We could just have everyone who's an ordo raise their hand and then we'd have a count. :D

*giggles hysterically at the thought*

edit: crossed with the modgod. Ok, that's all cleared up.

Well, three wolves would have been better, but thanks for the clarification.

Well, I am glad that's cleared up, although I'm not exactly enthused by the outcome. Indeed, perhaps we should have kept the idea of a 'friendly Wolf' going for longer, as it would most certainly have confused the Wolves. :D

Not at all happy, though, with how quickly Roa was to jump on my misunderstanding. Quite apart from anything else, posing as a 'friendly Wolf', would be a pretty suicidal tactic for a Wolf ... :rolleyes:

Hi everybody, just caught up, got very confused by all the mathematics and then deconfused again by Mirandir's clarification. Thank Moddess that's settled.
So, the Bear. Last game I played with a Bear in it started with a heated discussion about the question whether it would be feasible for the village to strike an alliance with the Bear against the wolves, which led to some ill-guided lynchings, if I remember well. I think we'd do well to remember the ancient adage Ursus communis hostis omnium - the Bear is everyone's enemy.
Of course it would be best if we could catch the Bear and reduce the Night kills rather soonish, but I think it won't get us anywhere to concentrate too much on the Bear per se, as our chances of getting them are no better (or even worse) than those of getting any other baddie. Following Nerwen 's advice in #19 , let's lynch everybody who behaves evil, and hopefully we'll get the bear as well as the wolves.

Just checking in. I'm at work now, so I really don't have time to say much (plus these school computers like to automatically log me out every 15 minutes). I have classes all day most of the week so for most Days I won't be around again until the last few hours. So in case anyone wonders where I am during a good span of the Day...that's why.

Anyway, it looks like mostly what's been going on is a lot of confusion, which has now been clarified. For the most part, it all the confusion looks perhaps to be genuine, though I won't eliminate the possibility of a bluffing baddie. Faking ignorance is a good strategy to make someone look innocent. I also wouldn't be surprised if it turned out a wolf or cobbler (though probably more likely the latter) was encouraging the Friendly Wolf idea, since that could be used to their advantage to make the village think that a baddie was on their side. It's perhaps something I should take a better look at later toDay along with other discussions that may arise.

With the wolves and werebear, there's really no easy way to identify one from the other except that possible connections can be found between wolves. And usually those connections can't be identified until one is dead (unless the seer reveals a living wolf). The werebear is most difficult to catch because he works alone and the only way we can trace him other than by suspicious behaviour is through his Nightly kills. It would certainly be nice to eliminate the werebear quickly so to prevent too many double Night kills, but we also want to be quick to narrow down the number of wolves since there are four of them. Really we shouldn't try to lynch one or the another; we should just lynch those who act suspiciously as we normally do and hopefully they'll turn out to be one of the two. Of course, what would be really nice is if the wolves and werebear were to take care of each other at Night for us.

EDIT: X-ed with last two posts, which makes a really long time to write a post of this size. I keep getting interrupted...stupid work.

Genuine confusion on the part of the cobbler or bear is also possible, I suppose.

Yes... I made that already.:p

Indeed, but talking about it certainly won't make it happen. (See last game with a Bear!)

Quite frankly, I am astonished that anyone could think the ‘friendly Wolf’ idea to have been a ruse by a baddie to sow confusion. Now that I understand the correct meaning of the passage concerned, I am at a loss to see how anyone who immediately understood its correct meaning would even have spotted the opportunity to misconstrue the narrative, let alone have had any confidence that such misconstruction would provide the opportunity for sustained confusion (which would have required a good portion of the Village to accept, or go along with, the misconstruction as the true position).

One thing which might well have been a ruse, however, was Roa’s apparent initial belief that there were only three Wolves. It could well have been intended to suggest, even if only subliminally, that she cannot possibly be a Wolf because otherwise she would have known that there were four Wolves. It’s not much on its own but, combined with her quickness to jump on my misunderstanding and her expressed suspicion of Nerwen, seemingly based only on Nerwen’s early accusations (which were clearly flippant, in my view), it makes me rather uneasy about her, moreso than anyone else at present.

Hey, it's day 1 and we need to vote for someone. Misconstruing the facts is a very good tactic for a wolf. My very next post was to state that I believed you were confused. You're being very jumpy about this.

