WW LXXV: It's Always Tea Time Here

[Aganzir]

YYYYEEEHAAAA!

Because I don't know pretty much anything about the books, I'm going to be sensible/boring (depends on your point of view) and not even try to post in character (except for the next few sentences).

Okay things in the order in which they occurred to me.

I am your Queen and it's my business to order executions. You are not allowed to hurt me.
In other words, I am going to be mad if somebody kills me during the first few days/nights because I haven't played in a year and it's going to be long till I have time to play again. But this is just my personal opinion.

Just thought to tell you that I spent the Night walking around Helsinki dressed as a wolf because a friend wanted me to play one for her Little Red Riding Hood art project.

I always wonder why, if the mod starts a day early, they allow the wolves to PM at the same time that the village can talk. I would so want to seize the opportunity to do something silly with my fellows if I was in that situation.

Hahaha Fea.

Originally Posted by Shasta

(And the vote of the Red Queen still bothers me.)

Hey Shasta why does Fea's vote bother you? And why do you say 'still' when that's the first time you say it?

Brinn seems to be her normal self (ie she slightly rubs me the wrong way). But yeah she speaks sense, unlike most of the others.

By the way winty, we shouldn't edit our posts except to mark cross-posting. And it's true there are no reasons for votes yet, but that's why we're talking. Sooner or later somebody says or does something suspicious. Of course it helps if we have some corpses whose relations to living players we can observe, but first we need to get going.

Originally Posted by Lottie

Agan: clearly evil as she is not with her King right now.

No it doesn't make me evil, it only makes me unfaithful.

Yippee Greenie's tone strikes me as overly self-conscious! Nothing has indeed changed during my absence! :-D

Originally Posted by Nerwen

*sigh* Now I suppose we have to decide whether this is innocent or guilty-looking. Would a wolfywolfy's* packmates have shown him the ropes on Night One, and told him not to do this? Or would they have left him in the dark in the hope that he'd look like a confused innocent? Or is he, in fact, innocent? You know, the usual.

Usually when a newbie wolf enters the pack the older team members tell them to look just as new and ignorant and confused as they normally would and not to give away the slightest hint that they have received nightly counsel. And you have been a wolf enough times to know this is true. Or are you speculating about what you did last night?
What exactly made you draw attention to winty after two posts? It looks like a Nerwolf looking for an easy lynch.

Originally Posted by Legate

Because it is also easy for the Wolves to hide among random votes, if everybody made them, and also, I wonder as to whether a Cobbler would not give her or his presence away by making some stupid move... like voting randomly. Or something. Ahem.

Ahem what? Are you perchance giving advice to somebody?

The seer should keep in mind that they can't trust their dreams 100% because the cobbler appears as innocent. Last time I played in a game where the seer couldn't discern the cobbler's true identity, we wolves totally used it to our advantage and left him alive although he was supposedly a known innocent, and in the end we won because we could control his vote... Ah fond memories! But yeah that's why I think the cobbler should be killed as soon as possible (ie if the seer says 'X is an ordo' but we think 'X is damn suspicious' => lynch X), I've played in too many a game (three readily spring to mind) where people have said, 'Let's go for the most wolfish-looking person, we can deal with the cobbler later.' Well, when there are fewer and fewer people left, nobody wants to 'waste' a lynch on the cobbler and ta-da, soon the cobbler plays a crucial role in the evil victory.
Also, if the Cursed is turned (and the risk exists until they die and we see they were the Cursed), it practically destroys the seer's known innocent list.
I am saying this now as I've said this before, because it's better if the seer isn't sure than if the seer is too sure and wrong.

Originally Posted by skippy

A seemingly random vote makes much more immediate sense for a wolf, does it not? An innocent person getting lynched is no problem for a wolf, and a wolf may even vote for a fellow wolf to avoid suspicions later on. Chances are that the wolf-mate won't get lynched anyhow.

In a way yeah, but because people don't like random votes, it's likely they'd demand the said random-voters head on a platter for it.
Basically a wolf can vote in any way whatsoever, and playing a major role in the lynching of a wolf doesn't redeem anybody because wolves might as well sacrifice one for the pack to make the rest look good.

