Admin Thread for WWXLV: The Fellowship of Saruman

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Galadriel and Halbarad have expressed their opinion of having Lobelia carry the Ring. Why is that?

It seemed appropriate to me that, since Lobelia is the only hobbit in our august company, she should carry the Ring. I'd rather not transgress archetypes if I can avoid it.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

1. She is a hobbit
2. She is too stuborn and troublesome for anybody to want her in plan to get hold of the one ring
3. In case she is evil, she is too old and slow to escape with the ring.
4. She is relatively harmless. (the ring would weild no great power through her)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I am to deliver you a message: Gildor refuses to take the Ring, while Lobelia wantsss it.

[Groin Redbeard]

I may be gone for most of tomorrow, so I thought that now would be as good a time as any for me to vote for the Ring bearer. I'll see you all tomorrow night!

++Halbarad

[Gwathagor]

++Lobelia

[THE Ka]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

...But you're willing to trust AN ORC with it, just because it would be "interesting"? My good wizard, are you sure you're taking this quest seriously enough?

Yes, I can understand from the direction of your arguement, and I can relate that I have had foul experiences with the orcs. They may not have beginnings like us, but if the Lady of Fruits has taught me anything, it is that all creatures great and small do have a part within this world. We forget this, and then wonder why we must suffer each other's transgressions. It becomes tiresome to hear so many insults, but yes, I do know what you are meaning to speak of.
By interesting, I was merely suggesting a lesson in an open mind and forgiveness. I can assume now that the time for such things with anyone is long gone, unfortunately.

*feeds a tiny wren with care and guides it back to its shoulder perch*


Hmm, I only wish now that Gandalf told me more about these hobbits. They sound delightful, almost as good of company as the Beornings. Such strong, but thoughtful people. Though, it seems some of you doubt those who've spent time amoung them, hmm. I'd really care to hear the lady hobbit in question speak about this, but her company has gone amiss. As I've heard many of creature tell me: A person's a person, no matter how small!


I don't see any logic in retractable votes. Besides being far too easy for wolves and innocent alike to lead astray, after about two days of having to clarify exactly how each and everyone voted multiple times (plus exactly what this means in relation to others' thoughts!) would be a nightmare. Plus, it's too much work when the object is to rid of the werewolves, not play Carl Jung.
So my vote is no to retractable votes, even if they may be a personal benefit, I can only see them as being a collective rat's nest of confusion. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd rather not play with that.

As for double-lynches, I will have to agree with Nogrod. They make sense in a large group of maybe 13-15 players, but not so much when you only have about 10-11. It's okay at first, then two days later you're down to five players with little or no material on each other and random lynches. Usually they serve a purpose in a larger group, but as for double kills I doubt to see the benefit for ordinaries and wolves.


Currently I am caught up between a vote for the ring bearer, and there are some bears I know who'd help me clear my mind and contribute to ending our dillema.

So, as for now, I'm off to see some bears about a vote.

~Ka

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

++Lobelia