Actually, it was me only skimming through the rules initially. :o Oops on my part. But Morsul also thought there were only three wolves, and you thought that there were only three wolves working against us. Making a mistake is not the same as a ruse, and a lot of people were confused by the rules.

Again, it's day 1. My suspicion of Nerwen is based on the way she jumped on your statements to Inzil. It's not much, but it's basically the only thing that looks really suspicious right now, except for your clearly wrong friendly wolf theory, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one, because it would be pretty silly of you.

Indeed. :p

Still, I am some way off the point where I need to vote, and there are a fair few who have not yet spoken, so I am reserving judgment for now.

I am here, sorry I'm so late, had a test and a bunch going on this morning, but I will be around randomly for about the next 3ish hours, then again later tonight to vote.

reading....

What's going on between Roa and SpM at the moment looks like a classical suspicion match between two active innocents to me. Nice TV for the wolves.
For clarification, you're referring to this here, right?:
As in, a wolf latching on to and feeding an innocent's suspicion of another innocent, you mean? (Not that we know either Zil or SpM are innocent, of course!) I see your point, but wouldn't make that much of it, as she leaves open the possibility that Zil made more of her statement than she meant. Still, this looks like the most serious suspicion she's voiced up to now, the rest having been more playful, so it bears thinking about.

EDIT: typo fixed.

Yes, Pitch, that is exactly what I am referring to. And as I said, it isn't much, it's just the best I have at the moment.

While the Friendly Wolf idea (henceforth abbreviated FWI) would indeed make a great cover for a wolf or cobbler, the idea itself isn't per se suspicious - there have been precedents (witness Zil in Eönwë's Night Guard game). Anyway, it wouldn't have taken much brains to reckon with the possibility that such a cover would rather sooner than later be blown by a Moddess clarification, so that would have made a rather short-lived strategy.

EDIT: bolding (I'm a pedant, I know)

Continuing from my last - what Brinn says here could just as well be a furry attempt to use the FWI discussion for sowing suspicion among the innocents involved in it. But that's pretty tenuous too, and the rest of her post sounds sensible.

To be in theme: we should all just go to everyone's rooms and be really quite, and if we here a heart beat under someone's floor boards then we gots a baddie.....:D *loves Poe*

anyway.....


mwahahahahaha :p (I actually agree with this statement, it just made me giggle a bit)



4 wolves?! Wow.....well, our chances of getting one is fairly high, cause there are so many, and then we just have to hope that the Bear kills a wolf and the wolves kill the Bear and we'll be off to a great start.....aslong as the gifteds don't all start revealing again. :rolleyes:

I don't understand this "Friendly Wolf" talk, I get where it came from but the Moddess cleared up it's non-existence so I don't really understand why it's being talked about. Any baddie would have known the mod would eventually clear it up, so I doubt they would have tried to use the confusion to their advantage.

I will agree that Bears are tough, they can quite easily hide behind the fact that they could care less whether the wolves die or not, but anyone trying overly hard to go under the radar will look more suspicious to me then usual. The Lovers worry me aswell, with the large number of wolves they may think it more beneficial for their survival to act cobbler-like and help the baddies along, but I don't have much experience actually playing with that role being around, so I really don't know what type of strategies they use.

Hmm.....no one is jumping out at me yet. I need to do a bit of homework and then I'll come back and re-read everything again, and maybe make a little list or something....

If Roa is reserving the raven then I must have the pendulum! That's the nightmare from my childhood as I went and read the story a bit too young... :eek:

On other news: it's always disappointing to come in a bit late on the Day and see that all the interesting things you had discovered during your read-in are discussed in the few posts just before yours... :confused:

Well, it just tells one that certain things do raise the eyebrows...

But I still think I have something to add on a few things that have been mentioned recently. Just a moment.


And btw. this has been a very good Day1 indeed. Unlike sometimes, people have been quite forthcoming - the non-posters excluded - and there seem to be a lot to think... and rethink.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unlikely. As long as the Bear's around, any reveal would be pretty suicidal, in other words highly unadvisable unless they feel it's really really really worth the risk.
Indeed, I'm beginning to see the merit of the System of Doctor Nog and Professor Rod... Which reminds me we've heard nothing at all yet from Fea, Hakon, Lottie, McCaber and the eponymous Doctor/Professor himself, and nothing but early banter from Boro, Lari and sally. An appalling proportion of submarines at the moment... but then, the Day isn't done yet.
As for the Lovers - what she said (btw, is that phrase copyrighted or public domain? It seems to be a special trademark of sally's). But they can't kill anybody and are in just as much danger of being killed as anybody else, so I'd treat them as harmless innocents.

