[the guy who be short]

Well, here I am 1 and a bit hours earlier than I should be awake, because I'm not sure I can get onto this thread the rest of the day. Looks like an early vote from me, I'm afraid. And if I'm snappy, it's because of only 7 hours sleep, which is definitely not enough for one my age.

First, replies:

Originally Posted by nogrod

I do disagree with you on this somewhat. If we already have a terrifying number of those who can influence the vote why give them one more? And no one says we would have gotten a Faithful yesterDay anyhow, on the contrary the basic odds were against us. And it was not illogical, that was the beauty of Roa's game yesterDay: it was a perfectly possible scenario.

But let's not make an issue out of this as I do believe this breaks the lines of us innocents already...

I must make this an issue. So far, the wolves have killed nobody out of choice. Thus, voting records and past actions are the only things we have to analyse. All of yesterday was taken up with Roa, and so we have to look into people's reactions to her.

About Roa's vote: 1) She does not know who the wolves are, and so cannot help them much.
2) She would not vote for somebody she sincerely believed to be innocent (as a cobbler should) because then we would know who she thought was innocent.
3) She would not double-bluff and vote for a Faithful, because that would be dangerous for the faithful.
She would therefore be in a voting predicament, and her vote would be meaningless.

The odds were against us for getting a Faithful yesterday: they were 4/16, counting Nogrod and Rikae as known innocents. However, by voting Roa, some villagers decided it was better to have a 0 chance of getting a Faithful than a 25% chance. And of course, the sooner we get one Faithful, the sooner we can find the rest.

On the contrary, Roa's argument was illogical. If Rikae were a wolf pretending to be a Seer, the most sensible course of action would be to pretend two people were known innocents, thus gaining their trust. Why pretend to have dreamt of a cobbler? To cripple Roa? Why? Because she just happened to have accused one of them? Also, Rikae had been attacked the night before. We had only her word for this, but the chance of her lying was tiny, for that would mean the wolves had gone after somebody else AND the ranger had successfully protected this person. In addition, nobody attacked Rikae, claiming she could have been a wolf pretending to be the seer, on day 1 or early day 2. A real seer would at least have suggested this to try to throw suspicion on somebody who they would, in that scenario, be certain of being a wolf. It just didn't add up.

I've made the argument enough times. If people can't see what's in the best interests of the village, they are either misguided or Faithful.

Originally Posted by durelin

We'd be so bogged down we wouldn't know what to think. Regardless of what people said about ignoring her, I don't think anyone actually did.

I did, until the rest of the village decided to start entertaining the possibility that Roa might be telling the truth.

Originally Posted by Kath

TGWBS suggests a shortlist. This early on I'm not sure I agree.

No, he doesn't.

Originally Posted by TGWBS, post302

I advised a shortlist. However, we need more known innocents for a shortlist to be mathematically plausible and not manipulated by the Faithful.

Now that that's out the way, I can get to my analysis of Lommy.