WW XCVI - The Fell Winter of 2911

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Sally

Because lynching an innocent today is doom. It would only take one innocent to vote wrong tomorrow and we would've lost it.

Ye-es– but that's not what Nog was talking about, as is pretty clear from the subsequent posting.

[Nerwen]

Oh, and I just want this noted, before I say anything else: my connection was playing up like crazy the last few hours, and stopped me from saying all I'd have liked. Or I would have commented more on the folly, in this game, of lynching someone to remove a source of distraction/controversy– cf. my treasure's "we pretty much have to know what she is". I cannot say it's necessarily a sign of guilt, though, since G55 herself made the same argument. Still, I can't say I like it.

Now, what to make of Nogrod's reaction at the start of toDay? He must have honestly not registered Glirdan's role– a quite understandable mistake, given that a.) it wasn't mentioned in the narration, b.) there'd been no reason to suspect him and c.) punitive modfires of special roles are almost unheard-of.

From then on, I'm not sure. A wolf might have thought he saw the chance for a quick victory, provided he, his buddies and the cobbler could get it together, but been unwilling to come right out in case something went amiss. Or an innocent might well have just panicked.

[Nerwen]

Other headache-inducers:

Agan at #198 makes an excellent analysis of The Sinister Sally, bringisg out some points I don't think anyone else had. Then she winds up with a quite invalid suspicion, based on out-of-context quoting.

Kath at #196 (I'm working backwards here) has some interesting theories about why Lommy might have been killed, and some good comments on living players– but again, this includes a completely out-of-context reference of Agan's "accusation" of me, which was actually clearly a joke. (Drawing a longbow, I suppose it might have been preparation for a false reveal– but if that's why Kath mentions, she doesn't say so.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

I don't really know what to make of Nog's attitude at the start of the day, what with missing Glirdan's role and all. Given how doom and gloom he was, he looks like an innocent who's just given up - but then there's the whole "what if he was just doing that on purpose to make me think that?" argument. I don't think I really want to draw any conclusions from that, specifically.

Originally Posted by Legate

Okay, so Glirdan, in fact, did not say anything almost at all, basically only one of his posts being somewhat relevant, and that mentioning G55 in totally ambiguous way and also Nog in slightly defensive way, but that's it. Basically a non-appearing Cobbler.

Pretty much this. I feel bad for Kitanna. I do, however, remember him going a bit after G55 yesterday rather early, which might make it more likely that someone he thought was a wolf was on that bandwagon early. That might be the first place I look once I've caught up with today.

Originally Posted by Legate

Summa summarum - the people she suspected are the ones I find rather suspicious too, so I wouldn't be too surprised about that the motive for her death might have been, apart from what I suggested above, simply that she was suspecting a Wolf, or even several Wolves. However that kind of reasoning has not been very common among Wolves lately, I think (or at least when I was last playing), and also, she certainly wasn't the only one who suspected those people. Again, if the reason was the opposite and the WWs wanted to frame somebody up, this is rather an extensive list, so not sure if that would work (if she suspected heavily just one person, fine, I could understand that). I have not been able to find anything that would point to her looking like a Ranger in her posts, which is a motive I would have expected from the WWs the most. Maybe the WWs just feared her being a sharp player and wanted to get rid of her, then. I would bet something between that, a Wolf on the list and/or the "no track in the voting list" idea I mentioned earlier. I wouldn't put that past Agan, for instance, to get rid of Lommy in such a manner (since she just briefly dropped suspecting her at that point, so there won't be immediate connection between them), of course we still have the full amount of Wolves, the whole pack needed a decisive motivation.

I've read and re-read this, and the only thing it seems to me you're actually saying here is that the Lommy kill probably wasn't done to frame anyone, which is fairly obvious, isn't it? She wasn't being suspected really at all (I mentioned a few things yesterday, but if I recall correctly I'm the only one that did.)

Originally Posted by Nog

How nicely you manage to get under the skin of a possible wolf-train of thought!

G55 did the same. Look how that turned out.

Originally Posted by Menel

After Day 1, much of the focus of conversations was on G55, who warned us that we should really look around at other people. A wolf in this case was probably trying to make sure that didn't happen. So we should be looking for someone who, during Day 2, kept trying to redirect suspicion onto G55.

I saw you mention later that Nog fits this description, but I seem to recall Sally doing a bit of the same. I'll go back and look here in a little while.

Originally Posted by Agan

I'd also like everyone to remember that if two innocents vote for a different innocent, the wolves are free to do as they please with the lynch.

It's actually one, provided the wolves pile on their votes first. That's rather more scary, I think.

Originally Posted by Kath

Voted sally but looks like she's getting sure about Nog and Agan being evil.

Re: Lommy. If that's so, though, why follow Agan's vote?

Originally Posted by Agan

What exactly is this for? We don't find the cobbler until he's dead. We can't do anything about the cobbler. It's the first sentence that caught my attention. It basically says, "We want to find the cobbler!" while the second sentence works to cover the question's real nature. I think it's extremely creepy.

A lot of what you're saying makes sense to me, Agan, but this quote looks to me like Sally's is asking for thoughts about lynching the cobbler - which, indeed, is something we could have done about them.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Oh, and I just want this noted, before I say anything else: my connection was playing up like crazy the last few hours, and stopped me from saying all I'd have liked. Or I would have commented more on the folly, in this game, of lynching someone to remove a source of distraction/controversy– cf. my treasure's "we pretty much have to know what she is". I cannot say it's necessarily a sign of guilt, though, since G55 herself made the same argument. Still, I can't say I like it.

True enough, my pearl, but (at least in my case) the G55 vote wasn't exclusively to get rid of a source of distraction. There were legitimate reasons to suspect G55 yesterday, and knowing her role shed light on several people (most notably Nog and Sally for their day 1 votes.)

[Nerwen]

Well, well, it seems to be The Nerwen Show, Starring Nerwen at present, doesn't it?

Look, I'll tell you what's making me somewhat uneasy abut Nog right now– it's not, of course, that he made a mistake, nor is it that that he opened the Day by rushing in to ask about the tiebreaker rule. It's that he feels the need to offer, twice, a fairly elaborate explanation of *why* he did so:

#175. (In response to Sally at #173.)

Originally Posted by Nog

Oops... I'm so used to bad news I had totally ignored that Glirdy was the cobbler (from a neutral POV: oh what a role wasted there...).

Well, that changes things.

Hah, I was already entertaining the idea of "revealing" myself as the cobbler and trying to lure the wolves or/and the cobbler into the open - but the tie-votes -ruling kind of destroyed the idea. Good I didn't do that. It would have looked pretty odd to reveal oneself as a dead-person's role.

#183 (Extract from mid-length post in response to Legate at #181.)

Originally Posted by Nogrod

How about the cobbler saying: "Hi wolves, tell me what to do". That was my immediate plan of impersonating the cobbler after I saw we were reduced to 8 players. But then I saw the rule considering ties - and then I was told the cobbler was no more...

But yes, that is redundant now.

What I mean is, that's going to lot of trouble merely to justify having asked this:

#170.

Originally Posted by Nog

What was the final ruling about two people tied in votes? Double-lynch, no-lynch, first to gain votes, last to gain...?

It is quite important.

Also, the sequence of reactions he gives at #175 seems rather off, doesn't it? You all see what I'm talking about, right? (To be fair, though– an innocent Nog would know he'd come under fair heavy suspicion toDay, and as we saw yesterDay, nervous innocents can tie themselves in some serious knots.)

Note: as this goes to press, I see my one and only has posted, but i haven't read it yet.

EDIT:word left out.