[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Defend, hm? Just jokingly summarizing the initial conversation. I was curious to see what sort of reaction it would get, though.

And I jokingly called you out on deliberately summarizing incorrectly. This only serves to sow confusion and derail the village, or give people (you most of all) an excuse to vote based on, frankly, false grounds if the vote is based off this post. My point still stands.

Originally Posted by Rikae

I was referring to not voicing serious suspicions before the QT vote, which would make for a very unproductive day, no trails, lazy justifications. and a good environment for wolves to hide, which is why (I hope) innocents will avoid doing it.

Ah, gotcha. Agreed.

Originally Posted by A Little Green

I also disagree with Gal about lists being vague and useless. I personally find them quite helpful; without them it’s easy to stick to talking about the loudest, most controversial villagers and topics and let others fly under the radar completely. This tends to serve wolves better than innocents since odds are at least some of them are among the quiet, less attention-seeking crowd. I’m not saying everyone should do lists, just that I think they can be just as revealing as fake votes (if not more).

Oh yes, making sure you go through everyone is crucial. However, the problem with a list is it can go like this: "I find, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z most suspicious, but maybe not, and I'll see where the wind blows before making up my mind on my preferred candidate". Or, "I don't even know who I am suspicious of right now, everyone seems ok, my vote will be wrong anyways" (classic D1 list, no?). Having to pick one person while you make your list has the benefit of then making you have a good explanation if you change your mind.

As for wolves maintaining consistency more easily than innocents - that is true, however wolf-on-wolf wagons would be harder to do as everything often hangs so closely in the balance. Do you try to save your mate, or go against them? It becomes a lot trickier to hide those decisions.

Originally Posted by Kath

There's been some talk about Cobbler-identifying along the way as well. But the rules state that the Cobbler counts for the Innocent tally, so picking them out over finding wolves doesn't really help matters.

No one cobbler hunts over wolf hunting, but shouldn't it be a sort of secondary goal? And precisely for the reason that you say: the cobbler counts as an innocent. If you have a known cobbler, you have a known innocent. If you have a suspected cobbler, you have a suspected innocent. So you should be wary of what they say, but if it comes to voting for a suspected wolf vs a suspected cobbler, it's very useful to decide for yourself which baddie you think is which.

Originally Posted by Kath

So Pitch, Lottie, Inzil, Brinn (Brinn quite vociferously!) are firmly against the no lynch. And Pitch seems to feel Legate is the instigator of it, but really I feel that honour goes to G55. I think I'm reading Legate's comments as still with a real vote, whereas G55's suggest no actual vote. And then G55 adds to that focus on Legate.

So was G55 just putting the idea out there to see who would bite? She specifically states here (post 38 - I cannot work out this quoting thing) that she isn't in favour of her own idea. Now, Day 1 discussion can be tough. I mean look, it's her idea that's meant I can really write anything, so on the one hand this is brilliant. It's got people talking, it means there's something to say! But she does seem to be backing away from it quite sharply.

So let me clarify a couple things. There is my Post #26, where I ask a purely hypothetical question, with no intention of going through with any variant of the No Votes idea. Then comes Legate's #31, where he is quite enthusiastic, but as it turns out he was talking about a *different* variation of the idea. Therefore, he was called out on being enthusiatic about a dumb thing, but then applauded for actually being logical when he explained himself later - and why he is, in your later words, the "ringleader" of the idea. And therefore I, when asking the somewhat silly question, did not expect it to evolve to something that could be practically applied, which is why I had to give the *modified and applicable* idea some thought, just like everyone else.

So while you untangle who said what and who is the baddie behind it, try not to get tangled too. It gets messy.


Speaking of hypothetical ideas, this scenario kinda came into my mind last night. So, it's the EndGame, and alive are Wolf, Hunter (hunting the Wolf), and Ordo. Ordo dies. Wolf devours Hunter, but Hunter takes down the wolf. Does either side win?

Originally Posted by Kath

Cobbler discussion came up again. I can't work this out with my shoddy maths. So, the Cobbler counts for the innocents, but if the Cobbler ends up in the QT and their role is known, and the role of any wolves in the QT is also known, does that then advantage the wolves in terms of numbers and help them control the vote - because they all know who each other is even if they can't communicate and so would all just vote the same if that would beat/tie the vote. I was just trying to work out whether trying to keep them in the Game Thread would be a better option, because at least here they don't know who the wolves are. But then their role wouldn't be confirmed either. Ugh.

As in keeping the person you suspect as a cobbler alive on purpose? Certainly, if there is a person you suspect to be a wolf, because the cobbler doesn't count as a baddie in the tally. But surely, in terms of voting outcomes, a dead cobbler is better than a living cobbler when it comes to votes? After all, the QT just votes once collectively, which means the cobbler may or may not affect the choice of recipient. But a living cobbler always gets a vote. And gets to say a lot of things that mess with the village's head besides.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But you didn't indicate what is that a list of. Of what? Top suspects?

I am confused by your question. Is it that my humour receptors didn't kick in yet, or are you seriously asking if that list is a suspects list - which it obviously is? Like, it's not a list of Boro's groceries. I'm just confused.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

As opposed to unplanned votes?

:-D

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Waitawhat? I only said he looked like a cobbler.

Yes, and that's just one of the problems with that post.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Speaking of overcomplicating things, where did this whole idea of waiting for guidance from the QT come from? And why would we 'always have to second-guess' the QT vote, as G55 said in #56? Unless there's a quarantined Seer AND the majority of the Cuties are innocent, the QT vote is just another vote that may be rght or wrong or misguided or driven by evil intentions like everybody else's. No way for us to know.

Yes, that's what I'm getting at. The QT vote can't be treated as a "known dead innocent" (possibly misguided, but still innocent). Because if it's the dead wolves dominating the vote, they know who to vote for. Which actually gives us more information than if the QT is innocently dominated. However, who knows what sort of chaos would be going on in the QT discussions.

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

++LHUNARDAWEN

You listened! <3

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

Hmm? Is this a slip?

I doubt it, because I can sympathize. Usually during a game I'll have at least one dream where something really weird happens in the game, and will have to check the thread to make sure it hasn't actually happened. The game does get in your head.


I am at post 104. I have probably crossed with many as it took me a loooong time to write this. Will comment on the rest in a bit, and some brief thoughts to follow.