WW XXXIX - Do Werebalrogs have wings?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Brinniel

Mainly because not only does she defend herself, but she turns it around on Legate. Legate accuses her, and suddenly he is suspicious.

Oh? So why didn't I attack Mithalwen? Or Naria?

I found the nature of Legate's accusation to be highly suspicious. I have already said why.

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Oh? So why didn't I attack Mithalwen? Or Naria?

Because Legate was the first to make a full analysis of you. He made a pretty strong case against you which is likely to make anyone nervous.

Anyways, why do you feel the need to save your own skin? You may have gathered suspicion (as many other have too), but no one has actually voted for you or said they intend to.

Your defensive behaviour makes me nervous. It bears a resemblence to how Mac acted yesterDay.

[Nerwen]

I disagree that Legate made a full case against me. I think he made a badly flawed case, but one that might convince people who couldn't be bothered re-reading what I had actually said.

Anyways, why do you feel the need to save your own skin?

Because I'm the only one I know for certain is innocent.

Brinniel, I wasn't saying I'd vote purely to save myself, I was saying that if I truly can't decide between you, Legate and Kath, then I will go for the most popular candidate, rather than split the vote.

I most likely won't be around near the deadline, you see, and I need to guard against a late bandwagon against me. For the same reason, I'm defending myself heavily now, in case I'm not there to do it later.

Now let me say it again: I am not making a counter-attack on Legate because he attacked me, but because he said things that have made think he could be a balrog.

Okay?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Nerwen. You are not making yourself look any better in my eyes, and it seems to me that you are trying to grasp on straws and twist them with some of your responses to me (and going rightaway from defensive against me to offensive against me). Like this:

Originally Posted by Nerwen

On the whole I thought she was more likely to be the cobbler than the balrog– or if not, that she was acting as a de facto cobbler, and as such was a liability.

(That suggestion originally came from Legate, by the way.)

Yes, and safe as you always are. Adding words like "by the way" make it seem that you don't rely on this thing, but still you had to say that thing - so that other people notice and may, for example, start to suspect me. That is balrogish.

And similar things.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I've re-read the Day 1 posts, and it looks as though a lot of the push to lynch Rikae came from Legate of Amon Lanc himself. Remember his "Rikae's a liar" business?

That's funny, because all I have posted about Rikae before people started to vote for her, was just in two posts. And I returned and started to speak more after she already gathered about 5 or 6 or so votes, one of them from Nerwen herself. And the "liar" business was a joke, as I said, was a joke, was a joke, was a joke, for some reporters with bad ears once again: was a joke (that's not my invention, these are words said by our prime minister several years ago). And I was not the one who first said she can be a cobbler, either - it was mentioned before by sally. In the second post I made before that, I said that we cannot drop in too many conclusions since Rikae did not comment on her behavior till that time.

In general, in her defense Nerwen looks that she's kinda exaggerating, maybe intentionally, like in #182:

At the risk of protesting too much, I'd like to address the “Nerwen lynched Rikae! She must be evil!” argument in a bit more detail.

Now this is clearly twisting what I said. Mainly, as I said, my suspicion does not lay on you lynching Rikae, but on you acting as a whole. And the Rikae-thing is one of the lesser ones. And it does not have anything to do with the fact that you (and obviously only you, as you interpretate my words) lynched Rikae, indeed, there were many and many people doing that. It's the way HOW you did it; what you said when doing it, the commentary you added.
Nerwen's vote for Rikae was the FIFTH for her on Day 1. Thus very, very safe.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Legate is, at the very least, being a bit of a hypocrite.
I'm not accusing him of balrog-hood at this point, even though he's making what I think is a very dubious case against me. He may have, as he says, got carried away– if so, I feel that what set him off was not really anything I did, but the fact that Macalaure stated his belief in my innocence, more than once.

Again, acting this safe-way. "I am not accusing him of balrogishness, even though he seems like he is one, see how nice I am?"

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well yes, that does look bad for me. Except– would Mac have been so vocal in support of a fellow balrog? Remember, no-one was accusing me then. There was no reason for him to defend me. My own opinion is that his comments about me were simply a blind.

But Nerwen, he was not "so vocal". He mentioned you always sideways. On Day 2, when you voted Gil, he did not mention you at all. As I said, he still kept reasonable distance.

Just look how carefully Nerwen plays. Yes, it could be that she is just careful, but I think as a balrog, she could be, yes, honey-tongued, that's the word. And then, after the person whom she voted for is lynched and learned innocent, she says "Oh, poor one, I did not want to kill him."

How to put that. Nerwen's behavior seems like coming from the book "How to act as balrog". That is:
1. Voting for people for whom lots of others may also vote, so her vote gets lost among others.
2. Adding nice comments that make her stay reserved in the cases she builds. If people are not willing to catch on the hook she's putting forward, she can always say "Ah yes, true, I'm not going to vote for that one after all, anyway I already said before that it's not a balrog."

