TIG LXIX: Meeting at the House of Usher

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Another guilty post. The only question here is whether Greenie is the Bear, doing some preliminary gloating, or one of the other baddies trying to fix our attention on the Bear instead of the wolves.

Drat. Got caught already. But actually, I think we shouldn't concentrate solely on the Bear, and yet we shouldn't forget him either. When looking for wolves one plays with connections between people, and looking for those connections I guess I at least will forget completely about the Bear.

I'd want to have some suspicions but I don't yet.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

But actually, I think we shouldn't concentrate solely on the Bear, and yet we shouldn't forget him either. When looking for wolves one plays with connections between people, and looking for those connections I guess I at least will forget completely about the Bear.

Mostly, killing the first wolf is not a matter of tracing connections, either– and there's only one Bear. We'll just lynch anyone who looks evil, as usual. Including the cobbler. In fact, after last game, make that especially the cobbler.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

I mean we have to kill three(or is it four?)wolves to eliminate their nightly kill

Good point. I assume that the friendly Wolf counts in the Wolves’ numbers for the purposes of determining victory, just as the Cobbler counts for the Innocents. But, he is, of course, playing for us, so it would be somewhat ungracious to kill him, if we can possibly avoid it.

Originally Posted by A Little Green

But actually, I think we shouldn't concentrate solely on the Bear, and yet we shouldn't forget him either.

Quite so. Killing the Bear early would be good from the point of view of limiting Nightly kills, but the Bear will be much more difficult to spot. So, we should not lose sight of either enemy.

I wonder whether it might be worth pondering the dynamic between the Wolves and the Bear further. From the point of view of both, double kills at Night is good because, the more innocents that die, the better their chance of victory. On the other hand, while the Bear is alive, there is always a reasonable chance that he may kill a Wolf at Night. Accordingly, while I presume that the Wolves don’t need to kill the Bear to win (although it is not entirely clear), they will no doubt want to get him out of the way at some point. In a funny kind of a way, therefore, the Innocents and the Wolves have a mutual interest in finding and killing the Bear. The same goes for the Innocents and the Bear, I suppose, since the Bear needs to stay alive to win and is as vulnerable as anyone, I think, to Wolf attacks. What do people think? Is there any way that we might use these dynamics to our advantage?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Inzil

You seem a bit quick to label her 'guilty'.

I rather got the impression that Nerwen was being flippant. In which case, your readiness to seize upon this as suspicious is, in itself, somewhat suspicious.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Good point. I assume that the friendly Wolf counts in the Wolves’ numbers for the purposes of determining victory, just as the Cobbler counts for the Innocents. But, he is, of course, playing for us, so it would be somewhat ungracious to kill him, if we can possibly avoid it.

Have I missed something? Since when is there a 'friendy' wolf?

Originally Posted by Mirandir

"Upon entering this house," he continued, "All but seven of you were infused with a spirit. Five of you have been infected by evil. You will attempt to kill your fellows when the Night falls, but only four work together. One of the others wants you to win and will help you trick the others during the Day.

'Five infected by evil', but only four working together. I read that as four wolves, and a bear. And then one working for the evil side during the Day, the cobbler. If I'm misinformed in this regard, I'd like to know.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I rather got the impression that Nerwen was being flippant. In which case, your readiness to seize upon this as suspicious is, in itself, somewhat suspicious.

I considered that, but the lack of a smilie left room for some doubt.

x/d with Nerwen, SPM, and Morsul

[Morsul the Dark]

Actually do the math....(I should have realized this earlier...)

17 people

Only 7 ordos

2 lovers
1 Ranger
1 Seer
1 Hunter
(5 good)

1 cobbler
1 Bear...
that leaves
3 Wolves Not Four!

The sentence is written incorrectly It SOUNDS like four wolves it means 3 wolves and a bear(the four) then the cobbler....

There is no good wolf....

Crossed with nerwen

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

The sentence is written incorrectly It SOUNDS like four wolves it means 3 wolves and a bear(the four) then the cobbler....

There is no good wolf....

Crossed with nerwen

Ah... I guess everyone assumed– I know I did– that it was only the card-carrying villains– the shapeshifter roles– who had been "infected by evil".

Well, then, there may not be a good wolf after all, but then there's only three wolves!

