Tol-in-Gaurhoth LII: Star Crossed II: Together for Eternity

[McCaber]

So I still really don't have a lot to say. I'm getting sort of an innocent reading from Aganzir. She's posted a lot and hasn't contradicted herself much from what I saw. She's been argumentive but everyone is in werewolves. Verdict: almost not guilty.

And that's the first half of the day.

EDIT: crossed with Mac

[Nogrod]

Oh Mac, you're making me feel like back at home after a few games in some strange land of paranoia where you weren't after me all the time...

On a bit more serious note, this thing where you relate to my thoughts of there being a different mindset with those who killed Lalaith vs. those who killed Legate:

Originally Posted by Legate

I'm terribly sorry, but this does sound like a wolf whose mind is a bit too much taken by the implications of an apparently different strategy of the opposing team on the thread.

I will only say this. Winning a game would never be so important to me that I would as a werewolf/-penquin/-rhinoceros... kill during the Night someone I like to play with - if there are other choices (the very last Nights of a game might be different). You know it Mac as all those who have played with me.

So what to make of your try-out? Just back to normal "Mac will suspect Nogrod whatever the posting" or trying to see whether you could turn this into a convenient lynch-option?


But I think you raise an important point to the fore.

I have been thinking about Sally - and what Mac said links to my thoughts on Sally.

I already felt yesterDay a bit uneasy with Sally's kind of - how should one describe it - conscious, or situation-oriented posting. What I mean is that yes there was that normallish Sally-banter and the jokes and all but somehow it felt she was more conscious of the situation we had in hand than she normally is. Or at least she doesn't normally show it.

Then came this:

Originally Posted by Sally toDay

I would think, though, that lovers (if there are more than one team) would want to get rid of their competition first (because then they'd be safe during the Nights

Now defining the wolves viewpoint as "being safe" looks something that just doesn't fit my general impression of what an innocent Sally would think about - or speculate about. For it sure is true that if we have different teams against each other the lovers are scared to death every Night for their rivals (I've been a baddie in that kind of game long ago and it was heart-stopping!). The problem is, did Sally just think of that and decided to use the word "safe" (which really nails down the thing those baddies are longing for) or does she actually feel that way now?

This is a question of the way one plays (so it's not like one way is better or more intelligent than the other - going deep into speculation about how the baddies would act may derange one's thinking a lot as well). You know I do it, Lommy does it, all those who remember Roa probably remember also her insistence in that being the most effective approach... But Sally hasn't belonged to that club of players as yet and I'm afraid I have to say her few posts do look a bit bothering to me, it feels like something behind the appearance is shining through her posting.

But I'm not sure if she's my best candidate toDay. I just decided to start with her as my suspicions on her are intertwined with Mac's points.

[Nogrod]

I just couldn't bear go on re-correcting my earlier post another time so I'll just make the meaning of this sentence clear here.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

defining the wolves viewpoint as "being safe"

This should of course read: defining the wolves viewpoint as wishing to be safe. Sorry.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I will only say this. Winning a game would never be so important to me that I would as a werewolf/-penquin/-rhinoceros... kill during the Night someone I like to play with - if there are other choices (the very last Nights of a game might be different). You know it Mac as all those who have played with me.

Ah but what if there was no other choice? Like if your lover was terribly afraid of Lalaith or Legate and thought s/he wouldn't survive another day if they were left alive? There are other people you like to play with, anyway, and do you rather kill one of them than die early and be unable to play with the rest?
I don't suspect you at least for now, but your defense doesn't convince me.

Originally Posted by Nog

I've been a baddie in that kind of game long ago and it was heart-stopping!

Yeah I agree. And thanks to you, it was literally heart-stopping to me.

edit: xed with Nog

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

your defense doesn't convince me.

It was probably not even meant to convince in the traditional sense of the term - and it was probably not a traditional "defence" either. I just said that if someone thinks / believes I would kill Lalaith or Legate on Night1 then s/he just doesn't know me.

The point of course was that Mac knows me...

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Is it not possible to defend anyone in this game without being branded a lover?

I'm afraid not. If we have several independent teams - which is still a possibility; I mean there being more than two teams - any defence will be a bit suspicious. And that's the madness of a full lovers game as the lovers need to defend each other unlike a wolfteam which can sacrifice a member if needed. It's sad to be sure.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to help someone you strongly feel is innocent from avoiding the gallows but you should then be ready to pay the price in form of suspicion.

Or were you trying to legitimise your future defence of your lover Agan?

EDIT: X'd with MAc... uh-oh... here we go again...

