Werewolf LIII: The Republic

[Nerwen]

Brinniel and morm, you both say you want a fixed number of representatives, but have you given any thought as to how we would choose this number?

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Rune

The problem with this is that if we settle for a number then we give more freedom of choice to those that votes the first where as the people who votes the last have very few candidates to chose from. It is just a bad idea to make these kind of restrictions.

But isn't that always how it is? Whether it's for a rep or a lynch, the first voters choose whoever they want and the last voters are more limited in choices because if everyone chose someone different we would get nowhere. Now in voting for reps, the votes can be more spread out since only two votes are needed to make a rep which does give us more room to choose. But if everyone had a different opinion on who they wanted as a rep (or also the same) and voted whatever way they wanted regardless of previous votes, we could end up with very few reps. Because whatever the number of reps ends up being, I think it's better to have a larger number than smaller one. If everyone voted for the same reps or no one voted for the same and we ended up with a small number like 3 or 4, then it would not be very balanced...especially if a wolf's among them. So to prevent that, the later voters have to compromise and have some sort of restrictions.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Brinniel and morm, you both say you want a fixed number of representatives, but have you given any thought as to how we would choose this number?

I never said a fixed number, I said I had a preferred number. And quite honestly, there's no way to make a number set as like I said, everyone has their own agenda. Personally, I'd like to see a number in proportion to the village population and when I vote I'll keep that in mind....but there's nothing I can do to make others do the same.

Ugh, maybe I should just give up on trying to even argue this. No one seems to get me.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

That is, it had been said several times by then that McCaber was a safe kill, and the question was why were the wolves playing it so safe?

I was stating him as a no trace kill because I think that's more likely than say the wolves believing him a possible seer. Anyways, the problem with no trace kill is that it's difficult to figure out who would've chosen him...that's the whole point of it. If I had time, I would take a look at who would more likely make a safe kill than not but I'm running late for class...

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, often enough nobody looks particularly Seerish (from the lupine point-of-view) on Day One... but with all the posting yesterDay, you'd think someone would have fitted the bill.

That's what I was thinking.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

As I said, though, the other thing is that McCaber would have been perfect to keep around as a lynch candidate

Indeed. Coming into today I was prepared to paint him as suspicious looking, and I think there were others who would have agreed.

Of course it doesn't say much for our suspicions at this point.

Originally Posted by Brin

I don't understand why thinking about having a goal number of reps is weird...to me it's quite logical.

Okay.... Let's see if I can explain why I found it suspicious.

It's as if you're setting up a certain number as a goal, and that becomes the priority rather than choosing someone you've been leaning towards all day, or choosing someone you said you trust, or choosing a Rep that everyone agrees is innocent.

In other words, if it can be established that we should have a certain number, then you can fall back on that as an excuse to pick someone. Not that you can't always pick anyone for any excuse, but I felt that you were trying to, ahead of time, set up an excuse for doing something different.

Make sense?

EDIT: x-posted Brin

[Boromir88]

Sorry, Boro, but it would be improper to do a read-through on everyone except you.~the phantom

That is precisely why I'm quite comfortable with assuming your innocence. Don't you see? Not only are you doing your homework on a couple people within a certain classification, but you're doing your homework on everyone. No matter how daunting the task is, I just wish we could get someone on here who can do the work on you.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Rune

I guess it comes down to the fact that I cannot remember if I ever lived in the same village as "Fantomet" before, so I am not quite sure as what to expect from him

I understand. It's the same with my view of you.

Originally Posted by Brin

But if everyone had a different opinion on who they wanted as a rep (or also the same) and voted whatever way they wanted regardless of previous votes, we could end up with very few reps.

But do you think that would ever happen? Or if it did, what is so disasterous about having few Reps? It really puts them on the spot, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Brin

Because whatever the number of reps ends up being, I think it's better to have a larger number than smaller one. If everyone voted for the same reps or no one voted for the same and we ended up with a small number like 3 or 4, then it would not be very balanced...especially if a wolf's among them.

