Game Thread: WW LXXXVI - The Halls of Mandos

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Glirdan

I'm particularaly interested in phantom's vote actually. He voted last and for Manwe who was already set to die.

That's easy. I wanted to kill Lommy, but at that point it was impossible, so I had to vote for someone else. I wanted to rule out a multi-lynch, so I just boosted the lead of Manwe who was already guaranteed to die. Why put Legate or Nog under threat with my vote when I suspected neither of them? The death of one person you haven't particularly suspected is much better than the double-lynching of two people you don't suspect.

Originally Posted by Legate

I don't have anything against his self-centered behavior, that is something we all should be used to by now, but I don't like his subtle defense of Nogrod.

I didn't realize it was "subtle". It was meant to be bash-over-the-head obvious. Shasta and Nog were the two I felt the best about by the end of yesterday. Seeing one of them die during the night was bad enough, and I'm sure as heck not going to allow the other to be taken down at the same time. If the Wolves intended it to be the case then it means that they are counting on us not thinking things through clearly (I've already explained why the set-up doesn't make sense logically).

Basically I'm taking the kill somewhat personally. Why Shasta? He didn't look more like Glorfy or a Lover than anyone else (which is the most logical reason to kill him), so why him? And if not for that reason, the only other reason was to encourage a Nog lynch- a frame-up attempt so juvenile that I feel rather as if my intelligence is being insulted.

Anyway, off to class now. Talk to everyone later.

[wilwarin538]

Ok, my favourite post from Day 1:

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I'm completely lost on this entire voting for people to be good to control the dead thread. Umm, am I mistaken in believing we win by lynching wolves in the living thread? I'm sorry I'm just not understanding this logic of filling the dead thread with people we actually think are innocent...? Why are we even planning this?

1) We win by killing wolves in this life, not by filling the dead place with innocents. Am I foolish in thinking those two things contradict?

2) Simple numbers work out that innocents will control the dead thread. It serves the wolves little good to get lynched, or they lose. Maybe one wolf would start going to work if lynched, but that's not something we should concern ourselves with. And even if Cobblers seek to get themselves killed to work beyond the grave, they don't know who the wolves are.

3) What's so special about the dead thread it MUST UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES be in the control of the innocents or we're doomed? Someone from the living thread gets 2 votes...that's all yes? It's not like the dead are choosing an unstoppable force each day in the living thread, one person gets one extra vote.

So, let's end this silly "we should think about keeping the control of the dead thread in the hands of the innocents" when the real problem should be, handling the business of this thread...lynch wolves.

Because while reading the posts from yesterDay, this is precisely what I would have said had I been around. Just so everyone has an idea of what my contribution would have been. I also think I would perhaps have voted for Legate, because as I was reading I was getting bad vibes, and vibes are usually the basis of my Day 1 votes (that doesn't mean I necessarily suspect him, I just know that my Day 1 votes are usually lame and based on flimsy reasoning, and he is probably who I would have gone for).

Alrighty. So not much can be taken from Manwe's lynch, because we have no idea what he is. We can still suspect/trust people based on their votes (all votes, not just those for Manwe), but not in the usual way. Usually we can say "X voted for Y, who we now know is innocent, so...", but now it's more based on why they voted for people, so if they gave good reasoning, or if it seemed random, and so on. It's an interesting situation, cause now someone can look bad to us because of how they voted, but for all we know they actually voted a wolf (which would make them look awesome), but we don't have that knowledge. It's all just so crazy.

Shasta's death is interesting. I think it makes Glirdy look not like a wolf, because of that whole "Shasta's acting the way he did last time he was a seer". I greatly dislike this comment, and would be suspecting Glirdy fervently right now, if it wasn't for the fact that Shasta is now dead. It would be a super awful idea for a Glirdywolf to kill a person who he openly suspected to be a Seer. However, I think he could be a Cobbler, who was trying to hint to the wolves. Or Shasta's death is totally unrelated to Glirdy's comment, and more related to the fact that people seemed to like him a lot (though this doesn't exclude the possibility of Glirdy being a Cobbler, he could still have meant to hint at the Wolves but the Wolves just killed Shasta for a totally different reason).