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

It was probably not even meant to convince in the traditional sense of the term - and it was probably not a traditional "defence" either. I just said that if someone thinks / believes I would kill Lalaith or Legate on Night1 then s/he just doesn't know me.

Then apparently I don't know you.
Of course everybody knows you rather didn't kill people you like to play with, but if you're on a lover team, there's also someone else but you and you should consider his/her opinions as well.
Just like I didn't like it when Mac said "if I was a wolf, I wouldn't behave this way," I don't like that.

Or were you trying to legitimise your future defence of your lover Agan?

As far as I remember, you were the only one who agreed to marry me. So watch out!

[A Little Green]

Fine, I'm back again. Firstly, about Mac and Nog's little debate.

Originally Posted by Mac

I don't like the way Nogrod labeled the kills "good". They were only good for the wolves, not the innocents, and the fact that "good" is the first thing Nogrod was able to think in regards to the kills appears like a Freudian wolf-slip. I mean, sure, that is done not unfrequently by others, but the way Nogrod emphasised it is strange. Then again, wouldn't a wolf be extra-careful not to formulate it this way?

First, there is this. I see nothing particularly suspicious in labeling kills "good", and calling it a Freudian wolf slip really strikes me as exaggeration.

But the weirdness gets more when we get to Nog's posts...

Originally Posted by Nog

I will only say this. Winning a game would never be so important to me that I would as a werewolf/-penquin/-rhinoceros... kill during the Night someone I like to play with - if there are other choices (the very last Nights of a game might be different). You know it Mac as all those who have played with me.

Honestly, I don't like this sort of "I never play like that" -defence. After all, it would be a perfect wolf strategy to do something you constantly claim you never do. Also, just for the sake of being sporty, I'd like to see defences that are based (at least partly) on the current game, not the ones before it. Of course past games affect the current one, but they shouldn't dominate it.

Originally Posted by Nog

Now defining the wolves viewpoint as "being safe" looks something that just doesn't fit my general impression of what an innocent Sally would think about - or speculate about. For it sure is true that if we have different teams against each other the lovers are scared to death every Night for their rivals (I've been a baddie in that kind of game long ago and it was heart-stopping!). The problem is, did Sally just think of that and decided to use the word "safe" (which really nails down the thing those baddies are longing for) or does she actually feel that way now?

I think this looks pretty far-fetched, really - actually this argument is quite similar to Mac's point about Nog: both claim the accused's certain choice of words indicates to being a lover because it looks like thinking from the wrong viewpoint. I'm convinced by neither of these - I'm inclined to believe that an innocent villager is perfectly capable of changing his/her viewpoint to think like a baddie.

Then to other topics.

Originally Posted by Agan

I don't understand why Greenie thinks she should be worried of Legate if he plays as if he had nothing to worry about. She kind of contradicts herself there - if Legate was a baddie and had a lover, he would have to be worried about both his own and his lover's life.

I think you misunderstood me, honey. What I meant was that I am used to seeing him more serious, and this change to his usual style of playing is what really made me raise eyebrows. I know it's silly to base worries on what a player is usually like, but his behaviour struck me as a bit odd. Seemingly he just had an exceptionally good day or something.

Originally Posted by Agan

She said she didn't want to vote for Rikae because of how many had said they might vote her

This might be trivial, but I feel the need to correct this a bit - my reason for not voting Rikae was not the amount of votes or possible votes she had at that point, but rather that I didn't find her especially suspicious and didn't like the fact that there was only one voting candidate at that point. Here is what I exactly said:

Originally Posted by me yesterDay

I will definitely not vote Rikae - I don't find her particularly suspicious and besides I don't like it when there is but one person who is being voted. It's nothing to encourage discussion other than "Oh my, a bandwaggon!" and is the perfect spot for baddies to slip away unnoticed.

EDIT: x-ed since Mac's 270

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

This might be trivial, but I feel the need to correct this a bit - my reason for not voting Rikae was not the amount of votes or possible votes she had at that point, but rather that I didn't find her especially suspicious and didn't like the fact that there was only one voting candidate at that point.

Sorry - I confused it with another post of yours where you mentioned something about four people talking about voting for her.

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Nog

Well, first you say I'm playing unfair as I go for meta-defence which means you don't like the way I corrected you on meta-level on why your initial accusations - that I'd kill Lalaith or Legate - were totally mistaken (and in this you're correct: I'm already a bit ashamed of my conduct there) but then you say my answer was not very innocent looking...

Eh? Sorry, I think my brain isn't quite working properly or something, but I really have no idea what this sentence means. Too many subordinate clauses, I suppose, but I really got lost. Could you explain it?

