To be honest I was fuming at Lottie and Boro's deaths. I also thought Boro was just an ordo but couldn't see why he would do that, at least from a game perspective. Lottie, on the other hand, I wasn't completely convinced on. Of course my real feeling was that she was being honest and maybe hiding something else (for instance....erm, yeah I have nothing) but I didn't think she was a cursed or anything of that nature. If she'd have been around too long I may have been convinced to kill her, but I couldnt' see the sense in doing it when we had much better candidates around. Like Lommie. :rolleyes:

^_^

And to be honest I just thought up the sacrifice thing when I got online that afternoon. I remember telling Mnemo (I was with her at the time) that it would probably get me killed, just like my other crazy plans in this game. I'm glad it worked out, though; after the death that Night I was a bit thrown and more than ready to try anything, especially since I was sure I was next (hence my insane bluffing and obvious "Oh hello I'm the ranger" stuff toward the end of the Day). At least we managed to get Bes-wolf out of the way, because I'm pretty sure he would have gotten through clean. (Although, for the record, I wanted to tell Shasta to switch the order of his list but never remembered to do it. I wanted to know about Nog so bad, especially since I was convinced about Bes.) But alas, what's done is done and I think we did our best. Didn't we, precious? ;)

Funnily enough, we came up with the same idea pretty much independently. :p

Edit: Ha! X'ed with Sally.

You are welcome ;)

Actually, my initial idea for the name of the game - when I have first thought of that, which was, like, well about an year ago already (although back then the idea of the game was far different, but at least plot-wise the basic idea was the same), I have thought of naming the game "At the Mountains of Angband". Nonetheless, later I decided otherwise. Partially it was possibly sort of to "liberate" people from thinking in the terms of where they are and to allow it to be also a bit about the arctic atmosphere itself, and also to liberate myself from sort of being pressed by the subconscious expectation of "so shouldn't we already see some real Angbandish stuff?", and partially it was just my incureable over-cryptical (and possibly annoying) thinking (known well from the Quiz Room) which makes me think the way "everybody must get the chance to figure out things by themselves, because if they do, they are happier that way as they can feel proud that they have figured it out by themselves". That is, not that it would be usually like that - but still I keep doing it, and I think it may be a sort of self-reflection, as myself, I prefer following things step-by-step and not being outright told the answer.

Oh yes, I really pitied especially Nog at that time - because it would have been such a great discovery, if only it was true. And I must second what you said about innocents: very often it just went so that the village turned to some direction, which all too often meant lynching an innocent. The worst thing about that is (at least I got that impression from reading people's posts, but maybe some innocents can give a different opinion) that people still were not completely happy with what they were doing, but they did it nonetheless - with the kind of thinking "maybe my doubts are betraying me and he/she is indeed a Wolf", where in the end it turned out that the person they lynched was innocent anyway.

See, that's why I only ever vote for the person I find most suspicious, regardless of their chances of getting lynched.

Roa: By that token, shouldn't you have waited a little longer to vote on day 1? Just sayyin...

Nope, with the knowledge that Nogrod was lying with his seer hints and knowing for certain that I was a wolf, I was convinced of his guilt, because I couldn't see why an innocent would lie about that. I knew it was most likely that no one else would vote for him, but I voted him anyways.

Good game all! My hunches were usually way off but nothing new there. Congratulations to the victors!

A general point: I found that there were too many chatty posts, and to a slightly lesser degree, too many long posts. It makes participation a bit trying at times, wading through so much.

Well, I feel like I should oppose at least the former statement (not sure about the latter, as I am myself known to write long posts - although I also dislike reading overlong posts, yet this time it didn't seem too out of hand to me). Personally I was very pleased with the "level of chattiness" in the game, as I believe it was almost nonexistant. It has been a (bad, in my opinion) habit in some of the latter games I have been playing that the chatty-level was sometimes excessive (and it is indeed annoying to have to read through a page of nothing if you return to the computer half an hour before DL and need to read the whole day and you cannot sort out what is important and what not - that is why I mentioned it also in the rules), but here, with the exception of perhaps the last days (where there haven't been too many posts, anyway), I think it was pretty reasonable.

In that case, Legate, some of these last few games may have turned players insane. ;) I have not played in a while so I wouldn't know.

To be clear, I have not been playing in all of the latter games either, but still concerning games during the course of the last year or so, sometimes it was like that. You just need to play more, Eomer. :p

I actually still think lynching Lottie made sense. But not combined with all the other mislynches. :rolleyes: :D

And if I may oppose - I don't think the fake Day1 was such a brilliant idea. No, it wasn't bad, but it wasn't brilliant either. It puts the wolves slightly to a disadvantage compared to normal, and also the village is more confused than normal on Day2 due to no kill. And you still don't avoid the feeling of dislike towards Day1s. ;)

And I can't see why the idea can't be used again. Maybe just without the directions for the gifted and wolves.