[Inziladun]

All right. let's look at the full text about who is 'infused with a spirit' here.

Originally Posted by Mirandir

"Upon entering this house," he continued, "All but seven of you were infused with a spirit. Five of you have been infected by evil. You will attempt to kill your fellows when the Night falls, but only four work together. One of the others wants you to win and will help you trick the others during the Day. One of you will be able to protect someone from their fate, but for only two Nights. One is sworn to take down their choice in game if - or rather when - they are killed themselves. Yet one more will be able to have the role of another sent to them in a dream. The final two are paired together, and their survival depends on each other.

There are 17 of us in all. Only seven do not have a spirit of some sort, whether good or evil.

Ordos- 07
Ranger- 01
Hunter- 01
Seer- 01
Lover Pair- 02

That's 12 for the good side.

Which leaves 5 evil ones, wolves, bear and cobbler.

Since the bear and cobbler do not work with the wolves, I don't see how 'four' could be in collusion. Perhaps we could get some enlightenment on this?

x/d with SPM and Roa

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Have I missed something? Since when is there a 'friendy' wolf?

Originally Posted by Mirandir

1. "Upon entering this house," he continued, "All but seven of you were infused with a spirit. Five of you have been infected by evil. You will attempt to kill your fellows when the Night falls, but only four work together. One of the others wants you to win and will help you trick the others during the Day.

'Five infected by evil', but only four working together. I read that as four wolves, and a bear. And then one working for the evil side during the Day, the cobbler. If I'm misinformed in this regard, I'd like to know.

Ah, you think the "you" in that sentence refers to the wolves? I think you may be right. Drat.

EDIT:X'd with Morsul.

[The Saucepan Man]

Erk, my bad. I assumed that "you" in the passage quoted by Nerwen referred to the Innocents and that there was therefore one Wolf working for the Village. However, reading it again, I fear that I was wrong and that Inzil is correct.

Originally Posted by Morsul

3 Wolves Not Four!

Alas, no ...

Originally Posted by Brinniel, in the narrative

So we have four wolves, a werebear, a Hunter, a Ranger, a Seer, a cobbler, two Lovers, and seven ordos

I think the maths is wrong. But only to the extent that there are 6 ordos as, according to the narrative, there are definately four Wolves. And a Werebear. And a Cobbler ...

Great.

Still, on the bright side, it improves our odds of lynching a baddie.

[Mirandir]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I think the maths is wrong. But only to the extent that there are 6 ordos as, according to the narrative, there are definately four Wolves. And a Werebear. And a Cobbler ...

Erm so this one time Mira can't count. There are six ordos. Epic fail on my part. And just to clarify, there are four wolves and a bear and a cobbler. No friendly wolf. Sorry for the confusion.

[Roa_Aoife]

First things first: being a native of the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area, and my home team being the Ravens, I demand that my death involve ravens if/when I die. (Little known fact, the Ravens are so named in honor of Edgar Allen Poe, who is still well loved in the area. There's even a restaraunt named Annabel Lee's.)

Originally Posted by SPM

(three out of four Wolves, on the basis that one of them is on our side, ...).

Sorry, where did you get that from? Did I misunderstand the rules? Where does it say we have a Friendly wolf?

My impressions thus far:

It's nice to see that people aren't being shy with their accusations. At least we'll have plenty to discuss.

SPM, are you suggesting "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?" Keep in mind that the wolves and the bear could ultimately try to work together and turn on the village as a whole. I odn't know if we can count on that dynamic playing out.

Nerwen has been throwing suspicion left and right, and seems very ready to jump on SPM's comment towards Inzil.

We seem to have a lot of confusion regarding the number of wolves. I thought there were only three this game, plus one bear and one cobbler to equal all the baddies. Are there really 4 wolves? If so, is one of them a lover? I thought the lovers were both innocent. A modgod intervention would be appreciated.

SPM's idea about this friendly wolf, if flawed, looks a great deal like someone trying to spread confusion, and perhaps open a doorway for "Don't lynch me, I'm the friendly wolf!"

So right now, my two main suspects are Nerwen and SPM.

Edit: crossed with Nerwen and SPM

[Roa_Aoife]

Alright, I can accept that SPM was confused by the posting. (I could have sworn we were only having 3 wolves...)

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by SPM

What do people think? Is there any way that we might use these dynamics to our advantage?