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Agan

Sorry - I confused it with another post of yours where you mentioned something about four people talking about voting for her.

No probem.

I should vote quite soon because I really need to get some sleep tonight. I'll make a list (!!!) to clarify my thoughts a bit.

RED ZONE - suspicious
No one here. I wonder what does it tell...

ORANGE ZONE - somewhat suspicious
Groin - Has posted only one post toDay, is that right? And that was an analysis on Rikae's first post. The tone of that post was somewhat odd, especially the "And that was only her first post!" or something of that sort (really too lazy to look up the exact quote) seemed quite like overreacting to me, especially if taken into account that Rikae had already explained that post. I suppose he'll return later toDay.
Gollum - I don't like the way he appears, makes quite vague-grounded suspicions that mainly follow the main stream of the discussion, and bases suspicions on stuff such as what a person's role was in the previous game. On the other hand it seems a trifle too careless for a baddie - especially a baddie who has another baddie to think of as well...
Nog - His points in the "debate" with Mac made me uneasy about him. I don't like the way he considers Mac's point about him sooo bad (or something like that, again too lazy to look it up) and then brings up a very similar point about Sally.
Mac - He, too, brought up a real "grasping at straws"-point, against Nog. The whole debate between the two looked odd to me, I'd like to look it over but I'm afraid I have no time. Mac has looked furrier toDay than he did yesterDay, but I don't know...

(little) GREEN ZONE - innocentish
Agan - Is generally reasonable, not as sneaky and smooth as she tends to be when a baddie, and has good points. No evidence against her at this point.
Brinn - Seems very sincere, there is nothing as far as I can see that speaks against her.
Eönwë - Feels sincere.

NO IDEA -ZONE - let the name speak for it.
Kitanna
Sally
Shasta
Gwath
Rikae
McCaber
Fea
Eomer

I'm slightly worried about the size of my no idea -zone. Based on this, my top suspects would be Groin, Gollum, Nog, and Mac. The problem is that I don't feel very comfortable with voting any of them...

I'll go eat something and come back to vote before I go to sleep.

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But didn't you notice the smilies?

Huh? There is only one "rolleye"-smiley in that particular post #265.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

How would you defend yourself against an accusation which is based on pure speculation concerning your own motives? You could say of course: "no, that was not the way I was thinking...".

That would have been a lot more effective. You could also have explained why my interpretation was wrong, but anyway, I didn't actually expect any elaborate defense (my point really wasn't that amazing), just an honest-looking one. Now that this point has been blown out of its proportion, your in-game defense seems weak...

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Funny you should say that for now you are contradicting yourself - and possibly your aim is to get some others to believe your gusto and disregard the erratic nature of your points and the motivation behind them to just get me lynched because you're a baddie!

(hah: answer that before you demand I should answer your questions on my possible motivation behind my posting).

The contradiction there? Well, first you say I'm playing unfair as I go for meta-defence which means you don't like the way I corrected you on meta-level on why your initial accusations - that I'd kill Lalaith or Legate - were totally mistaken (and in this you're correct: I'm already a bit ashamed of my conduct there) but then you say my answer was not very innocent looking...

Huh? I don't see the slightest contradiction. Bringing in meta-reasons and criticising the meta-reasons given are not the same. I'm giving no meta-reasons to counter yours, mind you! And in any case, the fact that you resorted to meta was only one out of three reasons why I think your post looks evil. What are you talking about?

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard, regarding Rikae's suspicion of Macalaure

Over confidence? It looked like he was just being plain old silly if you ask me.

There is a great deal of confidence implicit in silliness, Groin. I happen to agree with you that Mac seems innocent overall, but you're definitely pushing it a bit here.

Originally Posted by Rikae

Groin, go read what I already said about that post, I see no need to say anything else. *shrug*
I do find myself wondering if the fact that no one has paid any attention to my increasing number of lovers theory means I've stumbled on the truth and those who know it are afraid to tip me off, assuming I know it too - but I suppose more likely you all just think I'm loony.

Rikae seems to be playing up two identities here: that of the martyr, and that of the innocent. The first assumes the reality of the second (which is assuming a great deal), without explicitly stating either. Implied identities are significantly more dangerous than those that have been expressed, as they tend to escape analysis and can become axiomatic before they were ever theoretical.

