Yes she did. After my vote against you on Day 3, she added why she was suspicious of you and voted for you. ;)

For what it's worth, after re-reading posts of yours that I missed the first time after Mac's reveal, I thought you looked a bit more innocent, but I've already resigned myself to not-trusting you until the curse is over. What the living do now...well that's their own choice, you've at least proven you deserve to say your piece, without the dead (erm well me) getting in your way. :)

Actually already on Day2 with nothing to say of her vote. Just the vote... :confused:

True, Lommy went after Mac in a positively fanatical way, and generally acted quite strangely– but Mac admitted to lying about being the Ranger in order to get Lommy lynched. By his own account, he had no way of knowing her role.

Besides, if Lommy wasn't the Ranger, who is?

Mith = Night-kill = non-wolf = case closed.

Obviously... and I don't claim anything else. That should be clear from what I have said already. And as I said in my post a short while ago: if there weren't so many candidates for being the co-conspies I'd say she was one of them but maybe I just have to conclude that she was only greatly misguided and somehow overcareful even with "Mith-standards"...

Anyway, that's not the most fruitful discussion we might had as we should concentrate on those from which you'd need to lynch one toDay. I'll be back later to try to give my cents for it.

If Greenie wasn't the seer then who is? :rolleyes:

This is a pretty complicated one as games go...

And anyway, if pressed to choose I would believe in Lommy more than Mac for being innocent. Sure. But it doesn't make me 100% sure - or confident about it.

Then again what's the point in discussing these? We have no way of knowing but need to pick up the remaining mutineer(s). Sure we can check the relations to Mac and Lommy (as Boro has done) - and that's good.

After what Mac pulled, I would be 100% sure– but I've just played a game where one innocent lied to get another lynched. So I'm... oh... 95% sure.

There's still that 5%, though. After re-reading, Lommy still does look rather sinister... I'm reminded of why I voted her.

Now, Mac tried to get Eönwë and Gwath lynched. So, if he's a wolf, does that leave Shasta?

I think Sally was a co-conspirator. That leaves one, and I think Izzy fits the profile better. Which leaves Eonwe as the mutineer.

To add to Boro's earlier vote analysis, here's the voting by the five remaining.

Day 1

Shasta > Boro
Eönwë > Rikae
Gwath > Wilwa (did not bold)
Izzy > No show
Nerwen > No vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day 2

Nerwen > Me
Shasta > Rikae
Gwath > Mira (known to be a probable modfire)
Izzy > Mac
Eönwë > No vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day 3

Shasta > Annu
Eönwë > Gwath
Nerwen > Rikae retracted after her hunter reveal, then Annu
Izzy > Nogrod
Gwath > Annu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day 4

Nerwen > Gwath
Izzy > Herself
Eönwë > Sally
Shasta > Sally
Gwath > No show
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day 5

Nerwen > Gwath, retracted for Izzy
Gwath > No show
Eönwë > Me (did not bold)
Izzy > Nerwen
Shasta > Kath
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day 6

Izzy > Mac, retracted for Lommy
Nerwen > Mac, retracted for Lommy
Gwath > No show
Shasta > Lommy
Eönwë > Mac
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day 7

Nerwen > Mac
Gwath > Mac
Shasta > No vote
Eönwë > Mac
Izzy > Nerwen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps that will help someone. I have to conclude that Gwath is innocent, or at least not a mutineer. It would seem he's been allowed to use an unfair tactic if he is.
Izzy's voting appears highly suspect due to the useless vote for herself
and the votes for Nerwen because, as she said, she doesn't believe Greenie's reveal.
Shasta doesn't seem to have made any particularly odd votes.
Nerwen has three retractions.
Both Gwath and Eönwë made unbolded votes, otherwise Eönwë is like Shasta.

Ok, well I'm thinking that we know that we've managed to get rid of at least two of the baddies: Sally and one out of Mac and Lommy. Hopefully th

At best, we have only one mutineer left.

At worst however, I could be the only innocent left in the game, with there being two mutineers and two co-conspirators.


edit: x-ed x2 (computer froze)

edit 2: I x-post and now it's suddenly all gone quiet.

Sorry Eönwë, but that was pretty pathetic indeed... :rolleyes:

Yes, sorry (nothing personal).

But really, honestly, would you say that at this moment being an innocent? Maybe you could, just maybe... but that does look soo vile!


