebody might make me vice president.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Why?

You take the defensive mode rather quickly. Why would anyone want to lynch you just because you speculate a little about gifteds in the beginning of Day1? Isn't that normal?

And your latest post too, it's so defensive. You are playing oddly.


edit: xed with Legate, Rikae and Fea

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

We don't know if the lovers work in pairs or if there's a creature team, every one of them having a lover, and we won't get to know it.

Bolding mine -
where did that come from? Kind of out of the blue...

EDIT: X'd with Lommy.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Agan

And Rikae and Mac, it's not that black-and-white. Who knows if one of you is an ordo and the other a gifted? Mac's response to Rikae looks a bit like, I don't know, wolfish (I am going to use this word despite there being no werewolves, period).

I can't put my finger on it really. Dunno. Mac just seems to be too quick to forget the gifted factor, like a wolf trying to think like an innocent but not wholly succeeding. Does naybody understand what I mean?

I understand, and I agree to an extent. Like, I can understand why you say that but I'm not sure if Mac really strikes me as suspicious.

Originally Posted by Agan

And no, it doesn't really matter whether I speculate about gifteds at the beginning of day 1 - especially as we don't even know for certain if there are any. If someone has something against it, lynch me, that's the only way to get me to shut up.

Quite a jumpy statement.


edit: xed with Agan

[Rikae]

Hmm...
just wanted to add, "jumpiness" is a very easy accusation to use against Mac, since he tends to respond that way regardless of his role. Not saying he's not suspicious, but since we almost certainly have baddies going after each other in this game...

Agan -
First, sure, let's lynch the quiet ones - I'm fine with that (but it's it Noggie's job to bring that up?)
Second - Sally's rhetorical questions aren't very helpful (I mean, seriously, who's going to suspect Legate for having a "nice little list"?), but seem to be something she uses fairly often, baddie or innocent.

EDIT: X'd with everybody since Fea, who makes me wonder if she's ever read a scholarly article on literary theory.