Tol-in-Gaurhoth III (The Saga Continues...)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Please, this seems like to obvious a set up. Now I realize that it is risky in defending somebody so I will not go that far as to say I think Fordim is innocent, however I hope we all see past what appears to me to be a sloppy set up. I think the wolves know that Fordim is on many people's suspicion list, heck he's on mine, so if they could do anything to cast more suspicion on him all the better.

Thanks for noting that mormegil. I realise that this is not a vote of confidence in me (wise on your part) but I think it’s a pretty obvious bit of slandering too!

First, some old business to clean up, then on to the new:

I stand by my strategies even though it is clear that they have not garnered any support. They were not put forth despite their “flaws” simply to garner responses, although getting useful responses was a big part of their purpose. I was asked several times yesterday to discuss this but I really couldn’t – what use is there in giving away all of my strategy to wolves and innocents alike? But as they did not get support, and as the seer is now dead (*glares at those responsible*) the point is moot.

The reason I say that the strategies were not flawed is that the logic behind them is sound, if not what people want to pursue here. Both strategies did in fact increase the risk to each player individually but this meant that they also increased the potential reward to the innocents as a group. Yes, the seer would become more visible, but we would have received the benefit of a lot of solid information; yes the short-list makes voting a danger to the one casting the vote, but that danger adheres to Wolves and Villagers alike. Like I said yesterday, the strategy does nothing to make the odds of catching a wolf better, it only makes the results of voting more useful and thus allows us to catch a wolf more quickly, using precisely the methods of deduction and analysis that we are already pursuing.

But that is all blood under the bridge: I happily put aside my strategies as insufficient to the task before us, if only because they have not garnered wide support. I will not reverse my opinion however, like some, (*eyes The Phantom*) and claim that they are “flawed” simply to make myself appear innocent to those who, strangely, equate that stance with a sign of innocence. I still maintain that those who seek a strategy, any strategy, are more likely to be innocent than those who do not – or those who work against common strategy…

And at the moment, I await other people’s ideas about how we can co-ordinate our votes in a way beneficial to the innocents.

But on to new matters: the lamentable death of the guy who be short and the search for the perpetrators…

As I said yesterday, I would be looking today at those who voted to lynch innocents, and those who appear to me to be working against a common front for the villagers. So here’s two lists –

Those who worked against developing a strategy (in order of vehemence, with the most opposed at the top):

SaucepanMan
the guy who be short
The Phantom (flip-flop)
Kuruharan
Firefoot
Mormegil

Those who voted for a known innocent:

Voted for Evisse (the Seer)

The Only Real Estel
The Phantom
Kuruharan
SaucepanMan
Shelob

Voted for me

the guy who be short
Firefoot

No vote:

Azaeilia

The only people who appear on both lists are: SaucepanMan, Kuruharan, Firefoot, The Phantom, the guy who be short.

Now that tgwbs has been slaughtered in that clumsy frame-up I can remove him from the list: I’m almost tempted to thank the wolves, were it not for the loss of an innocent villager!

Of the remaining four I am most suspicious of SaucepanMan and Kuruharan for being consistently against my attempts to unify the village; I am less suspicious of The Phantom insofar as he at first supported my suggestions, but then turned on them (his claims at the time that this was strategic are highly suspect…I sense a bit of flip-flopping when he saw the way the wind was blowing). I’m not terribly suspicious of Firefoot insofar as her arguments against my strategies were aimed at my specific strategies and not so much against the idea of voting according to a communal strategy: that is, she seemed OK with the concept, just not my specific ideas. Also, she voted against me with tgwbs and not as a part of that suspicious block of votes that did in our Seer (who I think was perhaps a little too heavy handed with her hints yesterday).

So that’s where I am at the moment.