(Ah - x'ed with Nog.)

EDIT: (And Fea. Nice to see you both.)

*hands Fea a cookie*

Actually, when one lover is killed, the other gets to kill someone else. That can work to our benefit however, as they can them aim for a wolf. It's not a guarantee they'll hit one, but it's something to consider.

(Yes, I went back and read the rules thoroughly so that I don't make another mistake.)

Also, Fea, you rock.

People fall into the Monte Carlo fallacy (also known as the "he's been a wolf for the past four games, he can't possibly be a wolf this time" fallacy) quite often, so I'd be disinclined to hold that against Morsul. It's only his second game.

*Accepts cookie with grace.*
*Stuffs cookie into face.*

Me too.

While we're picking our favourite deaths, I'd like to go over the edge of the world in the mysterious white mists of the Antarctic, please. Tekeli-li!

*is officially taking death requests*

Just think of me as Ligeia, darling.

Also, upon request, the werebear shall henceforth be known as "the Murderer of the Rue Morgue." :D

Sorry it took time, but I had two long calls to speak...

Okay. I have thought that so far Spm, Greenie and Roa have given me some food for thought as to why they do what they do.



Spm

In his first post he playfully argues why all the three first posters are wolves and then adds that Nerwen's "audacious accusation" towards Sally (saying she is too self-conscious in remarking about the first posters) is very suspicious.

In his next post he addresses the Bear; "how good you are, no pressure..." (and a smilie). Followed by a kind of humorous self-revealment for Nerwen's remark ("Lightning never strike in the same place twice, except in horror stories, of course... er ..." (and a smilie).

In his third post he introduces the "Friendly-wolf" -interpretation and talks about "ungraciousness" if we killed him.

In his fourth he turns now to Inzil who had questioned him of getting after Nerwen too readily and says Inzil looks suspicious for making that interpretation (like reduplicating his own suspicion on Nerwen).

In his fifth he says the friendly wolf would not turn against us if he was left the last one.

In his sixth he agrees with Nerwen on not willing to kill the friendly wolf before he has gotten a chance of "leaving trails or helped in other ways".

In his seventh he backed down from the "friendly wolf" interpretation (as it started turning more and more obvious it was not the case - I mean how did you read that from there to begin with???).

In his eighth he is sad because the friendly-wolf -stuff would have confused the wolves. Starts suspecting Roa for jumping on his Friendly-wolf -hypotheses and says it would be bad for a wolf to try that (which might be true, but it would be very good for a cobbler... and even better for one to say just this).

In his ninth he defended himself (very reasonably indeed) and went on the suspicion raised by Brinn against Roa, adding to it his own suspicions (Roa suspecting him & Nerwen from early posts).

So what should I say, other than he looks like a cobbler to me?

All this creating of confusion, all that could be seen as "contact-making" (more of that with Greenie), all the suspicion thrown around like at random (well that could be argued for as a tactics of an innocent as well) and to top it; his defence of himself of saying it would be bad for a wolf to do what he did... heh, so not a wolf, but... a cobbler?


Blah... this is taking ages... :(

I need to have a cigarette and be a bit less thorough with Greenie & Roa...

Well, Roa herself admitted (without being pressed by anyone) you could have simply been confused, as others were.

That could have been a baddie throwing out random suspicion, but it seems odd to me she would have backed off of it so quickly on her own if that was the case.

I think that's something of a reach. At this point, I have no certainty at all of Roa's innocence, but I don't really receive any evil vibes from her yet.

x/d with Nogrod

So, a were-rangutan, then? Interesting...

I just have to say, this day is terrible for me timing-wise. (What is it with me and Day1s? We just don't get along.)

So far Nogrod seems to be making a lot of sense, as always. Fea did a good job talking over the probabilities involved, and I won't even talk about about the FWI.

Greenie

She seems to be the "Bear-addicted" one. And interestingly she goes talking about whether we should "concentrate on the Bear or not" (obviously saying we should neither concentrate nor forget her/him).