Okay I'm going to be here for, hmm, half an hour before I have to go.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Ahem what? Are you perchance giving advice to somebody?

No, it's *ahem* like underlining what I have just said (and saying that we have certain people who might have done exactly that with their votes, if there was somebody who didn't understand it from my post).

Originally Posted by Aganzir

The seer should keep in mind that they can't trust their dreams 100% because the cobbler appears as innocent. Last time I played in a game where the seer couldn't discern the cobbler's true identity, we wolves totally used it to our advantage and left him alive although he was supposedly a known innocent, and in the end we won because we could control his vote... Ah fond memories! But yeah that's why I think the cobbler should be killed as soon as possible (ie if the seer says 'X is an ordo' but we think 'X is damn suspicious' => lynch X), I've played in too many a game (three readily spring to mind) where people have said, 'Let's go for the most wolfish-looking person, we can deal with the cobbler later.' Well, when there are fewer and fewer people left, nobody wants to 'waste' a lynch on the cobbler and ta-da, soon the cobbler plays a crucial role in the evil victory.

This however is just good point, so I only hope you are not a Wolf, but this far I don't have a reason to think so (so I hope you really are not ). Although when it comes to Cobblers, I am personally more of the type to leave them live at least for a while if we have better targets. But I can imagine such scenario as you have drawn it (I don't think I was in that game), the problem is of course that we are not going to know at all that somebody is a Cobbler before they die. But yes, why not in other words, let's just lynch whoever we think is evil and even if we think it might be a Cobbler, let's go for it, no harm done.

edit: x-ed with Lommy and Morsul

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Brinn

Fea does not have to be a trendsetter!

But We're so stylish!

Originally Posted by Lottie

Fea does have to be a trendsetter. There is no question about that.

Ah, Our retinue concurs.

[Mirandir]

My my, this is much more entertaining than making Powerpoints...

Originally Posted by Lottie

Mira: clearly evil for breaking china.

If breaking china makes me evil, I don't want to be good!

Anyway, on a more serious note, I don't think that Fea's vote is all that suspicious. It is fairly common knowledge that reading poems and song parodies (as entertaining as they can be) can be a pain. I for one skip over them whenever they appear. And our dear Red Queen does have quite the temper...

wintywinty's vote is more suspicious. I do agree with whoever suggested it might be of a wolfish nature and xe was told to act newbieish to allay suspicion. Or it could be a newbie mistake. People do tend to follow Fea for no reason.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

His random vote, obviously. And actually, that looks a lot more like an Aganwolf looking for an easy lynch. I remark on one of the few noteworthy things that had happened– and you call it suspicious? Why?

I hope for the sake of the whole village that this is not a wolf-on-wolf suspicion

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Do votes for character names count? I'd be inclined to think no, but that's for our good moddess to clarify.

Okay, so our Moddess has already clarified that they do, but just a remark to this - maybe anyway for the sake of clarity, it would be better to use votes with people's names so as to make the orientation easier (well, we can look it up if we don't remember the particular person, but it also lowers the risk of casting a mistaken vote for Knight instead of Knave or whatnot). In any case, if people don't want their votes to count, then I would kindly ask people not to use them, or if so, then at least not highlight them, as that totally ruins the point and makes a mess out of the situation. But anyway, I assume that ww's vote was supposed to be "real". But just theoretically technical remark.

Originally Posted by Kingziladun

Sometimes those wolf-on-wolf votes can backfire though, eh Boropillar?

That name sounds just awesome I could start using it...

Originally Posted by still His Majesty

I didn't see it that way. That vote should receive some scrutiny, and I don't think she was overly eager about suspecting ww.

In general I agree with the remark, just seems to me however that Inzil just mentions it, but does not contribute much own thoughts on the Fea-issue himself, even though he thinks it "should" (emphasised) receive some scrutiny. Inzil doesn't seem to be very elaborative in any matter, however. The question however might be why is that. He's rather more... "quiet" than usually.

