Tol-in-Gaurhoth LI: The Pain of Wargs

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Legate

Well honestly, I hope nobody takes that seriously here - although he brought this theory up so many times... hmm... possibly this may have been understood as a Seerish hint? However in that case, the likely reason of his kill would have been to frame you and me Which - now smileys aside - is not as funny idea.

The interaction between Lommy and Nogrod at the end of the Day was rather amusing, though I didn't think much of his theory while reading it. But in light his death, I took a look at the interaction between Lommy and Legate myself and I can't help but wonder if there's some truth to this theory...or something similar. I suppose it's possible the wolves chose Nogrod to frame the two, but I somehow doubt it...or at least framing the two L's wouldn't be the only reason. A double bluff is possible too...I know Lommy and Legate are capable of it.

Originally Posted by Rune

If you do not see why unconflicting is suspicious then I can understand why you do not understand me, I think it is relative well known tactic for the evil doers to be seen and yet stay clear of too many enemies. An ordo on the other hand is a bit more free and not carring, of course non of us wants to get lynched, but I think you are even more afraid of it if you are evil.

Being unconflicting can be a wolf tactic, I agree, but it doesn't necessarily mean that someone who is unconflicting is a wolf. Like I said, I think it's a style I tend to use regardless of my role...at least at the beginning of the game. I'm a careful poster...that's part of my personality. But it doesn't mean I'm a wolf. So I don't think being unconflicting is a good enough reason alone.

[Gwathagor]

I am sorry that I don't have more time to consider, but I have to catch a train into Chicago, and I won't be back until this evening (RL).

Well: toDay, I am going to go with Rune, because, as much as I think that Legate's suspicion of Brinniel is unfounded, I find Rune's echoing of Legate more suspicious.

++Rune

[Brinniel]

Rune: Wants me lynched, which is quite typical of him. In fact, if he didn't suspect me, I think I'd be disappointed. I'm surprised he hasn't voted me yet, though surely I can expect it toDay. In turn, I'm always tempted to vote him. I think it's his playing style that sets me off...but then whenever I suspect him he turns out innocent. I don't like to repeat mistakes, so I won't be too quick to suspect...though I do want to watch him carefully.

Gaunt: YesterDay he did talk about Nogrod and Groin, though while he seemed to suspect Noggie more, he voted Groin. I'm not sure what to think of that. He hasn't shown up yet toDay, and I would like to hear more from him.

Lommy: While her intentions don't feel like good ones, they don't seem furry. I'm still convinced there's something cobblerish about her...so maybe she is a cobbler character, or perhaps Nogrod's theory is accurate after all...

Legate: I still don't like his reasons behind suspecting me...and now I don't like his reasons for suspecting Gollum. Yes, Gollum hasn't been saying much and as much as I would like him to, I think it's more newbie behaviour than anything. Gollum seems like the type of newbie who is perhaps a bit too timid to dive in and become involved on the same scale that the rest of us are. While his comment, "Wow! This comes as a complete surprise! This completely alters my view on Nogrod" may look wolfish to us, I think he wrote down his first thought unaware about what kind of phrases might sound fishy. Typical newbie mistake. Legate, you seem to be building up a case against Gollum and it just feels fabricated to me.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Brinniel

Being unconflicting can be a wolf tactic, I agree, but it doesn't necessarily mean that someone who is unconflicting is a wolf. Like I said, I think it's a style I tend to use regardless of my role...at least at the beginning of the game. I'm a careful poster...that's part of my personality. But it doesn't mean I'm a wolf. So I don't think being unconflicting is a good enough reason alone.

Of course being unconflicting by itself does not mean someone is guilty. But then, I would say that being unconflicting all the time implies something unnatural going on - like a programmed behavior, which is something a Wolf may use to his advantage. Anyway, I also don't think your behavior in general is unconflicting, not the same way as it was this game.

Originally Posted by Brinniel

Yes, Gollum hasn't been saying much and as much as I would like him to, I think it's more newbie behaviour than anything. Gollum seems like the type of newbie who is perhaps a bit too timid to dive in and become involved on the same scale that the rest of us are. While his comment, "Wow! This comes as a complete surprise! This completely alters my view on Nogrod" may look wolfish to us, I think he wrote down his first thought unaware about what kind of phrases might sound fishy. Typical newbie mistake. Legate, you seem to be building up a case against Gollum and it just feels fabricated to me.