Thanks for the list Inzy! That could prove handy. I have a few things at my hands right now but I'll promise to take a closer look on that later.

I think it all depends on how seriously he tried to get those two lynched and whether we can believe he's a mutineer (sorry to bring this issue to the forwards again... I'm leaning on Lommy being the innocent one but just can't shake the doubt from my mind)? But I think that would be a case to be inspected more closely in any case. A promising find Nerwen!

I'm here...

I think Shasta is the evil one. Truly, Eönwë and Gwath sound honest to me, Izzy is a cobbler and trusting Greenie and what I'm seeing, I think Nerwen is probably an innocent (*sigh* I wish she'd been a cobbler, I'd feel much better about getting lynched).

I think we've caught three baddies this far, I have no idea who the third is, but two of the mutineers were Sally and Mac, I could bet a lot on that. So, as soon as I have the time, I will look through their posts and look for clues and see if my Shasta-hypothesis rings true or if someone else comes out looking worse...

Ok, well how would you say it?

I wouldn't say it in the first place... it looks darn underlining, or self-sufficent, or trying to appear like something - and thence suspicious... :rolleyes:

Well, yes it does. But in this game I don't say something because it does or doesn't make me suspicious- I say it because I mean it. It is possible that there are two mutineers and two co-conspirators (Ah! There's a way to say it without incriminating myself in the process).

I don't know about Lommy - she is so misguided about me, and all because of "process of elimination" (her words) - but if she's not the Ranger, who is?

I need to go. I will hopefully be back before DL (If Brinn extends it by an hour or more), but just in case, I'll make it official:

++Shasta

Shasta, there should be enought to wonder about the living, don't waste your energy on the dead. This game will end in one way or another in a few days, so I guess you can wait that much to find about the roles of the dead... unless of course you know enough about the living so you're only troubled by the dead and whether they're gifted as they claim or not? ;)

I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to be curious? Was that in the rules? If so, I missed it.

At the moment I died, I had no idea how much the danger to die affects one's motivation to participate. There is just no way in hell I could bring myself to scoop through 30 pages to sieve the posts of the remaining living, especially considering that no one is going to listen to me anyway ( :rolleyes: ). But I'll be around and comment.

I think it's definitely worth to spend a thought or two on the dead, especially you and Nogrod, who are still participating lively and having influence. If someone could give us a convincing guess at the identities of the dead mutineers, it'd probably be the key to victory, since in the given setting, the mutineers were/are probably less careful in their interactions than usual.

I noticed the very same thing. And I still haven't read through those two Days I missed in the beginnig of the game - and thence I'm a bit unsure with all these cases against or for Izzy, Shasta and Eönwë... It really does affect one's motivation. Agreed. Although had I been killed by Night by the mutineers I might have been more keen to get involved as some people might have listened to me. But looking at Boro's and Nerwen's reactions (in particular) it feels sometimes like a waste of time alltogether... and as you have seen, I have mainly commented on discussions that have been going on right when I have been around - and maybe on some general principles. That's where the lack of the threat of personal survival gets one into. Laziness and a kind of disinterestedness.

You're kind of right here and then at the same time looking like a bloody mutineer... Do you think Shasta would make a detailed overall analysis - from Day1 onwards to the present - or Eönwë... or even Izzy (well she might, possibly) - and then use hours to make the connections between what they had worked out from the dead to the present living? You're suggesting a sidetrack Mac and you know it.

There is no way to be sure about the dead - but there are chances of hitting it right with the living if you make an effort towards it. Using the energy to look at the dead - where nothing firm can be found - is waste of energy from this lazy crew we have alive. So let them stick to the actual matter at hand with the few posts they have an interest to make in the first place... :(

Could I prophetise that the dead will post more toDay than the living - even with these motivation-issues? :confused:

Exactly, if there are dead players that seem to be holding particular sway over the surviving crew, I think we have to at least try to analyze their motivations. I'm not suggesting we ignore the living; not at all. But I'm not sure why it's such a big deal to Lommy that we focus solely on the living, especially when quite a few of the dead are continuing to be pretty vocal and influential. Fortunately there is a fair consensus regarding the alignments of several players (Lommy, Greenie, Sally, maybe Mac), so I don't think it will be necessary to go so far as lynching any ghosts yet.

Shoot, crossed with Nogrod.

What gives you the idea we've caught three? Is it statistics, or just a theory? Why do you think Shasta is the fourth?