Originally Posted by wilwarin538

*is rediculously happy I made you the Jabberwocky*

Ah, but it was my pleasure!

Originally Posted by Mirandir

Anyway, on a more serious note, I don't think that Fea's vote is all that suspicious. It is fairly common knowledge that reading poems and song parodies (as entertaining as they can be) can be a pain. I for one skip over them whenever they appear. And our dear Red Queen does have quite the temper...

wintywinty's vote is more suspicious. I do agree with whoever suggested it might be of a wolfish nature and xe was told to act newbieish to allay suspicion. Or it could be a newbie mistake. People do tend to follow Fea for no reason.

This seems a bit curious to me, as it's basically measuring two people with a different metre, whereas the difference is not that big. Or, there is a difference, Fea was first, yes, but still - this is outright defending the Red Queen on quite clearly defined grounds (explaining her psychological processes), which do not necessarily need to be "the" true reasons, as Fea didn't this far give any explanation on her own... Whatever, just remarking, I find this behavior just somewhat strange.

EDIT: x-ed with Lommy (okay that was the explanation I thought you meant) and WW (okay that is not an explanation in my book, even though in some other book it might be)

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Morsul

Either the voters are using their one time retractable votes in silly posts(therefore wasting them) or they'll later say when voting an innocent "I realized they were innocent After voting but could do nothing about it...sorry.

Either way I find the votes meaningless and suspect.

Even if you don't understand why somebody does something, it doesn't make it silly. And what does it matter if they 'waste' their retractable votes early on? After all it's the wolves who benefit the most from them, and if everybody used theirs at once, we would eliminate the risk of wolf-organised lynches later.
I don't claim Fea's or winty's vote make them innocent, but Morsul is awfully quick to jump on them with flimsy reasoning.

Using the retractable votes quickly might be worth some discussion... Personally I would be happy with everybody using theirs as soon as possible. Innocents vote alone, but the wolves, having a way to communicate, can use their votes in a much broader scale. I seem to remember a game (phantom's last one, for those who know. In addition to their normal daily vote, every player had 10 extra votes they could use whenever they wished) where pretty much everybody else but the wolves used some of their votes during the first days. The wolves saved all or most of theirs for later and won because they could use their extra votes against the village all at once.
And when there is something like 6 people left, two of whom wolves, it does make a difference if the wolves can retract and the others cannot.

Originally Posted by Legate

This however is just good point, so I only hope you are not a Wolf, but this far I don't have a reason to think so (so I hope you really are not

I was honestly expecting people would jump on my comment like 'You there are you trying to undermine the seer's authority and sow discord, you're a wolf!' so does the fact that you liked my point mean you're a wolf? :P

Originally Posted by Nerwen

but you have been a wolf enough times to know wolf-tactics tend to run in cycles– take wolf-on-wolf voting, for example. Anyway, we're still left with the "newbie or newbie wolf?" problem.

Yeah but there are some things that remain pretty much the same from game to game, among them that newbie wolves should behave as if they had no pack backing them up. And I don't think the "newbie or newbie wolf" question is a problem yet - thus far it's just a question, but you're trying to make it a problem. So we lynch winty and she/he was an innocent, and what have we left? An easy lynch and nothing else.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

By the way, Agan, are you then considering skip cleared (or semi-cleared) because he seems to have a better handle on things?

Mmh no, I fail to see a connection there. I think/thought you were talking about different things.

(Yay I had missed playing with you, too! <3)

Originally Posted by Nerwen

His random vote, obviously. And actually, that looks a lot more like an Aganwolf looking for an easy lynch. I remark on one of the few noteworthy things that had happened– and you call it suspicious? Why?

Trust me, if I was looking for an easy day 1 lynch after a year's WW break, it would not be you.
Yeah his vote was random, but he is a newbie and at least I am willing to forgive newbies for things I wouldn't forgive for example people like you on day 1. It's alright to remark on it, but I think you were pushing it a tad too hard. Making it a bigger issue than it really was.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

However, I believe you'll find that since you last played people have become less likely to baulk at lynching the cobbler. But you don't really mean we shouldn't go for the most wolfish person, do you?