And I need to go order some pizza. I should be back in a bit, perhaps with a list. Then I need to go to work, but will be on for about the last 3 hours of the Day.

[Nogrod]

Just finished reading. A few comments now, more later in the evening.

I do agree with Legate that Mänwe was probably an innocent. Basically because there was no last minute rescue-operation going on. In this kind of a game the wolves would save their mate on D1 with no problems.

Which brings to me to the next issue: we should actually look more carefully to any saving-attempts in this game. Now people save others form lynching also because they think that one is less suspicious (or downright trustworthy - or anything in between), but especially if we find out a pattern it might be significant.


About Shasta then. I don't see why Fea thinks he looked seerish. To me he looked first bantering only, then calculatively evil - and then he overreacted his agitation in a grand scale. Back then he felt like a caught-up wolf to me. Later (today) I started thinking he could have been one of the lovers or the ranger... That might explain his suddenly strong reaction (and seeing Shasta dead points to the wolves thinking along the same lines to me).

But the problem is, even that doesn't make sense. Had there been a general "let's lynch Shasta" -wagon developing with every other player saying how he is suspicious (like there clearly was a let's lynch Nog -wagon back then), it would have been a bit more understandable. But there wasn't any Shasta wagon.

And I do doubt that somone with Shasta's experience would just go crazy about that kind of one suspicion on him (mine, that is), especially if he was a gifted as that woud be like calling the wolves to meet him during the Night - just to take the most promising choice.



Boro: I'm a bit at loss as to what is your question to me. I have two guesses though.

Firstly, being an optimist or a pessimist isn't a wolf-trait or an inocence-trait - and being optimist or pessimist wasn't the point of my first post. Saying we have "a bloody mess" was just my general feeling of the situation (I don't know how that sounds in your ears, but in my ears as a non-native speaker it sounds more like a bit funny way of expressing the exceptionally challenging nature of our situation). So I'm failing to see what is suspicious in it - and find someone trying tob make that look suspicious himself (there's the fb-impression of you: unlike you on me, I had a good reason to suspect you).

"Giving instructions" to the gifteds then... If I find important facets of the game-mechanics which the gifteds & the goodies should be aware of and see no one has brought them up, I think it is my duty to bring them up. Of course I can't tell the seer (or anyone) what to do, but I can ask them to consider. Especially in this case as the suggestion (which I still think is a valuable one) calls for the seer to consider self-sacrifice at some phase of the game - and not on the very last Days - which surely sounds counterintuitive and odd for a normal WW-game. But this is not a normal game.

Add here talking about what the wolves will or may do and why. Like I said already yesterDay, bringing that kind of stuff out in the open sometimes nullifies the possible try-out of that plot (because now we know it), makes it easier for other innocents to spot it (had they not thoguht of it) if wolves decide to go that way, or you can try to divert them into thinking about a ploy which in the last instance is not in their objective interest but actually serves us etc. etc. There are many reasons incents should to do those.


I have to leave now for a while but wil be back with some other issues.


EDIT: x'd with Wilwa

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by the phantom

the only other reason was to encourage a Nog lynch- a frame-up attempt so juvenile that I feel rather as if my intelligence is being insulted.

In last game, we let Nessa Wolfrunya live even though two or three kills pointed at her, thinking the wolves were just trying to frame her.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I do agree with Legate that Mänwe was probably an innocent. Basically because there was no last minute rescue-operation going on. In this kind of a game the wolves would save their mate on D1 with no problems.

No. Nog I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Are we really so different, or are you intentionally trying to mislead us?
There were quite few people around at deadline and it's possible none of them was a wolf (although wolves tend to like to stay online till the end if possible), but even if they all were wolves, Mänwe might still have been a cobbler. You're making things sound far simpler than they are.

and then he overreacted his agitation in a grand scale.

I think you were actually being quite rude to him.

I want to hear more from Nog... I'm still feeling bad about him.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Nog

I do agree with Legate that Mänwe was probably an innocent. Basically because there was no last minute rescue-operation going on.

