Overall impressions (unranked)
Shasta: Hasn't said a word so far. This is very concerning.
McCaber: Ditto
Eonwe: Ditto
Boro: Ditto
I regard people who haven't said anything yet with high suspicion...Of course, they're obviously not all wolves, and life is demanding and gets in the way of chances to post, but those who don't post or who show up very late aren't putting themselves at risk they way that other posters are, either toDay or toMorrow.
Echo: Has said very little. Is new, so won't be voted for toDay. They could talk more toDay with no risk of being lynched this time. Currently I have no real opinion about them. Unknown quantity.
Holbytlass: I don't remember anything about
Holbytlass's style, but I do know they've been a Werewolf player for a very long time. The lack of content worries me a bit. That list with only names is enough to make the village weep. But I have no idea whether that fits
Holby's usual patterns or whether there's anything sorcerous about it.
Kath: Talks about admin and rules issues. There's nothing particularly suspicious about that. She also asks for an explanation of a sentence of mine - and likewise, that doesn't look suspicious of her. Later on, she offers some clarification to
Greenie about an interpretation of
Legate re the rule of 3 business.
There is really nothing there that looks suspicious, but
Kath is not putting herself out there much with opinions about other posters. Of course, it's hard to have a really strong opinion this early on. She could be a careful, thoughtful innocent, but equally could be a careful, cautious wolf.
Inzil: Good joke at #6! Later reminds people to turn invisible (which some people really took their time doing). At #24 he responds to discussion about the rules. The most notable thing he's said is that he feels good about
Greenie.
I haven't really got a good idea about
Inzilin this game yet. I'm not feeling bad about him, and he hasn't done anything to make me suspect him toDay, but I can't say I'm getting an actual good feeling about him yet.
Nerwen: Has several joking posts, and posts several helpful things in answer to questions. I feel ambivalent about her this time, but there's nothing specific that I can think of as the source of uneasy feelings, even though there are some uneasy feelings.
Lottie: Joins in the fun banter at first. At #32 she comes back with current opinions. I find it hard to draw conclusions about her from that. Will need to look again at that post and at any subsequent ones.
Greenie: She speculates about the speculation about sorcerer numbers. Nothing stands out as very suspicious there. She appeared to take my comment about
Lottie seriously, but then, so did
Lommy. I don't find her response to
Nerwen at #28 suspicious either.
Legate: At #15 he appears to claim that my early banter comments, especially towards
Inzil, could while purporting to be pure banter have a hidden purpose of "talking about Wolves" or "talking about packmates". At #27 he claims that that wasn't what he meant and that it was all a general comment about the "avoiding" feel of the banter. I'm not sure I buy that. I also think he's over-reacting to my concern about his intentions, as the situation as I believed it to be (
Legate suggesting there could be hidden evil talking-to-and-about-sorcerers in the early banter, but not saying important things such as what or where) was a reasonable cause for suspicion and seeking clarification.
Although I don't trust the explanation at #27, the possibility definitely remains that
Legate's wording at #15 just didn't convey exactly what he wanted it to and he's perfectly innocent. Will definitely have to keep an eye on
Legate.
I don't particularly find the rule of three explanation that
Legate gave to be suspicious. He posts first impressions of several people, which is a good sign. He missed some details about what people were talking about before, which suggests he wasn't reading all of the posts with extreme care. The continuing discussion with
Lommy about the rule of three thing looks genuine, but is probably not especially relevant to whether he's a sorcerer.
Lommy: Nothing much of interest in her first post. She then gets on
Legate's case about the rule of three thing, and I can vaguely see why, but what I don't understand is why it would be relevant to whether or not he's a sorcerer. It seems like a side issue to me.
She gets a bit pedantic about me using "bound to be" rather than "likely", but when I'd only just been pedantic myself I don't think I can complain.
Gives her suspicions in #34. It's good to have those, but they aren't very firm and don't come supported by reasoning, much as is the same for most people on page 1, although some inferences can be made based on one or two earlier posts. I'm unsure about
Lommy.
At present there's nowhere near enough info for me to be anything but unhappy at the prospect of voting for any of the people who've spoken up so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inziladun
As for the Lovers, I would guess the requirement for them to win is as usual: they both have to survive. That means they can't be counted on by either the baddies or the village. Something to keep in mind.
|
But, aren't the Lovers both counted as ordos in this game until they find each other? I would assume that means they're not on the side of the sorcerers. Er, could someone explain what the potential risk to the village is from the Lovers?
I have to go for a while now, but I'll be back.
Edit: cross-posted with Lommy, and I haven't read the past bunch of posts properly yet.