Okie dokie, I'm glad to hear that. And I mean we should go for the most suspicious person, regardless of whether we think they're a wolf or the cobbler. It's better to lynch we're-sure-she's-the-cobbler than we're-almost-sure-she's-a-wolf.

Originally Posted by Lommy

I so wish I hadn't dreamt of him at all...

*hugs* It was beautiful work. :P
(Sorry I'm just talking about previous games all the time!)

Oh and people when quoting a vote post, is there any chance you could take off the higlights? It's a bit disturbing, especially when we have to do quick vote counts.

Hey winty have you played werewolf before on other forums? If yes you'll come to find that Barrowdowns werewolf is slightly more in-depth (or so I am told) than most others.

Originally Posted by Inzil

I'm considering the possibility this was a move by a new player who saw Fea's shot in the dark, and thought it appropriate to act accordingly. Or, since the character name, and not the player name was used, maybe it was meant as a joke.

Thanks for saving my voice and speaking my thoughts aloud, dear husband.

Originally Posted by Mira

I do agree with whoever suggested it might be of a wolfish nature and xe was told to act newbieish to allay suspicion. Or it could be a newbie mistake.

Your conclusion = it was suspicious? I see but a plus-minus-zero situation.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't remember who's playing which character, so it would be nice if people used the player names instead of/in addition to character names in their posts.

Originally Posted by Shasta

I mentioned the Red Queen's vote once before the quote of mine you mention - when I said "How iiiiinteresting" in my first post.

I had no way of knowing you were talking about it. :P

Originally Posted by winty

Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a battle

Ah so was your vote then based on a nightly discussion with Brinn who said, 'Don't be too friendly towards me!'?

Originally Posted by Legate

I hope for the sake of the whole village that this is not a wolf-on-wolf suspicion

I would be darn happy if it was, but alas it is not.

As some of you might be aware of, the deadline is 04.30 my time which means I'm going to vote in a couple of hours.

[Nienna]

Very quickly as I have to run and look at like 800 apartm-umm-Castles (and by 800 I really mean 12 but that is still a lot). I should hopefully be back before deadline.

So here are just some thoughts:

Lottie's first few posts were thought-provoking. I suspect her but not really any more than most people at this stage in the game.

Fea's just trying to provoke - for good or for bad I've yet to decide but I'm leaning more toward good at the moment.

The Finns seem to be making a rather lot of sense though I do need to go through and read clearer.

WinWin gets a Newbie pass for at least toDay. Many experienced players feel similarly about Day One's so that doesn't raise any of my suspicions.

I can't really match up people with their character name so it is a little confusing to read posts that mention characters but not their counterparts... The name combination are fine but I ask that when people are talking about a person and they want me to pay attention they should use SN and not character names. Thanks!

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

One more thing. I'm relatively uneasy with LottieDuchesses' poetry - like it seems our FeaQueen is, whatever her alignment is or whether I approve of her methods of showing that. For the Duchess surely goes into that infamous mode of "no bad person, even insane one, would do that kind of a thing" - like screaming "Go wolves!" on D1...

Just so you know, I wrote those before I got my role.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

PS. I wouldn't be actually surprised if Loslote turned out to be the cobbler.

I would!

Originally Posted by skip spence

And why vote for Lottie, of all people?

That's an easy one. I'm just so incredibly awesome, she had no choice!

Seriousity to follow.

EDIT: xed with Ni.

[Nogrod]

(~~~) *grin emerging*

I'm joining the crowd begging for "real names" to be used (there's no problem using the character names but please include the player-name as well). Shasta's post was basically unreadable.

Originally Posted by Off with their heads-Agan

I was honestly expecting people would jump on my comment like 'You there are you trying to undermine the seer's authority and sow discord, you're a wolf!'