I don't know about that. Wilwa and Sally were both gone completely it seems (though we didn't know it at the time), and the Manwe votes came fairly late in the order, so really the only people who could've launched a rescue were Mith and I, and honestly even that was out once Nerwen's vote was in. A rescue attempt was extremely likely to end in nothing except a double-lynch. So I'd say all that proves is that Mith, Manwe, and I aren't all packmates, as we would've been sure to send down an innocent with our pal.

And just to see if I'm on your page, Nog, would you agree with me when I say you've been purposefully manipulative this game, in particular attempting to plant a certain idea into the minds of the village that isn't quite truthful but could very well yield a positive result? Because at this time much of my trust of you is based upon what I thought you were trying to do Day 1. Of course it may be foolishness to expect you to deny it given what it gains you, but I do at least hope for honesty.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Ang

Mith and phantom, you're locked in what looks to me like a "tone of voice" hang up. phantom, you didn't pick up she was actually annoyed and so you had to poke the lair of Draugluin a bit more. You used quite strong words yourself, said you were annoyed at having to stay up and look out for Mith's unpredictability, and you weren't that annoyed, really, were you?

Yes, I was annoyed. Not angry at all, nothing strong- just annoyed. It wasn't that I was being held from bed in RL, but in fact I was trying to start on another pressing project and I was getting tired of waiting, and I was also annoyed that there wasn't anyone else around (I was greatly fearing Wilwa running in last minute and casting an unpredictable vote), and annoyed that I didn't know what the one person that was around was going to do. Basically I felt like it was all on me to prevent an impending catastrophe when I really should've been working on something else. (But you're right in your assumption that I wasn't meaning to "poke the sleeping dragon", but just stating my opinion.)

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Ang

I really wish I was dead. I mean, I have a hangover, but I'm talking in werewolf terms. It is so frustrating looking at that gleaming untouched thread and knowing it has some answers in it.

Gah, don't say that! It just makes me paranoid. Seriously, I have this gnawing fear that we'll be debating something one day and everyone is sharing opinions that seem oddly formed and I'll just know that I'm the only person who isn't reading the Dead Thread!

[the phantom]

As far as the "pessimism vs optimism" thing, I frankly didn't see a great deal of the former from Nog at all, but rather he lays things out as they exist with possibilities of success and failure. Boro on the other hand I dislike because his positivity seems like sand-bagging, you know? Making it look as if the deck is stacked against his side in order to make himself feel better no matter what the outcome. Or perhaps he legitimately believes it and is in a round about way complaining. I know from experience that as a baddie it's easy to spot all the ways in which things could go horrifically wrong and it does make one feel rather optimistic on behalf of the village.

[Anguirel]

You're very tempted, phantom, aren't you! I won't break omerta myself, any more than I would, I don't know, steal Rikae's password and read her PMs. This is a comeback game, a real treat for me, and I want it to work however it's meant to work. I really don't think it's worth worrying about people breaking the rules. There are two main schools of thought about this game - Werewolf as competitive sport and Werewolf as psychological art. Both of those kinds of enjoyment would be hampered by peeking, so neither kind of player will do it. And after all, I've never known anyone cheat in Werewolf.

Speculation on the Dead Thread's outward appearance though is of course legit, and have you all noticed that Rikae is - contrary to my guess that she was a coavalta - pretty active in Mandos? What do you reckon is going on there? Just rules queries? Nerwen is on the money when she says there's a surprising amount of conversation going on there considering the population. I feel they must have received some kind of new information, or twist.

Talking of which, Fea, re those hypothetical ten werewolves - I was really referring to Diamond, who added a secret Wereduck if I remember rightly. As we both know, you tend to exaggerate rather than depreciate your minions' enemies' numbers! Your game was great, but I will always regret not persuading your own village to lynch you, 'Dark Lady'.

Legate - not having played with Manwe before, I was unaware that he was a particularly frequent scapegoat; while I regret having played a major role in lynching an unoriginal target, I must say he clearly picked the right game...perhaps he'd booked his bed in Mandos early.