Eonwe, it kind of looks like you just pick up on whatever suspicion has recently been suggested and vote on it. Or did you give some reason somewhere for why you're voting Shasta and I just missed it?

Oh, I guess Shasta did express some suspicion of Eonwe earlier. Well, that makes a little more sense, but still - if going with the flow was not Eonwe's typical M.O. (regardless of role), I would find that kind of ostensible attempt at bandwagoning pretty suspicious. As it is, I'm not sure that it can tell us much.

Well, I'll be back later. I intend to analyze Izzy and Shasta, who are the two biggest question marks for me. We'll see if I get around to it.

Just a short peek-in before I go to sleep...

Bandwagon? I was the first one to suggest we lynch Shasta toDay.

Anyone around?

edit: Oh well. I'll try to come back just before DL.

Sally's interactions with those who still live

Eönwë
Day1 he banters with her, she thinks he is ok
Day3 he thinks she's innocent
Day4 he votes her
Day6 chatter

Gwath
Day1 she banters with him on Day, she says: "nothing on him, except that I like to rib him"
Day3 he questions Rikae over her
Day4 she wouldn't like to vote him to save herself, she votes him
Day7 he calls her a cobbler

Izzy
Day1 S has nothing about I
Day2 I accuses S on Day2, I debates voting S
Day3 I suspects S for the quick vote , I keeps suspecting S, I suspects S yet more
Day4 I is very suspicious of S
Day5 I notes it's interesting to see S is more active when dead

Nerwen
Day1 S doesn't suspect N on
Day4 N points a possible slip from S, N says S and Gwath can't be mutineers togethe
Day5 talk about Kath, slight suspicion back and forth
Day6 chat about N's misreadings
Day7 N says S has confessed she's evil

Shasta
Day1 she calls him "power-hungry son of a sea w(hor[s]e)", she votes him and gives him the second vote
Day3 she votes him right when the Day starts,
Day4 he is unsure about the wagon against her, he doesn't like her possibly trying to manipulate him, he votes her


Mac's interactions with those who still live

Eönwë
Day1 M lists E as "more innocent than guilty"
Day2 M lists E under "simply no idea"
Day3 E likes the stuff M's done, M has E leaning towards innocent
Day4 M says E is probably innocent
Day5 M says E needs a closer look, M says E is worth a raised eyebrow for being unreasonable
Day6 M has a bad feeling about E, M makes a really straw-grasping case on E and proclaims him guilty, E says M has started to look a little suspicious, M suspects the wolf pack consists of E + Lommy + Gwath, M thinks Lommy defending E is mutineer defending a fellow, E calls M Boromir under the influence of the Ring, E wonders about the M-Lommy argument, E votes M
Day7 E speculates rather thoroughly about possible M-scenarios, E votes M but mentions his retraction but then clarifies it's very unlikely he'll retract, M is confused about him

Gwath
Day1 talk about whether there'll be a double-lynch on, M lists G as "clueless" and wonder about his contribution, M dismisses the option of giving G a second vote based on his cluelessness
Day2 talk about whether to believe Greenie , M doesn't find G's vote suspicious on, G asks M to explain his vote
Day3 M wants to have another look at G, M suspects G on Annu is mutineer-on-mutineer, G answers M's suspicion, M says to G "while I agree that the other people voting for you may not have the best reasons, I'm afraid I still suspect you more than the rest o' the crew", M votes G
Day4 M is suspicious of G, M votes G
Day5 M thinks G had a reason to suspect he'd be picked by Rikae , M comments the votes: "Gwath is in the lead?? Yikes!"
Day6 M wonders if G'll be back since he's alive according to the lists, M is sure about G's guilt, M suspects the wolf pack consists of G + Lommy + Eönwë, M speculates about G's guilt
Day7 G needs more reading to determine whether M is ordo or wolf, G votes M, M decides G's innocent after all because he considered M was telling the truth

Izzy
Day1 he lists her under "clueless"
Day2 she accuses him, he lists her under "simply no idea", she remarks he's voting alongside a suspect of his, she debates voting him, she votes him
Day3 she wonders about him and Nog, she doesn't alarm him, she doesn't like him
Day4 he's fine with her, he thinks she didn't have a reason to suspect being picked by the hunter
Day5 she considers voting him, he says she's probably not a wolf but may be a cobbler
Day6 she debates voting him, he doubts she's a mutineer, she votes him, she says her vote signifies he's a mutineer, she thinks both he and Lommy are mutineers, he claims to have protected her, he tries to sweet-talk her to his side, she reatracts her vote for him
Day7 she rebukes him for twisting the truth, she says "Mac is... Mac"