I wouldn't have gone that far but it did look somewhat disconcerting to be honest - and I'm not so sure what to think of it. I mean basically you said that a) go for the cobbler, and b) don't trust people the seer says are innocent. Okay. There has been a lot of talk this way and that way about the chances of making a difference between a wolf and a cobbler (or neither of them with an ordo or a gifted, I might add) so it's basically a hypothetical scenario to get to "choose" between one or the other. But why would you say something like that in the first place if you were a wolf? Then again, why say something like that whatever your role? I mean it's hard to see that kind of problem being in any sense actual toDay. So you said it for the sake of saying it rather than trying to help us in something we should accomplish or we should avoid? So you're more concerned about your image then?

Originally Posted by His Majesty Inzil

That vote should receive some scrutiny

How do you "scrutinise" winwin's vote? Some they think this is making a monutain out of a molehill (and it wouldn't be the first time I'm being accused of it ), but to me this is one of the most noteworthy comments as yet. Now why? Well, obvioulsy that is a comment totally devoid of any real meaning but it is something you might think looks good in a situation you have no intention to do what you say should be done (if you really thought of doing what you suggested you'd soon realise there isn't much to scrutinise there). So what I'm trying to say is that a wolf might make that kind of statement to look helpful but I can't see an innocent to say that.

Originally Posted by Duchess Lottie

Just so you know, I wrote those before I got my role.

Interesting. And what should that prove? It's not so much about when you wrote that piece of ambiguity, but what was your role when you decided it was a good way to start posting?

(~~~) *grin vanishing*

[Boromir88]

This is my first time checking in today, I'll read up and get posting soon.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

This is my first time checking in today, I'll read up and get posting soon.

*curls up on your shoulder, promptly falls asleep*

[Nogrod]

(~~~) *grin emerging*

Originally Posted by Inzil-majesty

I was saying I didn't fault Nerwen for questioning ww's vote, after Agan thought Nerwen could be wolfy for calling it into question, and that's suspicious?

Nope.

Originally Posted by Inzil-majesty

I didn't see it that way. That vote should receive some scrutiny, and I don't think she was overly eager about suspecting ww.

What I found suspicious here is the fact that you say that winty's vote should receive some scrutiny, which is nonsense. We can speculate the whole Day about him being a) newbie with little knowledge of the game, b) newbie who has played this on different fora, c) newbie with instructions to play a "newbie-card" by his packmates, d) newbie who thinks two steps ahead of most of us, e) newbie who just plays dashingly bold... you can continue that list. But that will lead us nowhere, especially if he doesn't come forwards to take part of the discussion - and that would not be "scrutinising his vote" anymore.

If there first is no explanation and when the explanation finally comes and is a verse from the book, there's little to scrutinise.

Why I find that suspicious then? If you were an innocent and thought there was something to scrutinise there, then you would have given it a thought - and even a slight thought would have told you immediately there wasn't. So can we infer that you actually didn't care? If you don't care to think about it that little as to see there's nothing to speculate there, then it would look like you are not caring about it. But still you wish to say that aloud, that "his vote should be scrutinised", which makes me think you were more concentrated on thinking how to make yourself look concerned than being actually concerned about the possibility of learning whether winty-w is good or bad (like if you knew it already or something?) - and just didn't realised that what you suggested might look good but when looked at more closely turns out ridiculous for anyone who is actually interested in on what side winty-w is...

Blah. I hope even someone gets what I mean as I'm getting quite frustrated with this nasty thing called language...

(~~~) *grin vanishing*



(~~~) *grin re-emerging*

EDIT: X'd from Lommy's list onwards...

(~~~) *grin vanishing*

[Aganzir]

Hey Nog you posted the same post twice.

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Had this argument last time maybe I should do this "so and so "FEELS" off" somehow acceptable me seeing something I find odd and pointing it out that's weird?

Anywho... No one pops out want to vote agan... but won't because That Would be knee jerk... I do have to vote soon though

(Responding to post 80 forgot to quote it.)

Sorry but would you care to speak English that's understandable even to a non-native speaker so I don't have to spend a twice longer time reading your post than I would need for anyone else?

As you might have noticed I didn't play in last game. And it's perfectly alright to point out what you find odd, but your thought process in the post I found suspicious seemed half-hearted and lazy and somehow far-fetched too (the part that Lommy or someone else pointed out). Give better reasons for your suspicions and I might change my mind about you.