Excellent point about the relations between wolves and bear. Hmm. The answer to your question is, of course, that we should use them to our own advantage. Wait... that didn't answer the question, did it? Ah well. At least we know that accusing and possibly helping in the lynch of a baddie doesn't make a player seem innocent (not that it normally does, either, but...) But that is certainly a question that deserves to be given some thought.

I feel oddly like doing a list but there's no point I suppose since a majority hasn't posted yet and I don't have much to say about the ones who have.


EDIT: x-ed with SPM and Morsul

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Morsul

why Completely? You just said Don't forget him.

Well my point was exactly that. I fear I'll forget about him while hunting for the connections between wolves, and wanted to caution others of doing exactly that. We shouldn't forget about the Bear; I just fear I accidentally might, at some point. Sorry if I was unclear.

By the way, I love it when people are around the same time as I. Dunno why.


EDIT: x-ed with SPM and Roa

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Good point. I assume that the friendly Wolf counts in the Wolves’ numbers for the purposes of determining victory, just as the Cobbler counts for the Innocents. But, he is, of course, playing for us, so it would be somewhat ungracious to kill him, if we can possibly avoid it.

I don't see how we can possibly avoid it, except by losing. It is to be hoped, however, that we won't end up killing the Friendly Wolf before he has managed to leave trails to his packmates, or helped in other ways.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I wonder whether it might be worth pondering the dynamic between the Wolves and the Bear further. From the point of view of both, double kills at Night is good because, the more innocents that die, the better their chance of victory. On the other hand, while the Bear is alive, there is always a reasonable chance that he may kill a Wolf at Night. Accordingly, while I presume that the Wolves don’t need to kill the Bear to win (although it is not entirely clear), they will no doubt want to get him out of the way at some point. In a funny kind of a way, therefore, the Innocents and the Wolves have a mutual interest in finding and killing the Bear. The same goes for the Innocents and the Bear, I suppose, since the Bear needs to stay alive to win and is as vulnerable as anyone, I think, to Wolf attacks. What do people think? Is there any way that we might use these dynamics to our advantage?

*shrugs* They may end up working to our advantage– whether we can deliberately aid that is another matter.

EDIT:X'd since SPM at #20.

[Morsul the Dark]

Good point. I assume that the friendly Wolf counts in the Wolves’ numbers for the purposes of determining victory, just as the Cobbler counts for the Innocents. But, he is, of course, playing for us, so it would be somewhat ungracious to kill him, if we can possibly avoid it.

Of course if the "bad" wolves figure out who the "Good" wolf is then it's just a matter of turning him in and if done properly we could lose "our" wolf easily enough. I doubt when he dies he'll be listed as "Good wolf" just "wolf" there'd be no way to tell if we got the right one.

Mostly, killing the first wolf is not a matter of tracing connections, either– and there's only one Bear. We'll just lynch anyone who looks evil, as usual. Including the cobbler. In fact, after last game, make that especially the cobbler.

HAHA Good point made my morning

aw man time to get read for work bleh just when things were heating up

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I rather got the impression that Nerwen was being flippant. In which case, your readiness to seize upon this as suspicious is, in itself, somewhat suspicious.

Also, perhaps the fact that at the same time Inzil seems to be sort of leaving himself the option of suspecting Greenie too:

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Could be either, but I can't necessarily read anything into that post of hers. You seem a bit quick to label her 'guilty'.

However, he may have thought I was being more serious than I was. I should have thought my "Another guilty post" comment was pretty obviously over-the-top, though.

EDIT:X'd since my last post.

[Morsul the Dark]

Hm... Now see the first post from Greenie seemed more just obvious hey this is who we're looking for type of deal but....

think we shouldn't concentrate solely on the Bear, and yet we shouldn't forget him either.

I guess I at least will forget completely about the Bear.

why Completely? You just said Don't forget him. Seems less of a let's look somewhere else type of deal to me more of a magician's slight of hand.

Also:

Drat. Got caught already.

Again same as Sally hiding in plain sight buys time...
Though since Sally started with that more than likely joking around but keeping watch
Greenie on the other hand seems to use this as a defense...

Inzil-

especially since they'd have no hesitation about doing away with a wolf, which could give the appearance of innocence.

Agreed but I think the bear doesn't know who the wolves are so throwing hem under the bus would be more coincidence than anything else...

