Tol-in-Gaurhoth Threefold and Six: The Night Guard

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nienna

So I'm thinking that since the wolves only get 2 kills if there are four of them then if one is locked up they only get 1 kill. If however there are three wolves and they only get one kill anyway then one locked up would only be like there were two wolves and they would still get a kill.

Would wolves know their own capabilities best?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I'll say one thing for Legate: he puts quite a bit of effort into defending himself, and seems adept at thinking like a wolf.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Would wolves know their own capabilities best?

Are you saying this to everybody?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Are you saying this to everybody?

Not sure what you mean. Care to elaborate?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Not sure what you mean. Care to elaborate?

That you keep saying everybody they are good in thinking like a Wolf. "Are you saying this to everybody?" was my question.

[wilwarin538]

Ok, I was just a bit confused there. But my previous comment still (for the most part) makes some sense.

Yes Legate is making some wonderful points that do make quite a bit of sense....but still. I'm very weary of leaving him around because even though what he says makes sense, it just doesn't seem as probable to me.

Yes, wolves love causing chaos, yes they would love to be able to have some control, and yes they don't like having known innocents all over the place. But the only way they win is by dwindling our numbers down to match there's, and each Day they keep even one more of us alive is another Day they risk getting lynched. Only one of them needs to die for them to lose the double kill, I think they would take advantage of the opportunity as much as possible for as long as possible.

This all reminds of one game where someone thought we should lynch a person being modfired. Practically everyone was against the idea of losing that lynch oppurtunity (since that's the only way for us to kill wolves), just like I'm sure the wolves wouldn't want to give up a kill (since they need to get our numbers way down from 18 to atleast 4).

x'posted since Nerwen

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Oh, btw, just to add to my post with the examples above, the flaw I meant was this:

Originally Posted by wilwarin538

Yes, wolves love causing chaos, yes they would love to be able to have some control, and yes they don't like having known innocents all over the place. But the only way they win is by dwindling our numbers down to match there's, and each Day they keep even one more of us alive is another Day they risk getting lynched.

My point was that, of course, as long as us villagers keep lynching the Night Guarded innocents, then NO Wolf would get lynched (as you can see from my above examples). So your words about chaos and control are nice, but you have picked completely sideway comment from my post and made it sound as if it was the most important point of my postulate. Not at all. The point was that the Wolves, if facing the choice whether to have a double kill or leave the village in dark, especially as they expect that the village is yet "young" and will lynch their Guarded person, are better choosing to lose one kill, and having a free ride on the next Day. That's more or less it. (Of course the village can choose differently etc., but it's just all too better chance, and also probably an appealing choice, I would say.)

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Oh, btw, just to add to my post with the examples above, the flaw I meant was this:



My point was that, of course, as long as us villagers keep lynching the Night Guarded innocents, then NO Wolf would get lynched (as you can see from my above examples). So your words about chaos and control are nice, but you have picked completely sideway comment from my post and made it sound as if it was the most important point of my postulate. Not at all. The point was that the Wolves, if facing the choice whether to have a double kill or leave the village in dark, especially as they expect that the village is yet "young" and will lynch their Guarded person, are better choosing to lose one kill, and having a free ride on the next Day. That's more or less it. (Of course the village can choose differently etc., but it's just all too better chance, and also probably an appealing choice, I would say.)

1. You say "us innocents", which is generally a baddie tell, .

2. You're assuming that the village never guards a wolf, which is a bad assumption to make considering there are four of them.

Edit: X'd with Nerwen.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

My point was that, of course, as long as us villagers keep lynching the Night Guarded innocents, then NO Wolf would get lynched (as you can see from my above examples).

As I said, your examples assume that no wolf is ever Guarded.

EDIT:X'd with Shasta.

[Nerwen]

Look, I hate to leave you all so soon, but I have to go and tune my lute.

Lynch:

++Legate of Amon Lanc.
Yes, you put up a wonderful defence and all– but still, I think we need to see what you are.

Guard:

++Inziladun.

Because he jumped on my vote on Kit, and he's been creepy toDay. (I'm for Guarding suspicious people if there's no-one better, at least while there are still four wolves around.)

EDIT:X'd with Nienna.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

But your argument also nullifies it, doesn't it?

Okay, not sure in which way.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Only if the guarding (and subsequent lack of a kill) was the only reason for the lynching.

And speaking of my case then, was there any other? At least I got the feeling yesterDay that most people thought that I am likely innocent or okay if nothing else, after all that's where these guard votes originally came from. In fact, there is NO OTHER CASE against me than this Night incident. Or at least none that I am aware of.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

As I said, your examples assume that no wolf is ever Guarded.

I am aware of it and I said it already, but that's the point of examples, isn't it? I said that it won't work like that in reality in at least two posts, of which one case was when I replied to you saying the same already once, so I am not going to repeat it anymore. You should just understand the point, I am not saying that it works like that all the time. But it's just an explanation of what it means for the Wolves, that it's not a loss for them AT ALL to forgo a kill on a Night when an innocent is Guarded (emphasise for you). Which is just what happened to me, by the way. Like I already said.

Anyway. I am going probably to have a break for a while, as I have said what I could right now to the topic, and unless somebody asks something specifically new about it, I would leave it be. Everybody can read any of my posts, if he or she is more interested in the details or if it seems unclear to them.

My MAIN points are as follows.