So we have to balance out the Wolves? But how do we know two of our Reps weren't WWs yesterday? Or three even?

Originally Posted by Brin

So to prevent that, the later voters have to compromise and have some sort of restrictions.

The word "restrictions" is the last thing I want to hear when speaking of government.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Boro

That is precisely why I'm quite comfortable with assuming your innocence. Don't you see? Not only are you doing your homework on a couple people within a certain classification, but you're doing your homework on everyone.

Ah, well, glad to hear it!

I'm starting work on you now. If we're lucky I'll still see you as innocent and we can hunt the WWs together.

Originally Posted by Boro

No matter how daunting the task is, I just wish we could get someone on here who can do the work on you.

Heh heh heh... Yeah, that would be quite a job.

And good to see Agan. Speak your mind, dearie, for today I trust you.

[Boromir88]

Between my quarrel with her and the post which I believe you consider the "backing off" post, only Shasta said anything about her and me (=that we look like brawling innocents), and I wouldn't call it a couple people.~Agan

It was just a general number of people I thought said something with regards to you and Lommy's tango. I specifically remember Shasta and morm, and thought I could of missed a few, hence I used the word "couple."

Call it whatever you like, brawl, a VP dinner date, whatever...you struck first against Lommy and the comments I had over Lommy's responses to you were "Lommy hits back hard." Then you backed away.

The reason I made mention of it is because as I had said earlier about you it was good to see you were calling on your true form, then you eased up. And felt it important to mention or else I wouldn't have mentioned it. That might have been a hasty reaction from me. What I have also down on you is you ended up aggressively pursuing Eonwe as well, or whatever you would call that one, I recall Eonwe referring to you as the interrogator. Anyway, long story short, my reaction was hasty, and I hope to continue to see you pursue your suspects aggressively, and to the point.

Edit: crossed with Lommy

[Boromir88]

I could also see at least Agan, Nerwen, Boro and tp suggesting a kill like that, the ladies more than the gentlemen.~Lommy

Don't want to burst your bubble Lommy, but I wouldn't suggest it, and I would bet the same for the phantom. Agan, Nerwen, I don't know about, why would they give you that impression? That is, why would they go after McCaber?

This is where I think tp and I virtually see eye-to-eye with when we were both wolves. I know, I've witnessed how paranoid about the seer he can be. We want the seer dead as soon as possible. End of discussion. There was no reason to believe McCaber was the seer from his posts, and I feel sure enough to say that the wolves didn't pick him because they thought he was the seer. They went with option 2, kill someone who wouldn't leave a trail.

But with myself, and definitely tp, there is no option 2. Our choice at night kills are simple, we get the seer, every choice is made with the intention of taking down the seer. Period.

[the phantom]

Ah, so Lommy- you think McCaber was a sporty kill? I suppose that is a reasonable explanation.

However, you can remove me from your list of people who would kill this early in the village merely to be nice. I'd be going after the Seer full bore. After the Seer was taken care of, then I'd be nice with my kills.

Well, I finished by Boro read. It's what I thought... no bad vibes from him. His choices, the ones I agree with and the ones I don't, seem to have been made genuinely. And he was as dedicated as anyone to actually playing yesterday, in the sense that he attempted to get reactions and attempted to read reactions despite how nearly impossible that is early in the village.

On the other hand I fully expect he'll be lynched before the end because he boldly questions people and he's a scary WW. I might help lynch him if he starts being mean to me. But for now, I'm considering him innocent.

EDIT: x-posted Boro

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Boro

This is where I think tp and I virtually see eye-to-eye with when we were both wolves. I know, I've witnessed how paranoid about the seer he can be. We want the seer dead as soon as possible. End of discussion.

You know me well, Boro. I said exactly that in my x-post.

[A Little Green]

Hmmm... To start off, some thoughts about yesterDay.