The wolves might have been at slight disadvantage because the powerful ranger-hunter duo, the fake Day&Night1 and the birthday dreamer, but then again, they had quite an advantage in having no seer in the game. It's not only that they can't be revealed, but it's also that their kills are suddenly far more traceless. So I think it was quite a fair set up.

Thanks everybody for the game, especially Legate of course- I loved your narrations.

Time for revelations... *tat-ta-dat-taa!*

The PM that Legate sent to us innocents read something like "you will have to get rid of the four wolves". Anyway, it stated clearly the number of wolves = four.

So every innocent knew exactly how many wolves there were as it was so clearly stated in the PM where one learned one's role of being innocent.

Every innocent knew exactly the number of wolves. So no seer hints there but reasons beoynd any reasonable doubt that you Roa were a wolf!

I was more astonished on why you weren't lynched like on votes 20-1.

How was it you missed it?

So what "seer-hints"?

:eek: Ohhh...

I didn't get that pm, either. So I thought that post of yours was really weird. The 'seer-hints' that I saw were where you said that every innocent could see it...and I didn't think of the pm. :rolleyes:

Indeed. After the fuss around it started to happen, I saw that I made a mistake - I should not have sent any PMs like that, I should have probably just sent "you are an innocent" and that's it.

Nevertheless, maybe this is a good time to further discourage people from using meta-game reasoning (including PMs) from their suspicions, as due to this experience I have just realised how serious problem it can become in certain circumstances. You can be wrong with in-game suspicion, but with meta-game stuff it tends to be a lot trickier as you feel a lot more "sure". As one can see, it really does not work that way and the possibilities are endless. (In this case, Roa, as she told me, simply was too busy that she read just the first words and did not pay attention to the rest of the PM, as she learned everything she wanted to know from the "You are an ordinary innocent" first sentence. Also, there was no telling whether I did not send different PMs to some ordos - which actually happened too, in this case, even though quite randomly.)

So I further discourage people from using meta-game reasoning. It can awfully backfire. I have experience with using such reasoning, like, twice or thrice for myself, I saw/read/thought something which seemed to point to some directions, I tried to ignore it, but then, you who have ever been in such a situation probably know that it just can't be totally ignored - so I sort of used it to back my thoughts, and lo, what happened? I was wrong in all cases.

I think the best way to approach such things (at least how I tend to do it) is a) do not use it as grounds for suspicion, b) IF you use it, then use it as support for your already existing suspicion of somebody (e.g. okay, I was suspecting Roa, and now this is one more reason for it, but not starting suspecting her out of the blue because of it) - that's just a sensible approach, c) and mainly, IF you use it, keep it to yourself and do not post it on the thread. It should not be brought into the game itself. Nobody can prevent you from using it as reasoning for yourself, but it's your business and you will also suffer the consequences yourself if you are wrong. But dragging it into the open is not good - and if you have to explain your suspicion of somebody to others, you should have other reasons which you could mention instead of mentioning the meta-game stuff (see b) ). And anyway, of course in general, it is simply not really how WW should be played - the game's about something different.

Well I worked it out– I hoped we'd be able to pick a gifted or two from their failure to understand what the heck Nogrod was talking about. Unfortunately for us, Shasta, it seems, also guessed correctly!

Indeed - or did the Ranger and Hunter PMs also specify the number of wolves? Lottie's apparently didn't.
Actually, Nog, I still don't quite get how you could feel so sure about Roa being a wolf based on the PM reasoning. Even assuming she hadn't got the same message as the ordos, she might still have been Gifted - and being an ordo yourself, you had no way of knowing what was in their PMs. As you can see from the protocols of our Nightly conclaves, the matter puzzled us quite a bit.

What do you mean, No seer in the game? What do you mean, We couldn't be revealed? *growl*:D

Well exactly - that's just one more reason for what I have said. So in other words, simply put: do not lay your trust in meta-game reasoning, it is never 100% foolproof, and even if you see your roommate posting a PM titled "ToNight's Kill", it may as well be so that he/she is having a funny PM title and posting a Seer's dream, or talking to a random non-playing member, excitedly describing what he/she thinks the Wolves will do toNight... :)

I am now officially naming ALL Werewolf PMs "ToNight's Kill."

Well that explains a lot. :rolleyes:

EDIT: x'd with Mnemo

This is my first post concerning the matter...

