WW LXXXII: Return to Tol-in-Gaurhoth

[Pitchwife]

Awake and catching up...

Originally Posted by Shasta

In other news, I'm finding something slightly off about Pitch. He's only made one post thus far, but as I read it there were points at which I felt he was being awfully... well, the pun is inevitable... agreeable.

Let's see these points, please.

Originally Posted by Nog

Right on spot Pitch. I paused at that while reading but got carried away by the cobbler-speculation... (but it did feed to my paranoia at the first read) The wolves will try to be nice and friendly. The innocents will be brutal and openly attacking people (hopefully). The wolves would love "friendliness-based lottery" of votes, while we innocents need to find out who the honey-tongued villains are.

Although I'm not too sure that quote merits as a reason to suspect Legate as you could read it as an IC comment as well.

Now what exactly are you doing here - just lecturing on general WW principles and saying they don't apply to the Legate-quote 'cause it's IC, or using my flippant remark to cast a shadow of doubt on Legate that doesn't quite amount to suspicion but could be exploited later? We wonders, my preciouss...
Oh, and wolves just lurve to hide their wolvery behind IC comments!

Originally Posted by Nerwen

You seem to assume that the traitor, not to mention those of us whose souls have been taken by the accursed Lord of Wolves, would reveal only as the Seer. Why should that be?

Well, Legate used the Seer as an example, so I concentrated on that; besides, as wilwa has observed, the Ranger has less reason to reveal unless in mortal danger, and the Hunter less than the Ranger, so to fake-reveal as the Seer seems the most likely.
That's not to say the other two are impossible or unheard of... and might in fact be more dangerous than the Seer-act, as they can't be disproven like a fake Seer can. Actually, my remark about the danger of a counter-reveal delayed too long was inspired by legends of a wolf-hunt before my time, where I think a wolf revealed as the Ranger, and the true Ranger didn't contest the claim until he was threatened with being lynched... and wasn't believed and was lynched. So yes, fake reveals do have their dangers.

Originally Posted by wilwa

I remember my only game as a cobbler I false revealed as the ranger and ended up accidently giving away who a wolf was and helping the village win. But I suppose that's a rare occurence...

Ah, the game with the two Seers and two Rangers... *revels in fond memories*

Originally Posted by Legate

In any case, if you see somebody behaves suspiciously, you won't be able to say whether it's a Cobbler or not - or not necessarily (and it can be a Wolf faking to be a Cobbler etc.), so basically you vote for the person whoever it is, and learn their role once they hang

Amen to that - we can't tell wolf from cobbler until they're dead, and that's the long and short of the whole discussion on whether we should concentrate on the cobbler (no we shouldn't) or ignore them (no we shouldn't).

On the Shasta-Lottie thing: Basically, Lottie's saying "I do suspect him in earnest, but I could be wrong" - and of course she could, such is the lot of an ordo, therefore it's trivial and she might as well not have bothered to say it. Peppering her suspicion with disclaimers like that does have a smell of wolvish caution, and it doesn't help that I don't see anything remotely worrying in that quote of Shasta she started her suspicion from.

Btw, I love Greenie's comment on the matter, presenting four scenarios and evaluating their respective probability as a) "definitely a possibility", b) "definitely possible", c) "definitely possible" and d) "certainly not past them". Makes everything so much clearer!

(x-ed with everything after #41)