But yeah as for now

++Mirandir

because thus far she seems the most suspicious to me.

oh and

--Mirandir
++Mirandir

as I dislike retrackies anyway, and this is what I think everyone should do because otherwise the wolves will probably use them against us in the end.

I'll hang around here till I've finished my tea and will go to sleep then.

[wintywinty]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

(~~~)
What I found suspicious here is the fact that you say that winty's vote should receive some scrutiny, which is nonsense. We can speculate the whole Day about him being a) newbie with little knowledge of the game, b) newbie who has played this on different fora, c) newbie with instructions to play a "newbie-card" by his packmates, d) newbie who thinks two steps ahead of most of us, e) newbie who just plays dashingly bold... you can continue that list. But that will lead us nowhere, especially if he doesn't come forwards to take part of the discussion - and that would not be "scrutinising his vote" anymore.

Any of these choices could be possible, but I prefer d and e. Also, Someone please explain to me how eliminating re-votes will help the Non-wolf team later on. Finally, many have mentioned how Tweedledee always has good insights on shtuff and she seems very good at the game, therefore if she is a wolf, then she would be huge asset to the wolf team. This is my reasoning for voting for Tweedledee.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by wintywinty

Any of these choices could be possible, but I prefer d and e. Also, Someone please explain to me how eliminating re-votes will help the Non-wolf team later on. Finally, many have mentioned how Tweedledee always has good insights on shtuff and she seems very good at the game, therefore if she is a wolf, then she would be huge asset to the wolf team. This is my reasoning for voting for Tweedledee.

Yes, but she would also therefore be a good asset to the village. And besides, she's super busy, so she can't get up to too many hijinx this game.


I still fault this is egregiously poor reasoning. (And yes, I really just wanted to say egregious.)

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Glirdan

You know Lottie, I've read you're reasoning of suspecting me and I still don't quite understand it. Could I ask you to clarify?

Okay. You're evil. My reasoning in a nutshell.

Seriously, though, and adding to the IC reasoning: You jumped on the "Nerwen's *sigh* is off" mini-bandwaggon; you're jumping on the Lottie-waggon now; and you're fraternizing far too readily with the other people I think are evil (Agan, Sally, and Greenie).

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Usually when a newbie wolf enters the pack the older team members tell them to look just as new and ignorant and confused as they normally would and not to give away the slightest hint that they have received nightly counsel. And you have been a wolf enough times to know this is true.

It's what I did last time I had wolf-cubs to deal with– but you have been a wolf enough times to know wolf-tactics tend to run in cycles– take wolf-on-wolf voting, for example. Anyway, we're still left with the "newbie or newbie wolf?" problem.

By the way, Agan, are you then considering skip cleared (or semi-cleared) because he seems to have a better handle on things?

Originally Posted by Aganzir

What exactly made you draw attention to winty after two posts? It looks like a Nerwolf looking for an easy lynch.

His random vote, obviously. And actually, that looks a lot more like an Aganwolf looking for an easy lynch. I remark on one of the few noteworthy things that had happened– and you call it suspicious? Why?

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Last time I played in a game where the seer couldn't discern the cobbler's true identity, we wolves totally used it to our advantage and left him alive although he was supposedly a known innocent, and in the end we won because we could control his vote... Ah fond memories!

That they are, Mr Aggins.

Originally Posted by Aganzir

I've played in too many a game (three readily spring to mind) where people have said, 'Let's go for the most wolfish-looking person, we can deal with the cobbler later.' Well, when there are fewer and fewer people left, nobody wants to 'waste' a lynch on the cobbler and ta-da, soon the cobbler plays a crucial role in the evil victory.

Not to mention the various times wolves have got by pretending to be the cobbler. However, I believe you'll find that since you last played people have become less likely to baulk at lynching the cobbler. But you don't really mean we shouldn't go for the most wolfish person, do you?

EDIT:X'd with three Jabberwocks, the Gryphon and the Mock Turtle.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

That they are, Mr Aggins.

