WW LXXXII: Return to Tol-in-Gaurhoth

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

Another thing: the exchange between Lottie and Shasta. Possible scenarios:
a) Lottiewolf relying on "gut-feeling" to justify easy suspicion on an innocent Shasta. I don't find this that likely, though it's definitely a possibility. Lottie's tone is quite genuine, and if she's a wolf I'd be more inclined to think Shasta is one too (= option d)).
b) Innocent Lottie getting her famous gut-feeling on a Shastawolf. Definitely possible.
c) Innocent Lottie getting her famous gut-feeling on an innocent Shasta. Definitely possible.
d) Lottiewolf and Shastawolf mess around with a neat Day 1 wolf-on-wolf show. Certainly wouldn't put it past the two of them.

I'd say any of the above is possible, plus what I suggested... except that I'm surprised you find her tone "quite genuine", because it sounds anything but to me (note that this doesn't rule out b) or c)– I mean, I suppose she could be scrabbling for reasons to justify her "gut-feeling").

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by wilwa

Still though, a revealed hunter is less likely to be night killed, and then what good are they? Just saying, strongly opposed.

A hunter-revelation would be problematic indeed, not as such as the hunter could serve as a known innocent which would help us a lot in the endgame, but I'm not so sure how we could deal with a "hunter counter-reveal"... That's actually a maddening scenario, especially if it happens late in the game. And a card the cobbler would just love to play (one more reason to get rid of her/him if possible).

So how about we just made a deal that the hunter doesn't reveal? That way we could then lynch the possible imposter. *looks at the hunter and puts a finger on his lips... shhh...*

It seems the only interesting thing toDay has been this Lottie - Shasta to and fro, so it's understandable they have gathered the most suspicion. But I'd be careful at least yet to make any further conclusions about it. I mean especially Lottie tends to gather a lot of suspicion more or less every game in the beginning (I should know that as I tend to be one of those suspecting her), so I would almost say that I find those more suspicious who second or third the suspicions as "easy target" suspicions. But sure it's early to say at this point.

Okay. This is a bad Day for me as I need to be off to choir rehersals, but I'll be back for the last two hours. I hope we have a bit more lively discussion going on when I return (although not so many pages I don't have time to read all... ).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

A quick comment on the Day so far before dashing off again. First - I find it amusing that people keep saying the wolves are our top priority, and yet the main topic of discussion is the cobbler. Like, the cobbler is distracting the village already, and it's actually possible they haven't been around yet at all! Though of course it's pretty boring and unfruitful to start the Day with everyone echoing "We need to kill the wolves!" But still, I wouldn't be surprised if our cobbler was in fact one of those keeping up the debate about how to deal with the cobbler.

That is indeed not improbable, and I think it is worth considering what people have said in relation to the topic. And I must say, it was part of the intention. And as for cobbler being the main topic, well, it does not matter what we talk about as long as we talk about something to which people can express their opinions! Especially on Day 1. I really like it when people say "let's focus on hunting Wolves!" but apart from that line, they say nothing else. You can read a lot from people's reactions - actually, that's the only way you can read something on Day 1 (since you don't have any evidence yet from the Night-kills) - and that's what I planned to do (instead of just in-character banter or random "I think XY is a Wolf, because I don't like his avvie!"). And people react, speak their minds and so on, and that's the whole point...

Originally Posted by Nogrod

A hunter-revelation would be problematic indeed, not as such as the hunter could serve as a known innocent which would help us a lot in the endgame, but I'm not so sure how we could deal with a "hunter counter-reveal"... That's actually a maddening scenario, especially if it happens late in the game. And a card the cobbler would just love to play (one more reason to get rid of her/him if possible).

So how about we just made a deal that the hunter doesn't reveal? That way we could then lynch the possible imposter. *looks at the hunter and puts a finger on his lips... shhh...*

I am puzzled by Nogrod in general, either your wit is a bit sleepy today or you are reading a different thread than me. Of course the Hunter should not reveal, and it's been said here already, so not sure what is inventive about your shh-ing Hunter revealing him/herself will ruin the whole point, as you eventually conclude yourself. The only moment when I can think of Hunter-reveal to be good is when there are like three people left and every "known innocent" is important. But again, nobody could tell for sure that the Hunter is not faking anyway, and also, in fact even in this case of three people remaining, the Hunter would do better to stay hidden, as even if he is lynched, he can still take the last Wolf with him, leaving the single innocent to win. I am just wondering if you are not trying to suggest to the Cobbler to play a Hunter or something weird as that, although I can't see why it would make any sense. In any case, I think the topic should be just laid to rest.