Oh, and concerning the "missing post" thing.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Legate, in his list of my posts, has left out one. He says I only made two posts. I made three.

I did not say you only made two posts, I mentioned only two posts. The other was an analysis of Volo and I believe it had nothing specially important to say to us (or different from what stemmed from the other posts). Yes, I could have mentioned it at least, but I was really tired to go through it better (Volo did not know whether Nerwen is a balrog or not and vice versa, so hardly anything to conclude*) and I was copying and still a bit re-writing the post as I split it into two (as I'm saying in the post before the one where I analyze Nerwen).

*Hey, maybe yes! Now when you mentioned it, Nerwen, thanks for mentioning that. Since this post (#108) was sent at the time Volo was revealed to be a Cobbler, your (if you were a balrog) post analyzing a Cobbler could have differenced yourself from him subconsciously in the minds of the others. You in fact also disqualified Mac as a balrog saying:

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Some scenarios to play with:
1. Gil-galad and Macalaure are werebalrogs. Volo was killed for accusing them. Simple– and rather dumb.

And it might have served you that Volo, as you say in your post, "attacked" (your words) Macalaure, but "defended" you. Also a tiny thing, but the ambivalent view is not putting you and Mac together.
As I said, I do not give much value to this one post, but the above states whether and how you could have used it had you been a balrog.

Now, only one technical thing:

Originally Posted by Naria

I believe that TM dreamt of Legate on pre-game Night one. He then dreamt of Mac on Night one, then dreamt of Nog Night two.

A note, Naria, we don't know of whom he dreamt on Night 2 - he died before he could tell us. On Day 2, he had two dreams to work with.

I am going to look at other people than Nerwen now. But I guess I said what I wanted about her and you can make a picture out of that.

[Mithalwen]

Nogrod - I do understand why you suspect my vote for Gil but please bear in mind my entirely genuine problems that day. HAving had the chance to look back (obviously with the benefit of hindsight, I can see why Mac seemed suspicious but on my very superficial reading I didn't. I suspect Gil rather less now due to his fairly early vote for Mac but he had been more involved and when that happens it suggest he is not an ordo.

I realise I may have seemed a bit flaky but that is not due to the stress of an in game role. Obviously look at my posts but ... remember the context.

[Mithalwen]

Just a remider of the situation. There are ten of us left.

Two balrogs
A logical hunter
A ranger
6 ordos

but at least one (probably 2 ) of whom are lovers whose priority is each other not their team (presumably - though only they and lommy know for certain).

I would guess that the remaining lovers are balrog/ ordo since Volo was a cobbler ... Oh Eru ... have we considered that ? If the lovers know each other's identity then Volo knew perhaps of one ordo and a balrog unlike a normal cobbler who has to guess.

As long as the hunter doens't go mad and isn't a lover things aren't too bad.

It seems that we have at least 1 known ordo assuming Mac dreamed of Noggin or Legate - but it doesn't stop them being an ordinary lover

[Nerwen]

How does this love-triangle thing (if that's what it is) work, anyway?

[Mithalwen]

We don't know .... unfortunately ... never happened before - can only guess

[Nerwen]

Legate, so you've largely abandoned your previous case against me, is that what you're saying? And made up a new one more-or-less from scratch?

First, let's look at your peripheral arguments:

Originally Posted by Nerwen
"On the whole I thought she was more likely to be the cobbler than the balrog– or if not, that she was acting as a de facto cobbler, and as such was a liability.

(That suggestion originally came from Legate, by the way.)"

Yes, and safe as you always are. Adding words like "by the way" make it seem that you don't rely on this thing, but still you had to say that thing - so that other people notice and may, for example, start to suspect me. That is balrogish.

I know Sally started the cobbler thing. You were the one who suggested that Rikae was a liability whatever she was. That's what I was referring to– I mentioned it because Naria thought I'd come up with it. I'm sorry if I was unclear.

You in fact also disqualified Mac as a balrog saying:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
Some scenarios to play with:
1. Gil-galad and Macalaure are werebalrogs. Volo was killed for accusing them. Simple– and rather dumb.

No, I didn't. I said it would be a dumb thing to do, not that nobody would do it. I wanted people to look at all the possibilties. I didn't want to point too strongly at Mac and/or Gil because firstly, I wasn't sure, and secondly, I didn't want to make myself an obvious target if one of them was guilty.

Your new main argument is apparently that because I play carefully, and am wary of accusing people outright, you think I'm a balrog.

How about an ordo who is afraid of lynching the wrong person, being wrongly lynched, or being killed in the night?

