Reading and writing as I go... note: the beginning of this is like three hours old. Been checking and typing in between work whenever I had time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitanna
I read this as "maybe veer away from lists" and just say you're going to commit to one person, even if you don't vote that way. I see where you're coming from as the lists help wolves form bandwagons and this will force them to really push their accusations. Except this will force innocents to do the same, with the same bloody lynching result. It's early and maybe I'm reading all this wrong, but this idea seems as likely to backfire as to succeed.
|
Well, as you see, I just made a list myself. Anyway, the idea was people could do whatever they want, even make lists (I like lists), but then, when the clock strikes, they would have to say "ok and out of my list, I actually pick THIS ONE".
The main benefit of this would be that we could then see who would be "lynched" under such circumstances - and then that could be helpful in tracing the Wolves. Because in "real" voting, WWs are calculating to save their mates and so on. In "dry run", it isn't so clear, and then they may be a bit at loss as to what to do. Would they cast their "pseudo-vote" to "save" their packmate even if it is only a dry run? But what if then the real vote happens and the situation goes the same way and they have to change their vote? They need to provide an explanation. It may draw eyes. Etc etc. THAT was the chief merit behind the theory that was discussed so lengthily here.
Anyway, on another note,
Kitanna sorta made my red lights flash now, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitanna
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lhuna
I'm here to represent the We Hate Day Ones club (or whatever its name ever was). And as much as I agree that with 5 wolves it is statistically more likely to lynch one on Day 1... Well, let's see what the Day brings...
(Now this, this post has no helpful content whatsoever. )
|
Not helpful whatsoever? I dunno, the need to point out "this wasn't helpful" makes me raise my eyebrows. We already had some posts and discussions going when you chimed in and it just seems suspicious you felt the need to point out you had nothing to add at the time. "Look at me, I'm definitely innocent because I haven't said anything of real merit."
|
I sorta don't like the way
Kitanna points fingers at
Lhuna here. Yes, she may have just happened to make that one random observation, but the way it goes...
And the whole "oh I don't know if we should do this or that..." is kinda, I don't know. I simply get "fake vibe" here. Like she was not willing to commit until she learns where the wind blows. (Wind. Get it? *dun dun dun dun* -Note: once again, no relation to
Inziladun whatsoever)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inziladun
But wasn't that the purported point of the "fake" vote: to keep last-ditch voting down?
|
Yes, but this was already said with the knowledge that this was probably not happening, plus anyway, I still expect people to vote in the last twenty minutes, with or without any "voting dry run". And the votes would change, very likely, in the last few hours, not the least because of people's reactions to the "results" of the dry-run voting (or would they? That's precisely the thing we would not know without trying it first).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lalaith
Oof. Three pages of posts already. Five wolves in there somewhere causing chaos, with a cobbler urging them on.
I'd better get reading....
|
That was as fishy first post as they go. "Everyone is a Wolf, hint hint not me."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huinesoron
As far as I can see, most of it is agreement with and slight expansion on what other people had said; is that what you meant by 'fishy as Angband', Legate? You talk about pointing fingers, but other than the explicit point at Galadriel55, it all looks like fairly general musing on wolves.
|
Pointing fingers "under one's breath", i.e. saying that something is questionable while mentioning a name at the same time, so the reader can connect them themselves while the original poster doesn't need to be perceived as the one who said it in the first place, is one of classic Wolf-tactics, one I am always more inclined to look for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitanna
*side eyes both* Orchestrated wolf action? I suppose not likely, but the more I read of G55 the more I raise my eyebrows.
She distanced herself from her own idea, was quick to challenge Legate when he found the merit in it, and has been fairly vocal throughout. And yet, when I try to think of anything detailed she said, I draw a blank. She's been helpful and has urged on discussion and I'm finding her a little too helpful.
On the one hand G55 set something up and waited for an innocent to take the bait and then distanced herself the moment it fell under scrutiny. Her move is a bold one for a Day 1 ploy to try to bandwagon an innocent. Bold and fairly early in the Day.
On the other hand wolfPitch sees an idea that is probably doomed to fail. He picks the second person to pick it up and doesn't really cast suspicion on the actual creator. Pitch then sets up Legate for trouble.
In the whole fake vote debate, I am leaning toward trusting Legate over G55 who first suggested it and Pitch who was so vocal in disputing it.
|
This sounds like a Wolf making up a random accusation if I have ever seen one. As in, the type of behaviour a Wolf might have if they are like "I need to find someone to suspect on Day 1, oh, here's some two players saying something, I can latch onto that". That sort of thing for a Wolf who would not be in the thick of things, but would want to just quietly pursue some case in their own little corner.
Also because I don't personally believe that it was an attempt to "set me up", or not in the way people seem to be latching on to presenting it. I think
Pitch quite rightfully saw me as expanding on the idea while when
G55 mentioned it, it was really just a random remark. I find it much more likely that someone picked on the "this was an attempt to set
Legate up" notion to raise suspicion about those who did.
I will reread
Kitanna's posts a bit, but she would likely be my "fake vote" toDay, at least (or to put it another way, if I was forced to vote right now).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitchwife
Mac, really? You find it odd how I pinned the no-vote stuff on Legate, when earlier you yourself found it just as odd how enthusiastic he was about it? Now that I find odd! *ping*
|
Maybe I shouldn't, but I just find this amusing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boromir88
It's like Gandalf versus the Balrog to use that analogy. To me, he's got a powerful and deserved reputation. I'll go for it, but I don't charge head on, because I know I won't come out the same person.
|
Man, can I ship ya folks? (Sorry.
Lommy taught me that kind of vocabulary.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lhunardawen
You mean like this?
++NILPAURIO-- I mean
++LHUNARDAWEN
|
Seriously!!! That's about the most unhelpful thing ever!!! I mean, I understand you are substituting Nilp, but I'm with Kant on this one. You shouldn't make the example of doing something that might corrupt others to do the same!
x-ed with plenty probably, I'm still in haphazard schedule on when I am around and when not.
EDIT: x-ed basically since the abovequoted post. Page 4, terrifying. (Although again, with the size of the village, could be worse.)