Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinlómien
Nilp's conviction of the Lottie-voters' innocence is weird because it's so strong. To me it starts to sound slightly like a wolf insistently buddying up with innocents (I think it's less likely that if Nilp is a wolf one of us is a wolf too - then I doubt he would attract so much attention to his defense of us).
|
Why did this bit give me a poke on my second read? Maybe because it sounds somewhat alike to what
Sally kept saying about me?
And that's even more flipflopping on your part,
Lommy.
Although I do agree that
Nilp's belief is quite strong, and maybe even a bit blind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legate
Limits to plausibility, indeed. The thing Mith says here seems a bit complicated to me, or a bit overanalysed. Are you sure you haven't thought of that together with your packmates at Night?
|
I think
Mith was referring to this comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
However, looking at yesterDay's chaos of accusations, counter-accusations and passionate defences, it's interesting that apparently nobody looked more like the Seer to the wolves. Shasta's case on Lottie was built on in-game evidence– whereas, a good many players seemed ready to defend/suspect others at the drop of a hat.
|
And also this one, which was said in reply to
Mith's Ranger-twist post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
That would explain a few things– it's been suggested the wolves thought Shasta was the Seer because of his case on Lottie and/or comments about Sally, but I find that unlikely (unless they panicked). It's just so hard not to think of getting the Seer as the lupine priority.
|
On hindsight, I can see these being typed by a worried Ranger - as
Mith noted yesterDay, the wolves might not have gone for the most Seerish person around because of the Ranger twist. Perhaps she was protecting someone who defended/accused a person "at the drop of a hat", and
Mith's post was a realisation that her job is much harder....
I disagree with a bit what
Mith said today about these, though:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mith
In retrospect, Nerwen's comments yesterday wondering why Shasta looked Seerish to the wolves and saying she hadn't reckoned that the Seer might not be the wolves top priority might indicate that her own priority was working out the Seer not the wolves - which is the proper function of the Ranger.
|
I think
Nerwen meant that the wolves' top priority - and therefore her priority at Night as well - might
not be the Seer. (But during the Day, finding the Seer is back at the top.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund
It's DAY 1. Votes are going to be random. I won't do a statistical study, but I'd imagine that less baddies are killed on DAY 1 than in any other DAY.
I think that baddie-fratricide would be more beneficial when a more proper 'case' against a fellow baddie could be made, cos then the baddie-accuser could not be suspected of having hidden knowledge of who's who in the village. Again, this is from the (theoretical) logical standpoint.
But since apparently this Lottie gal attracts lynches that would make me jealous, I'm beginning to suspect if this theoretical logical situation applies at all. The baddies's latest kill drives home the point--why not kill one of the Lottie voters instead (since it gets rid of a trusted villager AND a possible Seer), unless one of them is a baddie?
BUT, argh, that could also be the reason (or one of the reasons) for their kill, to cast reasonable doubt on their presumed innocence--which however, this village has already taken with more than a few grains of salt. So meh.
|
I still don't get this. Am I that thick, or is
Nilp trying to find evidence where there isn't any? Someone help me please. His comments toDay are prone to make my head explode.
Edit: xed with Legate and Nog