Funny, I did get
Nilp's original point, but when he started elaborating on it, I got confused.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greenie
I don't think it's any big news that I'm annoyed by the phantom's open aim to manipulate the village. Even if he was right and his way of playing this village was profitable, I'd still prefer it so that every player plays in the way s/he sees fit. I don't think it's anyone's duty or right or even possibility to choose how the village is to be played.
|
Well, darling, we can always just ignore him. Let him say what he wants, we don't have to obey him. As long as he doesn't insist on anyone following his guidelines, I think we can cope with him.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greenie
I disagree - I think two wolves are as hard to find as five. Though we have less wolves to catch, we also have a bigger chance of lynching a non-wolf. A very cunning wolf can fool us just as neatly with one or four packmates.
|
Okay, they might not be easier to find per se, but there being just two of them makes the game easier for us. If there are just two wolves, they can't win by numbers ie it will take a long time until their number equals that of the innocent villagers, so we should have plenty of time to lynch innocents and cobblers before it gets too dangerous...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mith
I am sure one of you clever folk will probably spot a gaping hole in my reasoning but would it be completely stupid to lynch Kitanna if we don't get a better idea. We are going to lose her anyway? I know it doesn't get us a wolf (unless she is one) but we can't do any other harm?
|
...what? Why
Kitanna? Because she's not talking? But
Fea and
Kath aren't talking either... Have I missed something, or what is it?
edit: xed with tp