Tol-in-Gaurhoth LII: Star Crossed II: Together for Eternity

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Gollum

I am slightly wary (but not suspicious) of Rikae (her reasons for mistrusting Mac didn't have much by way of a foundation), Aganzir (too excited), Lommy (she always bears watching, but I have little say beyond that).

You have to understand the way I am, mein Herr
A tiger is a tiger, not a lamb, mein Herr

Gollum, do elaborate to me how I am too excited.
Someone said on day 1 that I seemed jumpy and then you just came and repeated it. When I asked for reasons, you listed everything I had done by then; speaks much, accuses people &c...
And now, no real suspects, but you're slightly wary of people for poor reasons. Although I find Rikae suspicious myself, I think her reasons for mistrusting Mac were good enough. Besides just a moment earlier you had said you didn't understand why she was voted.
I myself can't see me as too excited. You, of course, have never played with me and don't know how I am, and therefore you should have no way of knowing if I'm excited or not. Was that the best you could come up with? Even if the person you were referring to as too excited was my top suspect, it wouldn't add anything to my suspicions of her. Sorry if I sound aggressive but that's the most stupid reason I have ever been suspected with.
Also you're wary of Lommy because she always bears watching?
It looks like you were just trying to go with the flow and pick up people you thought could be suspected later on. With weak grounds.

Originally Posted by Rikae

Agan's threat to go along, without an actual vote, looks perhaps worse. (It seems she's trying to keep things moving in that direction while avoiding any commitment herself).

It was not a threat, I was thinking aloud. I thought I said I'd prefer voting Mac but I could vote for you, too, since you already had votes so there would even be a chance I could contribute to the lynching of one of my main suspects although I had to vote so early. I changed my mind several times while time passed, but for the life in me I just can't see what's so suspicious in telling who I could possibly vote.

Originally Posted by Rikae

And, Agan, what "points"?

Hmm, I see that in the process of writing my thoughts down, they were reduced only to the following. In my opinion they were still a valid enough reason for suspicion, though.

However, Rikae's certainty that Mac has a role because she hasn't is strange. The point that Di wouldn't make them both ordos is just bad. There's a certain likelihood that two good players get a special role, but there are many others than Mac and Rikae as well - and who knows if the roles were selected randomly? In any case, it definitely isn't a point I would use against somebody, and to me it seems Rikae should know better, too. I don't find it that surprising that Lommy thought her accusations of Mac were a joke.

Originally Posted by Shasta

This kind of screams baddie to me, to be honest. :/

Then get earplugs.

Originally Posted by Rikae

About the point #2 - half serious. It is something that I thought about (not because of our strength as players, but because mods seems to love setting us against each other), but I didn't expect anyone else to take it seriously - except possibly Mac himself: I was interested in his reaction.

I am definitely not the best person to complain about half serious suspicions. Still, it would be so easy for a wolf to throw around random suspicion, get a great many different reactions from people and then say she was just testing the ice. "I didn't except anyone else to take it seriously" is in itself a veiled accusation against people who actually did.

Originally Posted by sally

A couple votes that bother me.

Gwath-->Fea. His reason is listed "because I disagree with her about Mac". Seriously? You don't agree with her so she's a wolf? Seems like fuzzy (aka furry) logic to me.

Rikae-->Agan. Just because it's spreading out the votes even more, and especially this close to the deadline. Trying to complicate things even more right before Sunset is just not cool, my dear.

It somewhat bothers me that those votes bother you. Of course I don't like being voted, especially if I'm not around to defend myself (not that Rikae or Shasta had any accusations against which I should have defended myself at that point, though), but (and I might be in the minority in this one, also) I think everybody should vote the person they suspect the most, no matter if it's close to the deadline or spreads out the votes. From Gwath I want to see more before judging him.

As for the kills, there's one thing I found worth noticing - they both were killed the same way (stabbed through the heart). I don't know if there's a team or if both/all pairs just decided to kill their victims like that, and I'm not going to speculate on it today, either. I just felt the need to point it out.

I wouldn't find it surprising if Legate was killed because of being suspected to be a lover. However, since we don't know how the killers work, I think we should be traditional and concentrate more on what the dead said than what they were possibly thought to be.

By the way, I always suspect Mac and Rikae. Always.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

*yawns*
...need coffee...

I wanted to stick my head in and say the following about In Game:

"While we don't know anything for certain, last night was highly beneficial in that some things are at least partially revealed to us which weren't before. For the number-of-Lover-pairs question, I'm willing to assume two pairs due simply to the low odds of multiple baddies picking the same kill on a Night One out of an almost full village."

and
more importantly, Out of Game:

"My Wednesdays have turned into a joke so you're unlikely to see me for the next twelve hours since I barely have time to eat much less play online. Do yourselves a favor and don't kill me while I'm gone."

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

*yawns*
...need coffee...

I wanted to stick my head in and say the following about In Game:

"While we don't know anything for certain, last night was highly beneficial in that some things are at least partially revealed to us which weren't before. For the number-of-Lover-pairs question, I'm willing to assume two pairs due simply to the low odds of multiple baddies picking the same kill on a Night One out of an almost full village."

and
more importantly, Out of Game:

"My Wednesdays have turned into a joke so you're unlikely to see me for the next twelve hours since I barely have time to eat much less play online. Do yourselves a favor and don't kill me while I'm gone."

