Werewolf XXXI: The Unknown Enemies

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I don't feel it right to just drop someone off of my list of suspects, but I guess it's the best I can do now if I am not to end in total confusion.

Six is not that case, however - I think him innocent based on his Glirdan voting.

Brinniel is what goes with the above. From many things she says, she could be a not-so-clever newbie wolf, since certain things she says wouldn't be much wise for a wolf to say. But I'd rather think her an innocent.

Tgwbs makes me slightly nervous. Though I thought him okay after his arguing with Roa at the end of page 1, some suspicions started to bubble inside me later then. On the other hand, last post (#143) of his has one significant thing about it: all the thoughts stated there correspond with my thoughts. Should I be worried, should you be worried (of my intelligence), or should I be happy?
Well, all thoughts, except for this:

Originally Posted by tgwbs

Rikae must be innocent.

Only simply saying that? These out-of-nowhere conclusions seem strange.

The same goes for Roa. I think she's okay, though she can be as much a wolf as innocent, I don't know her that good to tell this. On these two (her and tgwbs), I don't have any clear opinions formed.

Rikae At first I thought she might have been suspicious, later dropped it. The point is also that she voted for Glirdan at the moment Lommy was one vote ahead, and she herself admits she didn't have time to go through the posts of Day 1 before. A wolf who wouldn't know if there didn't appear a better suspect than Glirdan during the day would probably still try to vote for someone else, like catching the Lommy bandwaggon or voting on xyzzy and using the fact that she wasn't around as an excuse if the lynched proved innocent.

Gil-Galad looks like "normal" Gil-Galad, apart from his sudden burst of activity. Which might be just a momentary anomaly, like a sudden burst of activity in sun spots. Whatever the case, I am not able to learn anything "for" or "against" from his posts, so I am leaving him out now.

Mith. Seems innocent = this is the best word to use. She seems innocent, though she may be a very, very, very cleverly playing wolf. I'm gonna keep an eye on her, but I cannot lynch her just because she looks innocent

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Feel rather more positive today .... wolf gone... and it seems we have a good rangery type person ...

Excuse me, but I have the idea I'm missing something. I thought (judging from the admin thread) the wolves didn't agree on whom to vote, or didn't post it, or whatever, so from where the speaks of ranger? (Sorry if I am dumb.)

Of xyzzy I, obviously, cannot say anything.

This leaves my favourite suspects, Lommy, Nogrod, and newly emerged Mac. Unless something drastic happens, I'm going to focus on these three and pick one of them for my today vote.

Will be back and explain what and why.

[the guy who be short]

Post 3 - In role.

Post 8 - Accuses Roa on the back of Rikae's comments. Bear in mind that Day 1 is perfect for wolf-on-wolf suspicion.

Post 20 - Apologises to Roa. Now, this is interesting - he says he is suspicious of Lommy and Sixth for voting for him, but he says he is more worried about Sixth, and votes for him. If Lommy is a wolf, this could be Glirdan suspecting her for the future, but avoiding voting for a fellow wolf (Which at that point would mean 2 wolves on the voting list, 0 innocents).

And that's all he said.

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by TGWBS

She says we shouldn't trust anyone who reveals. Nice andh andy thing for a wolf to get into people's minds early.

For the last time, that is not what I said. I said we should be wary of revealing gifteds because it's a lot easier for a wolf to do so in this game. I can almost garuntee a gifted who feels pressure won't wait till the last moment to reveal. It wouldn't do any good since we don't have retractables, and their chance of being saved would be almost nil. It's not like someone's going to come out in the last 10 minutes and say "No wait!" and we're all going to waste time trying to figure if they're lying. We'd have plenty of time. We don't even know if we have gifted, let alone if someone claiming to be gifted is lying. I know you seem confident that we have at least a ranger and seer, but I honestly don't know why. We could three shirrifs, or maybe all hunters, or maybe just a birthday dreamer. It looks more to me like you're setting up for a "reveal" and are upset that I'm ruining your plans.

Also, all this "Rikae must definately be innocent" worries me. Yes, she just happens to have the perfect vote placement, but she herself said that she hadn't read through the thread. Maybe she didn't know that a vote for Glirdan would tie him with Lommy. Or perhaps she made a mistake and miscounted the votes, like I did, and thought to do the safest thing (for herself) and vote to lynch Glirdan. (The point I used for Nogrod applies here as well.) I'm not saying she's definately guilty, but we really should know better than discount someone for a mere Day 1 vote. I've only seen her as a wolf once, but I know she's very good at avoiding suspcion.