But what is this "concentrating on the Bear" -stuff anyway? How does one concentrate one's search for baddies to a Bear that has no mates and to whom every lynch but her/his own is just okay? The Bear's role is the most unfathomable there is: no loyalties, no cares, no bonds... So no possibility of catching the Bear by what s/he says in regards to other players, no voting "footprint", nothing. So how to concentrate on finding her/him?

I must say I must suspect also those others who used this way of speaking being just fine talking about "concentrating the search on the Bear or not"... I mean really.


If you say that, you're not trying to find anyone in earnest! Only a person faking to "try and find someone" can say s/he tries to focus on the Bear / not to focus on the Bear. Anyone who really is trying to find a baddie knows the Bear is not to be found by just concentrating!


But I probably wouldn't have set my eyes on all this initially were there not Greenie's post...
... and my suspicions on Spm being the cobbler. It was just an hour before Spm had made his own version of this "heh, you got me" -stuff and now Greenie was responding? It does look like a cobbler / wolf / bear -probing to me.

Now if I would have to make a quess now on who's the Bear, I would say Greenie is. The way she talks about the Bear all the time ("no Bear would talk of her own role that much") would be just fine for a Bear. Also the idea that getting the Bear is a question of focusing is not one an innocent villager could have as an innocent would see there is no way to "search for" the Bear. And the tone she does it... well, I'm not sure I can formulate an argument on that. I just get suspicious of it.

And let it be known I tend to be suspicious of Greenie everytime we play together... So a pinch of salt here.


And drat. I promised myself to be shorter with the rest... :confused:

Me neither. As for Nerwen, I see Roa's point against her, as I said above, but that single post would be a terribly thin foundation to base a vote on.
Nog's case for SpM=cobbler sounds attractive; I'd be loth to have to lynch him on Day 1 again, though*sigh*.
But what is this?
Is it just me, or do the brackets contradict the rest of the second sentence? If she talks about the Bear all the time, and no Bear would talk of her own role that much, it would follow she can't be the Bear, wouldn't it? Or was the part in brackets supposed to be some unmarked quote, or what?
Hadn't noticed that yet.;)

Sorry, I missed the quotation marks, which somehow disappeared from the part of Nog's post when I copied and pasted it. No idea how that happened. Forget what I just said about the contradiction.

Roa

It's funny how this "language stuff" go... or then there's dishonesty...

To me as a "broken English" speaker (eg. as a non-native speaker) it looked quite clear there were four wolves and a bear: "five infected by evil trying to kill their fellows at Night, and of which only four worked together", and the cobbler was "one of the others" (eg. not one infected by evil).

Now people can read their mother-tongue wrong if the wording is unclear or if they read fast and without attention. But this still irks me: how many went with this "misreading" - and see how many evil-wishing people we have around us (basically one of three!). I don't think that is a coincidence... whatever their purpose might have been (basically any general misconception is a possible advantage for the baddies).

So Roa got it wrong first... She asked where Spm got the idea of a "friendly wolf", quoting Spm's post where he said that "three out of four wolves, on the basis that one of them is on our side".

After Mira cleared the situation comes her next post, which Inzil actually uses to defend Roa, and which says: But why to add those brackets and swearing that we only had three wolves? Isn't that a bit overdoing it?

I mean she didn't say she swore she thought we had only three wolves... she said she swore we had only three wolves... okay, that might be one of these language issues once again (or just nit-picking - but the general question remains, why to make that addition as if not to look good?

Also her later defence of saying that Morsul also thought there were three wolves and many others had been confused by the rules looks a bit too defencive for an innocent Roa. A kind of unnecessary thing for her to do.


Heh, interesting to have this much to go for on Day1! Yay people! It's a bit extraordinary indeed, but good. Makes this more interesting from the beginning - and gives a lot of food for thought for the Days to come.

That happened just because I realised myself that the brackets were missing and thus the sentence sent out the wrong meaning so I edited it adding the brackets... and seemingly did that after you had refreshed the page to quote that - but early enough it didn't mark the post as edited...

I'd say it probably is. We say that in German too: I could have sworn it = I was so sure of it.