*seconds the yawning* You know, I love college, I really do. It's just the classes and assignments that I hate.



From Agan's last post, because it caught my eye. (How sad is it that I just scanned through for now and caught bits where people were talking to me. Heh I'll go back and look at everything again later.) I'm glad you don't mind getting voted, dearie -I'll remember it closer to deadline - but it just struck me as odd not that the votes came that close to deadline, but that they introduced new candidates so close to deadline. Mostly it's the fact that it could have easily turned into a last-minute bandwagon and I hate those (for the most part). I'm sorry, I should have made that a bit more clear.


Anyway, final touches on paper. Not a morning person, me. Blah.


P.S. Oh, the theory that maybe Legate was killed because someone thought he was a lover? Very possible. The gifted theory's plausible too. I would think, though, that lovers (if there are more than one team) would want to get rid of their competition first (because then they'd be safe during the Nights) but at the same time I know that -hypothetically, o'course- if I was a wolf I would almost rather get rid of a seer than a fellow baddie. I don't know. I'm going to stop babbling. Sorry.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by satansaloser2005

I'm glad you don't mind getting voted, dearie -I'll remember it closer to deadline - but it just struck me as odd not that the votes came that close to deadline, but that they introduced new candidates so close to deadline. Mostly it's the fact that it could have easily turned into a last-minute bandwagon and I hate those (for the most part). I'm sorry, I should have made that a bit more clear.

Hey, I said I don't like being voted (but bringing in a new candidate close to deadline is not something I find particularly suspicious)! If it had turned into a last-minute bandwagon, I'd be dead and proven innocent now and you'd at least have something to analyse. Annoying as they might be, I refuse to believe nothing can be found out of them. Besides, what's really the difference between a bandwagon and a last-minute bandwagon? That the votee is not necessarily around.

Originally Posted by sally

I know that -hypothetically, o'course- if I was a wolf I would almost rather get rid of a seer than a fellow baddie. I don't know. I'm going to stop babbling. Sorry.

Well I don't know. If the seer dreams of you, you might still have a plenty of time to kill her since she probably doesn't come out after finding just one baddie. However, if another team chooses to kill you, you're dead that very night. If I was a baddie, I'd much rather get rid of the other baddies before throwing wild guesses about who the seer could be.

I'm getting a bad feeling of sally. The way she reacted to Gwath & Rikae's votes looks somehow so opportunistic. They were after all quite petty things, and somehow she seems to try to make them look bigger than they really are.

[Aganzir]

Lalaith plays so seldom that it would be quite evil to pick her as a random kill (which doesn't mean it couldn't have happened, though. It just seems more likely that there's some actual reason).

Her opinions on people from yesterday:
Innocentish: Nog, Mac, Brinn, and Eomer.
Didn't know what to think of: Gollum, Kitanna, and Greenie.
Didn't know what to think of, but bear watching: Lommy, Fea (the most suspicious of them, got even more slightly suspicious of her later on), and Rikae.
Weird: Legate.
Feels uncomfortable about: Groin (semi-analysis of a handful of players), sally (not sincere-looking), Eönwë (not sincere-looking).
Also wonders if I want to get lynched or dreamed of for some purpose of my own (no, I don't).

Then there are her last two posts which I rather quote here (only the important parts, though) than try to sum up.

Originally Posted by Lal

I want to know what Legate's up to, his posts feel so odd, they aren't making sense to me at all. I also want to know what Agan is up to and I am getting more worried about Fea.
Then there are Groin and Sally, who worried me earlier. (Eonwe too, although he is now worrying me less.)

Originally Posted by Lal

All right, to be clearer: my suspicions are often directed at those who I feel are being confusing, possibly deliberately so, and for a purpose. Is that better?

Now I don't know what to make of her attitude towards Legate. Was he attempted to frame (which failed when he got killed, too), is it a coincidence that they both were killed, do the baddies have a team? Dunno. It's also possible that whoever killed her wanted it to make look bad on me, but I find it less likely since to me it looks more like she was just curious of me rather than actually suspicious. It could also point at either Fea being a baddie and/or someone trying to frame her. Or Groin and sally, maybe even Eönwë. At least to me it isn't that difficult to think so since I suspect them all (with the exception of Eönwë) more or less. But still, you can never know if someone's death points at someone's guilt or a framing attempt.

I skimmed through Lal's posts but couldn't see anything that might have been interpreted as giftedness or evil intents. However, if she got something right, she might have been killed preventively - just in case she was the seer.

I wonder why I do this so often although it never helps me to find reasons why somebody could have been killed. However, I'm going to keep my eye on Fea, Groin and sally anyway.

By the way, just a thought - in a village of 19, how likely is it that there are four baddies, especially as it's possible to kill two for the price of one?

I can say it straight that although I have the energy to post much, I don't have the energy to go through Legate's posts and analyse the causes of his death. That's what one gets for being a flood-poster.

Okay I'm probably off for a while now.

[Gwathagor]

Good morning, I am awake, but I don't have time to post right now. I'll be back in a few hours.

[Kitanna]

So Lalaith and Lommy? Lalaith seems pretty obvious given her quietness. Legate though I believe, as others do, that he may have been believed to be another lover.