Originally Posted by morm, underlining mine

Gil is back, what would a wolfish Gil act like? I doubt it is the case but I'm curious to see how he would behave...has he ever been one before?

This just reminds me of the legendary "I've never been a wolf before" -slip. However I'm inclined to believe this is not a wolf slip of morm about his fellow Gil, but mere careless phrasing. Nevertheless it caught my eye and I thought to point it out.

Originally Posted by Nog

If tp says that if you keep on making that Star Wars stuff he'll be backing you... what do you do? You keep on with it in a striking manner.

That looks suspicious indeed... I need to make the choice in something like fifteen minutes (1.30AM here, waking up call at 6.30) and you didn't make it easier.

Well I can't help but think that from a reasonable player such as Nog this really looks like a vague argument. Truly, that argument looks like grasping at straws more than anything else. (Or then it's just me when I really saw nothing at all suspicious about Leggie's SW jokes.) Anyhow, I don't know how would it serve a wolf-Nog to make such a vague case on Legate when he already had suspicions and voting candidates of his own. Perhaps if he wanted to give the other reps more fuel for lynching Legate without joining the bandwagon himself... But really, I'm not sure - otherwise Nog has looked quite innocent so I don't quite buy my own argument yet...

All in all, yesterDay's voting looked much like a bandwagon to me, and I didn't like it also because I didn't find Legate suspicious and the way his lynch just came somehow a bit out of the blue with no one really having a proper case against him looks worrisome.

Then on to toDay.

Originally Posted by Boro

But first, I'll say, there was not nearly enough talk and suspicions going on yesterday.

Agree and disagree. I think there was too much talk - really, if the Days are this long I won't have the energy to read them through. On the other hand, I agree with you that we need more suspicions in order to achieve something. So: my recipe for better success would be less talk and more suspicions.

Okay. ToDay I'll be still making at least a list of the villagers and a rep vote post, probably more. Now I'm off to do a chemistry paper. Blah...


EDIT: x-ed avec Boro et Deux Phantômes

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Agan

It's a powerful tool for controlling the lynch, and at least I would be ready to go for it if I wanted to save someone I really trusted from the gallows or didn't want to let someone I didn't trust become a rep (given that I would be around at deadline). Also, I don't find the thought that it could help to change somebody's mind impossible, although it's quite unlikely since you cannot make a proper case for/against anyone if you have to post every two minutes. If there were more than one person of the like mind it could work, though.

Ah, but the problem is precisely that I don't want self-confident innocent villagers grasping the situation to their hands and doing something reckless. I prefer it that no one has such destructive power. And as for affecting people's opinions by flood-posting, you don't need a filibuster to do that, especially as a filibuster is most probably just going to annoy people.

Originally Posted by Agan

Is it also outrageous if I vote against the wishes of those who voted me? To me it doesn't really make a difference.

No, it isn't outrageous, but I think there's a huge difference. I think a rep fails his/her responsibility if she doesn't vote, whil s/he only fails the wishes of those who voted for him/her if she votes against their wishes. A rep's duty is not to oblige his/her voters, but his/her duty IS to take the responsibility s/he's given.

Originally Posted by Agan

Suspicious Lommy = wolfish Lommy. What's the real difference between suspicious and wolfish, tell me?

I cannot explain it any better than that people may seem innocentishly suspicious, or to borrow your own terminology, not everything is black and white.

Originally Posted by Agan

So why does suspicious behaviour indicate someone's a werewolf? Tell me that.

It usually indicates that, but not always. And I have to admit that I was maybe flip-flopping there but I still meant and mean both of those things I said....

Originally Posted by Agan

I know you didn't, but I guess I automatically assumed that was one of your reasons since to me it seemed the only sensible reason to be suspicious of alliances.

Tsk, tsk, one step futher and it's putting words to people's mouths...

Although I don't really like Agan's smooth withdrawal from her suspicions against me at all, I'm now less frustrated with her accusing me stupidly and she doesn't strike me as horribly wolvish. I'm keeping an eye on her though. Especially as her first suspecting Legate, then expressing surprise and maybe slight disapproval of the great (here we go again ) suddenly appeared suspicion against him and then voted him. That's what I'd call flip-flopping.