Nerwen
Day1 he lists her under "clueless" and claims he won't be able to read her, he dismisses the option of giving her a second vote based on his cluelessness
Day2 he takes her word for Nog because of her known innocence on, he lists her as almost known innocent
Day3 he thinks Eomer's death solidates her innocence, she says he's speaking sense, she wonders if he and Nog are in cahoots
Day4 he calls her a quasi-known innocent, he explains her deathlessness, she says his guilt can't be ruled out because of Rikae's suspicion of him
Day6 he says she's probably innocent, she votes him, she wonders if his claim has credit, she retracts her vote for him and saves him
Day7 she speculates in which cases a wolf-Mac would be so resigned, she votes him

Shasta
Day1 M lists S as "more guilty than innocent"
Day2 S says "An' he keeps 'em pearly white, Mac." (no idea what he's referring to!), M's reply is "An' ye be keepin' it out of sight, I reckon?", M says S is getting "worked up" so he's probably innocent, M is doubtful about S and thinks he may be a cobbler
Day3 M thinks S may be a co-consp but nothing worse
Day4 M keeps saying S may be a cobbler, M reminds S that the vote is up to him
Day5 S thinks M+Lommy stuff is staged, M says S has slipped his attention, M says S is too much in the shadows but genuinely helpful, S repeats suspicion of a stage act, M asks S who he's going to vote
Day6 S asks M to clarify stuff, M feels good about S, S thinks both M and Lommy are mutineers, S believes M's ranger claim, S defends M's claim
Day7 S is unsure about M, S is tempted to vote M but still unsure

And that's it. Thoughts coming in a separate post, this is too long already.


edit: mass-xed

I think Eönwë may look the worst. Mac and he ignored each other pretty much, Mac kept calling him rather innocent and then, when suspicion was building against him, he attacked Eönwë with a totally stupid case. I'm only wondering if he'd turned on his fellow when they were still so close to the victory...

It's pretty clear Izzy and Gwath aren't mutineers. Izzy's attacks against Mac and Sally are relentless, so I can't see them being in cahoots. Gwath then - Mac voted him for two Days in a row and suspected him really all along until his last post alive.

Nerwen I'm ignoring because she's not anything worse than a cobbler but it might be of use for Izzy to check my notes, and it's good they exist for argument.

Shasta then... this is the tricky case. If he's a mutineer, Sally is a mere co-consp. For who'd vote their fellow two times in a row, both times possibly risking his neck? Shasta's interactions with Mac puzzle me. They were clearly allied, but why? Because they're mutineers who knew they had to stick together to win (quickly)? Or because Shasta believed Mac and he abused it? It makes sense that the mutineers would have stuck together as long as possible, especially if they had hopes of co-consps being around. But then again, would they dare to be so darn obvious? And is Mac twice reminding Shasta he has the decisive vote too obvious to be a sign of alliance?

I suggest one of Eönwë and Shasta is lynched toDay and the other one toMorrow if needs be.

PS. And what's this nonsense about the dead losing motivation? Are you evil or lazy? :p

I think I'm going to sleep soon, this time I have no interest to keep me awake all night. ;) Just, I want to say something I was reminded of when I was rereading - I'm so glad Boro turned out innocent. I'm glad because it proves my boroscope is working, proves I wasn't manipulated and proves that sometimes it's worth it to trust another player in ww even if you have no way of knowing each other's roles. :)

Lazy... or not willing to pull all life aside because of the game where already dead - and lagging behind a few Days anyway... and because there is nothing one could deduce without hours of searching which just doesn't interest with the status I have... (nobody listens anyway - look at Boro's and Nerwen's reactions...) :rolleyes:

I wouldn't call that a fact looking how stubbornly misguided he has been... a co-conspie he must be. He is more sensible when pure innocent.

What were you asking of us others just a moment ago? :D

Nog, you could've used all the time you've hanged around here up until now... :rolleyes:

And as for Boro, well, he could be a co-conspie, but it doesn't matter, he never messed my mind too badly and they can be forgiven for manipulating because that's their job, but a manipulating mutineer is the same as the first word in the combination of words that signifies a sword that can be wielded with one or two hands... :p And I think he was an ordo.