I'd like to look at Lommy voters, but by the time I'm able to get back on I'm sure it'll have been done many times. But I do have a whole list of people and things I want to look at so hopefully it won't all be covered later. It'll be at least nine hours before I'm able to get back on unless I can steal a laptop at some point.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Or, for another possibility, perhaps the lovers are hopeless romantics who thought he couldn't stand to live without Lommy?

Rikae I love you! Let's get married!

I'll be around still for a while because Lommy came online on MSN and apparently wants to talk to me in the lack of some better company.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Agan, how do you keep a wave upon the sand?

Popping in as I'm home sick and didn't go to class today. A thought occurred to me last night; what if we're facing two trios of lovers? That makes more sense - numbers-wise, anyway - than two pairs (four baddies? Really?).

[Macalaure]

I just looked at Legate and Lalaith and found... nothing. Lalaith focussed on Legate and Legate focussed mostly on me, Groin, and Kitanna, but he didn't go after either of them in a way that would have really put them into danger. The people who suspected Legate most are either dead or identical to me. The list of people who mentioned being unsure of him is too long to be helpful.

Eh, I thought I'd come up with more, but I can't think today...

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

A thought occurred to me last night; what if we're facing two trios of lovers? That makes more sense - numbers-wise, anyway - than two pairs (four baddies? Really?).

Two trios? I can't help but think that's the most crackpot scheme I've ever heard and this coming from me, who specializes in scheming of the crackpot variety.

Where'd the idea of three come from, and what in the world makes you think it makes sense?

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Two trios? I can't help but think that's the most crackpot scheme I've ever heard and this coming from me, who specializes in scheming of the crackpot variety.

Where'd the idea of three come from, and what in the world makes you think it makes sense?

Drink your coffee and calm down, love. *pats shoulder*



That is pretty cracked though. Where did you come up with it? I'm not putting it past Di to be that evil, but I highly doubt it.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

Agan, how do you keep a wave upon the sand?

Do you mean I'm confusing? A riddle? I don't listen to all you say?

As for Kitanna, I don't think her defense of Mac is that suspicious. I suspect Mac, but I found also those not-entirely-joking suspicions of Rikae's odd and can understand someone else did, too. Is it not possible to defend anyone in this game without being branded a lover?

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Well, I came here to find a man, and I still aim to do so - I can work it in around WW hunting, after all. I'm going to be 30 soon, and I'm unmarried! Horrors!
(Don't modkill me, Di, I'm not roleplaying )

Macalaure is evil. I think this for three reasons:

1) He pops in early on day 1 bursting with overconfidence that he knows exactly how this game will go down - ie, just like the last. It's not that he's discussing game dynamics - it's the fact that what he's saying could only possibly be useful to confuse ordos and throw other baddies off his trail. I'm fairly sure this game will have some new twist thrown in, myself.

Over confidence? It looked like he was just being plain old silly if you ask me. Also, I think it strange that you accused him on your first post, Rikae, and stuck with it throughout the game (especially when people started jumping on your bandwagon). Though I'm a little confused why you voted for Aganzir in the end.

Originally Posted by Rikae

2) Di wouldn't make both Mac and I ordos. Ergo, he has a role, and, judging by point #1, that role is an evil one.
I realize this point doesn't do anyone any good until I'm dead, but that shouldn't take long when Mac is evil.

This was pretty flimsy accusation to go on.

3) After the last game, I swore to do my utmost to get him lynched on day one.

This joke lightens the accusation on your part so that it looks like you're making a joke, for the most part, about accusing Mac. Later on in the game you express your seriousness on the matter (perhaps seeing that people are beginning to jump on the bandwagon).

Over all this looks like very wolvish behaviour, and this is just Rikae's first post.

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Sally

it just struck me as odd not that the votes came that close to deadline, but that they introduced new candidates so close to deadline. Mostly it's the fact that it could have easily turned into a last-minute bandwagon and I hate those (for the most part). I'm sorry, I should have made that a bit more clear.

Honey, I still don't get the logic - I can't see how exactly introducing new voting candidates close to the deadline results in an increased possibility of a last-minute bandwagon. I think it gets pretty awful if people vote only for ones someone else has voted as well. That is what causes bandwagons, not bringing new candidates in.

About the Night's kills - it seems obvious that Lal was killed because her death gives practically no traces and because she wasn't being suspected at all. Did anyone even suspect her at any point? As for Legate, I consider it possible that the lovers thought he was a rival lover. I don't believe he was assumed to be a gifted; or at least to my eyes he did not give any gifted vibes whatsoever.

I don't know what to think about the fact that only two people died. As has been said, it's probably either only two lover teams (which would be kind of unfair) or more than two couples who accidentally picked the same victim. There is yet another possibility, which is that we have a ranger and s/he managed to protect last Night but we just weren't informed about it... which would be a bit too cruel of Di. I don't think that's the case, but I felt the need to point out the possibility.

I'll be back with more stuff.


EDIT: x-ed with Groin

[A Little Green]

Okay, I seem to have some trouble with time as I came home today around three hours leter than I had planned and my evening's timetables are now thoroughly messed up.. I don't know how much I'll be able to play still toDay, but I'll at least get here to vote and so. Sorry.

I hope to be back.