Isn’t there a theory that the first poster is more often a Wolf than not? The question is whether Boro’s first post counts as a first post, given that he didn't actually say anything. If so, then he is clearly a Wolf. If not, then the finger of suspicion points at Lari. Mind you, if one of the first three posters is evil, then a sneaky Wolf would post third. Which means that sally is a Wolf.

Hm... Boro's post may mean nothing It seems the first few posts were 1 am posts which in my book make them nonsensical too late to think posts...
Boro's was uneventful. Lari's post was also rather silly... Sally is a bit more on topic and a bit disturbing.

Boro- although passed out no signs of foulness... yet
Brinn-
Fea -
Greenie- most suspicious at this time.... though still to early to tell
Hakon-
Inzil- Didn't say much... then again only one post
Lari-Pineapples um not suspicious was it olives THEN there'd by something
Loslote-
McCaber-
Morsul- his fate shall be decided b the village
Nerwen- Either throwing out suspicion to coveror to start up the game.. latter I think
Nog-
Pitchwife-
Roa-
sally- may be an agent or just fooling around... too early to tell
Saucepan Man- Hmm... Names from a hat odds are against rewolfing But not impossible
wilwa-


and while one wolf may be on our side don't we need to eliminate All wolves to win? so Actually there's just slightly more than 1/3 chance of getting a baddie.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Morsul

and while one wolf may be on our side don't we need to eliminate All wolves to win? so Actually there's just slightly more than 1/3 chance of getting a baddie.

In theory, yes. But if the friendly Wolf is the last remaining Wolf, I hardly think that he is going to suddenly turn on the remaining innocents ...

[Roa_Aoife]

I'm here- I'm going to catch up and then start commenting.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

It is to be hoped, however, that we won't end up killing the Friendly Wolf before he has managed to leave trails to his packmates, or helped in other ways.

Fair point, and one worth bearing in mind.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Once, as I was soundly sleeping,
dreaming dreams of women weeping,
having thoughts of things I'd never thought to think before,
I heard a rapping, barely tapping, tapping on my chamber door.

T'was my mother meant to wake me
and then after show'ring take me
to the county seat where business waited
full of paperwork galore.

And now finally I am here
with a cup of coffee near
and I'm catching up my reading, laying on my bedroom floor.

And I must say, somewhat regretting
that I've noticed that already
Morsul's logic is as faulty as it's been in games before.
I'll show you this, then rhyme some more:

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Saucepan Man- Hmm... Names from a hat odds are against rewolfing But not impossible

As I read, I type quite fast
processing the words I've passed.
And these ones said by Morsul cause my jaw to hit the floor:
You are wrong, and that's for sure.

If the moddess chose the role
from the same hat the past mod stole
the choices from in games the players all had played in times before,
then the odds would be, as you said-

My rhyming's dead;
I'll write this part in prose, I suppose.

Saucie's odds of being a wolf in the last game have zilch to do with his odds of being a wolf in this game. Based on the numbers of this game, his odds are 3/17. I think. Or 4/17. So somewhere hovering around a 1 in 5 chance. Just like everybody else. Random means random.

Speaking of: how many wolves are there? Somebody mentioned a fourth 'good' wolf that wants the innocents to win. But I couldn't find that anywhere in the admin information.

Up my hands fly, all confusion,
like my brain holds a contusion
since a Friendly Wolf is news
I hadn't seen or heard before.
Where was this wolf real wolves deplore?

Originally Posted by Zil

Have I missed something? Since when is there a 'friendy' wolf?

Thank you, Zil, for echoing the thoughts I've said before.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, then, there may not be a good wolf after all, but then there's only three wolves!

It makes sense much more
But my brow is raised, and I must assure
you that your misread of narration
caused some mental devastation
as I thought you'd all read something not revealed to me before.

Originally Posted by Mira

Erm so this one time Mira can't count. There are six ordos. Epic fail on my part. And just to clarify, there are four wolves and a bear and a cobbler. No friendly wolf. Sorry for the confusion.

Mira Moddess, darling goddess, in the future, fear my wrath
if when you hit submit reply, you forget to check your math.

Now as for rhyming? It is toast
for on conclusion of my post,
since poetry makes me insecure,
I shall quoth the raven, nevermore.