I so wish I hadn't dreamt of him at all...

Originally Posted by Morsul

Either the voters are using their one time retractable votes in silly posts(therefore wasting them) or they'll later say when voting an innocent "I realized they were innocent After voting but could do nothing about it...sorry.

Either way I find the votes meaningless and suspect.

That's slightly too kneejerk logic to my taste. I don't see it as a good tactics for any wolf to just randomly vote an innocent and then apologise afterwards, because thatkind of behaviour makes 90% of the village raise their eyebrows.

PS. I wouldn't be actually surprised if Loslote turned out to be the cobbler.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Loslote

I don't sing my songs, if it helps. I sneeze them in direct contradiction of canon, 'cause I'm just awesome like that.

Well, that's all right then. Sneezing I approve of.

Originally Posted by wintywinty

Tweedledum dislikes Tweedledee, his name sounds too much like me.
++Tweedledee

Very enigmatic. I'm considering the possibility this was a move by a new player who saw Fea's shot in the dark, and thought it appropriate to act accordingly. Or, since the character name, and not the player name was used, maybe it was meant as a joke.
At any rate, newbies generally out to be safe from Day 1 lynches, I think. But ww- don't keep acting suspicious, or I'll have you executed on the spot!

Originally Posted by Brinniel

Umm, do votes for character names as opposed to player names count?

If that's meant to be a serious vote, then we're going to have a problem here. Because silly random throwaway votes based on banter that are cast within the first hours will get us nowhere. I hate Day Ones, but we can make them productive if we choose for them to be. Behaviour like this will just end up wasting the Day. Fea does not have to be a trendsetter!

Do votes for character names count? I'd be inclined to think no, but that's for our good moddess to clarify.

Originally Posted by wintywinty

Well considering how noone has died yet, nobody has a real reason for voting for anyone, therefore voting randomly is just as much a reason as voting for any other reason.

I'm sure someone else has brought this up, but Day 1 votes don't have to be completely random. Especially if you wait as long as possible to vote!

Originally Posted by skip spence

A seemingly random vote makes much more immediate sense for a wolf, does it not? An innocent person getting lynched is no problem for a wolf, and a wolf may even vote for a fellow wolf to avoid suspicions later on. Chances are that the wolf-mate won't get lynched anyhow.

Sometimes those wolf-on-wolf votes can backfire though, eh Boropillar?

Originally Posted by Aganzir

I am your Queen and it's my business to order executions. You are not allowed to hurt me.

Ah, My Dear! Most excellent to see you! Don't behead them all though.

Originally Posted by Aganzir

What exactly made you draw attention to winty after two posts? It looks like a Nerwolf looking for an easy lynch.

I didn't see it that way. That vote should receive some scrutiny, and I don't think she was overly eager about suspecting ww.

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Well, when there are fewer and fewer people left, nobody wants to 'waste' a lynch on the cobbler and ta-da, soon the cobbler plays a crucial role in the evil victory.

I'm of the mind that you generally ought to go after whoever looks suspicious, and if we nail the Cobbler, well, at least they were someone who was against us.

Originally Posted by Aganzir

Basically a wolf can vote in any way whatsoever, and playing a major role in the lynching of a wolf doesn't redeem anybody because wolves might as well sacrifice one for the pack to make the rest look good.

Voting for wolves doesn't totally clear anyone, but still, indications of guilt or innocence can be gleaned from the timing.

x'd with Lommy

[wilwarin538]

Originally Posted by Brinniel

Umm, do votes for character names as opposed to player names count?

Yeah, sure they do.

Originally Posted by A Little Green

Did the rules say we have to play mad instead of just having a WW game in a mad setting?

No, but it sure is amusing me.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

'Twas brilig, and the votling wustle
did mulsomingly pestiply,
not only fungoltch lamless parsle
but unpremining detrimy.

Beware the Jabberwock, my foes,
or friends who speak of "Day 1 noes"
when uffish Nogrod Borogrows
...all of you could be voted out.

*is rediculously happy I made you the Jabberwocky*