Excuse me, but who's Rod? *is confused* :confused:
Eurgh. Well. The reason I first brought up the Bear was to wonder if it's even possible to catch one. The second time I brought up the issue was (like I think I've already said) to point out that the Bear may, in the upcoming Days when we (hopefully) will have some wolvish connection trails to follow, be forgotten (at least by leaky-minded people like me) and that is not advisable. The third time I brought up the Bear was to explain the previous to Morsul. So, quite frankly, I don't get your "obsessed with the Bear" -stuff. Half my posting concerning the Bear is explaining an earlier mention of the Bear. Hardly qualifies as an obsession, in my book.

Oh, and I kind of hate myself for this, but I find Nog a bit unnerving at the moment. For one thing, he's grasping at straws, in the sense that he's making big things out of small things. (No news on Day 1, I suppose.) But I get rather more concerned when thinking of who he's suspicious of. Let's see... there's SPM, me, and Roa - all of whom have been voiced some uneasiness of earlier (ie. ideal Day 1 lynch candidates). I'm surprised Nerwen didn't make it to the list. :rolleyes: It of course might be that SPM, Roa and myself have been behaving more suspiciously than others, but I can't shrug off the thought that Nog might be just advocating for an easy yet reasonable-looking lynch.

Alas, so true. I wonder if I shouldn't take my own suspicions seriously because I always suspect you. A pinch of salt, indeed.

EDIT: x-ed with 2xNog and Pitchwife, corrected bolding
EDITEDIT: wrote the "EDIT" part in the wrong place. How embarrassing.

I want to go to sleep very soon so I'll vote in a little while... Eurgh I wouldn't want to fall into old habits and vote Nog but it's the best I have at the moment... Hopefully there's some tremendous new info by the time I get back (ie. in a very short while). Come on, now, some wolf confessions, please. :Merisu:

I need to attend the Scarburg Mead Hall for a while but will be back before going to sleep and to vote. But just as a thought as I see I have used all my time reading the three I was first suspicious of when I read the thread the first time about 6 hours ago...

I agree with those who say this nasty situation (basically 1/3 wishes us no good) has a seed of positiviness in it, which is that even if we vote blindly on Day1 we have a nice chance of hitting it right - unlike in normal games where blind-shooting is always a great risk. Well it's a risk in every game, but so is going with hunches or just wrongly built "cases".

The number of real baddies, 5 out of 17, is clearly one more (even two) than the normal and adding the cobbler into the mix makes the intention-ratio quite evil - but also one where a trial to catch a submarine on Day1 could be argued for with even greater weight than normally (I'm not wishing to go into that discussion that has been done dozens of times).

The more Days go by the more stressing it will be to catch a baddie and the more everyone of us thinks it should be wiser to vote for someone with even a poor case than just randomly try out a non-poster. This Day.

My dad called... just a minute...

If you don't know, how am I supposed to? Maybe the side of him that doesn't want to lynch his daughter - sort of a Jekyll and Hyde affair? No, wait, that was Stevenson, not Poe...:o

Seriously, time to look at some of the others. Zil is being suspiciously unsuspicious this time, as far as I can tell - as in, posting sparingly, with occasional outbursts of making points (e.g. attacking the FWI, which speaks for him) - all in all looks like himself.
Morsul - was around for a while earlier in the Day, voiced some reserved suspicion of Nerwen, Greenie and sally because of early morning accusations and 'hiding in plain sight', committed Monte Carlo fallacy about SpM's chance of wolvishness. Sometimes hard to get what he's actually saying, but nothing that screams out to me yet.

*headdesk* I'm tired. Didn't get the joke. :o

I'm off to bed, a glorious two hours later than I meant to. So, here comes my vote:

++ Nog Rod

Good Night folks.

Okay... one dad dealt with... :) (no I actually like to talk with him but it tends to take a long time everytime...)

I'm making all I have time for. As I said you three were the ones that raised my eyebrows when I had a chance to read the thread 7 hours ago... I'm slow, I admit. I have no cababilities to make similar cases on everyone around in the time I have.

If you look at my first post you see that I regret the fact that the things that got me suspecting some people were the ones that were discussed just the hour before I posted... But as I said then and say now... I wonder if it is just pure coincidence... or whether something in the posting of those people is actually suspicious.

And aren't you exaggerating the suspicions on you Greenie? I mean Spm and Roa had been suspected - mainly by each other...

And like I said in my last post that got interrupted, I'm all for a submarine-lynch toDay. Unless one of you manages to make oneself looking more suspicious...


EDIT: X'd with Greenie... and looking at the last sentence of my original post...