Game Thread: TIG XCII - Disaster by the Lake

[Nogrod]

If there is nothing else going on, I'm going to take a quick look at yesterDay's voting as I feel myself quite at loss at the moment as to where to turn for this little while I have time to be around.

One clue I know and you may know at some point is that there was a run-off between two innocents yesterDay so the wolves had quite a laid-back Day1. I'll try to see if that shows anywhere there.


Other than that, I still suspect Greenie the most.

Originally Posted by Grendel

He criticized me for sticking to my suspicion of him based on his grasping at straws with Lottie even after he explained it, but the thing is, the explanation didn't convince me so here we are.

That is the easy way out. Give some reasons so I can try to tell you why you're wrong.

Just saying: "blah-blah, say what you want, I just am not convinced" is not the most fruitful approach to a game of Werewolf. Especially if the other person has explained why the reasons the other one claims to suspect him are false.

Also, I find it at least a bit dubious she thinks it is okay to suspect others for "putting words into other peoples' mouths" and then does it herself - using that more or less as a basis for her vote...

EDIT: X'd again with a few

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Nog

That is the easy way out. Give some reasons so I can try to tell you why you're wrong.

Just saying: "blah-blah, say what you want, I just am not convinced" is not the most fruitful approach to a game of Werewolf. Especially if the other person has explained why the reasons the other one claims to suspect him are false.

Also, I find it at least a bit dubious she thinks it is okay to suspect others for "putting words into other peoples' mouths" and then does it herself - using that more or less as a basis for her vote...

Take it down a notch, please. You're implying here that I'm purposefully disregarding another player (you, in this case), which is both unkind and untrue.

There's a difference between blah-blah and not buying an argument. If you really think this is a subject we should waste our energy on, then fine. You wanted to know why I'm not convinced by your further defence of your argument against Lottie, right? The original argument was as follows:

Okay. My initial reason to suspect Lottie more than Zil from their more or less similar actions (turning their wheels on Bom) was that unlike Zil who added the "it might be taken in many ways", Lottie went on saying "never mind, then".

Now it is hard for me to see any innocent saying that because someone acts suspiciously - and that is his habit - then there is no reaason to look after that person, that we should not mind ourselves with that person at all.

An innocent fears everyone as an innocent doesn't know the roles of others. Thus an innocent can't give a free pass to anyone. An innocent can't afford to say "never mind that person".

I won't repeat what I said to this, would be a waste of time. Anyway, the following arguments are below.

And you are not reaching when you say Lottie meant "never mind that particular point against that person".

She said "never mind, then". And to me that reads like "I'll drop the suspicion", not "I'm watching him closely but will dismiss this particualr suspicion".

I already quoted this one toDay, asking for clarification. Basically, there are a few problems with this one. First off, the difference between your two options of how it could be read seem, to me, to be more or less the same thing. Secondly, you seem to have forgotten that it was early on Day 1 and the original suspicion on Bom had not been a strong one. The "watching closely" part would have been quite unnecessary - it kind of goes without saying, at least to most of us, that dismissing a particular argument against somebody (especially early on Day 1) doesn't mean forgetting about them for the rest of the game. The way I read it, Lottie's "never mind" was referring to the particular point against Bom. She has confirmed this herself, which might be genuine or might not be.

Originally Posted by Nog

Also, I think I made it clear why I think Lottie looks suspicious. Greenie seems to have had no time or wish to comment on my explanation on that (#47). And what I said in #55 doesn't make Greenie look any better.

This is not a new argument, so I don't need to say much about it - basically, yes, you made it clear, but I didn't find the reasons very valid.

I just checked it: Greenie never mentions Zil in her late posting, even if he was under some considerable pressure. But she made her "decision" on me on grounds of defending Galadriel (for which there was no reason) and Lottie (to whom I was "reaching" - even if I had explained it in two posts why I said I was suspicious of her).

First of all it looks pretty wolvish to vote by "defending others" (in normal situations on D1 the only ones who can do it are wolves). But secondly it makes both Gal & Lottie look more innocent (neither was in dire straits and defending ordos is the best way for a wolf to gain trust and friendship).

But the fact she didn't mention Zil at all, despite the suspicions, makes me wonder if the two really are in cahoots...

A couple of things. First, that you explained your reasons for your suspicion in two posts doesn't necessarily make those reasons any less far-fetched (and before you get worked up, yes, most reasons given on Day 1 are far-fetched). Second, that I suspect you based on your jumps on other players doesn't necessarily make the suspicion defensive by nature. Third, given that I had nothing to say about Zil, why should I have? Just to boost conversation on a topic I had nothing to contribute in and that was getting a bit too much attention as it was?


