Tol-in-Gaurhoth LII: Star Crossed II: Together for Eternity - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Aganzir · 10-29-2008, 12:27 PM

So she has only six posts thus far. She usually isn't one of the most vocal anyway, but although that's pretty little, I'm not worried yet. She has at least given some actual opinions.

I don't understand why Greenie thinks she should be worried of Legate if he plays as if he had nothing to worry about. She kind of contradicts herself there - if Legate was a baddie and had a lover, he would have to be worried about both his own and his lover's life. She agreed with me and Legate about Groin, though.

Greenie thought Rikae votes on day 1 were weird, and that she wouldn't call Fea's rule discussion suspicious since, in her opinion, that early it was as good a topic as any.

She didn't know what to think of Lommy, who looked normal (which means nothing). Later she pointed out, though, that Lommy's suspicion list was full of things like "A is suspicious because of X, but then again there's Y which makes her look innocentish." She thought Lommy was doing it in an exaggerating manner. This is the list she's talking about, and to me it doesn't look very much like exaggeration.

She said she didn't want to vote for Rikae because of how many had said they might vote her, and voted for Groin instead based almost entirely on gut-feeling. She thought he had been one of the least innocentish on day 1, and she didn't like his tone in some things.

On day 2 Greenie didn't understand sally's logic, either, when she said introducing new candidates close to deadline may increase the possibility of a last-minute bandwagon. I agree with her, but she could have said the same even if she was a baddie.
To her, it seems obvious that Lal was a kill with no traces, and Legate might have been suspected to be a lover.

Greenie seems somehow really smooth, but then again that's the way she is. It bothers me that I can't read her at all - she could go either way. Mostly she looks quite innocent, but there are some points which are a bit weird, like that Legate contradiction in her first post, and suggestion that Lommy is softening her opinions to an exaggerative degree (which I don't think she was doing). I also think Rikae's point of a baddie hiding in the open when Greenie speculated on Lal and Leg's deaths is worth at least noticing.

edit: xed with Nog & Eomer

Macalaure · 10-29-2008, 12:49 PM

I am rather puzzled by your reply to me, Nogrod. Firstly, I made one point against you on the second day, and you compare it to me being after you all the time in the past. That's a little bit out of proportion, don't you think? Secondly, your defense is based entirely on meta-reasons (there is no actual "in-game" defense at all) which I usually dislike. The meta is out there all the time, but it's much more enjoyable to keep it at a minimum. Was my point so well-made that you needed to bash it with the big hammer? Thirdly, instead of giving a non-meta defense of any kind, you threaten to retaliate by a rhetorical question.

I made my comment because I thought it was worth commenting on and because I thought it appropriate to poke somebody who hasn't been poked much in this game so far. You didn't respond to being poked in a very innocent-looking way...

Nogrod · 10-29-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I am rather puzzled by your reply to me, Nogrod. Firstly, I made one point against you on the second day, and you compare it to me being after you all the time in the past. That's a little bit out of proportion, don't you think?

Yes, I agree. Wholeheartedly agree. But didn't you notice the smilies? (maybe irony, self-irony or sarcasm isn't for the WW-games then...)

Quote:

Secondly, your defense is based entirely on meta-reasons (there is no actual "in-game" defense at all) which I usually dislike. The meta is out there all the time, but it's much more enjoyable to keep it at a minimum.

Here I must admit I'm beginning to regret my point already. My only "defence" is that your points were just soo far-fetched I kind of tried to do away with them once and for all so that we could concentrate on the in-game wolf-hunting. And it already seems that the mountain is coming out from the initial molehill because of my poor judgement (unless you're a wolf Mac and this is not in vain...).

But you raise once again a good question. The meta-level is there all the time and it has its effects, big effects indeed. Still I kind of agree with you that it should not be prominent. Maybe I've played too many games and need to take a pause? I just had no inspiration to go on the long path of counter-arguing in the traditional sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac

I made my comment because I thought it was worth commenting on and because I thought it appropriate to poke somebody who hasn't been poked much in this game so far.

Thank you indeed! (no smilies as I'm quite honest with this praise) I mean Day1 was just terrible! Nobody suspected me! It was weird and dangerous. I was so sure I'd find myself among the corpses after a total butchery taking place last Night.

