[THE Ka]

Yay, more people have arrived.

I have some extra time inbetween classes and resume sending today so I thought I'd check in.

Whether Lommy is a wolf or whatever she may be, I'd like to say thank you for post #49. Mainly because I'm trying to scan as quickly as I can and add that to the other piles of theories. Thanks, it helps. A lot for lazy brains like mine.

Originally Posted by Brinn

I guess one of my concerns is that people will be so caught up with events that occurred toDay, they won't notice later and more important clues that are right in front of their faces. It's happened before...where people are so concerned with one thing they are blinded by another. Am I making any sense here?

Yes, some sense. I think things are starting to come forth a bit more. I was kind of put off by the consistent loud vs. quiet arguement, which probably if put in a RL context would be a bunch of people yelling back and forth. Sorry, I find it kind of annoying once a theory has been beaten out over and over again. It doesn't let others, ordinary or possible wolves speak when there's only one arguement going round, and it doesn't make much progress. Except the progress of knowing that loud vs. quiet is an arguement.
Which, I am glad more people have come by and contributed. If all else, it won't flop the trial days like a flan in a cuboard.

With that in mind, I did suspect Roa for a little bit, by either the use of repeated arguement and anything else at disposal. Then, I figured that would be way too easy a move for anyone, especially wolves.
By throwing everyone into their respective corners of standing, is blalant a move. Or, it is also a good one, since it seems too easy as a form of suicide for anyone, thus others nod it off as good trickery (can I use that, or am I writing like Joyce again?). So for now, I don't have much to make any conviction about Roa or other loud/quiet ones in the earlier 'loud vs. quiet' arguement. So, for now I can say I don't have much to make any logic deduction.

Originally Posted by Agan

The wolves don't know who will be their fellows, but surely they don't want to lose any of them (in the trials or later).

Very true, but that is also for specials and ordinaries as well. Obviously the wolves, no matter how large a number there is of them in this game, they need as many as possible to make any great effect. So, whatever anyone throws out they can decide to go with or against. Examples of this are especially arguements about playing style. Diversions like that, when they're dragged on and on, are wonderful for a wolf.

I guess the same can be said about specials, except maybe the need for preserving themselves is an even dire effort. This is because, unlike the wolves, the specials are in different groups with different roles, etc. Whether they are counterproductive to each others' groups can be true, but specials even in larger amounts can be at a great disadventage by the way and number of votes in their direction.

Maybe even at a greater disadvantage is ordinaries, on certain trial days, and by who they vote for. If you're an ordinary, you necessarily don't wish to attract too much suspicious attention, and you definately don't want your vote to end up taking out another of your group or a special who can benefit you. So, in a way I can see why some players are especially cautious about their votes just yet, survival wise when you don't know the role of any other it makes sense.

Originally Posted by Agan

So if we force them to comment on others before they know their fellows, it'll be less likely that they can change their opinion about them later and get away with it.

Be careful about that, wolves really only want to appear as ordinaries at the most, and if they have a head on their shoulders they'll definately go with the most cavaliering and pious crowd, but try to make sure that their response is as unique as it is deemed 'appropriate' saying,
"Oh I agree, but have you looked at this? No?! Well, if it isn't too much to explain, you might kill me anyways, but here's my contribution to the cause..."

If you give them a 'hero', they'll write you a tragedy.

Now, any ordinary knowing their end coming might say the same thing, so that is why it is tricky. Of course though, we always need to remember people will randomly bring back their character's personality at times to keep things varied for the sake of writing.

I have to end my post at this, since I have some phone calls/RL things to finish up for now.

I have a stupid question first though, since I keep seeing people mention it on and off. I thought we were not supposed to know whom else we have a trial day with/tell others for very simple reasons? Sorry if this is stupid, but I just wished to ask since I haven't seen the discussion page today, just PM's I recieved.

~ Ka