I agree that Glirdan's comparison involving seers was unwise, but it seems to me not necessarily malicious. I must say that I'm known Glirdan as a Cobbler so often that I have illogical and unmathematical resistance to imagining him in that role yet again. I lean towards incautious innocent.

Aw phantom, be nice, give Mith a break and some virtual roses. But Boromir, the logical (well, the extreme) conclusion of your uneasy feeling about these veteran duellists is that they're both wolves. And if they were I could see them planning an acrimonious squabble, certainly. This theory is so amusing and attractive that I am having some trouble resisting it...

I wonder if it would be useful to make a summary of who, roughly, suspects and suspected who(m)?

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

No. Nog I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Are we really so different, or are you intentionally trying to mislead us?
There were quite few people around at deadline and it's possible none of them was a wolf (although wolves tend to like to stay online till the end if possible), but even if they all were wolves, Mänwe might still have been a cobbler. You're making things sound far simpler than they are.

It is perfectly possible no wolf was there at the DL, but as you said there were quite many people (and what you say about wolves' general willingness to make it for the DL) so it seems very probable there were wolves around.

As I very well know my innocence and now feel like Mänwe was an innocent as well, it would mean the top two contenders for lynching in the end of yesterDay were innocents and the wolves were in no panic to make any strong moves. There is a chance that some of the last votes were made to make a double-lynch possible, and a slight chance there could have been a faint attempt to help Mänwe (I think the latter a bit far-fetched, but possible, surely, otherwise I'd say I have strong and explicit reasons to firmly allege that Mänwe was/is innocent ).

Mänwe is a cobbler? Surely. Perfectly possible. If he thought both me and Shasta were innocents that "fueling the flames" -comment that probably got him lynched would look like a cobblery one.

I said innocent, not ordo, or ordinary innocent. Meaning he's not a wolf (whom the others tried to save). I'm a bit puzzled of the way you try to make me look suspicious... Are you trying to make me suspect you? Well, no deal done.

Originally Posted by Agan

I think you were actually being quite rude to him.

I do think it is a perfectly valid and normal way of playing werewolf that you speculate on the motives behind what someone says looking how a wolf-X would have thought and which would have been her/his motives - or how what X said could be said by a wolf-X.

I said he picked me from me and tp because it was the easier pick as I would not be there to defend myself. A perfectly valid point I think as I could see no real difference in the input of what I and the phantom had been talking. And of course we had been the voice of reason there, so him suspecting us from being seriously helpful and making sense felt really wolvish to me. (I must say I was actually quite puzzled as to how tp seemed to think about the same things and in generally the same way - but more of the phantom later as I have now changed my mind on him a bit).

Let's look at your own post Aganzir: you say

are you intentionally trying to mislead us?

I don't know if it's a generational, linguistical or whateverical difference that is involved, but to me what I quoted from your post means openly entertaining a possibility that I am intentionally trying to mislead people and thus have bad intentions - which is exactly what my post on Shasta did: it openly entertained a possibility that he made certain convenient choices for a wolf.

I can't see you being able to deny that what you wanted to express by that quoted part was asking others to think that I am intentionlly trying to mislead - and thus think that I'm having bad intentions aka. being a baddie of some sort.

The fact that you used a questionmark doesn't change the substance or the willed effect of the intended message.

Still, I'm not calling you rude or get crazy.

[Thinlómien]

Okay I'm here. I'm currently on a summer cottage with a bunch of friends and we are playing an RPG most of the time. Unfortunately, I happen to be the game master so I don't have much time when I'm not needed, so my time is very limited. I'm going to comment on stuff from yesterDay and toDay, then say if there's something more, then vote and go. I know that's pretty awful for contribution, but I'll be around more on Day3, whichever thread I'll be posting on.