Also, I don't like morm's and Ilya's suspicions of Legate. They just don't look genuine. There's also something fishy in tp's manner of sort of prancing around behind the scenes (can't phrase it better...).

Boro's long ramblings on McC make me think he's probably innocent. Just because he was killed last Night.

Hmmm... I have to go soon and won't be back until the next phase... And I'd love to make a list before that, and I have to choose my rep... oh jolly I'm gonna be busy...


edit: xed with Boro's #501 and onwards...

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Alright let my just tell you that in 15 min. my family will come over for dinner and then we are going to The Tivoli Gardens to see the Crazy Christmas Cabaret in the Glass-Hall and after that I might go out for a drink. So if I all of the sudden show up with a vote for a Representative and little else it is because of this, of course I shall try to get home before going out and make a proper post. . . .but I know my self and my weaknesses.

[Thinlómien]

Alrighthenlet'sgetdowntobusiness...

Innocentish
Boro - I like his playing style and aggressiveness, plus his McCaber-musings slightly suggest his innocence. I'm not sure if I'm considering him for my rep, though - he already was one yesterDay, and also, his choice was pretty bad then.
Brinniel - she gives me a very innocent gut-feeling right now. But as for her as my rep, see what I said about Boro.
Nerwen - has given me reason to suspect her. Also, her slip about the ranger looks innocent.

Middle
Eönwë - cannot really say much. Slightly more innocent than guilty, though.
Gil - not enough to get a grasp of.
Greenie - I could vote her as my rep just because she has made very good foo that I'm eating now. Seriously though, I don't know what to think. She's a bit too smooth...
Gwath - slips under my rainbow.
Kath - under the rainbow with Gwath.
Rune - jolly third wheel under the rainbow.
sally - can't really say much about her, except that she doesn't strike me as particularily innocentish and I don't understand why so many people consider her innocent.
Shasta - good points have been made against him but my gut-feeling has nothing against him. So...

Suspicious-ish
Aganzir - her case against me was weak and I dislike her flip-flopping on Legate. However, now that I'm not annoyed anymore, my gut-feeling of her would be rather innocent.
Ilya - her vote yeterDay makes me raise eyebrows. Looks like idle opportunistic bandwagoning.
mormegil - I don't know, really, he just seems evil and I don't like some of his arguments or his behaviour late yeterDay.
Nogrod - he's too diplomatic, too smooth. It's his cardinal mistake as a wolf. And he would have killed McC. However, the consensus against him makes me think him more innocent (weirdly) and also, like I said, I don't think I want to see him go toDay.
The Ka - her posting style in this game is rather unsettling.
the phantom - gives me the creeps. Really, I don't like his way of hovering behind the scenes and taking part and seeming uninvolved at the same time. I do not trust him.

Looks like Nerwen might be my rep... I'll go and check her suspicions and think about it...

edit: xed with everybody and really, Fea, you're (d)evil

[mormegil]

Okay, the phantom is bothering me but in catching up on all the posts since I went to bed Nerwen is actually bothering me more.

The phantom seems to be setting himself up, on account that many Boro included, think him innocent, to the leadership position. It bothers me and I think there is dnager there. He says he's read everything and then comes up with nothing more than a sentence or two on each person, even those who he suspects. That seems fairly weak. I also wonder why the fact that I brought up, on day one, if anybody wanted any sort of structure to use in rep voting bothers him so much. Yes, I saw his explination but it doesn't make sense to me. Today I stated that I like the odd number and gave my reasoning why. It seems logical to try and keep some order on how many reps we have. Often times we talk, in other games, about how many candidates we want in the pool to make our choice of whom to lynch. It seems fine.