But then, let the in-game arguments fly!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac

Was my point so well-made that you needed to bash it with the big hammer?

No. It was soo bad there were no reasonable instruments available to do away with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac

Thirdly, instead of giving a non-meta defense of any kind, you threaten to retaliate by a rhetorical question.

How would you defend yourself against an accusation which is based on pure speculation concerning your own motives? You could say of course: "no, that was not the way I was thinking...".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac

You didn't respond to being poked in a very innocent-looking way...

Funny you should say that for now you are contradicting yourself - and possibly your aim is to get some others to believe your gusto and disregard the erratic nature of your points and the motivation behind them to just get me lynched because you're a baddie!

(hah: answer that before you demand I should answer your questions on my possible motivation behind my posting).

The contradiction there? Well, first you say I'm playing unfair as I go for meta-defence which means you don't like the way I corrected you on meta-level on why your initial accusations - that I'd kill Lalaith or Legate - were totally mistaken (and in this you're correct: I'm already a bit ashamed of my conduct there) but then you say my answer was not very innocent looking...

Gwathagor · 10-29-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Secondly, your defense is based entirely on meta-reasons (there is no actual "in-game" defense at all) which I usually dislike. The meta is out there all the time, but it's much more enjoyable to keep it at a minimum.

Well, I like meta-game discussion.

10-29-2008, 12:27 PM	#1
Aganzir Woman of Secret Shadow Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: in hollow halls beneath the fells Posts: 4,511	Little Green Thoughts So she has only six posts thus far. She usually isn't one of the most vocal anyway, but although that's pretty little, I'm not worried yet. She has at least given some actual opinions. I don't understand why Greenie thinks she should be worried of Legate if he plays as if he had nothing to worry about. She kind of contradicts herself there - if Legate was a baddie and had a lover, he would have to be worried about both his own and his lover's life. She agreed with me and Legate about Groin, though. Greenie thought Rikae votes on day 1 were weird, and that she wouldn't call Fea's rule discussion suspicious since, in her opinion, that early it was as good a topic as any. She didn't know what to think of Lommy, who looked normal (which means nothing). Later she pointed out, though, that Lommy's suspicion list was full of things like "A is suspicious because of X, but then again there's Y which makes her look innocentish." She thought Lommy was doing it in an exaggerating manner. This is the list she's talking about, and to me it doesn't look very much like exaggeration. She said she didn't want to vote for Rikae because of how many had said they might vote her, and voted for Groin instead based almost entirely on gut-feeling. She thought he had been one of the least innocentish on day 1, and she didn't like his tone in some things. On day 2 Greenie didn't understand sally's logic, either, when she said introducing new candidates close to deadline may increase the possibility of a last-minute bandwagon. I agree with her, but she could have said the same even if she was a baddie. To her, it seems obvious that Lal was a kill with no traces, and Legate might have been suspected to be a lover. Greenie seems somehow really smooth, but then again that's the way she is. It bothers me that I can't read her at all - she could go either way. Mostly she looks quite innocent, but there are some points which are a bit weird, like that Legate contradiction in her first post, and suggestion that Lommy is softening her opinions to an exaggerative degree (which I don't think she was doing). I also think Rikae's point of a baddie hiding in the open when Greenie speculated on Lal and Leg's deaths is worth at least noticing. edit: xed with Nog & Eomer __________________ He bit me, and I was not gentle.

10-29-2008, 12:49 PM	#2
Macalaure Fading Fëanorion Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: into the flood again Posts: 2,911	I am rather puzzled by your reply to me, Nogrod. Firstly, I made one point against you on the second day, and you compare it to me being after you all the time in the past. That's a little bit out of proportion, don't you think? Secondly, your defense is based entirely on meta-reasons (there is no actual "in-game" defense at all) which I usually dislike. The meta is out there all the time, but it's much more enjoyable to keep it at a minimum. Was my point so well-made that you needed to bash it with the big hammer? Thirdly, instead of giving a non-meta defense of any kind, you threaten to retaliate by a rhetorical question. I made my comment because I thought it was worth commenting on and because I thought it appropriate to poke somebody who hasn't been poked much in this game so far. You didn't respond to being poked in a very innocent-looking way...