WWJ VIII ~ Things That Go "Quack" In The Night

[Nogrod]

Fine work, Spawn! I'm beginning to understand, why people want to see your analysis - and why some creatures would not like to see them...

= Spawn
1) Is Elu a he? 2) Oh, so it's characteristic for him...

1) At least I (and others?) called Elu him (not Elohim... ) in the game I was with him. Don't remember him correcting it.
2) Well, at least in the game I was with him, he was about the way he was yesterday. And he was a surviving wolf as well - so very nasty tactics...

[Cailín]

Well done, Nightingale! This is good news.

I was absolutely shocked when we found out Nilp was an evil quack-duck yesterDay - I had not expected him to be anything but an ordinary villager. I especially think this makes our resident newbie Lote22 look trustworthy, and possibly Valier and Sleepy to a lesser extent (though Sleepy Duck might have voted for his fellow to save himself either way and Valier is - as mentioned by Ang - quite capable of playing a clever game). However, for now they are off my list.

Mormegil, your Nilp analysis is most helpful and I think that for the moment it is the most solid evidence we have. I also agree that yesterday's proceedings don't make me look so good, but there are many of us who traditionally just ignore Nilp on Day 1 to avoid much frustration and puzzlement.

I have little time right now, so I cannot make any solid cases, but there was one person who stood out to me in regards to Nilp, when I reread Day one's conversation. That person was Roa_Aoife. She expressed some annoyance with Nilp in a few posts and this quote I found especially noteworthy:

Originally Posted by Roa

And if he is a Duck, I find it terribly unsporting and he should be ashamed of himself

Maybe I am reading more into it than I should.

On a final note, I am most suspicious of those who mentioned Nilp barely or not at all, even though I am one of them myself.

[Cailín]

Adding to my previous post before I leave: wonderful analysis, Spawn. Especially your summary of Mith's posts got me thinking - I shall look at her posts myself when I am back fom class.

[Mithalwen]

I am here. On schedule. No doubt this is suspicious.

There is a difference between irritable and jumpy. Anyone who knows me , knows I am irritable. Some people I find particularly irritating. People for example who are puerile enough to think that counting punctuation marks is evidence whereas statistics are not. BTW Kath I am an accountant in real life - numbers are what I do. Even when I was more happily employed as a literature studentI would do a prosodic analysis of a poem to get my brain in gear before I tackled the substance. It is a habit, helpful if only to me.

Since English is one of the few things I feel I am good at, I also find it irritable when holes are picked in it. When by what I now regard to be inevitably imminent death, I am proved innocent, please remember how much time was wasted by such trivia and act accordingly. These have not been serious attempts to find the ducks. The duck was lynched helped by the blissful and refreshing innocence of Lote who is surely innocent. Sometimes I think too many of us have played too much.

While we are on the subject of English, I think Diamond's instructions were admirably clear. I still think it was a reasonable basis for a first day vote.

Roa I am finding irritating for her hypocrisy. In post 25 she says " I have moved Nogrod and SaucepanMan to the top of my list along with Mith". Then she comes back and says "I never said it was a high suspicion. I was just throwing things out, trying to get a bite. You bit quite well, I might add. I understand your current issues, so I'll let it go. Also, having worked with in wolfish behavior, I doubt you would be this jumpy if you really were a Duck. I'll let you slide today, but your look at Spawn seemed to be grasping at straws."

This is interesting on several levels. Firstly, surely top three of 16 is high in anyone's language. Especially on such slender reasoning. I really think I had been as helpful as I could be in a lunch time with not much more than the routine grief and characterisation posts to go on. 4 exclamation marks was genuine astonishment.

Then she parrots my use of clutching at straws and I think Dancing Spawn of Ungoliant's use of jumpy.

Since I know she is completely wrong, she is my top suspect now.

The Saucepan Man wasnts to know why I changed my mind about him. Well I thought laterally and decided "to hang fire". Others might want to do the same. Having read through again yesterday I have decided maybe he is "not so green as cabbage looking", as my mother would have said. Now that really is a bit of English that you might find needs explaining. I am going to have to go back to work v. soon. Try and open your minds - unless you are bird brained !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Might as well give someone something to do Beat that Orc boy

[Lalaith]

Yes, well done, Sir or Madame Nightingale. Good save.
So Nilp turned out to be guilty after all. He left so little trace, I wonder what can be learnt from those who voted for him.
Valier, Sleepy and Lote: I put them together because they all voted for Nilp the Duck. Of the three, I am definitely of the opinion that Lote is innocent. As for Valier, I’m interested in this betraying Duck theory - it had already occurred to me and now we're told there was a precendent. Sleepy too, voting in “self-preservation”…hmm. But I think it would be rather odd if both Ducks voted for their fellow.

