Okay. I think it’s my time to come into the open then.
For those of you who don’t know it, let it be said we have a colourful past in werewolfing,
Roa and I. It was
Roa’s second and my first game when we first met and I was the seer who dreamt of her being a wolf on the first Night and after a full Day of single-minded pursuit by me - trying to find any possible slip and ranting on it (that newbie me!) we finally lynched her (and I was killed the next Night). After that we have played the dog and cat thing almost every game – even if to speak the truth we have been able to collaborate a few times as well.
But that’s a kind if special thing for me at least – even if I’m losing it in numbers (just remembered the first
Dueling Wizards…).
But to the issue then.
I thought of
Roa’s “mistake” on the number of wolves as a bluff to begin with as I couldn’t believe she would honestly miss it – whatever she much later said about her last game, or the quite clumsy defence of saying “that would be too obvious”!!! One can also say one is innocent...
But then I saw
Roa jumping on
Boro (and yes dear
Roa, I saw you jumping, whatever you say about just disagreeing and not suspecting him – therefore I said it was not of the essence what you said you were doing.). I thought she was really trying to make
Boro look bad on purpose whilst I found
Boro’s remarks totally reasonable (heh, later she said it would be a trophy for me as a wolf to get an innocent loudmouth aka. her to lynch... but aren't we too similar in here; you tried the same with
Boro?).
And lay and behold, it seemed to work:
Nerwen followed suite in the questioning making
Boro the primary object of discussions and later a few people, especially
Bes, took your lead and started openly talking about
Boro being suspicious.
Perfect wolvery to my eyes. But how to get more evidence for or against from the most reasonable player there is? So how to get
Roa to react in a way that would reveal her alignment? I knew it wouldn’t be easy and no normal suspicion would do (I’ve learned that much during the years).
Suddenly I got the idea I thought was really great. So why not press her like “for the old times sake” and pose as someone who actually knew she was a wolf (like I was back then in our first meeting) and look how she would react to a possible “flashback from the past”? So if she was a wolf indeed, she would have to relive that first game and that might just bring her off her guard…
And before going into
Roa's posts after my suspicions of her, let me just point to this as I must still note that
Roa’s reaction to
Boro’s post is overwhelmingly overdone and – I’d like to say - consciously misinterpreted. Just compare these.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Boro
And how many times have we lynched gifteds because they need to look just as suspicious as wolves, but not too suspicious (making them look to us even more suspicious than the suspicious wolves) so the wolves don't kill them?
On the flip side, how many times do the reasonable, agreeable ones (myself often included in this, I admit) get free passes early, for being just that...reasonable and agreeable?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Roa
Seriously, if we start lynching people because they make sense, I'm quitting. Of course wolves can make sense. Of course innocents could lack sense. But saying we should lynch someone because they make sense is utterly ridiculous, and exactly what the wolves would want. They want the strong rational players that aren't drawing suspicion out of the way, because an innocent who doesn't draw suspicion is one less person to get lynched in place of a wolf. What you're suggesting basically gives the wolves a lot more places to hide, and little to fear in watching their step. It is because the wolves have to pretend that we can catch them. Targeting the reasonable means that the wolves don't have to be so careful. Your whole line of reasoning is flawed, and more than that, helps the wolves.
|
"Roalysis" to come in a moment...