[Rikae]

Just thought I'd pop in to say I'm working on a midterm that's due tomorrow, so I won't be able to contribute much, but I am following the discussion.
Groin, go read what I already said about that post, I see no need to say anything else. *shrug*
I do find myself wondering if the fact that no one has paid any attention to my increasing number of lovers theory means I've stumbled on the truth and those who know it are afraid to tip me off, assuming I know it too - but I suppose more likely you all just think I'm loony.

EDIT: Ok, I do have something (minor) to contribute - Greenie's post looks a bit too much like a baddie hiding in the open (i.e., telling the truth about their strategy). Can't quite put my finger on it, but that's the impression I got.

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Rikae

An awful lot of the attention he was getting seemed to run along the lines of "Legate is smart and wise and all-good and all-knowing and we should bow down and worship him in grovelling admiration." as far as I could see.

Yet he managed to gather enough suspicion to receive two votes...

[Aganzir]

Guilty

Groin. It's possible he will leave this list after posting more, but for now he's guilty. He treated Legate and me much more differently than was necessary which looked like he didn't really care what he said - what was important was to flatter someone so as to get an ally, suspect someone else.

Gollum. This guy really bothers me. On day 1 Lommy said I was jumpy (because she had misinterpreted my comment). Then Gollum comes, says he finds it hard to trust Lommy and Legate after last game, flatters Legate a bit and says I look jumpy. I asked him for reasons, but I had to ask twice before I got any response. Instead of replying to me right away, he took one sentence of mine out of context (when I complained about how Groin had treated me) and just noted my posts hadn't helped him. Of course my posts wouldn't be very helpful if people just kept ignoring them and the things I ask in them!
Reasons he found me jumpy:

You post often, make long posts, were swift to accuse and are quick to defend yourself. You're also out for lots blood and seem very excited about the game (not that blame you). That is my idea of jumpy.

Everything I had done. I still have no idea where that excited came from, and I'm still waiting for a response.
In his next post, he says:

Originally Posted by Gollum

I don't quite understand why Rikae given those two votes. Perhaps I was not paying attention.

I don't know about others, but me that "perhaps I was not paying attention" reminds of a (newbie) wolf who wants to defend someone a bit but while writing the post realises that he has a chance to start suspecting this someone who isn't on his team, so the message kind of changes on the way. For already in his next post he's suddenly slightly wary of Rikae because of her reasons not to trust Mac. And me because I'm too excited. And Lommy because she always bears watching. He thought about voting for me, but didn't have any reasons, and then changed his mind and put Lommy in the lead because "he couldn't bring himself to trust her." Funny that he had agreed on me with Lommy, and his actual reason for voting her was that he couldn't trust her because she had been a wolf in the last game. So yeah, so much for Gollum.

sally. I'll be watching her. Although Rikae or someone said rhetorical questions are a part of her style, I still find them suspicious and I can't help it. I think she overdid her suspicions on Gwath & Rikae's votes a bit. Something in the style makes it look like she intentionally tried to make them look more serious things than they really were. Because of that she planned to vote either of them, more likely Rikae, but thought Lommy was acting strangely, too. Later decided not to create a tie and voted for Lommy.
It's always hard to read sally this early in the game, but right now she doesn't sit right with me.

Fea. I just don't like it how keen she was on discussing the roles. To me it seems a waste of time, and personally I can't understand why anybody with good intents would want to do it since in lack of any certain information it's only guessing and therefore rather useless. I don't see what sense there is in having to repeat that we don't know anything. I fail to see how post #40 works as a metaphor for this game. I find it worrying that she would (even hypothetically) suggest forcing discussion about a specific, and in my opinion unnecessary, topic.
She admitted that we would not get facts from role discussion, but we might have ended up with a better idea of possibilities. But what does it matter if we have possibilities or not? Although Fea said it might have been possible to get someone to slip something, to me it looks more like trying to keep the discussion in the safe area.

Mac. Mostly for the same reasons as yesterday. His first post today (like sally's) has the air of trying to make things look bigger than they really are, though. I don't think Eomer was that bad.

Rikae. Mostly for the same reasons as yesterday. She has felt much more innocent today, though. I will try to view Mac and Rikae a bit more objectively from now on and not to get stuck in the thought that they're baddies since I realised that I suspect them almost always, regardless of my role, or theirs.

Innocent
Kitanna. Nothing alarming.
Brinn. Looks like normal innocent Brinn, at least thus far.
Shasta. Despite voting for me, I think he looks innocent and sincere.

Neither
Nogrod
Gwath
McCaber
Greenie
Eönwë
Eomer

edit: xed with two Greenies, Rikae & Brinn

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Brinniel

Yet he managed to gather enough suspicion to receive two votes...

That's right... silly me. I suppose that's good enough reason to assume he may have been suspected as a rival baddie (for some reason, he didn't seem especially suspected to me).

[Nogrod]

Blaah, what a day... but I'm back home now and have some time to play.

I'm not quite sure I believe myself uttering these words: luckily there is only 1½ pages of posting toDay... but after I have read them I'm probably going to complain about there being too little input...


Just my first impression on the kills even if I know you guys have already worked this out in some way.

Lalaith was a good kill as she was both very-innocent looking and very sharp: so both trusted and dangerous.

Legate was a good kill because he is a vocal player whom baddies would rather not have around in the later stages of the game and who could be dangerous to thewm. With him I'd even think a look back on his relations on Day1 might be worthwhile.