Take this, for example:

Legate is, at the very least, being a bit of a hypocrite.
I'm not accusing him of balrog-hood at this point, even though he's making what I think is a very dubious case against me. He may have, as he says, got carried away– if so, I feel that what set him off was not really anything I did, but the fact that Macalaure stated his belief in my innocence, more than once.

Again, acting this safe-way. "I am not accusing him of balrogishness, even though he seems like he is one, see how nice I am?"

No, I was actually saying I wasn't sure about you, and that there could be an innocent explanation– which I put forward– so I wasn't ready to accuse you. Really. That's all.

Legate, if you're not guilty, please think about what I'm saying. We can't afford to lose more innocent miners.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Legate, so you've largely abandoned your previous case against me, is that what you're saying? And made up a new one more-or-less from scratch?

No. I am stating other things that stem from what you said in your posts after my last one. They are in continuity to how you acted before - playing "safe" is what I pointed out at your posts even in the first analysis I made about you.

I know Sally started the cobbler thing. You were the one who suggested that Rikae was a liability whatever she was. That's what I was referring to– I mentioned it because Naria thought I'd come up with it. I'm sorry if I was unclear.

But that thing I suggested at the very end of Day 1, after many people, including you, already voted for her. It was about quarter an hour before the DL.

Look, I have somewhat calmed down and try to look at it from restrained point of view, but things like this do not make you seem better - it seems as if you are trying to twist my words.

How about an ordo who is afraid of lynching the wrong person, being wrongly lynched, or being killed in the night?

Of course you could be that, but what you do is very typical-wolfy, and combined with how Mac acted towards you, you seem suspicious. That is, in short, the main suspicion I have against you.

Legate, if you're not guilty, please think about what I'm saying. We can't afford to lose more innocent miners.

I definitely agree. And I'm trying to look at you from cold point of view. But if you continue with what looks to me as twisting my words, you are not going to help that.

[Nerwen]

Legate, I owe you an apology. I was confusing your late post, where you made the remark about Rikae being a menace whatever she was, with this early one (#30):

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

One could say, having in mind what you said, that she is really asking to be lynched. You want to be lynched? Okay, we'll give you that! If you are a cobbler, no harm done. If you are a balrog, here we go - we caught you! However, this point of view would be a little oblivious to the possibility that Rikae is innocent. Personally, I don't see an ordo Rikae likely to risk in such a manner in order to divert suspicion from herself (if anything, it would have to be a joke). However, since she did not comment on her behavior this far, one cannot drop in too much conclusions...

In fact, you're right– you didn't say the thing I've been talking about until just before voting, at the end of the Day, and not until after there had been several votes cast for Rikae already.

I don't know how I came to make that mistake, because I re-read everything. I'm really sorry.

So, Legate, you're starting to look much less balroggish to me now. I don't think you'll get my vote.

I'm sure you'll find some way to interpret this apology as yet another example of my diabolical honey-tongued duplicity. (Ah, Saruman and I... we're like peas in a pod...)

Your arguments against me are the same as before: I'm cautious, threfore I'm guilty.

And then there's Mac's behaviour. First that was the linchpin of your case, then it was unimportant, now it's Exhibit A again. Do make up your mind.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

As I promised, my analysis on Brinniel.

And please folks forgive if this post looks stupid to you. I was making it mainly for myself, so I did not bother with giving it a complex and easily readable form.

DAY 1
#15
Has nothing to say. says even innocent-seeming and newbies should be watched.

#20
After being criticised by Nogrod for saying nothing, says she at least said something.

#22
Tells Rikae that using vote such as that is a waste.
This far, nothing suspicious to me at all. From the following posts, there could be something that could be ambivalent, but you'll see.

#29
Analysis of all who have posted that far. Mac was not among them, so I'm skipping that now (you can look at it yourselves). Names three possibilities why Rikae acted as he acted.

#42
Quotes and disagrees with Mac. This seems very innocentish to me. Has to go, votes Rikae. Then she says that controversial thing about Rikae. Or: the thing that several people thought suspicious. I don't think so. What she said does not seem actually in any way innormal. Says Nog is her second suspect.

Overall, on Day 1, she puts everything in a very calm way and no way raises suspicion for me. This could also mean that she is a very careful balrog. But since there is no evidence in the beginning, I cannot accuse her of anything.

DAY 2
#99
Says Nog is making far more sense that Day. In this post, she explains one thing about Mac (instead of letting him do that, but many people do that, including me) but quite logically, from my point of view. Tries to clear things between her and Nog (why she suspected him).
This could be trying to side with Nog. But if she's a balrog, why? Had she realized that TM is the Seer after what he said and that he dreamt of Nog? But her defense of Mac is very mild, in fact, I wouldn't even call it a defense.