First off, still a few words - I was quite surprised to come here and find Mänwë dead. I know my vote was a bit of a throwaway and I hadn't had much time or evidence to make a better choice. So, it definitely made me raise my eyebrows to find out so many people followed my vote. I have hard time thinking everybody else (including those who voted some six hours later than me) were just as clueless as me and that it's normal they would join such a random bandwagon. Mänwë was suspicious enough to merit one vote, but definitely not a bandwagon. I know this sounds a bit hypocritical coming from me, but I for one would not have given Mänwë a second or third vote on those grounds.

Shasta then. I would need to check his posts to see if he seemed seerish or glorfy or lovery. It's interesting to think about the first option: I think recently people have been ignoring clear aiming-at-the-seer kills and missed valuable information. Nog could be a wolf - I think wolves can be just as ruthless in this game as they want because no one quite knows what to expect of them. On the other hand, it could very well be he was taken for some other reason, or that the wolves are trying to frame Nog. (Which leads to the question: who would want to do this? Is there anyone special? Or would the wolves just generally enjoy the attantion ona loudmouth innocent?) I also think one rather believable explanation for Shasta's death is that he was continuing the eternal lovey-dovey jokes with Nerwen. Now, the lovers might want to be careful this time, but could Shasta and Nerwen resist the temptation, or even consider it a threat given they flirt all the time anyway? And in any case wolves who do not know them too well could have attacked them for that anyway. (This would point at ... Ed? Ang? Mith...?)

Anyway, while you think about that, I'm off to make the huge-y post.


edit: xed with Aggs who is either on the right track or falling victim to a grand wolvish scheme... knowing her it could be either

[Thinlómien]

Okay I'm splitting this novel to make it more readable...

Originally Posted by Agan

Actually I disagree. If they manage to kill both Glorfindel and a lover before the seer, there's no one to bring back a word from Mandos.

Yes, but it still doesn't change the fact that the seer can reveal while still living, as usual. Now, there will undoubtedly be a counter-reveal given the amount of cobblers in this game (unless they all happen to die before the seer decides to come out, which is possible), but the seer reveal is still a threat to the wolves because although we cannot know if we are doing the right thing or not, we have a 50% chance of lynching a wolf if we lynch somebody whom a seer has named as a wolf. That's why I think the wolves want to kill the seer asap. Also, aiming for Glorfy or lovers is kind of gambling for them: they don't know if they succeeded or not, and they still don't have the seer and there's two of them (1. lovers and 2. glorfy). If they aim for the message birds, with bad luck they leave at least half of them alive and boom! when they finally hit the seer on Night5 or something like that and there's still say glorfy remaining, he can return with info about much more living people than if he returned with the info of a seer who died on Night2 or 3. I wouldn't also be surprised if wolves tried avoiding killing lovers and glorfy for the whole game and thus rendering them rather useless by leaving them for devoruing in the end-game.

Originally Posted by Agan

It's not the best role for people with an ego... but it's possible.

Tell me about it. *remembers a certain video about self as cobbler*

Originally Posted by Legate

Anyway, I think there is actually something rather awkward about Lommy, her comments don't seem like that of her usual self. She had once called me "a hog on laughing gas" (when I was innocent), so I think it's not unfair if I call her in return "running like a headless chicken", because that's exactly what it seems like.

Thanks darling.

Originally Posted by Greenie

To tell you the truth, Lommy is creeping me out at the moment. Wanting to kill phantom and Lottie strikes me as awfully easy - also partly because I'm quite fine with both of them right now. Also, her idea of a Bobbler is pretty far-fetched, but I don't know if it's meant as fully serious or not. And regardless of the very last sentence, the paragraph about being paranoid with all the cobblers looks - well - cobblerish to me.

1. Tp and Lottie might not seem extra suspicious but they kind of annoy(ed) me. 2. I know it was far-fetched, but worth pointing out. I wouldn't discredit the idea of cobblers trying to pass on information to the wolves via hints. 3. I feel so much like saying: in all seriousness, I'm not a cobbler, but I think that wouldn't help my case.

Originally Posted by Greenie

Wait.. The perspective of that last sentence is strange, considering that the topic I believe was innocents uniting in Mandos.

Good catch!

Originally Posted by Greenie

Usually I never suspect her and she's never evil.