Okay, now you are once again either misunderstanding or misinterpretating what I meant. See, my main point was not that because he said it, he is a wolf, and you won't find it there in my posts. At first when I saw this quote, I was answering myself the question whether he could post that if he were a Wolf. That's what I said in my first post today here. Then, when I was going through his posts, I was again, not basing anything on what he said there per se, but I was pointing out that he did not say his reasons for voting Nog. Why? Yesterday, he said "no time to explain" and just voted. Today he shows up, and all he says is "wow, this is a surprise". That was the point.

Okay, now. I shall be around, and hopefully also somebody else will show up; although I presume that as usual, people will start crowding around before the DL. Where are these Kaths and Gaunts and such? I would like to see them post toDay, too. For now, I am left to ponder my inclinations to vote - Brinn now looks fisher to me still.

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Legate

Then, when I was going through his posts, I was again, not basing anything on what he said there per se, but I was pointing out that he did not say his reasons for voting Nog. Why? Yesterday, he said "no time to explain" and just voted. Today he shows up, and all he says is "wow, this is a surprise". That was the point.

While it's frustrating when someone doesn't explain their reason for voting someone, but I don't think it has much meaning behind it. In previous games, players have been lynched because they didn't explain their vote and they have all turned out innocent. If anything, I would think a person who doesn't explain their vote is more likely innocent because why would a wolf want to draw attention to themself simply by not giving an explanation?

Btw, where is everyone? Posting has gone particularly slow toDay. Anyways, I'm gonna have to vote fairly soon...

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Oh My!

I am gone for hours and hours and when I return only 5 posts have been made, that is pathetic! Is Nogrod really that essential to keep the wheels turning?

And to think I felt bad about leaving you for that long, now I am glad I did otherwise it would have been a very frustrating day for me.

I see that Gwath voted for me. . .well, I guess he is kind of right, but I must point out that I also suspected Brinn yesterday. I guess my main problem is that I have seen nothing that makes me heavily suspect anybody, this is why I am stuck with suspects as Brinn where the main reason I suspect her is because of her playing style and not an actual action.

So yeah I do not have any major cases and that I might not have been the first to voice the conserns, but I think they have as much merit as most what most of you guys have come up with.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Brinniel

While it's frustrating when someone doesn't explain their reason for voting someone, but I don't think it has much meaning behind it. In previous games, players have been lynched because they didn't explain their vote and they have all turned out innocent. If anything, I would think a person who doesn't explain their vote is more likely innocent because why would a wolf want to draw attention to themself simply by not giving an explanation?

A wolf with a bad reason for his vote, or whatever, simply a wolf who does not want to explain his vote - because wolves basically never have honest reasons for their votes - may want to create silence around his vote and hope for it to be forgotten, so that he does not put himself in unnecessary risk. As I said, it's not an argument per se, and I would prefer anyway Gollum himself, and not you, to say something to it.

And as for what you say about players who have been lynched for not stating their vote and turned out innocent, yes, why not. But the same you can say there were also players who have not been lynched despite that and turned out to be wolves. So, this is sure no argument to use.

Anyway, yes, I would prefer others to appear around here, too. DL is nearing slowly, and it is too quiet here.

EDIT: x-ed with Rune. Yes sir, I agree with your second line (but please use trademark when using MY quote, okay? )

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

And as for what you say about players who have been lynched for not stating their vote and turned out innocent, yes, why not. But the same you can say there were also players who have not been lynched despite that and turned out to be wolves. So, this is sure no argument to use.

Is it not like this with most arguments in ww, that they are two edged.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Is it not like this with most arguments in ww, that they are two edged.

Yes, you are right. But "players have been lynched for not explaining their vote and turned out innocent" is in my point of view the same as saying "players have been lynched for voting Joe and turned out innocent", it's something too general. Anyway, let me say, and I hope to make it clear by this once and for all, this is all getting away still from the point of why I said that. The point was not "he did not state why he voted, lynch him!" The point was: "Let him state reasons for his vote." Because when somebody says his reasons for voting, the others may conclude something from it: Okay, this reasoning looks fishy, etc. I do not want anything else than to wait for Gollum to say that. Yet still I considered it important to point out also that the behavior itself is weird: say "I don't have time to tell my reasons for voting now", one expects in the next post "I didn't have time to say the reasons back then, but now I will tell you, here they are", and that this can be hoping for it to be forgotten, especially now that the person voted for is dead.