EDIT: x-ed with Pitch

[Nogrod]

Okay. Looking at yesterDay's voting then.

Galadriel -> Nerwen
Has been talked a lot and I will not delve into that any more than this. The vote is odd, but possibly understandable; but also a bit suspicious (suspicious in a way of choosing someone who hadn't appeared as yet like to avoid any nasty questions as to why pick X - and needing to show some posts to refer to).

Kath -> Zil
Kath is a deceased ordo.

Zil -> Nogrod
Zil is a deceased ordo.

Greenie -> Nogrod 2
Well, I've argued about the whimsiness of her suspicions already a few times. Now she was in a hurry to go to sleep and that might have been an excuse yesterDay, but as it seems she's still of the same mind I'm bound to think she's up to no good.


The "easy ones" were there. The rest requires some thinking (and re-reading).


EDIT: X'd with Greenie: good to hear from you.

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Nog

X'd with Greenie: good to hear from you.

Yeah, good to know the tendency to stay up later than is wise because of werewolf does run in the family!

[Kitanna]

I've had the Chance to skim but not actually read. I just got some very bad RL news and so I won't be around again (I'm sending this hastily from my iPod).

++ greenie

I stated reasons earlier and since I do not the time to read all that's been said since I was last on please refer to that.

Provided I survive, I'll be back on Day 3.

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Kit

I've had the Chance to skim but not actually read. I just got some very bad RL news and so I won't be around again (I'm sending this hastily from my iPod).

Hope everything's all right! *hug*

I'm really liking Shasta, having serious second thoughts about Agan, and (as yet) unchanged with regards to Nog. Speaking of which - please answer sooooon, because I'm yawning my head off and really need some sleep...

[Pitchwife]

Dang! I actually considered voting Kit toDay (see #128 above), but under these circumstances that would feel really mean.

Anyway, I'm sorry to hear that, Kit; hope it's not that bad.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Greenie

First off, the difference between your two options of how it could be read seem, to me, to be more or less the same thing.

And to me they look very different. This may be a question of semantics (or knowledge of language - to my inability then), but to me saying "never mind, then" is dismissing the whole idea, not the specific reason to suspect one.

Secondly, you seem to have forgotten that it was early on Day 1 and the original suspicion on Bom had not been a strong one. The "watching closely" part would have been quite unnecessary - it kind of goes without saying, at least to most of us, that dismissing a particular argument against somebody (especially early on Day 1) doesn't mean forgetting about them for the rest of the game.

I never said anything about the "rest of the game". The way it could be seen is to momentarily hold back off the idea when one sees it's getting controversial and people don't like what you say.

On the other hand I must return the amazement about some people forgetting it was earlyish on D1 when this controversy began. So did you - or anyone else - think I was thinking of having "strong cases" (I'm afraid some did think that way regarding the odd posts about my "not so strong arguments")? It was D1 and all most people did was banter for 2/3's of the Day! What I said about Gal - which you think was reaching and a reason to vote for me - was actually a question as to whether she is a or b... and what I said about Lottie was making an interpretation of her words - of which you made your own...

The way I read it, Lottie's "never mind" was referring to the particular point against Bom. She has confirmed this herself, which might be genuine or might not be.

Of course she confirmed it. Like you said, innocent or not, she had to confirm your interpretation. So I think you can not rely on that as a merit for your interpretation...

before you get worked up, yes, most reasons given on Day 1 are far-fetched

Don't worry. I need not get "worked up" as I totally agree. Although that is not always the case: I have seen good arguments on D1 - and even seen them giving results... but this game sure isn't one of them. Here we agree.

given that I had nothing to say about Zil, why should I have? Just to boost conversation on a topic I had nothing to contribute in and that was getting a bit too much attention as it was?

Well, here reality has already proved me wrong as Zil was innocent. So I'm actually wondering why do you feel the need to explain it... or do you just wish to twist the knife in my belly by reminding me of my bad suspicion?

Yeah, good to know the tendency to stay up later than is wise because of werewolf does run in the family!

PS. I hope I have not been "unkind" as you said back there. That has not been my intention.


EDIT: X'd with a lot it seems...

[Nogrod]

Btw. Agan is the cobbler.

[Nogrod]

Uh-oh... Kit. Sad to hear that. Be brave.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Nog

Btw. Agan is the cobbler.