Okay now that was too much! You always suspect me, at least on Day1. Are you intentionally trying to mislead people about this??

Originally Posted by phanty

Okay, so, I believe I've heard multiple people talk about baddies messing things up in Dead-Thread. Is it a good idea then to avoid lynching suspected Cobblers? Because really Cobblers are the only Baddies that can do damage over time in Dead-Thread, because identities of Wolves can be checked by the dead. If we do our best to keep Cobblers alive, Goodies will own Dead-Land with total authority.

If the Wolves want to screw things up in Dead-Land, make them flush a kill on a Cobbler.

The obvious drawback is if we adopt this plan and all three Cobblers act Cobblerish and stay alive and, IF we fail to lynch Wolves early on, the Baddies can clinch victory a couple days before they normally could. But really that would assume that every little thing went wrong, yes?

So.... long live the Cobblers?

I think you're kind of overestimating the power of cobblers. In a way you're right, we should not make cobblers our prime target. Still, we shouldn't ignore them either. The worst havoc they can do on the dead thread is a false reveal or giving a wolf one extra vote. And false reveals can be just as bad here. So I wouldn't worry too much.

Originally Posted by Fea

Leijonien kanssa.

Trying to buddy her up, eh?

I don't get why tp is so obsessed about the dead thread. Pardon me for bringing the cobblers up again, but that strikes me as something a phabbler would do: smoothly and subtly try to concentrate the discussion on something rather irrelevant, but not too relevant to raise too many eyebrows.


edit: xed with everyone

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Fea

Night time WolFea: Hey other wolves, if you Night kill me, the village won't find out I'm not actually the Seer, because they won't be told my role!

You're not serious, are you? Last time I checked, wolves weren't allowed to go kamikaze.

Originally Posted by Ang

I notice by the by that some people seem to think Thinlomien is more than usualy, almost suspiciously, incompetent - I don't agree with this at all; this is a totally novel sort of challenge and I feel utterly incompetent myself. It's very hard to judge on 'past form' in this one... (and that's one of my favourite techniques)

That's a very sweet way of coming to my defense, gallant sir feanorian. But honestly though, I was quite confused yesterDay, but I have the feeling I'm getting a grip of this toDay. Still quite sure I haven't considered several important facets of the game, but given that I'm going to live eternally in one way or another, I sure have time to figure it all out.

Agan's vote came quite out of nowhere.

Originally Posted by Nog

What's more, I'm speaking for the good of the village in mind - and everyone reading back what I've said and thinking about it sees it is true. But if Shasta is a wolf, he knows I'm speaking against their interest. And if tp is an innocent too (a view I'm slightly leaning over right now even if I can't be totally positive about it), then any trust forming between the innocents would be bad for the wolves. So those people should be done away with asap.

Although this is typical nogrodish brewing conspiracy theories at 3am, it still sounds fishy to me. *deep sigh*

Originally Posted by Glirdan

Actually, this statement alone seem pretty cobblerish to me. Noggins raised a very valuable point on the Wolves (a very obvious one however, which makes me raise my eyebrow in his general direction). My question is why is this Cobblerish at all? The only thing that is remotely suspicious is the fact that he is stating the obvious, and that isn't that suspicious, people do it all the time.....well, to be a little more accurate, I do it all the time.

I think saying the wolves would not aim for the seer is good groundwork for discrediting all possible evidence from Night kills, ergo suspicious and cobblerish.

Originally Posted by Glirdy

And her reasoning for her vote for Manwe could just as easily be applied to about five other players, myself included. It seems like it's a throw away vote. But if that's the case, why not just say it's a throw away vote??

A badly grounded vote is not the same as a throwaway. And obviosuly it was not throwaway, in retrospect, it determined the whole voting outcome of the Day. Now we just hope Mänwë was a wolf but I wouldn't bet too much on that.

Originally Posted by Boro

I actually feel quite good about Lommy, even with that completely erratic cobbler hinting thing that I supposedly did...? I think Lommy's just trying to recover from smashing up her bororadar from the last few games that she is forcing herself into seeing everything I do as some twisted evil plot, as a form of revenge. Even if I think she had a nice working bororadar. It just needed updating, like a 2.0 version, or Bororadar Premium Edition.

