Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Macalaure
Giving seerish hints while not being seer and being as reasonable as possible doesn't mix to me.
|
It can be just a choice of words or whatever. Ask
Boromir because he can seereally how that is to be done.
(Just to be clear, I'm referring to an old incident here)
I think I could make a case against every one of you now, but maybe that's not very reasonable considering that many of you have posted only once, so I shall wait until more posts will come.
In the meantime, I'm worried about
Ang.
His first post is a noble attempt to make an analysis with minimal amount of material. Maybe a bit too noble, actually.
At that point ten people had posted and he picked six of them (who had posted once or twice) to inspect. All the statements of the villagers contain a positive and negative side, but we don't get any kind of a real conclusion of that. Yes, it's hard to tell, but that hardly provokes discussion and it's something a WP would want to do in order to appear helpful.
-He said that he likes fighting with
phantom, but phantom makes sense. Ang is suspicious of phantom until he's proven innocent, but he agrees with phantom's points.
-Ang said that
Eonwe hasn't contributed much, but defends him by saying that there's not much material in the village anyway.
-
Diamond was worrying, but she could have been more worrying while
Boro's first post looks a bit unhelpful, but the second one is better.
-
Valier isn't very suspicious because she behaves normally, and Ang agrees with
Firefoot although he's afraid that she could be a WP. Still, he doesn't want to lynch her for that - yet.
In Ang's second post he answers
Macalaure that the Seer theory has two sides, but phantom's plan seems pretty good unless he is a WP. Next thing he says that he'd rather not have hints at all because we should concentrate on the enemies instead of gifteds. To me the plan isn't about concentrating on gifteds, but trying to distract the WPs while we pay attention to catching them.
He asks if phantom wants to go with his ancestor's plan about lynching volunteers and says that he'd not support the idea.
In his third post Ang just refers to his ancestor and explains why he thinks that lynching volunteers is a bad idea. Well, why to bring it up in the first place, then?
All in all, Ang has been more, well, not necessarily flip-floppy, but careful than what I would have thought. I don't get the usual innocent feeling when reading his posts, and having no certain opinion about anything looks penguinesque, so I look forward to his future posts.
Oh, and what makes
Jenny leave Cobblerish hints on purpose, I wonder...
ps. Please, people, read the rules, and you'll find playing much easier.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rules
In this game, the cobbler will be seen as the cobbler by the seer when dreamed of
There will be no double-lynches
|