TIG LXIX: Meeting at the House of Usher

[Morsul the Dark]

Only popping in for a moment before I go to do my show... might have to vote now Even though I have nearly zero suspicions after reading everything.

Ok For people who think the fact that saucey was a wolf last time has nothing to do with this time because both were random picks... While technically true there is the statistics...

1/16 last time 1/17 this time so therefore chance of wolf Both times becomes 1/272

Obviously Just because of that math we shouldn't leave him alone.... Green seems absorbed by the bear but still not really enough for me to vote...

Ok so the only one who really has a strong case would be SPM... the friendly wolf thing... but we were all confused.... but by the math not the wording...

SPM- you said we should always lyncha known cobbler rather than an unknown so Whether you're a cobbler or Wolf ....

SPM++

[Morsul the Dark]

Actually I thought there was a "Good wolf" until doing the math (the reason for 3/4? was would the "good" wolf be considered in the wolves count... but after I did the math(which we now know was flawed) I now know the answer...

[The Saucepan Man]

Actually I thought there was a "Good wolf" until doing the math (the reason for 3/4? was would the "good" wolf be considered in the wolves count... but after I did the math(which we now know was flawed) I now know the answer...

And yet you vote for me for thinking the same.

Congratulations. You have just appeared between my crosshairs.

[Morsul the Dark]

And yet you vote for me for thinking the same.

Congratulations. You have just appeared between my crosshairs.

Actually I'm saying we were confused by the math(due to the seven vs. six ordo error)

But you threw in this "Good Wolf" idea and created more confusion, so yes you are my top suspect. I fell for Your ruse or "confusion" but I think until you said the good wolf thing we all knew what was actually meant You placed that seed of doubt..

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Actually I thought there was a "Good wolf" until doing the math (the reason for 3/4? was would the "good" wolf be considered in the wolves count... but after I did the math(which we now know was flawed) I now know the answer...

Fair enough, I was also going to say, about you this is my first game with you...and I believe your second? I didn't read the last game, so I have no idea about your style, but wanted to get a response from you first before sharing that.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Roa

SPM, flimsy is saying that I made up being confused about the number of wolves.

Circumstantial, maybe. But relevant nevertheless and, I think, a reasonable basis for an early Day 1 suspicion when combined with the other points that I raised. You did seem rather keen to claim that you had thought there only to be three Wolves.

Originally Posted by Roa

You see the flaw in your reasoning? Just because someone else jumps onto what I'm saying doesn't mean that was my intention.

Eh? My suspicions, such as they are, are not based on anything that anyone else has said. They are based purely on what you have said. You appear to be trying to misrepresent the nature of my case against you here.

Originally Posted by Roa

I found Nerwen more suspicious than you until you become over-defensive about the whole thing.

Well, given that my misunderstanding about the 'friendly Wolf' appears to have given rise to no small amount of suspicion and now one vote, I hardly think that I am being overly-defensive. I am merely trying to point out the ludicrous nature of the basis for such suspicion. Still, if you were trying to sow the seeds of doubt against me back there, it seems to have paid off.

[The Saucepan Man]

I am going to have to vote soon.

I agree that Hakon's reasoning is wrong-headed and is unhelpful to the Village. But it is hardly a basis to vote for him, at this stage at least.

Much as Roa's stubborn obtuseness and unwillingness to see the problems with her own reasoning is frustrating, I am not going to vote for her toDay, tempting though it is to do so. The 'clash of Innocents' that Pitch referred to is something that I am definately wary of.

I have a vague feeling of unease about Pitch. He just seems to be sitting on the sidelines appearing reasonable but stirring the pot every now and then. Nothing strong enough to merit a vote for him at this stage, but one to watch I think.

Some suspicion of Nogrod, based on his early aggression, but again not enough to vote for him toDay.

My main concern now is Morsul. Not just because he voted for me, but because he has picked up on this the (frankly ludcrous, as I have pointed out) argument that others, most notably Roa, have made and used it to justify his vote.

Of the others, I have not really formed much of a view so far.

[wilwarin538]

Hey, sorry guys there's a bunch of stuff going on with me right now, that kinda came out of nowhere, so I'm not gonna really be around again toDay. There's a strong chance I may have to drop out of this game, but I hope I don't have to. I'll keep you guys updated. Sorry.

Not gonna bother voting, cause it would be crazy random and I don't want to do that since I haven't really read what's been going on.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Roa

You are using the fact that other people suspect you as evidence for me intentionally sowing seeds of doubt.

Oh good grief. I probably shouldn't be rising to it, as it is no doubt most entertaining for the Wolves. I am not doing this at all, Roa. I am pointing out that, if you did try to sow seeds of doubt, it worked. I shouldn't have to repeat this but perhaps you will listen this time round. My suspicions of you derive solely from what you have done, not from what anyone else has done. Are we clear on that now?

As you will have seen form my last post, I am not holding you responsible for Morsul's vote. I regard him entirely responsible for that. And I do think that there might be something Wolfish in it.

Originally Posted by Roa

And there is nothing reasonable about declaring that I was trying to fool everyone by my confusion when you insist that you could not possibly have been doing just that.

Er, trying to claim that you thought that there were only three Wolves would be a clever ruse. Trying to pretend that there was a 'friendly Wolf' would be a stupid one. That's why I think yours a possibility while I regard the accusation against me as frankly insulting.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Roa

... it seems like everyone just assuming the bear will help us kill wolves instead of helping the wolves kill us seems like a dangerous mentality to get into.

I am not sure that anyone is assuming that. I most certainly am not. I agree that we cannot rely on the Bear do do anything vis-a-vis the Wolves. Ditto the Wolves vis-a-vis the Bear. However, I see no harm in pointing out, for the Bear's benefit, that it is in his interests to go after the Wolves.

I am not sure that I like the look of Pitch's vote. It rather came out of nowhere. Flimsy reasoning has been much discussed toDay (hardly suprising, given that it is Day 1), but his case against Boro looks to be the flimsiest of the flim to me.

[Morsul the Dark]

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Only popping in for a moment before I go to do my show... might have to vote now Even though I have nearly zero suspicions after reading everything.

Ok so the only one who really has a strong case would be SPM... the friendly wolf thing... but we were all confused.... but by the math not the wording...

SPM- you said we should always lyncha known cobbler rather than an unknown so Whether you're a cobbler or Wolf ....t]

Meaning I felt e was trying to confuse us... Note te first sentence I had nearly zero suspicion meaning I voted for SPM based on the fact he was the most suspicious of not suspicious people if I didn't have to vote I would've abstained because no one(At the point of that post) jumped out at me.

Does tat clear up my reasoning for anyone?