Awww, thanks. Trying to imply you're a cobbler, though?


edit: xed with Ang and Green

[A Little Green]

Some scattered comments.

What's more, I'm speaking for the good of the village in mind - and everyone reading back what I've said and thinking about it sees it is true. But if Shasta is a wolf, he knows I'm speaking against their interest. And if tp is an innocent too (a view I'm slightly leaning over right now even if I can't be totally positive about it), then any trust forming between the innocents would be bad for the wolves. So those people should be done away with asap.

This is making me raise my eyebrows a bit, especially the first sentence. I'm not sure about Nog otherwise, I wonder if a Nogwolf would be so aggressive.

Originally Posted by Boro

I find myself having trouble concentrating anything after being referred to as Bobbler. Nice one Greenie.

I'm here to serve.

Originally Posted by Agan

At the moment I'm inclined to say one of Lommy and Greenie is a baddie. Lommy was looking cobblerish, but it was actually only after Greenie pointed it out that peoples started suspecting her. The problem with Greenie is, she's being too nice to me. She questioned me a bit but dropped it quickly and said she's okay with me. Usually when we're both innocent this bickering continues for a few days after which we basically trust each other. But now she seems different - you know, accusing me just for the sake of doing it and stopping it before I retaliate.

I can assure you I'm just as surprised as you are. You've misread me at some point though because I don't think I accused you yesterDay at all. (But if it consoles you, I'm starting to get paranoid about you because I think you're being too nice as well - as in, you haven't annoyed me once! )

Originally Posted by Boro

Edit: correcting typo of "killer beers" to "killer bees"

If I could rep you for a typo, I would.

Originally Posted by Wilwa, about Glirdan

However, I think he could be a Cobbler, who was trying to hint to the wolves.

I was thinking the same. What Agan said - it would be odd from an innocent to say someone behaves the same way they did when they were the Seer - but a wolf would have to be very careless or very bold to do that.

Originally Posted by Agan

Not interested in getting rid of Mänwe so much as saving a potential cobbler or two.

You seem awfully sure none of the other lynch candidates was a wolf.

Originally Posted by Fea

I agree on the first two. Not so much on the last. Shasta is the only one (or one of the only; too lazy to check my stats) that showed a pronounced attack on anybody. And that person was Nog. So my general idea is either Nog is a wolf and the team thought maybe Shasticle was the Seer, since he was actually showing some initiative and some specific ire... or (and this is the one I lean toward), the wolf team noticed that Shasta was showing pronounced opinions, and that if they killed him, the village would think they killed him because they thought he was the seer.

I might be totally off with this - too lazy to go back and check - but I got the impression that Shasta was after phantom quite as much as Nog. That would make the scenario of a Shasta-Seer who dreamed Nog quite improbable.

Originally Posted by Agan

She went consistently after Lommy since her first post. I find the vote somewhat fishy though. Granted, I see what she means about Lommy but she seems to explain her vote in more length than necessary - no one expects day 1 votes to be fully reasoned.

Which means they shouldn't be? I could have simply said "see my previous posts for reasons" but since I hate it when others do that I resolved not to do it myself.

Originally Posted by Nog

And I do doubt that somone with Shasta's experience would just go crazy about that kind of one suspicion on him (mine, that is), especially if he was a gifted as that woud be like calling the wolves to meet him during the Night - just to take the most promising choice.

The way I saw it, Shasta's strong reaction to your vote for him wasn't so much going crazy because he was suspected, but being insulted by your phrasing.

Originally Posted by Lommy

Mänwë was suspicious enough to merit one vote, but definitely not a bandwagon.

Generally, voting for someone means you want them killed. If you think someone merits one vote, they just as well merit a bandwagon of them. I don't know if I'm making any sense at all.


EDIT: x-ed with Nog, a big Lommy and a host of phantoms

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

I might be totally off with this - too lazy to go back and check - but I got the impression that Shasta was after phantom quite as much as Nog. That would make the scenario of a Shasta-Seer who dreamed Nog quite improbable.