Concerning my analysis of Nogrod- I love it when people discuss my analysis, even if they're against it. It forces people to say something concrete and form opinions. That said, Nogrod's reaction to my post gives me pause. He's calm, rational, even, and doesn't brush it off with a "Well, I guess we just misunderstand each other," or "We're both loud and that's probably why we suspect each other so often." ON the other hand, waffling, as Legate pointed out when discussing Lommy, is incredibly wolvish, especially to the extent Nogrod did it.

One more thing gives me pause though, and while Nogrod was right in suggesting we not use the information learned from last night's events, I can't help but think that a wolvish Nogrod would never let a kill get away.

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Roa

For the last time, that is not what I said.

Originally Posted by Roa Day 1

We must be extremely wary of people who come out as gifteds at any point in the game, because without knowing what we have, it would be easy for a wolf to use that as a cover. So, even if a gifted proclamation goes uncontested, it's posible that the role isn't even in the game. Gifteds, if there are any, will need proof greater than a lack of contest if they plan on revealing.

How could you possibly interpret that as "we should be wary of revealing gifteds" rather than "we should not trust people who reveal themselves as gifted?" This is beyond me. You are contradicting yourself and digging your hole ever deeper...

[Gil-Galad]

I don't like this... Lommy defends Roa first day... now Roa defends Lommy second day... and Sixth is attacking me because i attacked him first... which is totally understandable...


hmmm... i'm not sure who my vote is going for today, TGWBS seems innocent to me, so i have no ill-feelings towards him.

bah... can't really decide... i haven't heard much from Mac and Mith lately, my two other slightly suspicous... but with Miths last post, i think i'm going to have give my vote to her, reason:

Feel rather more positive today .... wolf gone... and it seems we have a good rangery type person ...

Seems to me, your just stalling for your post and stating facts that can't really be brought into the spotlight

I would just say that my Xyzzy vote was intended as a damage limitation exercise not as a throwaway. Fortuanately you all ignored me I think I have been playing this game too long.. overcomplicating it...

Again, she said something that would bring very little suspicion onto her, and she tried to give a reason for her vote... but i still beleive that this might be a wolf trying to cover for Glirdan and now with Glirdan gone, she is trying to move on and hope that nobody remembered this, but i did...

I've always tried to catch the whole "sneaking-under-the-radar" move for Wolfs... so hopefully i caught me one Lupine...

++Mithalwen


Edit: X-'ed with Roa

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

How could you possibly interpret that as "we should be wary of revealing gifteds" rather than "we should not trust people who reveal themselves as gifted?"

Because I said:

We must be extremely wary of people who come out as gifteds

Oh, you're right, the "extremely" there makes it into a statement of not trusting gifted at all. I can totally see where you're coming from, and it doesn't look like you're twisting my words at all.

You've been trying to get me lynched since Day 1, even going so far as to put comments against me in your analysis of other players. Why not just get it over with and analyze me? It's what you want to do.

[Roa_Aoife]

I really must vote now- I have to go to work. Right now, my top suspects are:

Nogrod- for the reasons I stated above
TGWBS- Everything else aside, he's being very backhanded in his attacks on me, sneaking them into analyses on other players, etc, and he keeps twisting my words to make them seem different
Gil - because while I appreciate his greater activity, the things he's saying are sending up all sorts of red flags- his deliberate pointing out potential gifted, his baseless case against Sixth, (it's not compassion Gil; it's common sense), and lastly, his dropping his suspicion against Lommy and Sixth and going for Mith. Mith is is suspicious, no doubt, but the reasons he uses are fabricated at best

And I'm going shamelessly metagame (use outside knowledge) and vote

++Gil

Because he's the most likely to let a kill slip away.

I know you didn't want us to use that, Nogrod, and that's honorable and admirable, but I can't help having that thought in my head. It seems silly to ignore the common sense of the matter.
Otherwise, it honestly would have been a coin toss between TGWBS and Nogrod.

[Roa_Aoife]

Also, if someone with more time could analyze Rikae- people getting ignored for for a vote is just waaay to convenient.

[Gil-Galad]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

Gil - because while I appreciate his greater activity, the things he's saying are sending up all sorts of red flags- his deliberate pointing out potential gifted, his baseless case against Sixth, (it's not compassion Gil; it's common sense), and lastly, his dropping his suspicion against Lommy and Sixth and going for Mith. Mith is is suspicious, no doubt, but the reasons he uses are fabricated at best

wow... i didn't say i wasn't suspicous of lommy and sixth anymore, i just said that i was confused about the whole Lommy-Roa relationship that has made me thinking...

and now yo uare defending Sixth about being compassionate... sigh... now don't tell me that is not fabricated, i may drop my suspicions of Sixth if somebody shows me a complete post, but for now i'm still wary of Lommy and Roa, i don't like this tag-team againest me one bit...

i say to ye vilalgers, if you join this bandwagon, then i urge you to persecute Roa and Lommy because i don't like being cornered by everyone


in conclusion, i say that Roa's reasons are fruitless at best againest me...