#106
Analyzes a few people, from my POV nothing worth mentioning. Only says that Nog has good points about Mac, but is wary of the possibility of rallying masses - tactics from him. She tends to agree with me, which could be somewhat suspicious (picking the good horses), but otherwise nothing suspicious here to me. Does not like TM is so quick to bandwagon against Mac. Says Mac does not feel like typical Mac and is too defensive.
Here she starts to be suspicious about Mac. Not suspicious at that moment.

#110
Only helps to clear up some rules.

#122
A list of whom she finds suspicous, at least partially: Mac, Nog (keeps switching thoughts on him), Kath for her attitude to Nog, TM for bandwaggoning, Gil for two safe-votes in two days.

#135
Says she'll vote for Mac or TM, whom she does not want to simply leave as I did.

#143
Says Mac is most probably a desperate balrog (and that me and TM being a master and an apprentice is a really scary idea).
Now this may be, if she were a balrog, that she already dropped Mac as a collateral damage.

#145
Says we cannot spread votes anymore (Mac 3, Gil 2, Nerwen 1, TM 2). Mac or Might?
Does not know whom to choose. Now, if she's a balrog, getting TM lynched would be nice, especially if she knows he's a seer. But, that would also get her suspicious. Could it be that this post was a vanguard of the post that was about to come? That would make sense for a balrog.

#149
Votes TM in the very last second. Note, this would not save Mac unless someone else voted (and also it did not - it was the last vote that day, 2 minutes before DL). A balrog could have hoped to save a comrade this way if someone appeared in the last minutes. It could be that Brinn, if she were a balrog, could have waited if she could safely vote for Mac or that she did not know what to do and in the last second tried to desperately save Mac? The former looks too complicated on me. I think Mac's co-balrog would have acted with more sureness, either for Mac or TM, but no need to prolongate this pondering. Only whether she was waiting for something to happen.

#152
(xed with Lommy's stop post) Sees that it did not make much difference.

I am going to stop here on posts #145 and #149. First, Brinn says "I don't know. Mac or Might?" Then Mac votes for TM, making the votes for TM 2. Then Brinn votes TM.

Now, this is what troubles me, for this can be balrogish. Let's see this scenario: Start of Day 2. TM says he suddenly switched his opinion on Nogrod. Brinn concludes he is the Seer and Nog innocent. She sides with Nog. People start to go for Mac. She is prepared to leave him die, but as she sees suspicion against TM, sees an opportunity to lynch the Seer (or if she did not realize his role, then at least opportunity to lynch an innocent instead of Mac. But the Seer thing would be more logical, as we'll see - it's a stronger reason). She's waiting whether to vote Mac or TM: if she votes Mac, she can be the one to seal the fate of her comrade - she does not want to abandon hope. But if she votes in the way that it saves Mac from the gallows, then she will be definitely suspicious. But if she's sure that she lynches the Seer AND saves her friend, I'd say that's worth it. She really does not want to spread votes anymore: she wants everyone to vote Gil or TM, if possible. And she does not know yet how Mac is going to vote. Then, when she sees Mac voting for TM, she decides and votes also in hope that someone else joins the cause, saving Mac from gallows.
That's just a scenario, however. I don't know whether it's plausible. There are other good reasons why she acted how she did - simply, because she was indeed undecided.

Let's move on:
DAY 3
#179
Says it's obvious that TM dreamt of Nog on night 2, as only that makes sense (with this I agree). Speaks about several people, including myself, to the situation. Agrees with me on Nerwen.

#187
Speaks about Nerwen, the new thing she adds to what I said are some things about Nerwen's analysis of Volo and her "accusing her accuser" (me).

#189
Clears up things to Naria (about TM's dreams - I said the same thing also as I overlooked it). Clears up some other things about Gil (who said she was defending Mac), replies to Shasta... Says that it's good to see the "enigmas" are more vocal, probably out of fear of modkill.

#193
Says Nerwen's defensive behavior resembles Mac's yesterDay.

In these last posts, she openly sides with me against Nerwen. Again, this can be the "betting on a good horse", now hoping (as a balrog) that by siding with me she wins the day.

So, Brinn, if you are a balrog, I give you the permission to burst with evil laughter now. I am not decided on you being too suspicious.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Legate, I owe you an apology. I was confusing your late post, where you made the remark about Rikae being a menace whatever she was, with this early one (#30):

Apology accepted, Captain Needa.

I'm sure you'll find some way to interpret this apology as yet another example of my diabolical honey-tongued duplicity. (Ah, Saruman and I... we're like peas in a pod...)

Yes, I could. Let's say - now you are behaving again safe, backing away. But there's one thing, you behave like that always - I would expect a change in your behavior had you been a balrog. So maybe, maybe it's indeed your style. But that's still not leaving it.

Your arguments against me are the same as before: I'm cautious, threfore I'm guilty.

And then there's Mac's behaviour. First that was the linchpin of your case, then it was unimportant, now it's Exhibit A again. Do make up your mind.

I said: both.