Tol-in-Gaurhoth XLIX - At the Source of Darkness

[the phantom]

Firstly, I agree completely with your Cobbler points, Nilp. I can't imagine that I wasn't checked by the Assassin last night, and I also am convinced of Formendacil's Cobblerism.

Naturally I disagree with you naming me as a WW. But Groin- I suppose he's a possibility. But I would really have to see more from Groin before I'm willing to go after him.

[the phantom]

And by the way Nilp, if Form is a Cobbler why did he vote for me if I'm a WW?

I think he knows good and well that I'm innocent and wants me gone.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

My statements are not AND ones, more like OR ones. </boolean> I'll be surprised if more than one of them turns out right.

[the phantom]

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Well, except the 1st one (which is why I grouped you and Groin in the same statement.) Your 'explanation' of Groin's admin thread post can be construed as some sort of barrier-building . . .

Eh?

Don't say 'eh?' There's nothing cute about an older guy saying 'eh?'

Shush.

[Thinlómien]

I can't possibly understand how yesterday's voting became such a disaster. Really, guys, you messed it all up, (obviously because I wasn't there to make sense. ) I still think lynching Kitanna was a stupid idea. Now what kind of playing is that, killing someone who is already dead? Hardly helps us in wolf or cobbler hunting. With the same logic, we can all abstain from voting on Day1 next game if we have no strong suspicions. Really, that was pretty pathetic, as were all the throwaway votes (including mine, it seems *sigh*) and all the no-voting. I can almost concretely hear the laugh of the wolves and the cobblers. (And who was it that said cobblers can't cause confusion? I blame them - at least partly - for that horrible mess yesterDay.) Okay, rant over. But late yesterDay really made everybody look pretty cobblerish to me because you were (almost?) all acting so sillily. Whatever, I guess we can't change the past, but if someone is going to drop out again, I swear I'm going to make sure we don't act as stupidly as we did yesterDay.

Now that I've got that off my heart, I can concentrate on other issues, like why Lalaith was killed or responding earlier points... Post coming soonish, hopefully.

[Thinlómien]

Q: Why was Lalaith killed?
A: No idea.



No reason stands out to me as for why she's dead. If we had a ranger, I would be tempted to say she was killed just to avoid the ranger. I mean, her death was pretty unexpected, at least to me. Maybe it was meant just to baffle us? And of course, the wolves might have been scared of her quick wits and killed her. Or then, Gwath or tp might have been worried about her going after them in future and eliminated a dangerous foe. And no one really suspected her. But is any of these reason enough to kill her? I don't know, I just have a feeling that it's a bit far-fetched. The obvious seer-explanation could be it, but I don't think her posts point to any seerish knowledge on anybody. So was it, like someone said, just general seerishness in the eyes of the wolves, or - like someone else said - simply the fact that she didn't look too cobblerish? I could kind of agree with that last part, for at least in my opinion she was one of the few people who didn't look cobblerish yesterDay.

Originally Posted by Fea

There are no criminals until after the first day is over. First day posts, therefore, hold no evidence of crime.

I think we've debated about this before, but I must say I disagree. The wolves know they're bad and sinful etc, so that might make them act guiltily. Also, they might do lots of things normal innocents are not so enthusiastic about - like trying to make friends, getting gifted-looking people lynched or give advice to each other, just to give a few examples. Oh, and they also have their packmateness to hide from the others. So I think there is plenty of evidence even without a wolf kill.

Going back to the Kitanna lynch, I have come to a rather unhelpful conclusion. The wolves might have gone along the Kitanna lynch to go with the flow and please others. The wolves might have protested against it to get an extra death. The wolves might have only interfered later and made a throwaway vote to avoid attention the following day. The wolves might have had timetable or other problems and not voted at all. So, we can't really conclude anything like "there must be a wolf among those who protested against lynching Kit" but rather, we have to examine individual behaviour and manner. Which means yesterDay's lynch gives us as much to go as any Day1 lynches, or actually less, because so many were absent and the debate was mostly dominated by one issue.

Originally Posted by Shasta

We lost two innocents yesterday. Had we lynched someone OTHER than Kitanna, it would have been three. I'm interested to hear just why it's a bad thing that we have one more person alive than we would have had.

We lost two innocents yesterDay? No, we didn't, unless you include the Night kill... Like Form, I really wonder how can you know we would have lynched an innocent. We would have had a 33,33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 % chance to lynch a baddie (and you silly people didn't take it. Argh. Oh, I guess I promised no to rant about it. )

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Actually, tp, I was wondering myself yesterDay whether Lalaith might be the Seer (hiding behind accusations of cobbler-ism), so I don't think it's THAT far-fetched.

I'm not sure if it would be wise of the seer to do so. She needs to leave the villagers a message of a found wolf, and in a game with four cobblers messing around it would be quite silly to mask suspicion towards the wolf as a suspicion of cobblerism.


edit: xed with tp and Nerwie

[the phantom]

Form impersonating a Cobbler? I doubt it. Not his style. I'm of sure of him as I am of anyone.

There are a couple of other people that I'm almost certain aren't Ordos, but I'm not sure what they are, and in case they're good I don't want to point them out.

I wish there were more people around right now. But since there's not I'm going to go ahead and go to bed and wake up ready to chat away.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Form impersonating a Cobbler? I doubt it. Not his style. I'm of sure of him as I am of anyone.

I doubt it too. He could be a wolf trying to double-bluff us into not lynching him... but in that case he'd be exposed toMorrow (since he's begging the assassin to go after him toNight).

But... if he's a cobbler does his attack on the phantom mean he thinks tp is innocent... or is he trying to save someone he thinks is an endangered wolf, by launching an obviously dodgy attack on him?

This is rushed because I have to go now. I shall be back in about five hours.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by the phantom

As far as Lalaith, I can't imagine she was pegged as a potential Seer. Her words about Nog and Gwath were nothing overly convicting- "benefit of the doubt just for now" and "watch and wait" and she made it clear that her suspicion of me stemmed from Cobblerism, something a Seer cannot see. In addition she doesn't seem to place any one special person in an innocent position, so no Seer flags there either.

Actually, tp, I was wondering myself yesterDay whether Lalaith might be the Seer (hiding behind accusations of cobbler-ism), so I don't think it's THAT far-fetched.

Now, I think there is a point to what Form is saying: if we hadn't spent the last part of yesterDay arguing over the benefits of Mith's scheme, we might have come with a proper lynching candidate.

All the same, he is clearly trying very hard to look like a cobbler (and I thought tp was bad). The question (with both of them) is– are they cobblers, or cobbler-impersonators?

EDIT: x'd since tp at #180.