[Macalaure]

I'll try a new approach, I'll list all the people who look innocent to me.. and then go for who is left.

Innocent:
Brinn. Appears very honest and helpful today. Ignoring her vote, I see no reason not to trust her right now.
Legate. Seems earnest. I don't agree with everything he says, but his points don't look made up, but honest. Curious to see why he suspects me, though. I hate being suspected by people who I trust in turn.
Mith. Did not say much today so far. I trusted her yesterday, and nothing has happened to change that.
Sixth. His vote yesterday looked innocent, and so does his general behaviour.

Very probably innocent:
Rikae. Another innocent-looking voter yesterday. I always find it difficult to read her, though.
Roa. I find nothing suspicious about her at the time. However, she's Roa, so she never looks entirely innocent.
tgwbs. He seems to attract quite some suspicion today. Interestingly, what he said today makes me feel a lot better about him. Like with Legate, I don't always agree with him, but what he says looks honest.

Unsure:
I still don't have a clear picture of Gil and Xyzzy.

Which leaves me only with: Nogrod and Lommy.

If you look at Nogrod from one angle, he looks very wolfish, from the other angle, he looks rather innocent. I simply don't know how to judge him.

Lommy is my (only ) real suspect right now. I will have a close look at her later.


Apart from that:

Originally Posted by Roa

Your reasons for suspecting Mac are as bad as TGWBS's reasons for suspecting Lommy, if not worse. He's suspicious becuase he left after he voted?

Well, I did not leave after I voted. I just don't like voting in the last minutes. I even have to admit that I did try to start a bandwaggon against tgwbs, which some suspected. It's because that's what I like to do with my votes: achieve to lynch somebody! I would've been more active on it if I had a better reasoning.

[the guy who be short]

Do we have to go into semantics, Roa? Nowhere in that first post of yours does it even indicate that "we should be careful not to accidentally reveal our gifteds." It very clearly advocates mistrust of anybody who claims to be gifted. I do not need to analyse you, because your unreasonable obstinance on this matter is more than enough to make me confident of your wolvishness.

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

The main argument seems to be that I waffle and am not decisve. I myself am more than suspicious of people who are very decisive on Day1's. Being decisive this early normally means that one has some knowledge we others don't have.

Caution is understandable, but what you did was rediculus. In fact, what you did looked like a wolf/cobbler throwing suspicion in as many directions as possible, waiting for one to bite. And while you had a perfectly good suspect, with more than enough evidence, you dropped it. You, who says "Day 1's are useful- we can catch a wolf on Day 1," were terribly indecisive, and that just doesn't match.

It looks like it is just a bit too fabricated.

A convenient catch all statement. But I see you avoid saying how.

I'm a wolf because I didn't want to lynch tgwbs yesterDay? Now that would be quite stupid from a wolf-Noggie. Were he a wolf it would have been my best choice as it would look pretty good in my voting record and were he not I would have gotten rid of a formidable enemy quite easily leaving no suspicious tracks behind.

At the time, TGWBS would have been in a three way tie for the lead. He was a possibilty, no ta sure thing. Perhaps you didn't want to risk two fellows at once. And it's not like voting Glirdan didn't have the same effect, except that Glirdan was more finalized.

I brought Mac up because I thought he was acting suspiciously. That happened late in the game, not on the early stages. You can't suspect someone's actions before they act... Mac's early posting looked okay, his late posting didn't.

Your reasons for suspecting Mac are as bad as TGWBS's reasons for suspecting Lommy, if not worse. He's suspicious becuase he left after he voted? Since when is that a mark of a wolf? And you went from suspecting him to trying to start a bandwagon in three posts. You could have just as easily asked people to help you lynch TGWBS, but you didn't. Becuase you didn't want to get rid of someone who could be a good ally? You said the same about Mac.

While it may seem rude, Glirdan, who has difficulty with suspicion and being present, is a much better sacrifice than TGWBS.

Why I was suddenly ready to go for Glirdy? Simply because it was a choice between him and Lommy. Both were shots in the dark for me, but I believe Lommy can make a difference if innocent - and she had acted reasonably, unlike Glirdy who had acted suspiciously.

Saving an innocent and voting a wolf? How perfect for you. Of course you couldn't vote Lommy to save Glirdan- you had said that she looked innocent and that you wouldn't vote for her with out better evidence. It would be a huge contradiction. With Glirdan, on the other hand, you had at least opened the door a few posts back when it looked like no one else would go for your attempted bandwagons.

What I really don't understand is why you tried to bandwagon for two people who had almost no evidence against them, but not for the one person for whom you had expressed any real suspicion.

Edit: Crossed with Gil