The two kills kind of strengthens my belief in there being at least two competing teams here because the mentality of the team picking Legate looks pretty different from the mentality of the team picking Lalaith.

Okay. I'm into reading now but will be back after a while.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Rikae

That's right... silly me. I suppose that's good enough reason to assume he may have been suspected as a rival baddie (for some reason, he didn't seem especially suspected to me).

Actually, I don't think he was suspected that much. Eönwë said his vote was random whereas Lalaith thought he was weird and wanted to know what he was up to. He was generally considered quite innocent.

As for Eönwë, I'd really like to hear more from him, not just random comments and vote counts. Of us alive, he has the second most posts and I haven't been able to form an opinion of him at all.

[Macalaure]

I don't understand what Groin's point was with analysing Rikae's first post. It was his only post today so far, and he didn't find anything more worthwhile to contribute?

Originally Posted by Groin

Over all this looks like very wolvish behaviour, and this is just Rikae's first post.

This either means we're going to see analysis of Rikae's other posts, too, or it's an extremely wolvish comment since it maliciously exaggerates his actual points.

Maybe Groin just hasn't yet entirely caught up with what's happening.


I don't like the way Nogrod labeled the kills "good". They were only good for the wolves, not the innocents, and the fact that "good" is the first thing Nogrod was able to think in regards to the kills appears like a Freudian wolf-slip. I mean, sure, that is done not unfrequently by others, but the way Nogrod emphasised it is strange. Then again, wouldn't a wolf be extra-careful not to formulate it this way?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

The two kills kind of strengthens my belief in there being at least two competing teams here because the mentality of the team picking Legate looks pretty different from the mentality of the team picking Lalaith.

I'm terribly sorry, but this does sound like a wolf whose mind is a bit too much taken by the implications of an apparently different strategy of the opposing team on the thread.

[McCaber]

So I still really don't have a lot to say. I'm getting sort of an innocent reading from Aganzir. She's posted a lot and hasn't contradicted herself much from what I saw. She's been argumentive but everyone is in werewolves. Verdict: almost not guilty.

And that's the first half of the day.

EDIT: crossed with Mac

[Nogrod]

Oh Mac, you're making me feel like back at home after a few games in some strange land of paranoia where you weren't after me all the time...

On a bit more serious note, this thing where you relate to my thoughts of there being a different mindset with those who killed Lalaith vs. those who killed Legate:

Originally Posted by Legate

I'm terribly sorry, but this does sound like a wolf whose mind is a bit too much taken by the implications of an apparently different strategy of the opposing team on the thread.

I will only say this. Winning a game would never be so important to me that I would as a werewolf/-penquin/-rhinoceros... kill during the Night someone I like to play with - if there are other choices (the very last Nights of a game might be different). You know it Mac as all those who have played with me.

So what to make of your try-out? Just back to normal "Mac will suspect Nogrod whatever the posting" or trying to see whether you could turn this into a convenient lynch-option?


But I think you raise an important point to the fore.

I have been thinking about Sally - and what Mac said links to my thoughts on Sally.

I already felt yesterDay a bit uneasy with Sally's kind of - how should one describe it - conscious, or situation-oriented posting. What I mean is that yes there was that normallish Sally-banter and the jokes and all but somehow it felt she was more conscious of the situation we had in hand than she normally is. Or at least she doesn't normally show it.

Then came this:

Originally Posted by Sally toDay

I would think, though, that lovers (if there are more than one team) would want to get rid of their competition first (because then they'd be safe during the Nights

Now defining the wolves viewpoint as "being safe" looks something that just doesn't fit my general impression of what an innocent Sally would think about - or speculate about. For it sure is true that if we have different teams against each other the lovers are scared to death every Night for their rivals (I've been a baddie in that kind of game long ago and it was heart-stopping!). The problem is, did Sally just think of that and decided to use the word "safe" (which really nails down the thing those baddies are longing for) or does she actually feel that way now?

This is a question of the way one plays (so it's not like one way is better or more intelligent than the other - going deep into speculation about how the baddies would act may derange one's thinking a lot as well). You know I do it, Lommy does it, all those who remember Roa probably remember also her insistence in that being the most effective approach... But Sally hasn't belonged to that club of players as yet and I'm afraid I have to say her few posts do look a bit bothering to me, it feels like something behind the appearance is shining through her posting.

But I'm not sure if she's my best candidate toDay. I just decided to start with her as my suspicions on her are intertwined with Mac's points.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I'm slightly concerned about the actions of the village so far. So many people are seeing malice in all corners.

We don't even know what we're looking for yet. Some comments, like Nogrod's recent speculation about different evil team strategies, and Macalaure's riposte, are immediately sensible to me, because they relate to the deduction of who our killers could be. How so? Because they take the facts, and they work around them. Our facts are the deaths of Legate and Lalaith.

Other comments, such as "So and so suspected me because of this, it's really creepy!" are based on absolutely nothing. Every instance of Werewolf dialogue can be interpreted in such a way that that it looks evil. It's all well and good normally, but we don't even know what resides in this village yet.

It's interesting how many people have easily accepted that Legate's enemies thought him a lover, while Lalaith's obviously thought her a nice quiet catch. I think only Aganzir really broke from this regarding Lalaith.