What really bothers me though is how Nerwen seems to piggy-back off phantom's ideas. A good number of people assume phantom to be innocent, and honestly I'm okay with that, despite some of my criticisms of him overall I think him genuine but I am keeping a close eye on him because I know of his skill as a wolf and I'm watching for and pointing out any lupine signs I may see. Anyway Nerwen on Day 1 didn't make any sort of impression on me, was overly quiet and reserved. She didn't do or say anything controversial. And now that she feels that the phantom is a fairly well accepted innocent she seems to quickly parrot what the phantom is saying. Her stating that they might have gone after McCaber because they thought he was a ranger sounded awfully strange to me. Gil got a free pass for ignorance so why not give it a try, eh Nerwen? Nerwen just shot up from an unknown to my top suspect based upon what I am seeing and feeling from her.

Presumably cross posted with many since the phantom's post that started with "Ah, well, glad to hear it!"

[the phantom]

I'm not setting myself up for anything, morm. I said yesterday that I'd be comfortable as an advisor, and that the only reason I want to get elected is for the sake of self-protection and because I am a better choice than a WW.

If you're worried about me getting into leadership, don't vote me a Rep.

And as far as my short list (the fact that I didn't have enough written about anyone), I was brief for a couple of reasons-
1) I take into account on each person how likely it is that they are the Seer and what their dream might've been. Seer protection to me is as high a priority currently as WW catching. The Seer is far more important than I am. But obviously I cannot state any of my suspicions openly.
2) I've taken up plenty of space on this thread already. Don't you agree?
3) It's only Day 2, and no WW has been found yet. And only one rather perplexing kill has been made. Therefore all suspicions are weak at this point. So why spend a page on a weak suspicion?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by mormegil

And now that she feels that the phantom is a fairly well accepted innocent she seems to quickly parrot what the phantom is saying. Her stating that they might have gone after McCaber because they thought he was a ranger sounded awfully strange to me. Gil got a free pass for ignorance so why not give it a try, eh Nerwen? Nerwen just shot up from an unknown to my top suspect based upon what I am seeing and feeling from her.

*sigh* You're so predictable, morm.

1. I did not "parrot" the phantom's comments on McCaber. I agreed with him.

2. I really did think there was a ranger. I'm in the middle of exams, and I ended up just skimming the rules– which are exceptionally long and complicated. I am quite insulted that you think I'd try an idiotic wolf-cub ploy like pretending not to know the rules.

EDIT: fixed bolding.
EDIT 2: x'd since Aganzir.

[Thinlómien]

Phantom - it's not that you don't post or participate enough, it's more like I have the feeling that you detach yourself from the current events somehow.

And I know my suspicions are vague, so it's difficult for you to defend yourself against them, and also difficult for others to take them as worth anything. Thus, it makes me wonder that you're so eager to say that you can hardly defend yourself against such suspicions. I don't think anyone's really expecting you to... except maybe you yourself, and that makes you seem a little wolvish to me.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I am quite insulted that you think I'd try an idiotic wolf-cub ploy like pretending not to know the rules.

I agree with you on this. It is possible of course that you are a WW and were merely not terribly active in the Night discussions and left the kill selection to the other three. So your Ranger mistake does not rule you out from being a WW.

But I agree that you would not purposefully use ignorance as a shield.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I am quite insulted that you think I'd try an idiotic wolf-cub ploy like pretending not to know the rules.

The problem with a statement like this is it's could be an attempt to back me up against a wall. Nerwen could feel that by saying she is offended that I will back off because to proceed further would be rude. I will not back off, look at what her little 'slip' has done. Multiple people are coming and delcaring her likely innocent. I think it is a great ploy to use and that you are wise enough to use it. It is not an insult, rather a compliment, but it makes me not trust you and the fact that you are now trying to pressure me to stop bothers me too.

[Aganzir]

Hmm while reading our brawl I figured I maybe shouldn't be so aggressive towards Lommy when accusing her because then she just becomes annoyed and it's harder to read her.

What happened after things got heated:

Shasta made a list of players, including Lommy and me as brawling innocents.