Also, declining to answer another player's objections under the excuse that the issue has already been laid to rest looks to me like a sneaky way of suppressing suspicion.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I don't like the way Nogrod labeled the kills "good". They were only good for the wolves, not the innocents, and the fact that "good" is the first thing Nogrod was able to think in regards to the kills appears like a Freudian wolf-slip. I mean, sure, that is done not unfrequently by others, but the way Nogrod emphasised it is strange. Then again, wouldn't a wolf be extra-careful not to formulate it this way?

I don't have any problem with Nogrod's use of the word "good" in this context. It is natural to understand the lovers' actions in terms of what is "good" for them.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

Also, just for the sake of being sporty, I'd like to see defences that are based (at least partly) on the current game, not the ones before it.
.......
What I meant was that I am used to seeing him [Legate] more serious, and this change to his usual style of playing is what really made me raise eyebrows.

It's not that easy folks...

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

It's not that easy folks...

I agree, and will take the assertion even one step farther: trying to analyze a player apart from the context of their past games is as futile as trying to appreciate an artist apart from his body of work.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Some off-the-top-of-my-head points:

1. My theory of lover-trios goes back to... um. There was a game (I think it was Brinniel's) with three Lovers; the Ranger Lover, the Ordo Lover, and the.... Wolf Lover? In any case, it was a baddie. I don't think trios are that far-fetched of an idea, and it would make more sense (six baddies makes more sense than four baddies, and their team wouldn't be immediately decimated with the death of one member.) Fea's reaction to this - or should I say, overreaction? - seemed kind of unnecessary; a case of "the Lover doth protest too much"?

2. There seems to be a relationship between Greenie and Mac today. They're both consistently bringing up the same points against Nogrod, which isn't eyebrow-raising, but Greenie puts just enough suspicion against Mac in her posts to make it seem as if she's distancing herself from him.

3. One of Sally's reasons for voting yesterday struck me as bizarre. She said she "didn't want to create a tie". Why? According to the rules, the first person to receive the number of votes, in the case of a tie, is the person who will be executed. Lommy still would have been executed at that point, no matter who you had voted, so why the insistence on not creating a tie?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I'm a bit pessimistic about analysing the deaths last night in any meaningful way right now.

If there are teams of lovers picking different kills, then there is competition to kill the opposing team first. They will try to hunt down their enemies, but how can they tell who's a lover? It would make sense for lovers to stay far away from each other during the day. Thus "Legate was winking at so-and-so!" is not going to persuade any villain that their enemies are carelessly revealing themselves. The interaction on Day One is just a blur of misinformation. Maybe the villains did choose their kills on a meta-basis. Lovers, Legate, Lalaith, Loving, Legate, Lovey, Lalaith.... maybe it was hypnotic.

Anyway, our villains were wrong. Makes me wonder, on a meta-level...

Who could survive in a game like this, where villagers seek the famous romantics, focusing their efforts thither?

Not Legate, obviously! I could have told you that last week. He was never going to be a lover. Look what happened in the last game.

Too meta?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I'm slightly concerned about the actions of the village so far. So many people are seeing malice in all corners.

We don't even know what we're looking for yet. Some comments, like Nogrod's recent speculation about different evil team strategies, and Macalaure's riposte, are immediately sensible to me, because they relate to the deduction of who our killers could be. How so? Because they take the facts, and they work around them. Our facts are the deaths of Legate and Lalaith.

Other comments, such as "So and so suspected me because of this, it's really creepy!" are based on absolutely nothing. Every instance of Werewolf dialogue can be interpreted in such a way that that it looks evil. It's all well and good normally, but we don't even know what resides in this village yet.

It's interesting how many people have easily accepted that Legate's enemies thought him a lover, while Lalaith's obviously thought her a nice quiet catch. I think only Aganzir really broke from this regarding Lalaith.

Kitanna's post, perfectly illustrating the above point, with its complete conformity, is almost tauntingly suspicious.

[Aganzir]

So she has only six posts thus far. She usually isn't one of the most vocal anyway, but although that's pretty little, I'm not worried yet. She has at least given some actual opinions.

I don't understand why Greenie thinks she should be worried of Legate if he plays as if he had nothing to worry about. She kind of contradicts herself there - if Legate was a baddie and had a lover, he would have to be worried about both his own and his lover's life. She agreed with me and Legate about Groin, though.

Greenie thought Rikae votes on day 1 were weird, and that she wouldn't call Fea's rule discussion suspicious since, in her opinion, that early it was as good a topic as any.

She didn't know what to think of Lommy, who looked normal (which means nothing). Later she pointed out, though, that Lommy's suspicion list was full of things like "A is suspicious because of X, but then again there's Y which makes her look innocentish." She thought Lommy was doing it in an exaggerating manner. This is the list she's talking about, and to me it doesn't look very much like exaggeration.

