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

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

your defense doesn't convince me.

It was probably not even meant to convince in the traditional sense of the term - and it was probably not a traditional "defence" either. I just said that if someone thinks / believes I would kill Lalaith or Legate on Night1 then s/he just doesn't know me.

The point of course was that Mac knows me...

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Is it not possible to defend anyone in this game without being branded a lover?

I'm afraid not. If we have several independent teams - which is still a possibility; I mean there being more than two teams - any defence will be a bit suspicious. And that's the madness of a full lovers game as the lovers need to defend each other unlike a wolfteam which can sacrifice a member if needed. It's sad to be sure.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to help someone you strongly feel is innocent from avoiding the gallows but you should then be ready to pay the price in form of suspicion.

Or were you trying to legitimise your future defence of your lover Agan?

EDIT: X'd with MAc... uh-oh... here we go again...

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

It was probably not even meant to convince in the traditional sense of the term - and it was probably not a traditional "defence" either. I just said that if someone thinks / believes I would kill Lalaith or Legate on Night1 then s/he just doesn't know me.

Then apparently I don't know you.
Of course everybody knows you rather didn't kill people you like to play with, but if you're on a lover team, there's also someone else but you and you should consider his/her opinions as well.
Just like I didn't like it when Mac said "if I was a wolf, I wouldn't behave this way," I don't like that.

Or were you trying to legitimise your future defence of your lover Agan?

As far as I remember, you were the only one who agreed to marry me. So watch out!

[A Little Green]

Fine, I'm back again. Firstly, about Mac and Nog's little debate.

Originally Posted by Mac

I don't like the way Nogrod labeled the kills "good". They were only good for the wolves, not the innocents, and the fact that "good" is the first thing Nogrod was able to think in regards to the kills appears like a Freudian wolf-slip. I mean, sure, that is done not unfrequently by others, but the way Nogrod emphasised it is strange. Then again, wouldn't a wolf be extra-careful not to formulate it this way?

First, there is this. I see nothing particularly suspicious in labeling kills "good", and calling it a Freudian wolf slip really strikes me as exaggeration.

But the weirdness gets more when we get to Nog's posts...

Originally Posted by Nog

I will only say this. Winning a game would never be so important to me that I would as a werewolf/-penquin/-rhinoceros... kill during the Night someone I like to play with - if there are other choices (the very last Nights of a game might be different). You know it Mac as all those who have played with me.

Honestly, I don't like this sort of "I never play like that" -defence. After all, it would be a perfect wolf strategy to do something you constantly claim you never do. Also, just for the sake of being sporty, I'd like to see defences that are based (at least partly) on the current game, not the ones before it. Of course past games affect the current one, but they shouldn't dominate it.

Originally Posted by Nog

Now defining the wolves viewpoint as "being safe" looks something that just doesn't fit my general impression of what an innocent Sally would think about - or speculate about. For it sure is true that if we have different teams against each other the lovers are scared to death every Night for their rivals (I've been a baddie in that kind of game long ago and it was heart-stopping!). The problem is, did Sally just think of that and decided to use the word "safe" (which really nails down the thing those baddies are longing for) or does she actually feel that way now?

I think this looks pretty far-fetched, really - actually this argument is quite similar to Mac's point about Nog: both claim the accused's certain choice of words indicates to being a lover because it looks like thinking from the wrong viewpoint. I'm convinced by neither of these - I'm inclined to believe that an innocent villager is perfectly capable of changing his/her viewpoint to think like a baddie.

Then to other topics.

Originally Posted by Agan

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.

I think you misunderstood me, honey. What I meant was that I am used to seeing him more serious, and this change to his usual style of playing is what really made me raise eyebrows. I know it's silly to base worries on what a player is usually like, but his behaviour struck me as a bit odd. Seemingly he just had an exceptionally good day or something.

Originally Posted by Agan

She said she didn't want to vote for Rikae because of how many had said they might vote her

This might be trivial, but I feel the need to correct this a bit - my reason for not voting Rikae was not the amount of votes or possible votes she had at that point, but rather that I didn't find her especially suspicious and didn't like the fact that there was only one voting candidate at that point. Here is what I exactly said:

Originally Posted by me yesterDay

I will definitely not vote Rikae - I don't find her particularly suspicious and besides I don't like it when there is but one person who is being voted. It's nothing to encourage discussion other than "Oh my, a bandwaggon!" and is the perfect spot for baddies to slip away unnoticed.

