Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Meneltarmacil
Silence is not going to help us much. While a loud wolf may be a more dangerous foe than a quiet one, the less experienced ones may slip up if forced to speak or may be revealed by their quietness. In any case, talking more should allow us to better see what the everyone is up to and hopefully force some of the wolves out of hiding.
|
You know, after my forefather (Aule? After all, he was a man of craft... perhaps he did shoes too!!) devised a crazy plan to keep the attention away from his cursed friends (namely, I was the cobbler and I started being loud about my plan to draw attention away from constructive discussion) I realized that there was some merit to my theory.
I'll propose it again now, but I promise not to push it beyond reason
Today is Day 1, we have very little to go on. Tomorrow we are not likely to have a whole lot more. On Day 3 we might have some voting record, but then we might not. Since right now the numbers are in our (the innocents) favour, why don't we rid ourselves of those that do not add to the discussion?
Unless we get a sudden breakthrough I strongly recommend that we lynch someone who was posted
1) Little, without much insight.
2) An larger amount of posts, and yet added nothing to the discussion.
These characters always become a liability by the end of the game since we all suspect them but we don't have enough evidence to lynch them, and we are reticent to lynch someone without enough "evidence". Right now we can afford a few bad lynches, and why not? After all, it is up to each of us to decide what "silent" means and also what a "breakthrough" or "evidence" might be, so it'll still leave a voting record.
Please note that, unlike my evil, cobbler former self, I'm not saying "lynch the quiet ones" but "lynch those that add nothing to the discussion". It so happens that most times they post little as well, for posting a lot of nonsense is bound to get them lynched.
I'd say it's up to each of you to decide whether this idea has merit or not, I will probably follow this theory and I hope my logic will earn me at least a few supporters (so that we can actually see whether it works or not) but I advise against discussing this at length since it'll take away from the actual discussion and wolf-hunting. Unlike last time, I do not want that to happen right now.
As for what has been said before, I can gleam nothing of importance other than some "gut" feelings about the players. Gut can be helpful (if you've played with me before you know that I tend to go by it a whole lot) but I see no point in discussing "this guy feels right, this guy does not".
What I will say, and perhaps I'm playing right into his hand since he has suspected me, is that
Anguirel is a prime example of someone posting often but saying little. I think we've all have tried
some measure of reasoning, but he has just kept on jesting for the most part.