I should clarify. I don't think Shasta was the Seer. But I do think our wolf pack is just lazy enough to swipe his behavior as an easy way to get the village to target Nog. Whether or not Nog is evil is irrelevant. The point is more that if we spend all of our time asking if Shasta was the seer or not, we won't be looking for other seer hints, we won't be searching for wolves, and we'll blow an entire Day talking about something that all boils down to the wolves taking the easy way out on choosing a kill.

Originally Posted by Ang

As we both know, you tend to exaggerate rather than depreciate your minions' enemies' numbers! Your game was great, but I will always regret not persuading your own village to lynch you, 'Dark Lady'.

Indeed. There were only two. I just didn't tell you they died immediately and let y'all keep going.

And I was just going to casually include some lines from one (any, really) of the Dark Lady sonnets, but they're all about love and I don't want to leave false trails. Just know, village, that I'm feeling nostalgic about that game.

Originally Posted by Lommy

You're not serious, are you? Last time I checked, wolves weren't allowed to go kamikaze.

I'm dead serious. I just don't actually know if anybody has ever tried it. The only game where it would be at all beneficial is one like this, where roles aren't revealed.

Originally Posted by Ang

I talk about the Dead Thread because I'm interested in it. Aren't you?

Absolutely. It's all brand shiny new and I'm too honorable to look at it. Which means it's driving me crazy. Nilp me, let me learn! (Not really. I'm just curious.)

Originally Posted by Phanty Pants

I'm unsure of what "distracting" you think I'm doing, penguin-breath. Is there only one thing we're allowed to talk about and anything else is a "distraction"? Frankly, when it comes to providing thoughts and feelings towards others I think I've done as much as anyone.

Someone sounds defensive...

Originally Posted by Lommy

More like, camp one says Day1 is important both then and especially in retrospect, while camp two says Day1 sucks excpet maybe in retrospect.

Yup.

Originally Posted by Lommy

Eh? I think in this game all the Days are more or less like regular Day1s so I can't see what's the big difference.

Even without knowing the roles of the people we lynch, we can still ascertain the patterns of voting that led to lynches. For instance, phantom voting to avoid a double lynch even though it meant he didn't vote for his stated suspects makes phantom look good, because he could have just let multiple people die, but did not do so. The role of who died is irrelevant, the point is that phantom prevented a group lynch. That makes him look good.

Mithalwen, on the other hand, for attempting to provoke a multi-lynch, looks pretty bad.

Who voted for Manwe and what were their reasons? It doesn't matter that we don't know who he is, because we still have a traceable set of actions that led up to his departure and relocation.

Shasta. We don't know his role, but we know that he's probably not a wolf (because, let's face it, I doubt the wolves would try suicide if I wasn't one of them, offering it up). Therefore, we can look at reasons why not-wolf-Shasta would be targeted at Night. We can look at the people he interacted with. Or we can shrug it off and call it a random kill job.

The point is that we are still capable of identifying pieces of information and analyzing them. We just don't have all of the information handed to us.

Originally Posted by Agan

I wanted to see reactions to Shasta's death before revealing (especially Nog's), and I rather didn't wait till tomorrow just on the offhand chance the wolves decided to target me. I'm not much wiser, except I am not feeling in any way better about Nog.

So if I'm remembering right, we'll be getting Shasta back for a little while?

Originally Posted by Lommy

Somehow makes me less suspicious of Nog though. Looks more like he was framed now (although the wolves don't really know anymore than us others). Hmm, wait, not sure if my own logic makes sense.

Makes no difference.

Originally Posted by Ang

Final, frivolous consideration - interest in the Dead Thread is a character thing. Fea's got it too. We're the kind of people who would have been preeetty untrustworthy around the Ring

Nah. It's not mine, so I won't take it no matter how much I want it. I'm good at just shutting off that part of my mind. Since we can't do anything about anybody else's behavior, there's no sense in dwelling on whether or not people naughtily know more than we do. We should just play assuming they don't.