What?

I mean, she might be for all I know, but do you have reasons or are you completely bonkers now?

[Nogrod]

Sally 2 posts. Promised to be here this evening...

Galadriel and Nerwen 4 posts each. Little said thus far.

Bom 12 posts and promised to do things toDay - not seen him after that.

Bored ordos with bad morals? If they are wolves (some of them that is), then I'd just say they don't merit the spoils and we can say we are moral winners even if we lose.


Kit I think is out of the question at least for now for lynching. I started having some bad vibes from her becasue she sounded so reasonable, especially when she was talking about people who made "attacks" on me.

I mean if one learns something playing a lot of ww-games, it is that the people who are the nicest to you, people who back you in Daylight, most often stab you during the Night.

But like I said I'm not going to vote her toDay anyway.


That leaves us (me) little choice - and still too much, looking at the clock...

[Pitchwife]

This row between Agan and Shasta is interesting. Shasta's accusation of Agan pointing out a possibly gifted Bom is twisted (and was so yesterDay), because it rests on the equation "unusual = possibly gifted", and it has I think been agreed that Bom wasn't behaving unusual (by his standards), so the question of his being gifted because of that is moot to begin with.

And I kinda get what Agan says about Shasta reminding her of himself as a wolf. Much as I agree with him on not discussing gifteds, I've seen a Shastawolf using that same argument against innocents - which doesn't say, however, that an innocent Shasta can't do the same. I just can't read him.

Agan, on the other hand, is a sphinx to me (I think she'll like that). At times sensible, at times flamboyantly weird in a manner that reminds me of Fea. I'd still like to hear her explain her change of mind on Nog.


EDIT: x-ed from #145 down

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Btw. Agan is the cobbler.

I knew it!

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

And to me they look very different. This may be a question of semantics (or knowledge of language - to my inability then), but to me saying "never mind, then" is dismissing the whole idea, not the specific reason to suspect one.

OK, I think we're indeed discussing semantics here, but the thing is - the way I see it, the one specific argument was, at that point, "the whole idea".

What I said about Gal - which you think was reaching and a reason to vote for me - was actually a question as to whether she is a or b... and what I said about Lottie was making an interpretation of her words - of which you made your own...

Concerning Gal - the whole bringing up of that question (whether Gal's offhand statement that her schedule happens to be less busy during Night phases is a sign of wolvery or not) seemed rather pointless to me. It just wasn't, in my opinion, a statement that could in any possible way be a wolf slip; therefore, even voicing it as an option as likely as it being just a comment on her timetable seemed and still seems fishy to me. Concerning Lottie - yes, we both made interpretations of her words, I'm not denying that. But that doesn't mean I can't still find your interpretation rather opportunistic.

Originally Posted by Nog

Well, here reality has already proved me wrong as Zil was innocent. So I'm actually wondering why do you feel the need to explain it... or do you just wish to twist the knife in my belly by reminding me of my bad suspicion?

No! I brought that up for two reasons. First, because when someone asks me a question I expect they want an answer, late or no; second, because I don't think it's a very valid argument against anybody that they don't take part in a certain conversation.

PS. I hope I have not been "unkind" as you said back there. That has not been my intention.

I know it wasn't so I didn't take it badly, but just wanted to let you know that it could be taken that way.


EDIT: x-ed with Nog, Pitch, and Shasta

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Nog

Btw. Agan is the cobbler.

She's certainly taking pains to look like one, but in her case I'm unconvinced of whether she actually is one or not.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

She's certainly taking pains to look like one, but in her case I'm unconvinced of whether she actually is one or not.

Well, it does merit lynching her sooner or later... I was quite annoyed and confused about the way she strongly defended me yesterDay - but at the same time very happy because she was right of course and was in no way going to open this discussion back then.

[A Little Green]

Pitch is so logical and reasonable that it's almost scary. I sincerely wish he's on our side.

[Nogrod]

So the people playing (other than me) and available for lynching if we disregard those you can't say anything and Kit (for obvious reasons now):
Aganzir
Greenie
Lottie
Pitch
Shasta

At this point I must admit I'd rather see you all face another Day and let those silent submarines take the hit as this game will become very dull and boring if even few of those who actually post and talk are lynched... whatever the cost of that decision might be.

Let me hear what you think.

And I really need to vote quite soon. Really, this time.


EDIT: X'd with Greenie - now self-preservation mode says "vote Greenie"... oh my... gets too complicated.