Phantom hoped our argument wouldn't be a waste of time and thought it would help to get a feel for us. He thought I'm innocent.

Nog thought I had better arguments but Lommy felt better (genuinely frustrated, although he pointed out that a wolf could feel frustration, too) so he reached the conclusion that we're both just quarrelling innocents.

Ilya didn't know what to make of Shasta's jumping on Gil multiple times, but to her it looked more suspicious than our brawl. I don't think their thing was very suspicious, though.

Boro didn't like how I backed off of Lommy after "a couple people" had said she looks genuinely frustrated. I think I was actually the first to say that - my backing off happened between Shasta & phantom's posts.
He also accused me of trying to deny I had a case against Lommy. Later he considered voting for me.

According to Ilya, I backed off of Lommy in a way that parroted what a lot of other people had said, and she didn't know what to think of that. I find this ignorant if not downright suspicious - it's rather she who's parroting what other people (Boro) have said instead of checking the facts herself. She's throwing a thing in the open without a comment of her own, like, "Look at this and reach your own conclusions! *wink wink*", and that's something I don't particularly like. Besides, before Boro people had just said Lommy and I were probably innocent, and it's weird how quickly Ilya's opinion changed (from not knowing what to think but apparently not finding very suspicious to suspecting) after accusations had seemingly started to pop up.

Morm found me innocent but didn't comment on our quarrel at first. Later he said he could find little merit in either argument and both Lommy and I were innocent.

Brinn thought both Lommy and me are ordos.

Other people either weren't around or didn't find our argument worth commenting.

Of these Ilya's reaction seems the most suspicious to me.
And I'm somehow surprised why so many people just labeled us as fighting innocents because
1) Lommy didn't seem innocent to me at all, except maybe in her replies
2) I can understand also those who thought I had weak points against her.
If Lommy's innocent, wouldn't it have been better for the wolves to encourage our suspicions of each other? But if she's a wolf, could she have fooled everybody, even with a lot of pressure on her? Or were the wolves just not around to take advantage of two innocents tearing each other apart? Or what.

If Lommy's a wolf, I could see Boro's reaction as wolfish as well since he attacked me for attacking Lommy. On the other hand it's also possible that he just wanted to try me so as to see if I broke under the pressure. But I have a bit hard time trying to see his reaction as honest - it looked like he was up to something.

Garr there are a thousand possible options and I don't want to spend all my time left on this so I'll leave it here and see if something occurs to me later.

I'm unlikely to x with anyone since I've kept refreshing the thread every now and then because thinking is so boring.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

New Official Rule:

There must be at least one filibuster before the end of the game or I modfire you all and declare my own victory.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

New Official Rule:

There must be at least one filibuster before the end of the game or I modfire you all and declare my own victory.

Fea, you suck at life. And we LOVE you for it.


Guess this means we kind of HAVE to keep phantom around, eh?


I've been reading through, trying to gather some thoughts. No promises that I'll post substantially (right now, anyway) but I will get around to at least a suspicion list before I head off to my next class. (Well, I suppose a "lack of suspicion" list more than the other, as we're voting for reps right now. You know what I mean. A bit of both, really.)

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Of these Ilya's reaction seems the most suspicious to me.
And I'm somehow surprised why so many people just labeled us as fighting innocents because
1) Lommy didn't seem innocent to me at all, except maybe in her replies
2) I can understand also those who thought I had weak points against her.
If Lommy's innocent, wouldn't it have been better for the wolves to encourage our suspicions of each other? But if she's a wolf, could she have fooled everybody, even with a lot of pressure on her? Or were the wolves just not around to take advantage of two innocents tearing each other apart? Or what.

For me, Agan, I've been in these very arguements with Lommy, they have almost been identical and it turned out that it was two innocents going at each other. Lommy's style tends to make me want to declare her guilty but I've played with her enough to see that this is her innocent demeanor and she's a bit calmer when she is guilty. I think you were genuine too, weak but genuine. However, it was Day 1 so most arguements were fairly weak.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Lommy

Really, I don't like his way of hovering behind the scenes and taking part and seeming uninvolved at the same time.