1) The Village should heed this (the things I said) if I die. (That doesn't mean, though, switching to the other extreme and letting it just a free ride for everybody. But the Wolves are pressured, and will have to do something soon, unless you just confirm to their rules.)
2) I am innocent, and saying that it makes no sense for the WWs to forgo one kill in case that I am innocent is faulty, as if I am lynched, then they didn't lose anything by that. (3 dead innocents and no dead Wolf by any chance, from their point of view they know whether the Guarded one is innocent, so they can choose based on that)

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

And speaking of my case then, was there any other? At least I got the feeling yesterDay that most people thought that I am likely innocent or okay if nothing else, after all that's where these guard votes originally came from. In fact, there is NO OTHER CASE against me than this Night incident. Or at least none that I am aware of.

*shrugs* It's an experiment, Legate. And actually some voted to Guard you in part because you seemed somewhat suspicious, and they wanted to neutralise a possible fourth wolf.

Look– if you're innocent, your death should give us some leads, at least. I'll certainly be looking very hard at people who pushed for it. Besides, don't panic– there's a lot of talk, but you've only had one vote so far.

Farewell, gentle villagers! I'll return to serenade you all if time permits.

I suggest we start discussing other possible wolf candidates. There are four wolves, after all.

EDIT: X'd with Legate.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But the Wolves are pressured

Pressured? With four wolves and no Seer? I don't get it. (You'd almost think one of the wolves was on the block or something. )

Seriously, I suppose you are referring to the prospective accumulation of known innocents? Well, yes, they're a threat to the wolves, but they can't be defended by the Ranger forever. And whenever the Guard has to join in the defence of a known innocent, why, then the wolves can't frame anyone by missing a kill.

[Nienna]

Legate I believe you will be our case study. If we lynch you (as I believe we should) and you turn out innocent then we know we cannot trust the guarding results. We would then obviously not keep lynching those people who we have guarded and resort back to lynching those with suspicious voting, actions, etc.

Zil is the only reason you suspect me because I suspect you? This seems a bit flawed.

X-ed with two Nerwens and a Shasta

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Nienna

Legate I believe you will be our case study. If we lynch you (as I believe we should) and you turn out innocent then we know we cannot trust the guarding results. We would then obviously not keep lynching those people who we have guarded and resort back to lynching those with suspicious voting, actions, etc.

Exactly– it's not like we're irrevocably committing ourselves to doing this for the rest of the game, which seems to be Legate's assumption. (He said it wasn't at one point, but actually his whole argument does seem to rest on it.)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nienna

Legate I believe you will be our case study. If we lynch you (as I believe we should) and you turn out innocent then we know we cannot trust the guarding results. We would then obviously not keep lynching those people who we have guarded and resort back to lynching those with suspicious voting, actions, etc.

Well yea, I see that. Though, could you not decide that just THEORETICALLY? Because you would realise, even if you think of it just theoretically (not practically) that you CANNOT trust the guarding results. Heck, we already said as much even yesterDay. The only thing this lynch proves is whether you were right or wrong in MY case, nothing more and nothing less. Next time it happens, you would have to do it again. And in such case, until you guard a Wolf, nothing will change. And see my above examples.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nienna

Zil is the only reason you suspect me because I suspect you? This seems a bit flawed.

Did I say I suspected you? I was just noting that you and Legate appear to have a quite good understanding of the Code of the Wolves.

And thanks for the guard, Nerwen. It would help me sleep, lacking a tuneful lullaby from you.

[Nienna]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Did I say I suspected you? I was just noting that you and Legate appear to have a quite good understanding of the Code of the Wolves.

And thanks for the guard, Nerwen. It would help me sleep, lacking a tuneful lullaby from you.

I'm sorry maybe I just read more into your post than you were intending. It just seemed as if you were accusing me of wolvery.

[Brinniel]

Looking at the Kitanna bandwagon:

Nerwen is the first to vote for her "jittery reaction to Mnemo's plan." She admits it's weak reasoning, though I think it's probably better reasoning than many others give for Day One votes.

Boro is the second voting her because her reactions were suspicious and the reasons she voted for me. I actually didn't find Kit's vote for me all too suspicious. The reasoning was weak, yes, but it seems like a typical Day One vote and I also was under the impression that maybe she was short on time. Anyway, Boro's vote doesn't stand out to me. Reasoned enough and a bit early to be called a bandwagon vote.

Inziladun is the third voter, voting Kit for her reasons behind voting me. This here looks to be a bandwagon vote and a bit suspicious to me.

Vote number four comes from Pitchwife five minutes before deadline. Doesn't state a reason in his vote post, but in his post before he talks about her behaviour being suspicious, but is still uncertain whether that is wolfish behaviour from her. If he was clueless about whether her behaviour pointed to wolvery, then why vote her? I suppose he could've preferred to see her lynched over the other options, maybe. Slightly suspicious.

wilwa is the fifth voter. Says she does it to save herself, which is understandable. Doesn't exactly point to either wolvery or innocence.

Lommy gives the sixth vote saying she doesn't see why wilwa is so suspicious. Could it be a wolf trying to save her mate? Possibly, though it's not like her vote for Kit came from nowhere since she said she'd been getting bad vibes from her all day.

The last Kit vote comes from Sally. Doesn't give a reason, though earlier she agreed with Boro that Kit "seemed off." Probably the weakest reasoning of the Kit voters. She spent the last hour and plus providing a tally but contributed little otherwise. Now why is that? Seems rather suspicious to me.

So out of the Kitanna voters, in order from most to least suspicious:

Sally
Inziladun
Pitchwife
Lommy
wilwa
Nerwen
Boromir