EDIT: x-ed since Mac's 270

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

This might be trivial, but I feel the need to correct this a bit - my reason for not voting Rikae was not the amount of votes or possible votes she had at that point, but rather that I didn't find her especially suspicious and didn't like the fact that there was only one voting candidate at that point.

Sorry - I confused it with another post of yours where you mentioned something about four people talking about voting for her.

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Nog

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...

Eh? Sorry, I think my brain isn't quite working properly or something, but I really have no idea what this sentence means. Too many subordinate clauses, I suppose, but I really got lost. Could you explain it?

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Agan

Sorry - I confused it with another post of yours where you mentioned something about four people talking about voting for her.

No probem.

I should vote quite soon because I really need to get some sleep tonight. I'll make a list (!!!) to clarify my thoughts a bit.

RED ZONE - suspicious
No one here. I wonder what does it tell...

ORANGE ZONE - somewhat suspicious
Groin - Has posted only one post toDay, is that right? And that was an analysis on Rikae's first post. The tone of that post was somewhat odd, especially the "And that was only her first post!" or something of that sort (really too lazy to look up the exact quote) seemed quite like overreacting to me, especially if taken into account that Rikae had already explained that post. I suppose he'll return later toDay.
Gollum - I don't like the way he appears, makes quite vague-grounded suspicions that mainly follow the main stream of the discussion, and bases suspicions on stuff such as what a person's role was in the previous game. On the other hand it seems a trifle too careless for a baddie - especially a baddie who has another baddie to think of as well...
Nog - His points in the "debate" with Mac made me uneasy about him. I don't like the way he considers Mac's point about him sooo bad (or something like that, again too lazy to look it up) and then brings up a very similar point about Sally.
Mac - He, too, brought up a real "grasping at straws"-point, against Nog. The whole debate between the two looked odd to me, I'd like to look it over but I'm afraid I have no time. Mac has looked furrier toDay than he did yesterDay, but I don't know...

(little) GREEN ZONE - innocentish
Agan - Is generally reasonable, not as sneaky and smooth as she tends to be when a baddie, and has good points. No evidence against her at this point.
Brinn - Seems very sincere, there is nothing as far as I can see that speaks against her.
Eönwë - Feels sincere.

NO IDEA -ZONE - let the name speak for it.
Kitanna
Sally
Shasta
Gwath
Rikae
McCaber
Fea
Eomer

I'm slightly worried about the size of my no idea -zone. Based on this, my top suspects would be Groin, Gollum, Nog, and Mac. The problem is that I don't feel very comfortable with voting any of them...

I'll go eat something and come back to vote before I go to sleep.

[Gollum the Great]

Augghh!

My internet connection was severed and now I don't have time to complete my read, or even post. I may get back before DL, but I'm not sure that I will vote.

Vote well!

[A Little Green]

I'll vote now and be off to bed. My vote will be

++ Gollum

for reasons stated in my previous post. I ended up thinking that he's the most suspicious of my four orange zone people.
Good night m'dears.


EDIT: x-ed with Gollum - sorry to hear that. Unfortunately I won't change my vote because he can't defend himself, since neither could the others before I leave, which is approximately now. (Did anyone understand anything about that?)

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But didn't you notice the smilies?

Huh? There is only one "rolleye"-smiley in that particular post #265.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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...".

That would have been a lot more effective. You could also have explained why my interpretation was wrong, but anyway, I didn't actually expect any elaborate defense (my point really wasn't that amazing), just an honest-looking one. Now that this point has been blown out of its proportion, your in-game defense seems weak...

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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...

Huh? I don't see the slightest contradiction. Bringing in meta-reasons and criticising the meta-reasons given are not the same. I'm giving no meta-reasons to counter yours, mind you! And in any case, the fact that you resorted to meta was only one out of three reasons why I think your post looks evil. What are you talking about?

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard, regarding Rikae's suspicion of Macalaure

Over confidence? It looked like he was just being plain old silly if you ask me.