As for the rest of the villagers, as Spawn is doing close textual analysis, I’ll stick to general impressions.
Mithalwen: yes, she’s being defensive, but that can be her way. Still, somewhat suspicious. Oh and pease fix those exclamations Mith, they've played havoc with the board!
Spawn: She seems helpful as ever, but yet…I’m just not feeling as comfortable with her as I often do. There's a certain, uncharacteristic lack of incisiveness...
SaucepanMan: he’s just making too much damn sense. I’m always scared of Saucie on principle, I’ve seen what he’s capable of.
Cailin: I find myself in agreement with her about a lot of things, so I am currently inclined to trust her.
Anguirel: He has been known to get a bit wacky, but seems quite to be playing it quite straight this time. Seems helpful.
Jenny: again, seems helpful. The defence of Nilp was perhaps a little OTT, I agree with Spawn there.
Mormegil: not as bloodthirsty as he sometimes is, and that Nilp analysis was very helpful. There is still a whiff of goosishness about him though, lingering from Day One.
Kath: that somewhat pointless rowing with Nogrod on Day One was rather distracting and therefore suspicious. But as she wasn’t well at the time, I’ll let it pass, she’s otherwise been helpful.
Nogrod, Roa: all that bickering on Day one was very distracting, and makes me suspicious. Both villagers have a reputation for being loudmouths, of course. I am I think more suspicious of Roa. She is my chief suspect at the moment.
Elu, Glirdan: both have been unhelpful so far. As I said yesterday, Glirdan’s accusations seem too spurious and therefore suspicious. I did think Elu was being rather too careless for a duck, but now Nogrod says he’s pulled that trick before, so I don’t know what to think.

[mormegil]

I realize that if she turns out to be guilty this puts me in a bad light but I have to say something.

There is a difference between irritable and jumpy. Anyone who knows me , knows I am irritable.

Feeling like one who knows Mith as well or better than anybody here I would agree with her on this point, ergo I don't find her behavior extremely odd, for her. Now if I were to see SpM behave this way red flags would be flying high, however from Mith it seems normal. She has a slight tendency to take things a bit too personal, this includes WW accusations and as she explained she does take pride in her english so I see nothing wrong with her snappiness. I really don't understand why we focused on 4 exclamation points.

Now there are other things that make Mith look moderately guilty but I don't hold with punctuations being a key indicator.

[Anguirel]

Oh dear. This day seems to be on the brink of sliding into Mith/Spawn duel to an even more serious extent than yesterday's Roa/Nogrod duel. That was a conflict of issues, but this is a tad more ad feminem-could be bitter.

Mith, do you have strong suspicions of anyone besides Spawn? It must be said that she's currently beating you on breadth of coverage.

I do not wish morm to escape scrutiny by virtue of his admittedly diligent surveyance of all our opinions on Nilp. Often werecreatures make sure they are the first to reach the evidence so that those too idle to view it directly will see it through were-tinted spectacles.

It is true to say that it's fascinating how many independent quarters Mith has drawn suspicion from. Saucie and Roa both felt her lightweight (though admittedly before waiting long to judge her-besides I trust neither of them). Kath felt her statistical approach an uncharacteristic angle, and even with Mith's accountancy in the picture I must admit that was in my mind too. Now dancing spawn has singled her out above other targets.

Mith's performance yesterday was hardly illuminating, but Lady Spawnowen's was still less so; as she pointed out herself, she failed to vote. However, she has produced a forceful case today that should be considered, and that struck many a reluctant chord in my brain.

Above either Spawn or Mith today in my mind are Roa and morm, both of whom I have accused countless times. Yesterday, bar post #46, I called morm a Goose. I now say Boo to that (vide Mith's signature) and declare him a full-feathered duck.

He fudged on Nilp yesterday, but did not include himself on the list of negligible Nilp-watchers, or any list at all. As it was not a suspicion ladder per se this is a rather evasive move.

