[Shastanis Althreduin]

Nerwen @ #10 is the first actual game-related post, wondering about the number of evils we have in this game. Fair question.

Nothing too interesting until this -

Originally Posted by Greenie

My initial thought was that it seems more likely that the one who first realizes we don't know the number of wolves would be an innocent than a wolf, since the wolves presumably know how many of them there are. (Captain Obvious at your service!) But then again, there's always double-bluffs, so that theory doesn't really hold water. Bleh.

It's late here, but my initial thought here was that Greenie was well aware that the number of wolves hadn't been posted by the moddess, but had elected not to say anything because... why? I can think of a couple reasons a wolf would remain silent on the number of baddies, but it's harder for me to think of reasons an innocent would.

Maybe I'm looking too hard, though. I could easily be getting rusty. x_x

Originally Posted by Lommy

The only thing that's raised my eyebrows this far is Cop taking the post quoted above seriously, but that's not very much.

I thought the same upon my first read, but Cop ended up choosing Lottie because "Inzil just can't be a wolf again..." which strikes me as (I think) Cop's brand of humor. Very dry, that one.

Originally Posted by Legate

The amount of these in Greenie's post seems a bit excessive; if anything disturbs me, it is actually her.

And here we have Legate, apparently jumping at shadows? Suspecting someone for smilies?

Also this -

Originally Posted by Legate

Anyway, somebody mentioned the strategy of getting rid of Saruman first of all; clearly that is the best course.

Actually, at the time this was posted (I'm reading as I go), no one had mentioned this strategy at all as far as I can tell. Where did you get this idea, Legate?

Ah, I see Cop also mentioned this in #17. You may have already answered this.

Originally Posted by Inzil

Moddess has now indicated there are three baddies, including Saruman. Was it Greenie who said not knowing the number could be a sign of innocence? Could be. Anyway, I like Greenie thus far.

And here we have the first place where Inzil and I have a difference of opinion.

Originally Posted by Lommy

What? Are you actually treating the rule of three as a serious theory? That's the fishiest thing I've seen today. The rule of three is utter made-up rubbish based on probabilities. I mean, yes, if we are 14 and there are 3 wolves, it's quite likely there is a wolf among the three first posters, but the probability is no bigger than there being a wolf among any given three players - say the three first in alphabetical order (in his case A Little Green, Boro and Coppermirror). There's no point in basing any suspicions on the rule of three.

QFT.

Originally Posted by Kath

Holby, I mean this in the politest way, but - what the heck?

A list post is useful in terms of seeing where your loyalties lie in future Days but with zero additional information it is really fairly unhelpful right now! You said you want to lynch people discussing 'the rule of three' but that isn't so many people and not all of them can be evil anyway, so having everyone down as suspicious with no explanation isn't great.

I thought the same - I even started typing about it. Then I took a second look and figured she suspected everyone but McCaber (inside joke, perhaps?)

Originally Posted by Lommy

Because it doesn't make any sense to say it! It's the same as if I posted "bananas are yellow". Why would I do that? Except to maybe appear like I was saying something while I wasn't?

I read this statement in your voice Lommy!

Originally Posted by Legate

Hmm... for some reason, this made me a bit uncertain about Lottie, since she is practically avoiding going after those who are "in the heat" and focusing on other people, not that there is anything wrong with that per se, but I assume a Wolf might be happy to suspect people who are not in the center of attention, so that if later e.g. an innocent is lynched, the Wolf can be like "I didn't take part in this...".

This statement pinged my radar a tad. Mostly because it's so very easy to turn around - "a Wolf might be happy to suspect people who are in the center of attention in order to push a lynch on them", etc.

Re - Lommy and Kath @ #42 and #43: I tend to fall on Lommy's side here. Just because someone is known for action A, it does not follow that action A is in and of itself unsuspicious.

Echo with the first vote at #49 - reminds me of wintywinty's first game. Still annoying.

The real thing I find interesting about it, though, is Greenie's reaction at #50 - no questioning of the random, out-of-the-blue vote as I would suspect, just a nice reminder to bold the vote . It strikes me as incredibly odd that she didn't mention that such votes tend to be frowned upon...

Lots of posting, but nothing really eye-catching until...

Legate, at #74, and his list post. I notice no one goes beyond "fishy" and "uncertain" for him - fair enough, for Day 1, I suppose, but still rather odd in terms of who he planned on voting.

Greenie, at #76, and a delayed reaction (after other people evidenced the same reaction, how odd) -

Originally Posted by Greenie

Echo - WHAT?

Huh.

Originally Posted by Lommy

Coppermirror??!! Kind of wish I hadn't voted yet now, because that last post (#75) was positively weird. Your own tone seems forced to you too, huh? That's apologetic if I've ever seen anything apologetic in my life.

Actually, Lommy, Cop was being perfectly reasonable there, I think. Although this bit was a bit of an eyebrow-raiser -

Originally Posted by Cop

despite being aware it might look a bit off

I honestly can't tell if the fact that she considered how saying that would make her look before posting it makes her look better or worse.

However, reading up to #87 I'm not really seeing where the sudden Cop suspicion is coming from. Greenie's vote I at least understood the reasoning behind, even if I disagree, but Legate's was plain confusing.

Originally Posted by Lottie

[Legate's reaction to the Cop Controversy is also interesting - he doesn't jump on it as further reasoning to vote you, which could speak well for his non-sorcererarity, but he's experienced and might be wary of jumping on a bandwagon - though if that's the case, he wound up voting for you anyway, so I'm leaning innocentish on him.

Huh?

Originally Posted by Holby

don't like abstaining voters, esp day 1 where any reason is mostly justified because it is day 1.

Except that, again, I hadn't had time to read very much at all, and with nothing to go on it would have been much more likely that my vote would have been for an innocent. I didn't want a random vote by me tipping the scales in case someone else came up with something good later in the day.

Lottie's vote post at #97 makes me uneasy. The tone is almost as if she's grateful her vote choices have been narrowed down, and that's never something an innocent actively wants.

Holby, by contrast, has a much more panicky feel to it (context - Lottie's post was seven minutes before DL, Holby's was five, so both extremely close to the end of the day, but Lottie was pretty calm about the whole thing.) I would, however, like to know why Holby found Legate more suspicious than Cop or Kath. I don't thinK I remember her being suspicious of him prior.

And Eonwe casts the deciding vote for Legate over Kath. He mentions Legate as a possible wolf earlier, so no real surprises there. Definitely worth a look later though, depending on what Kath turns out to be if she dies.

Echo makes the first post of Day 2 and mentions four people in his/her post - none of which are Kath. Curiouser and curiouser.


- And that's what I've got for now. I've got to get some sleep. I'll post some more when I get home after work. Good night.