There is a great deal of confidence implicit in silliness, Groin. I happen to agree with you that Mac seems innocent overall, but you're definitely pushing it a bit here.

Originally Posted by Rikae

Groin, go read what I already said about that post, I see no need to say anything else. *shrug*
I do find myself wondering if the fact that no one has paid any attention to my increasing number of lovers theory means I've stumbled on the truth and those who know it are afraid to tip me off, assuming I know it too - but I suppose more likely you all just think I'm loony.

Rikae seems to be playing up two identities here: that of the martyr, and that of the innocent. The first assumes the reality of the second (which is assuming a great deal), without explicitly stating either. Implied identities are significantly more dangerous than those that have been expressed, as they tend to escape analysis and can become axiomatic before they were ever theoretical.

Also, declining to answer another player's objections under the excuse that the issue has already been laid to rest looks to me like a sneaky way of suppressing suspicion.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I don't like the way Nogrod labeled the kills "good". They were only good for the wolves, not the innocents, and the fact that "good" is the first thing Nogrod was able to think in regards to the kills appears like a Freudian wolf-slip. I mean, sure, that is done not unfrequently by others, but the way Nogrod emphasised it is strange. Then again, wouldn't a wolf be extra-careful not to formulate it this way?

I don't have any problem with Nogrod's use of the word "good" in this context. It is natural to understand the lovers' actions in terms of what is "good" for them.

[Aganzir]

I should be voting soonishly too.

The problem is that I'm still quite undecided. I want Gollum and Groin to have a chance to answer to me first but I don't know how likely it is that they turn up while I'm still online.

My other main options are Mac and Fea.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

My other main options are Mac and Fea.

Bad options, I assure you. Or at least bad option, singular.

Originally Posted by Shasta

Fea's reaction to this - or should I say, overreaction? - seemed kind of unnecessary; a case of "the Lover doth protest too much"?

Stop that. Really, no matter who you are you don't want me lynched. Cross my heart and promise. The wolves want me alive, the village wants me alive, and when it comes time for my death, you'd better believe that it's best for everybody if it's on my own terms. I'm blowing off my night class and going shopping. Don't kill me while I'm gone.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

"Best for everybody"? Lovers included? So, what you're saying is, you're neutral?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

So, as I pointed out earlier, one of the things that caught my eye today was Kitanna's post. Let's have a look at reactions today, to the killings of Legate and Lalaith.

1) Rikae: Both classic wolf kills. No trails.

2) Brinniel: Lalaith, no trail. Legate, maybe he was a gifted.

3) Shasta: Legate, they thought he was a lover.

4) Eonwe: Lalaith, no trail there.

5) Aganzir: Legate? Probably thought he was a lover.

6) Sally: Legate? Hmm, I think they thought he was.... a lover!

7) Aganzir: lalaith could have been gifted, mind.

Then we have Kitanna, who pops up to say that o yes indeed, lalaith was an obvious kill given her "quietness" and that Legate was, like others thought, believed to have been a gifted.

I don't know what there is about this post but it just seems so throwaway, like Kit is merely going through the motions. Also, it's my time to betray her now. She's had it her way for too long.

String her up!

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

Also, just for the sake of being sporty, I'd like to see defences that are based (at least partly) on the current game, not the ones before it.
.......
What I meant was that I am used to seeing him [Legate] more serious, and this change to his usual style of playing is what really made me raise eyebrows.

It's not that easy folks...

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

It's not that easy folks...

I agree, and will take the assertion even one step farther: trying to analyze a player apart from the context of their past games is as futile as trying to appreciate an artist apart from his body of work.

[Nogrod]

Okay. It's like walking a trapeze.

I probably went a bit overboard back there and I do apologise, it was due to a weak judgement arising from...

Well, looking back to the first points made by Macalaure I might now see the reason: I was indeed a bit annoyed for the fact that he suspected me of being a very stupid wolf who has no idea how to play this game - or how he possibly tried to portray himself as a "sharp-shooter" trying to appeal to those who would not know a thing or two about people playing in this game by pushing things over any reasonable limits...

I said the kills during the Night were good. That means our baddies have sense and are no fools (at least one in each pair has sense). So he says "Ai! That term "good" was the first [!!!] that came to Wolf-Nog's mind! It appears like a Freudian slip!"