Kitanna's post, perfectly illustrating the above point, with its complete conformity, is almost tauntingly suspicious.

[Aganzir]

So she has only six posts thus far. She usually isn't one of the most vocal anyway, but although that's pretty little, I'm not worried yet. She has at least given some actual opinions.

I don't understand why Greenie thinks she should be worried of Legate if he plays as if he had nothing to worry about. She kind of contradicts herself there - if Legate was a baddie and had a lover, he would have to be worried about both his own and his lover's life. She agreed with me and Legate about Groin, though.

Greenie thought Rikae votes on day 1 were weird, and that she wouldn't call Fea's rule discussion suspicious since, in her opinion, that early it was as good a topic as any.

She didn't know what to think of Lommy, who looked normal (which means nothing). Later she pointed out, though, that Lommy's suspicion list was full of things like "A is suspicious because of X, but then again there's Y which makes her look innocentish." She thought Lommy was doing it in an exaggerating manner. This is the list she's talking about, and to me it doesn't look very much like exaggeration.

She said she didn't want to vote for Rikae because of how many had said they might vote her, and voted for Groin instead based almost entirely on gut-feeling. She thought he had been one of the least innocentish on day 1, and she didn't like his tone in some things.

On day 2 Greenie didn't understand sally's logic, either, when she said introducing new candidates close to deadline may increase the possibility of a last-minute bandwagon. I agree with her, but she could have said the same even if she was a baddie.
To her, it seems obvious that Lal was a kill with no traces, and Legate might have been suspected to be a lover.

Greenie seems somehow really smooth, but then again that's the way she is. It bothers me that I can't read her at all - she could go either way. Mostly she looks quite innocent, but there are some points which are a bit weird, like that Legate contradiction in her first post, and suggestion that Lommy is softening her opinions to an exaggerative degree (which I don't think she was doing). I also think Rikae's point of a baddie hiding in the open when Greenie speculated on Lal and Leg's deaths is worth at least noticing.

edit: xed with Nog & Eomer

[Nogrod]

I just couldn't bear go on re-correcting my earlier post another time so I'll just make the meaning of this sentence clear here.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

defining the wolves viewpoint as "being safe"

This should of course read: defining the wolves viewpoint as wishing to be safe. Sorry.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I will only say this. Winning a game would never be so important to me that I would as a werewolf/-penquin/-rhinoceros... kill during the Night someone I like to play with - if there are other choices (the very last Nights of a game might be different). You know it Mac as all those who have played with me.

Ah but what if there was no other choice? Like if your lover was terribly afraid of Lalaith or Legate and thought s/he wouldn't survive another day if they were left alive? There are other people you like to play with, anyway, and do you rather kill one of them than die early and be unable to play with the rest?
I don't suspect you at least for now, but your defense doesn't convince me.

Originally Posted by Nog

I've been a baddie in that kind of game long ago and it was heart-stopping!

Yeah I agree. And thanks to you, it was literally heart-stopping to me.

edit: xed with Nog

[Macalaure]

I am rather puzzled by your reply to me, Nogrod. Firstly, I made one point against you on the second day, and you compare it to me being after you all the time in the past. That's a little bit out of proportion, don't you think? Secondly, your defense is based entirely on meta-reasons (there is no actual "in-game" defense at all) which I usually dislike. The meta is out there all the time, but it's much more enjoyable to keep it at a minimum. Was my point so well-made that you needed to bash it with the big hammer? Thirdly, instead of giving a non-meta defense of any kind, you threaten to retaliate by a rhetorical question.

I made my comment because I thought it was worth commenting on and because I thought it appropriate to poke somebody who hasn't been poked much in this game so far. You didn't respond to being poked in a very innocent-looking way...

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

your defense doesn't convince me.

It was probably not even meant to convince in the traditional sense of the term - and it was probably not a traditional "defence" either. I just said that if someone thinks / believes I would kill Lalaith or Legate on Night1 then s/he just doesn't know me.

The point of course was that Mac knows me...

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Is it not possible to defend anyone in this game without being branded a lover?

I'm afraid not. If we have several independent teams - which is still a possibility; I mean there being more than two teams - any defence will be a bit suspicious. And that's the madness of a full lovers game as the lovers need to defend each other unlike a wolfteam which can sacrifice a member if needed. It's sad to be sure.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to help someone you strongly feel is innocent from avoiding the gallows but you should then be ready to pay the price in form of suspicion.

Or were you trying to legitimise your future defence of your lover Agan?

EDIT: X'd with MAc... uh-oh... here we go again...

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

It was probably not even meant to convince in the traditional sense of the term - and it was probably not a traditional "defence" either. I just said that if someone thinks / believes I would kill Lalaith or Legate on Night1 then s/he just doesn't know me.

Then apparently I don't know you.
Of course everybody knows you rather didn't kill people you like to play with, but if you're on a lover team, there's also someone else but you and you should consider his/her opinions as well.
Just like I didn't like it when Mac said "if I was a wolf, I wouldn't behave this way," I don't like that.

Or were you trying to legitimise your future defence of your lover Agan?

As far as I remember, you were the only one who agreed to marry me. So watch out!

[Nogrod]

Oh, I just had to put this first to you Agan as it really gave me the creeps when I was going to bed last night but didn't bother to go on posting about it anymore:

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Yes. There are some people who claim we can't pair up if we didn't do it in the very beginning, but who's going to listen to them?