I'm "hovering"? And I'm "behind the scenes"?

What do I have to do in order to be less behind the scenes? Make 100 posts and be a Rep?

No wait, I already did that.

Sorry, but I can't think of any way to make you feel better about a suspicion that I'm not sure I understand. If you want me to be more involved, maybe you should convince everyone in the entire village to make me their Rep. Would that be involved enough for you? I dunno.

[Aganzir]

The suggestion Lommy gave about Cab's death sounds plausible although I wouldn't rule out any other thing, either. And it's funny that my first reaction, too, was, "Ha! Nog's guilty!"
I don't see much sense in speculating who might have chosen him since it's possible to find a reason for just about everybody to have him as a kill.

Originally Posted by Boro

Anyway, long story short, my reaction was hasty, and I hope to continue to see you pursue your suspects aggressively, and to the point.

I don't like your suggestion that much. If I really suspect someone, I don't give up my suspicions, but I can suspect someone even if I don't pursue them aggressively. If you're a wolf this looks almost like mockery, "Keep suspecting innocents with such fury, mwa-ha-ha"!

Originally Posted by Lommy

No, it isn't outrageous, but I think there's a huge difference. I think a rep fails his/her responsibility if she doesn't vote, whil s/he only fails the wishes of those who voted for him/her if she votes against their wishes. A rep's duty is not to oblige his/her voters, but his/her duty IS to take the responsibility s/he's given.

Was phantom irresponsible and outrageous when he threw away his vote on Shasta? Are reps whose votes don't make a difference irresponsible? Why should a rep who votes no one be considered irresponsible if they are not?

Originally Posted by Lommy

Tsk, tsk, one step futher and it's putting words to people's mouths...

To be honest I don't think I was indicating you had said anything like it - I was rather taking the thought process one step further (also because I thought you could have thought so, too).

Originally Posted by Lommy

Although I don't really like Agan's smooth withdrawal from her suspicions against me at all

Why?

Originally Posted by Legate

Especially as her first suspecting Legate, then expressing surprise and maybe slight disapproval of the great (here we go again ) suddenly appeared suspicion against him and then voted him. That's what I'd call flip-flopping.

What I found weird was the seeming lack of reasoning behind people's suspicion; "Hey let's suspect him because others do it too!" Greenie said it was weird how Legate was lynched without any proper case against him and I think she's quite right. And I can admit I didn't have a real case, either.

edit: xed since Lommy

[Aganzir]

Somehow it seems these rep-selecting days are always quite busy for me. I'm going to see some friends in the evening so I have to vote in something like three hours. Will have more time tomorrow though.

Originally Posted by Boro

Agan, you made a case against Lommy. Have the spine to admit it. You listed Lommy as guilty and have gone after her, that's a case. Don't try to play it off like you really didn't mean anything by quoting Lommy repeatedly, post after post, and play it off like Lommy is being over-defensive.

I understood that Greenie was referring only to my list of players as a case, which it wasn't. I tend to divide players into categories while making lists, but that doesn't mean more than saying, "X is suspicious because of Y," on an alphabetical list, and I wouldn't consider it a case yet.
However, I have no problem admitting that my suspicions against Lommy were gradually turning into a case by the time I saw her response to my earlier accusations of her, to which I also replied in that very same post of mine as where I had the list.

Originally Posted by Boro

And now you're backing off, after a couple people say Lommy is looking genuinely frustrated (i.e. makes her look innocent)? Trying to seperate yourself from someone you wanted to get lynched?

I think I have made it clear since the beginning that as I always suspest Lommy, I don't know how much value I should put on my suspicions. Between my quarrel with her and the post which I believe you consider the "backing off" post, only Shasta said anything about her and me (=that we look like brawling innocents), and I wouldn't call it a couple people. Besides I would never ever back off of people I suspect without a good reason, as which a few people saying someone looks innocent doesn't count.
In my opinion Lommy's frustration looked more innocent than wolfish. Maybe I underestimate her but I believe she would have got rather jumpier if she's a wolf.

