[THE Ka]

Originally Posted by Eonwe

there is probably at least one wolf in the Zil-waggon (if Rune is innocent, possibly early on, if not, potentially also later), in the posts arguing to ignore/mistrust the QT vote, and/or of pushing for B]Zil[/B] as a vote-candidate. I suspect more than one, but off the top of my head I don't know who is in these categories. I think it is a top priority of the wolves to discredit an innocent-led QT that has led to the quarantining of one of their fellows.

I was reading through Day 5 again and got to wondering about Zil-voters and their opinion/interaction with the QT vote that Day or their stance on the QT vote in general. Apologies in advance (especially to you Rune, I know you're not too fond of them), but this is going to be a long list post due to the volume of content from yesterDay.
Note: It does not include quotes or references directly from any day prior to Day 5. This list took me nearly two hours to compile and fix for formatting, so if you want anything earlier you'll have to go do your own data hunting, sorry.

Zil-votes Day 5:

Kath – Inzil
Greenie – Inzil
Lommy – Inzil
Brinn – Inzil
Rune – Inzil
*Pitch – Inzil

*Selected by wolves, Night 6. Villager, Non-gifted.

Previously suspected to point of voting on prior Days: Brinn, Rune.

Opinion of QT vote Day 5: Ignore/Mistrust or Follow:

Kath -
#1097:

And the QT made an excellent showing of themselves, too. YesterDay, quite a few people put down their planned vote options long before the QT vote had to be made. Is that something we want to do again toDay on the assumption that it did help?

(Ref. to Lhuna QT vote Day)

Lal's push for the village listening to the QT I think again would have made the wolves suspect she might be the Seer. There goes the QT literally naming a wolf an no one seems to listen, so she brings it to the forefront.

#1103: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it. Only references Eonwe’s pattern of voting earlier since Hui-vote Day.
#1109: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it. Only apologises for forgetting to put ‘fake vote’ choices in previous post and resumes doing so.
#1120: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it. No indirect mention of QT.
#1149: Vote-post. Mention of QT:

I was holding on to see what the QT vote would be, but I do have to go, and I don't have time to look into the possible reasoning behind this, so I will go with what I said earlier.

(Ref. to post #1120 mention of Lhuna and Zil)
- No further posts for Day 5 -

Greenie -
#1057: Some mention of previous QT vote in regard to timing from other players of personal votes. Makes note of when players have voted before or after QT vote, specifically in Pitch and Rune analysis.
#1086:

The Lhunawagon came about pretty quickly and only after the QT vote; though a few of us had said they found her somewhat suspicious, it looked like most people were pretty surprised by the QT picking her. So yes, I'd expect to see some wolf-on-wolf among the Lhuna voters, but not an orchestrated plot to sacrifice her.

(Ref. to selected Boro quote about Lhuna and possible wolf-on-wolf vote plan)
#1092:

Lommy makes a good point about giving the QT some warning about what we're up to.

Gives ‘fake-vote’ prior to QT vote deadline.
#1169: Vote-post. No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
- No further posts for Day 5 -

Lommy –
#1053: In reply to quote from Zil:

it is true that he can talk about his live fellows in an incriminating way and that way the qt innocents have access to evidence we don't. Something to consider... (Not that I'm saying we should always follow the qt vote, even though that would make this game easier.

#1063: Lalaitholysis post. No direct mention of QT outside of selected quoted material in regard to Lalaith.
#1066: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1067:

there's still a nice innocent majority there (or, nice and nice, not sure dead innocents outnumbering dead baddies is a good thing ) but there's three baddies and Lhuna is the tie breaker, so if the innocents disagree with each other and mess it up, there's a chance the baddies can wrestle control of the QT vote.
This actually possibly more as a reminder to the QT than ourselves.

#1068:

if we want to orchestrate some communication deal with them, or if we want to agree to vote BEFORE them, then now would be the time to discuss that.

#1089:

We have the most data so far, we could coordinate something with the qt, but nothing is happening.

Statement followed by suspicion list and explanation of each selection.
#1091:

I think the least we can do is to give the qt pointers about how we might want to lynch toDay, like Boro just did. Since it looks pretty quiet here, I have spent some time on the Night kill and making a list (including a quick look at yesterDay's votes while making that), I might retreat for a little while. On Monday I spent most of my waking hours playing werewolf (did I mention I'm temporarily unemployed until June 2nd? ), and to be honest, I don't have the stamina to repeat that today. So, I'll be off for a few hours at least, and I'll make a mock vote if it helps the qt

Followed by ‘fake-vote’ prior to QT vote deadline.
#1101:

The whole whether to follow the QT's choice was really a whole another kettle of fish. If the QT had voted for someone I did not suspect very much, I wouldn't have followed their vote. But since they voted for someone I did suspect, it was one factor that made me pick her over my other suspects (some of whom I suspected more). I'm considering acting with the same logic toDay, by the way. It seems prudent to me to let their choice affect but not dictate your own voting.

(Ref. to Kath about Lhuna-vote)
#1102: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1112:

Also it's worth bearing in mind that the qt is full of innocents who are freer to think outside the box than living innocents because 1) their time/energy is not swallowed up by having to defend themselves from accusations and 2) they can't fall into the trap of kneejerk suspicion against people who suspect them unlike we do (nor can they conversely discard their valid suspicions just because they might be kneejerk). Of course, they might also be paying less attention to the game than us living ones because understandably they have less to do. But still. I do think they have certain advantages in wolf spotting if they're willing to use them.

#1122:

I would really REALLY like to know what's going on in the QT. But I should probably be careful what I wish for...