He's also been, let's face it, pretty unhelpful with a slightly reasoned vote, until this morning, when the aid he brought was...well, similar in quality to Mith's statistics yesterday morning. A useful but scarcely enlightening task performed, that's all.

EDIT: The alleged signature of Mith's regarding Booing I referenced is either no more or belonged to someone else all the time. Sorry for confusion caused...

[Roa_Aoife]

Not much time- I have a final in an hour. Several things I'd like to say:

Yay, Nightingale! Nice job. Hopefully you can live long enough to tell us who was innocent.

About Nilp- I'm glad we caught a Duck, and all, but where was the fun in that? There was no chase, no excitement, nothing! It was little more than a fluke! I got into this game for the fun of it, and he just sucked it all out. Honestly, if that's the way you're going to play, then don't play. I DESPISE this style, and I think that anyone who uses it should just get out of the game (ie, Nilp, Elu, Gil-galad, etc). Time constraints are one thing, but this is just rediculous. If you have so little time, don't sign up. It isn't fair, it isn't fun, and it isn't "funny." I wasn't joking when I said I advocate banning you from the game. If you aren't going to play, then you shouldn't be allowed to waste space in the thread. [/rant]

Mith, you're mis-using the word "hypocritical." The word you're looking for is "contradictory," which my posts were not. My suspicion of you three was slightly above everyone else. How could it be more, at that stage of the day? Naturally, with you're continued over-reaction, I'm putting you a bit higher. Also, I did intentionally use your phrase, "grasping at straws," as a means of show your own hypocracy. Why so quick to accuse those who have only a mild suspicion of you? Paranoid that one might be the Owl and has dreamed of you? And what's with all the mellowdrama? You don't expect to survive the day? Why not? You were, at best, only mildly suspcious to the majority.

Right now I am continuing my suspicion of Glirdan, but I want to see more of him today. I know he's capable of much more than what he's shown us. I'd also like him to explain he rediculous "answers" to the suspicions layed against him.

Edit: Cross posted with Morm and Ang

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by Roa

About Nilp- I'm glad we caught a Duck, and all, but where was the fun in that? There was no chase, no excitement, nothing! It was little more than a fluke! I got into this game for the fun of it, and he just sucked it all out. Honestly, if that's the way you're going to play, then don't play. I DESPISE this style, and I think that anyone who uses it should just get out of the game (ie, Nilp, Elu, Gil-galad, etc). Time constraints are one thing, but this is just rediculous. If you have so little time, don't sign up. It isn't fair, it isn't fun, and it isn't "funny." I wasn't joking when I said I advocate banning you from the game. If you aren't going to play, then you shouldn't be allowed to waste space in the thread. [/rant]

This is another thing, alas, that you and Nogrod have in common-you are both swift to judge other people's styles. You've never played with Nilp before. You experienced one day in which he was apparently fairly occupied. Pause before you launch into Demosthenes mode, old girl. People have their different ways of doing things, people have lives, etc etc. Nilp is one of the wittier Downers I know, dead duck or not, and I stand by that. There is also a major difference between Nilp and Gil or Wayne. Not that they should be banned either. Banning is always a restriction. When you're restricting things in something meant to be entertaining, you can slip through the net into the ocean of pettiness.

Originally Posted by Roa

Mith, you're mis-using the word "hypocritical." The word you're looking for is "contradictory," which my posts were not. My suspicion of you three was slightly above everyone else. How could it be more, at that stage of the day? Naturally, with you're continued over-reaction, I'm putting you a bit higher. Also, I did intentionally use your phrase, "grasping at straws," as a means of show your own hypocracy.

And you're misusing the word "hypocrisy". It's not spelt "hypocracy", italicised or not. Now I now how Kath feels in her Grammar-Termagant role...

If "hypocracy" existed, it would be something, I suppose, to do with the state of transcending ruling.

((The one I really love is hippocracy-rule by horses. Our school's supposedly most intellectual magazine-a rival of the one I help edit-once ran a vast headline of "American Hippocracy In Iraq". I saw visions of the US army forcing the helpless Iraqi citizenry to elect horses as consuls in the manner of Caligula...))

Where you are sensible is suggesting we glance as Glirdan-the struggles of the colossi shouldn't let the shrimps shelter...