Originally Posted by Legate

When you want to talk to somebody, and he tells you he is in work uninterruptedly since 8 AM till 11 AM, are you going to invite him for a coffee at 10 AM, hoping that it will give you a chance to talk to him? Does it make sense? Really, I don't know what to think of what you say. You make no sense at all.

Well I don't think I said I don't have time, but that it's no use to expect I'd be around till deadline.

Originally Posted by Legate

Exaggeration! How can you build a case upon that? Really, this seems like really building up a case out of nothing. In Czech we say "sucking it out of your finger", I am not sure of any good equivalent. Simply, making it up out of nothing.

I was building my case on a bad feeling which some things just seemed to back up very well!

Originally Posted by Ilya

Agan backed off of Lommy in a way that parroted what a lot of other people said. Dunno what I think about that.

Could you point out to me how I parroted what other people had said about Lommy.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I'm mildly uneasy about Ilya, and I'd like to know what other people think about her.

The last sentence that was stuck in my head before I fell asleep last night was "Ilya's vote for Legate and her way of casting suspicion on me were fishy."

The things I want to do before I leave is
1) take a look at how people reacted to me & Lommy's little quarrel
2) take a look at Ilya
3) take a look at Nerwen
4) take a look at Ka.
Not sure if I have time for them all, though.

edit: xed with Brinn & phantom

[Thinlómien]

McCaber's dead?
I have an explanation no one has not offered yet and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the correct one.

I think he was killed because he didn't participate much. Some people tend to kill of non-contributing players on Night2 just to make the game more interesting and to be "fair". Also, some people avoid killing people they really enjoy playing with early on or feel bad about killing people who are obviously enjoying the game. (I'm not claiming it's unenjoyable to play with McCab but if he posts that little he doesn't give the sort of enjoyable vibe to anybody except those who despair at too long threads. )

Now, I will happily admit all the above goes for me. But as I'm not a wolf, I have to turn my glance elsewhere. Nogrod strikes me as a person who would suggest a kill like McC to his fellows. I could also see at least Agan, Nerwen, Boro and tp suggesting a kill like that, the ladies more than the gentlemen. And also someone else could come up with a kill like that - okay, almost anybody - so maybe this reasoning is not helping that much. But my gut reaction to Cabbie's death was "Ha! Nog's guilty!" I will try to resist that urge though. After Legate being lynched yesterDay, I wouldn't like to see Nog go toDay unless there's something concrete against him.

Originally Posted by Gwath

Based on his vote against me yesterDay, I am inclined to think that Nogrod is innocent. It seems unlikely to me that a werewolf, having been voted into power, would proceed to risk alienating half of his constituency by trying to have them executed.

I disagree. People's choices for reps will probably change every Day in about 90% of the cases, so there would be little harm in voting someone who voted you for rep, except that you may earn a personal enemy. And I don't think someone like Nog would care about that at all.

Oh, and given the chaotic nature of this game:

++No Filibuster

That should have been done yesterDay, if at all.

I have a bad feeling about the phantom.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, often enough nobody looks particularly Seerish (from the lupine point-of-view) on Day One...

I managed to misread "Seerish" as "Swedish" and get mightily confused for a second or two...

I will have a look at late yesterDay's posts now and reply to some stuff (I will try to resist the temptation to go on quarreling with Agan, but I feel there were some points I just have to reply to), and comment. Right now I only feel like saying two things about that I'm not going to give my vote away for testing purposes again. That lynch was incredibly silly (or wolvish, have to see and determine which one), because (at least from my point of view) Legate looked more innocent than most others and because I think the flood of votes was rather sudden and doesn't quite fit with the amount of actual suspicions targeted against him.


edit: eek - xed with Brinn's #492 and everything after that