#1125:

I was under the impression that the ones who join the QT are allowed to read back what has been said there before? In that case they would all know as much.

#1132: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1140: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
-POST QT Day Vote-
#1152: Mentions surprise at Rune QT vote. Plans to go back and check Rune’s posts for possible answers.
#1155: Reply to Pitch about Lhuna deciding QT vote. Sides with quite unlikely, only if innocents in QT made a mess.
#1160: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1194:

Also I don't "distrust" the QT vote. I just don't think they know so much more than us that we should follow them without a question, or that their vote couldn't be tampered with by the evil side (even though that's quite unlikely). There's a difference.

(Ref. to QT Rune-vote)
#1196: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1198:

How do you determine which players are "opposite" choices in a way that you can manipulate with? And why would any ordo trust a known hunter/ranger's word any more than a known fellow ordo's?

(Ref. to Ka (mine) speculation on innocents trusting gifted decisions in QT)
#1202: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it. Only analysis of Rune past posts.
#1205: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1209: Vote-post.

And I'm not really convinced about lynching Rune toDay. It doesn't really help that basically the two people who I suspect the most have been the ones to jump on the QT vote.

#1218, 1228, 1230,1238: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
- No further posts Day 5 -

Brinn -
#1056: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1076:

It seems the entire reasoning she voted Lhuna was because she trusted the QT vote. Okay, I don't recall her having any opinions of Lhuna beforehand. This could potentially be a wolf-on-wolf vote hiding behind the QT vote, especially if she didn't expect the bandwagon that followed.

(Ref. to analysis of Ka (me) Lhuna-vote timing)
#1119: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it. Gives ‘fake-vote(s)’.
-POST QT Day Vote-
#1154:

Considering he hasn't been heavily discussed here toDay, I wonder if the QT is reading into something we're not seeing.
I'm not sure if I'm ready to follow the QT vote toDay, but I definitely think he's worth taking another look at.

(Ref. to QT Rune-vote)
#1215,1231: Vote-post. No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
- No further posts Day 5 -

Rune -
#1095:

Seems quite plain to me. It is an innocent who starts to second guess her own reasoning because of external factors.

(Ref. to Lommy about Lal’s comment on previous QT Lhuna-vote)
#1096: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1098: Gives ‘fake-vote’. No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
-POST QT Day Vote-
#1163: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1179: Reply to Zil, doesn’t believe QT-vote could be correct twice, but understands why they would say such.

I expected to get a bit of attention today, but honestly I thought it would have regarding the timing of my vote yesterday (considering Lhuna turned out being an infector). Really surprised as both Legate and Lalaith to be reasonably convinced of my innocence.

(Ref. to direct quote of QT vote that Day)
#1193:

Though taking recent events into consideration I would like to stress that an innocent QT thread is clearly quite capable of mistakes.

#1213:

Nor do I understand why an innocent would be so eager to support the QT thread, suggesting all that doesn't are suspicious... too brasen too opportunistic for an innocent.

(Ref. to Eonwe role speculation and previous voting pattern)
#1214: Reply to Loslote’s reasoning for voting along with QT vote for Day over previous suspicions of Ka.
#1217: Vote-post. No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1224:

If nothing else today has made me quite firm in my belief that Inziladun and Eönwë are two of our remaining infectors. Brinn was my third choice, but I am not sure it adds up anymore.
I get why it is compelling to want to leave your vote in the hands of known innocents, nobody likes making difficult choices, but the way it was seized upon by Eönwë and Inziladun just confirms my suspicions.

#1225, 1234: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
- No further posts Day 5 -

*Pitch – (For reference):
#1055: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1059:

Originally Posted by Boro

I'm certainly going to continue the good ground we began yesterday with the QT vote and feel I should get a tiny apology. Not a big one, but a small one, because the living and dead worked together and we did what I advocated we should have done for days.

Pitch in reply:

Considering that yesterDay was the first Day this actually made sense, it'll have to be a small one.

#1060, 1062: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1071:

It's 6:3 now; Hui & Lhuna can PM behind the others' backs, and we can count on G55 to vote with whatever the wolves come up with, so yes, a concerted baddie action to derail the QT vote is not out of the question. We'll all have to see what the Cuties come up with and decide whether we're willing to trust it.

#1093, 1100: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1118:

All good points.

(Ref. to Lommy’s post #1112 on helping QT vote)
#1127: Gives ‘fake-vote’. No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
-POST QT Day Vote-
#1150:

Dang. How likely is it that Lhuna decided this vote?

(Ref. to QT Rune-vote)
#1157:

Yes. I meant whether there was a tie and she broke it. But we can't know that.

(Ref. to Zil’s statement that Lhuna in QT would only have power to break tie)
#1171:

All it would have taken is an early innocent vote for Rune, three baddies pile on that, votes are tied, Lhuna breaks it. It's possible.
But assuming the innocents voted wolf!Rune conventiently happens to work in your favour, doesn't it?

Reply to Zil.
#1181:

I'm not ready to vote Rune quite yet, but I could go with either of Ka or Eönwë (duly noted about Morgoth's Breath)

#1191:

Originally Posted by Eonwe

I'm also very suspicious of anyone trying to immediately discredit/minimize what the QT has said - obviously, the innocents don't know anything, so reasonable doubt is merited, but I don't like these two reactions

Reply to Eonwe:

I don't think it's such an outlandish reaction when they vote somebody you felt very much was innocent.

#1211: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1219: Vote-post. No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
#1239: No direct mention of QT vote or opinion on it.
- No further posts Day 5 -


I haven't checked the thread since two hours ago, so if any of this has been answered, I apologise again. On that and with a long day tomorrow, I'm going to sleep.