Gah, I thought I could get away with little participation today, but now Lommy is using the fact that many people foolishly believe her ranger-claim to make big outrageous cases.

Please, people, when reading that, always keep in mind that,
1) You don't know what her role is.
2) Her analysis depends entirely on Sally and me being mutineer role. The latter is wrong, though inanely consistent for her, the former is a fallacy, since Sally could just as well be a conspirator (think about it just once: the fact that she admitted to being evil makes conspiration infinitely more likely than mutiny).

I think a similar analysis of Lommy is due, if only for some balance.

See it's not ever over yet and you already know you were right about 2 people. :p Trust, trust, trust, sometimes that's the only way I can ever figure anything out, and if you are being pulled around by someone, just say well done when it's all over and shrug it off. ;)

Haha, I'm not stubborn when I'm innocent, that's the first time someone's told me that.:rolleyes:

And you must have not been in Mith's game when I was the cobbler...I think if Mith or someone who was a wolf/in that game would tell you I made a very sensible cobbler, dropping hints to the wolves as to who I was so I didn't die, and lasting until the end once the wolves decided they lynch me they win. Gwath may be able to tell you that, I think he was a wolf in that one.

I'm far from certain that Sally was a mutineer and not a co-conspie, but as you see, it's taken into account. And I'm certain you're a mutineer (funny you say nothing about that ;)), you made it sure if not otherwise then by that silly ranger claim.

People have no way of knowing my role, yes, that's true, but they can still see what I say and judge with their own judgement. Or are you afraid of their judgement? Poor desperate mutineer. ;)

Going to sleep now. Good night!

Also, if I had any sort of role that was somewhat importantin this game, I doubt I woud have went out at noon to start pre-gaming for US v. Brazil and spent 6 hours at a sports bar getting my hopes up for the 1st half just to see them smashed in the last half. I'd spend some more time here, trying to work some magic...hmm actually I think before now I only had 2 posts today...

I haven't actually hung around even if I have posted... I have written the Arda Football Cup match descriptions, making dinner to myself, watching the Confederations Cup finals from the telly... I've just occasionally checked this thread.

Something in what you say - overall, not just that particular one - bothers me Lommy. Dang, it was looking so easy (choose from three) just before you started posting toDay... But I'm afraid I'm out of fuel to start turning all the stuff around this Day any more (2.40AM).

That's exactly what I was saying. I said you are more sensible when innocent - and less stubbornly misguided - as your stubborness is an intentional misbehaviour when you're a baddie of some sort. :rolleyes:

Talking about convincing arguments... :D

Of course you went to see the game - and it was a good one! All the merit to the US team. They fought valiantly but Brazil is... well just Brazil...

But why did you actually think it worth mentioning in the first place - or thinking it fit to make explanations on your inactivity toDay Boro? Interesting... and dreadful indeed, looking at the possible implications.

You seem to be under the impression the still living have somehow been taking me more worthy of trustworthiness than I have taken of you. Not sure what gives you that impression, considering I haven't done much since Mac's lynching.

The reason I still don't take you serious Nogrod, is because you still haven't admitted that you have been still showing a persistent caring in what happens, despite your protests that you really don't. It's makes it look like you have more to lose than I do.

Mac's lynched, you're a ghost, I'm a ghost, my conscience is clear, now it's time to tune in to this SVU marathon on TV...hmm probably the only Law and Order I will ever watch. So, I bid ye goodnight.

You should know me better Boro... Of course I care how the game ends. I'm just fighting against my bad conscience of not doing more (like actually forcing myself to read the Days I missed etc.). Yes, I feel bad of not doing more - while I sometimes actually think "why bother"...

Anyway, good night you living-lazybones... :rolleyes:


Looking at Lommy's list of interactions - with Mac (I'm not too sure Sally was a mutineer, maybe rather one of the thousand co-conspies) - I'd say Shasta might be a good idea to try out. I mean that looks suspicious indeed.

Well... there is a logical reason, but I'm not sure if it's what Lommy had in mind. Given what has happened– or rather failed to happen– toDay, I'd guess that we do not have two wolves plus Izzy. I could be wrong, though– they could be hedging their bets in case she doesn't show up.

Yes, Eönwë suggested Shasta off his own bat... but he still hasn't given a reason (other than, "he's still alive").