Why the need to underline that you were not paired up with anyone in the beginning?

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I am rather puzzled by your reply to me, Nogrod. Firstly, I made one point against you on the second day, and you compare it to me being after you all the time in the past. That's a little bit out of proportion, don't you think?

Yes, I agree. Wholeheartedly agree. But didn't you notice the smilies? (maybe irony, self-irony or sarcasm isn't for the WW-games then...)

Secondly, your defense is based entirely on meta-reasons (there is no actual "in-game" defense at all) which I usually dislike. The meta is out there all the time, but it's much more enjoyable to keep it at a minimum.

Here I must admit I'm beginning to regret my point already. My only "defence" is that your points were just soo far-fetched I kind of tried to do away with them once and for all so that we could concentrate on the in-game wolf-hunting. And it already seems that the mountain is coming out from the initial molehill because of my poor judgement (unless you're a wolf Mac and this is not in vain...).


But you raise once again a good question. The meta-level is there all the time and it has its effects, big effects indeed. Still I kind of agree with you that it should not be prominent. Maybe I've played too many games and need to take a pause? I just had no inspiration to go on the long path of counter-arguing in the traditional sense.

Originally Posted by Mac

I made my comment because I thought it was worth commenting on and because I thought it appropriate to poke somebody who hasn't been poked much in this game so far.

Thank you indeed! (no smilies as I'm quite honest with this praise) I mean Day1 was just terrible! Nobody suspected me! It was weird and dangerous. I was so sure I'd find myself among the corpses after a total butchery taking place last Night.



But then, let the in-game arguments fly!

Originally Posted by Mac

Was my point so well-made that you needed to bash it with the big hammer?

No. It was soo bad there were no reasonable instruments available to do away with it.

Originally Posted by Mac

Thirdly, instead of giving a non-meta defense of any kind, you threaten to retaliate by a rhetorical question.

How would you defend yourself against an accusation which is based on pure speculation concerning your own motives? You could say of course: "no, that was not the way I was thinking...".

Originally Posted by Mac

You didn't respond to being poked in a very innocent-looking way...

Funny you should say that for now you are contradicting yourself - and possibly your aim is to get some others to believe your gusto and disregard the erratic nature of your points and the motivation behind them to just get me lynched because you're a baddie!

(hah: answer that before you demand I should answer your questions on my possible motivation behind my posting).

The contradiction there? Well, first you say I'm playing unfair as I go for meta-defence which means you don't like the way I corrected you on meta-level on why your initial accusations - that I'd kill Lalaith or Legate - were totally mistaken (and in this you're correct: I'm already a bit ashamed of my conduct there) but then you say my answer was not very innocent looking...

[A Little Green]

Fine, I'm back again. Firstly, about Mac and Nog's little debate.

Originally Posted by Mac

I don't like the way Nogrod labeled the kills "good". They were only good for the wolves, not the innocents, and the fact that "good" is the first thing Nogrod was able to think in regards to the kills appears like a Freudian wolf-slip. I mean, sure, that is done not unfrequently by others, but the way Nogrod emphasised it is strange. Then again, wouldn't a wolf be extra-careful not to formulate it this way?

First, there is this. I see nothing particularly suspicious in labeling kills "good", and calling it a Freudian wolf slip really strikes me as exaggeration.

But the weirdness gets more when we get to Nog's posts...

Originally Posted by Nog

I will only say this. Winning a game would never be so important to me that I would as a werewolf/-penquin/-rhinoceros... kill during the Night someone I like to play with - if there are other choices (the very last Nights of a game might be different). You know it Mac as all those who have played with me.

Honestly, I don't like this sort of "I never play like that" -defence. After all, it would be a perfect wolf strategy to do something you constantly claim you never do. Also, just for the sake of being sporty, I'd like to see defences that are based (at least partly) on the current game, not the ones before it. Of course past games affect the current one, but they shouldn't dominate it.

Originally Posted by Nog

Now defining the wolves viewpoint as "being safe" looks something that just doesn't fit my general impression of what an innocent Sally would think about - or speculate about. For it sure is true that if we have different teams against each other the lovers are scared to death every Night for their rivals (I've been a baddie in that kind of game long ago and it was heart-stopping!). The problem is, did Sally just think of that and decided to use the word "safe" (which really nails down the thing those baddies are longing for) or does she actually feel that way now?

I think this looks pretty far-fetched, really - actually this argument is quite similar to Mac's point about Nog: both claim the accused's certain choice of words indicates to being a lover because it looks like thinking from the wrong viewpoint. I'm convinced by neither of these - I'm inclined to believe that an innocent villager is perfectly capable of changing his/her viewpoint to think like a baddie.

Then to other topics.

Originally Posted by Agan

I don't understand why Greenie thinks she should be worried of Legate if he plays as if he had nothing to worry about. She kind of contradicts herself there - if Legate was a baddie and had a lover, he would have to be worried about both his own and his lover's life.

I think you misunderstood me, honey. What I meant was that I am used to seeing him more serious, and this change to his usual style of playing is what really made me raise eyebrows. I know it's silly to base worries on what a player is usually like, but his behaviour struck me as a bit odd. Seemingly he just had an exceptionally good day or something.