I say that it seems the killers of Lalaith have a different approach to the game than those killing Legate, which I think is an important point as there seemed to be some confusion about the setting of the game. But Mac says: "Gotchya! Thinking too much about the opposing wolf-side's tactics!"

Why I am weary about this with Mac? Had it been Xyzzy (sorry mate!), or anyone not actually reading the threads or actually played in these games before who was making those points, I would have just ignored them and only protested if there was an apparent bandwagon. But seeing Mac doing it I kind of... forgot my better judgement.

These arguments are here and they do exist whether we voice them out or not. There's no escaping them.


At the moment I'm only pondering whether Mac looks more suspicious to me than Greenie who neatly tried to exploit this whole row and then evasively voted for Gollum (who sure is an easy target at this moment)...

EDIT: X'd with a host of posts... actually from Gwath on.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Some off-the-top-of-my-head points:

1. My theory of lover-trios goes back to... um. There was a game (I think it was Brinniel's) with three Lovers; the Ranger Lover, the Ordo Lover, and the.... Wolf Lover? In any case, it was a baddie. I don't think trios are that far-fetched of an idea, and it would make more sense (six baddies makes more sense than four baddies, and their team wouldn't be immediately decimated with the death of one member.) Fea's reaction to this - or should I say, overreaction? - seemed kind of unnecessary; a case of "the Lover doth protest too much"?

2. There seems to be a relationship between Greenie and Mac today. They're both consistently bringing up the same points against Nogrod, which isn't eyebrow-raising, but Greenie puts just enough suspicion against Mac in her posts to make it seem as if she's distancing herself from him.

3. One of Sally's reasons for voting yesterday struck me as bizarre. She said she "didn't want to create a tie". Why? According to the rules, the first person to receive the number of votes, in the case of a tie, is the person who will be executed. Lommy still would have been executed at that point, no matter who you had voted, so why the insistence on not creating a tie?

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

It's not that easy folks...

Nope, but there's a certain difference between saying that someone is weird because his way of playing is so different from usual and actually voting for someone because of trust problems caused by her being a wolf in the last game.

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

1. My theory of lover-trios goes back to... um. There was a game (I think it was Brinniel's) with three Lovers; the Ranger Lover, the Ordo Lover, and the.... Wolf Lover?

Lommy's, which I helped to mod. But there the point was that no one knew that there were three of them, except the ordo lover. I don't think something like that would work here - with a gifted, ordo, and wolf.

Originally Posted by Shasta

3. One of Sally's reasons for voting yesterday struck me as bizarre. She said she "didn't want to create a tie". Why? According to the rules, the first person to receive the number of votes, in the case of a tie, is the person who will be executed. Lommy still would have been executed at that point, no matter who you had voted, so why the insistence on not creating a tie?

This is actually a good point. It could be interpreted as a wolf trying to look helpful and normal and innocent and all. Then on the other hand it's also possible that sally's just so used to the idea of ties being bad that she kind of automatically thought "No ties" when voting.

edit: xed with Shasta & Fea

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I'm a bit pessimistic about analysing the deaths last night in any meaningful way right now.

If there are teams of lovers picking different kills, then there is competition to kill the opposing team first. They will try to hunt down their enemies, but how can they tell who's a lover? It would make sense for lovers to stay far away from each other during the day. Thus "Legate was winking at so-and-so!" is not going to persuade any villain that their enemies are carelessly revealing themselves. The interaction on Day One is just a blur of misinformation. Maybe the villains did choose their kills on a meta-basis. Lovers, Legate, Lalaith, Loving, Legate, Lovey, Lalaith.... maybe it was hypnotic.

Anyway, our villains were wrong. Makes me wonder, on a meta-level...

Who could survive in a game like this, where villagers seek the famous romantics, focusing their efforts thither?

Not Legate, obviously! I could have told you that last week. He was never going to be a lover. Look what happened in the last game.

Too meta?

[Shastanis Althreduin]

If we're going into meta...

It's clear, then, that Rikae and Mac are a pair, as well as Sally and Legate, and Fea and Phantom!

...Oh wait.... Legate's dead and Phantom's not playing. Funny, that.