She said she didn't want to vote for Rikae because of how many had said they might vote her, and voted for Groin instead based almost entirely on gut-feeling. She thought he had been one of the least innocentish on day 1, and she didn't like his tone in some things.

On day 2 Greenie didn't understand sally's logic, either, when she said introducing new candidates close to deadline may increase the possibility of a last-minute bandwagon. I agree with her, but she could have said the same even if she was a baddie.
To her, it seems obvious that Lal was a kill with no traces, and Legate might have been suspected to be a lover.

Greenie seems somehow really smooth, but then again that's the way she is. It bothers me that I can't read her at all - she could go either way. Mostly she looks quite innocent, but there are some points which are a bit weird, like that Legate contradiction in her first post, and suggestion that Lommy is softening her opinions to an exaggerative degree (which I don't think she was doing). I also think Rikae's point of a baddie hiding in the open when Greenie speculated on Lal and Leg's deaths is worth at least noticing.

edit: xed with Nog & Eomer

[Macalaure]

I am rather puzzled by your reply to me, Nogrod. Firstly, I made one point against you on the second day, and you compare it to me being after you all the time in the past. That's a little bit out of proportion, don't you think? Secondly, your defense is based entirely on meta-reasons (there is no actual "in-game" defense at all) which I usually dislike. The meta is out there all the time, but it's much more enjoyable to keep it at a minimum. Was my point so well-made that you needed to bash it with the big hammer? Thirdly, instead of giving a non-meta defense of any kind, you threaten to retaliate by a rhetorical question.

I made my comment because I thought it was worth commenting on and because I thought it appropriate to poke somebody who hasn't been poked much in this game so far. You didn't respond to being poked in a very innocent-looking way...

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I am rather puzzled by your reply to me, Nogrod. Firstly, I made one point against you on the second day, and you compare it to me being after you all the time in the past. That's a little bit out of proportion, don't you think?

Yes, I agree. Wholeheartedly agree. But didn't you notice the smilies? (maybe irony, self-irony or sarcasm isn't for the WW-games then...)

Secondly, your defense is based entirely on meta-reasons (there is no actual "in-game" defense at all) which I usually dislike. The meta is out there all the time, but it's much more enjoyable to keep it at a minimum.

Here I must admit I'm beginning to regret my point already. My only "defence" is that your points were just soo far-fetched I kind of tried to do away with them once and for all so that we could concentrate on the in-game wolf-hunting. And it already seems that the mountain is coming out from the initial molehill because of my poor judgement (unless you're a wolf Mac and this is not in vain...).


But you raise once again a good question. The meta-level is there all the time and it has its effects, big effects indeed. Still I kind of agree with you that it should not be prominent. Maybe I've played too many games and need to take a pause? I just had no inspiration to go on the long path of counter-arguing in the traditional sense.

Originally Posted by Mac

I made my comment because I thought it was worth commenting on and because I thought it appropriate to poke somebody who hasn't been poked much in this game so far.

Thank you indeed! (no smilies as I'm quite honest with this praise) I mean Day1 was just terrible! Nobody suspected me! It was weird and dangerous. I was so sure I'd find myself among the corpses after a total butchery taking place last Night.



But then, let the in-game arguments fly!

Originally Posted by Mac

Was my point so well-made that you needed to bash it with the big hammer?

No. It was soo bad there were no reasonable instruments available to do away with it.

Originally Posted by Mac

Thirdly, instead of giving a non-meta defense of any kind, you threaten to retaliate by a rhetorical question.

How would you defend yourself against an accusation which is based on pure speculation concerning your own motives? You could say of course: "no, that was not the way I was thinking...".

Originally Posted by Mac

You didn't respond to being poked in a very innocent-looking way...

Funny you should say that for now you are contradicting yourself - and possibly your aim is to get some others to believe your gusto and disregard the erratic nature of your points and the motivation behind them to just get me lynched because you're a baddie!

(hah: answer that before you demand I should answer your questions on my possible motivation behind my posting).

The contradiction there? Well, first you say I'm playing unfair as I go for meta-defence which means you don't like the way I corrected you on meta-level on why your initial accusations - that I'd kill Lalaith or Legate - were totally mistaken (and in this you're correct: I'm already a bit ashamed of my conduct there) but then you say my answer was not very innocent looking...

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Secondly, your defense is based entirely on meta-reasons (there is no actual "in-game" defense at all) which I usually dislike. The meta is out there all the time, but it's much more enjoyable to keep it at a minimum.

Well, I like meta-game discussion.