So you see, I was pretty much aware of that possibility but Roa herself gave me the license to test it... :rolleyes:


But what comes to meta-reasoning as such... well that's a more complicated issue.

First of all I think it is unavoidable from personal perspective. If you notice something that is a meta-reason to either suspect someone or not, then you notice it, and you can not "delete" it from your mind.

Like if I'm an ordo and receive a PM from the mod where it clearly says we have four wolves and then someone comes making a statement there are only three wolves - well she has not received the same PM I have, ergo a wolf (or a gifted...). Well it was wrong - like anything one interpretes from the actual discussion might be right or wrong...

Pay heed also to what followed: it seemed to me both Boro and Eomer noticed it - at least they talked in a round-about way but it seemed they understood what I was saying (I was aware though they might be just cunning wolves making a good guess so I didn't trust them completely). Then came Sally pointing almost head-on what I was saying only followed by Shasta who unhappily revealed the whole thing mentioning the PM (and making me basically 100% sure he was an innocent - I never defended you on that ground Shasta!). Wilwa only declared she understood the point after Shasta's "revelation" concerning the grounds of it, so I didn't let her off the hook as she might have been a wolf who just realised what was the fuzz all about and tried to make herself look better... Heh, just like any suspicion voiced, recalled, argued on, speculated over with gazillion different interpretive possibilities etc... :)

I had no intention to make it an issue. I was happy to notice Roa might be a wolf already on D1 and to be the one to spot it. I actually thought I could leave it at that... but it was to go otherwise... and I soon regretted my choice to voice it in the first place. And I think I now stand warned about it seeing how it took off.

But the real problem I think is the question of where to draw the line?

For example after playing with same people a number of games one starts automatically to create patterns of their behaviour in different roles. That can be misleading to be sure (like the different amount of time people have at their hands etc. - although many people notify others of their RL rushes), but it's something one can't just wipe out from one's understanding of any given situation. Like some people play very lazily if they have no role but activate when they have one (*coughSleepy Rangercough*), or some are aggressive suspecters when innocent and more smooth when wolves, some are more laid back when innocents but a bit nervous when wolves etc... And these things have been used as arguments, well basically in every game on someone. And that is meta-gaming as well.

I'm not sure what to say.

I think the old ruling that quotes from PM's or things like that should not be produced as evidence in the actual game-thread in any situation, is a good piece of advice. Also knowing something about people's relations in RL should not be argued openly on (didn't we lynch a wolf in one game years ago when someone noticed that the mod had written the first narration of his own death and making his RL-lover kill him with a rose or something?). After one especially epic fail (also years ago) I think the mods have gotten more careful with genders in their narrations and no one's doing that any more (the mod revealed the gender of the last living wolf and the village lynched the wolf...).

Basically anything based on meta-reasons should not be argued explicitly.

But drawing lessons from this one I must say I will myself consider it a few times before I even hint at that kind reason being around to be found.

Heh... I forgot to make the defence of why some meta-reasons like the one voiced in this game could be fair... (unless "quoted" or opened in any other way)

If a wolf makes a conscious "error" regarding the number of wolves s/he makes her/himself look very good by the innocents - in a meta-reason level!

Like it or not, but that kind of clumsiness, especially from a seasoned and extremely sharp player, basically whitewashes that person in the back of our heads; not because of what s/he has said in the thread as to suspect or defend, but because of what kind of meta-game impression s/he gives of her/him. :confused:

And there must be a way to fight against that kind of tactics as well...

As I recall, outright discussion of past games was originally frowned upon. Of course, inventive Werewolvers managed to circumvent the rule by referring to the 'Tome of Werewolf Lore', recalling tales of past villages plagued by Werewolves and relating stories of their ancestors who died at the hands of fellow players' ancestors ... :rolleyes: :D

I am not a fan of meta-game reasoning of any type whatsoever. In my view, the in-game discussion should relate solely to events that have happened and things that have been said in the game itself. Now, I am sure that I have been guilty myself on occasion, because it is tempting, and I certainly agree that one cannot exclude meta-reasoning from one's mind. But I would be in favour of a stricter approach by mods, and greater self-discipline from players, in this respect.

As regards the incident in question, I must say that, following the game, I immediately picked up on Roa's reference to the number of Wolves as a possible intentional error to make herself look less Wolfish. I think that there was a perfectly respectable case to put as to her being suspicious on this basis, even without knowledge of what the PMs to ordos said, although I perhaps would not have pushed it quite as strongly as Nog did.

Btw, great game Legate and all. I really enjoyed following it and loved the various twists and turns. I must admit to rooting for the Wolves after Pitch's death, as I always tend to support the underdog. :)

Well then SPAM I'm glad I gave you a win :rolleyes:...