Originally Posted by Agan

She said she didn't want to vote for Rikae because of how many had said they might vote her

This might be trivial, but I feel the need to correct this a bit - my reason for not voting Rikae was not the amount of votes or possible votes she had at that point, but rather that I didn't find her especially suspicious and didn't like the fact that there was only one voting candidate at that point. Here is what I exactly said:

Originally Posted by me yesterDay

I will definitely not vote Rikae - I don't find her particularly suspicious and besides I don't like it when there is but one person who is being voted. It's nothing to encourage discussion other than "Oh my, a bandwaggon!" and is the perfect spot for baddies to slip away unnoticed.

EDIT: x-ed since Mac's 270

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Oh, I just had to put this first to you Agan as it really gave me the creeps when I was going to bed last night but didn't bother to go on posting about it anymore: Why the need to underline that you were not paired up with anyone in the beginning?

Because Lommy jokingly complained to me (on MSN) about that I always want to marry her relatives and asked if I didn't know that we couldn't get paired unless it had happened in the beginning, so it just came there. I don't think it was illegal talk since it only had to do with a joke of mine, not the game itself.

edit: xed with Greenie

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

This might be trivial, but I feel the need to correct this a bit - my reason for not voting Rikae was not the amount of votes or possible votes she had at that point, but rather that I didn't find her especially suspicious and didn't like the fact that there was only one voting candidate at that point.

Sorry - I confused it with another post of yours where you mentioned something about four people talking about voting for her.

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Nog

Well, first you say I'm playing unfair as I go for meta-defence which means you don't like the way I corrected you on meta-level on why your initial accusations - that I'd kill Lalaith or Legate - were totally mistaken (and in this you're correct: I'm already a bit ashamed of my conduct there) but then you say my answer was not very innocent looking...

Eh? Sorry, I think my brain isn't quite working properly or something, but I really have no idea what this sentence means. Too many subordinate clauses, I suppose, but I really got lost. Could you explain it?

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Agan

Sorry - I confused it with another post of yours where you mentioned something about four people talking about voting for her.

No probem.

I should vote quite soon because I really need to get some sleep tonight. I'll make a list (!!!) to clarify my thoughts a bit.

RED ZONE - suspicious
No one here. I wonder what does it tell...

ORANGE ZONE - somewhat suspicious
Groin - Has posted only one post toDay, is that right? And that was an analysis on Rikae's first post. The tone of that post was somewhat odd, especially the "And that was only her first post!" or something of that sort (really too lazy to look up the exact quote) seemed quite like overreacting to me, especially if taken into account that Rikae had already explained that post. I suppose he'll return later toDay.
Gollum - I don't like the way he appears, makes quite vague-grounded suspicions that mainly follow the main stream of the discussion, and bases suspicions on stuff such as what a person's role was in the previous game. On the other hand it seems a trifle too careless for a baddie - especially a baddie who has another baddie to think of as well...
Nog - His points in the "debate" with Mac made me uneasy about him. I don't like the way he considers Mac's point about him sooo bad (or something like that, again too lazy to look it up) and then brings up a very similar point about Sally.
Mac - He, too, brought up a real "grasping at straws"-point, against Nog. The whole debate between the two looked odd to me, I'd like to look it over but I'm afraid I have no time. Mac has looked furrier toDay than he did yesterDay, but I don't know...

(little) GREEN ZONE - innocentish
Agan - Is generally reasonable, not as sneaky and smooth as she tends to be when a baddie, and has good points. No evidence against her at this point.
Brinn - Seems very sincere, there is nothing as far as I can see that speaks against her.
Eönwë - Feels sincere.

NO IDEA -ZONE - let the name speak for it.
Kitanna
Sally
Shasta
Gwath
Rikae
McCaber
Fea
Eomer

I'm slightly worried about the size of my no idea -zone. Based on this, my top suspects would be Groin, Gollum, Nog, and Mac. The problem is that I don't feel very comfortable with voting any of them...

I'll go eat something and come back to vote before I go to sleep.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But didn't you notice the smilies?

Huh? There is only one "rolleye"-smiley in that particular post #265.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

How would you defend yourself against an accusation which is based on pure speculation concerning your own motives? You could say of course: "no, that was not the way I was thinking...".

That would have been a lot more effective. You could also have explained why my interpretation was wrong, but anyway, I didn't actually expect any elaborate defense (my point really wasn't that amazing), just an honest-looking one. Now that this point has been blown out of its proportion, your in-game defense seems weak...

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Funny you should say that for now you are contradicting yourself - and possibly your aim is to get some others to believe your gusto and disregard the erratic nature of your points and the motivation behind them to just get me lynched because you're a baddie!

(hah: answer that before you demand I should answer your questions on my possible motivation behind my posting).

The contradiction there? Well, first you say I'm playing unfair as I go for meta-defence which means you don't like the way I corrected you on meta-level on why your initial accusations - that I'd kill Lalaith or Legate - were totally mistaken (and in this you're correct: I'm already a bit ashamed of my conduct there) but then you say my answer was not very innocent looking...

Huh? I don't see the slightest contradiction. Bringing in meta-reasons and criticising the meta-reasons given are not the same. I'm giving no meta-reasons to counter yours, mind you! And in any case, the fact that you resorted to meta was only one out of three reasons why I think your post looks evil. What are you talking about?