But well! Sorta quiet, isn't it? I have to leave now and will be back only to vote, I think, so... I am not so happy with the turn of events and have to say that indeed aside from Shasta-Lottie there's been very little to go on with. I guess Boro is responsible with his unusual quietness Otherwise, I would like to hear still from those who haven't been around yet, that is, Eönwë (who said however that he unfortunately won't be around toDay until late), Ozban and skip. And preferrably from others too, but... well...

Right now I am wary of Shasta and Lottie, and curious about Nogrod... I mean, he says the kind of things that Wolves say if they want to participate but not really to be constructive... but it's more like that I am puzzled than suspicious, maybe he's just somehow skimming through the thread and not paying too much attention as to what he's reading or something. But something in his manner unnerves me too.

EDIT: x-ed with Boro and Ozban. Great! Seem like people are posting around, wonderful! Now gotta go, but will check...

[Pitchwife]

Awake and catching up...

Originally Posted by Shasta

In other news, I'm finding something slightly off about Pitch. He's only made one post thus far, but as I read it there were points at which I felt he was being awfully... well, the pun is inevitable... agreeable.

Let's see these points, please.

Originally Posted by Nog

Right on spot Pitch. I paused at that while reading but got carried away by the cobbler-speculation... (but it did feed to my paranoia at the first read) The wolves will try to be nice and friendly. The innocents will be brutal and openly attacking people (hopefully). The wolves would love "friendliness-based lottery" of votes, while we innocents need to find out who the honey-tongued villains are.

Although I'm not too sure that quote merits as a reason to suspect Legate as you could read it as an IC comment as well.

Now what exactly are you doing here - just lecturing on general WW principles and saying they don't apply to the Legate-quote 'cause it's IC, or using my flippant remark to cast a shadow of doubt on Legate that doesn't quite amount to suspicion but could be exploited later? We wonders, my preciouss...
Oh, and wolves just lurve to hide their wolvery behind IC comments!

Originally Posted by Nerwen

You seem to assume that the traitor, not to mention those of us whose souls have been taken by the accursed Lord of Wolves, would reveal only as the Seer. Why should that be?

Well, Legate used the Seer as an example, so I concentrated on that; besides, as wilwa has observed, the Ranger has less reason to reveal unless in mortal danger, and the Hunter less than the Ranger, so to fake-reveal as the Seer seems the most likely.
That's not to say the other two are impossible or unheard of... and might in fact be more dangerous than the Seer-act, as they can't be disproven like a fake Seer can. Actually, my remark about the danger of a counter-reveal delayed too long was inspired by legends of a wolf-hunt before my time, where I think a wolf revealed as the Ranger, and the true Ranger didn't contest the claim until he was threatened with being lynched... and wasn't believed and was lynched. So yes, fake reveals do have their dangers.

Originally Posted by wilwa

I remember my only game as a cobbler I false revealed as the ranger and ended up accidently giving away who a wolf was and helping the village win. But I suppose that's a rare occurence...

Ah, the game with the two Seers and two Rangers... *revels in fond memories*

Originally Posted by Legate

In any case, if you see somebody behaves suspiciously, you won't be able to say whether it's a Cobbler or not - or not necessarily (and it can be a Wolf faking to be a Cobbler etc.), so basically you vote for the person whoever it is, and learn their role once they hang

Amen to that - we can't tell wolf from cobbler until they're dead, and that's the long and short of the whole discussion on whether we should concentrate on the cobbler (no we shouldn't) or ignore them (no we shouldn't).

On the Shasta-Lottie thing: Basically, Lottie's saying "I do suspect him in earnest, but I could be wrong" - and of course she could, such is the lot of an ordo, therefore it's trivial and she might as well not have bothered to say it. Peppering her suspicion with disclaimers like that does have a smell of wolvish caution, and it doesn't help that I don't see anything remotely worrying in that quote of Shasta she started her suspicion from.

Btw, I love Greenie's comment on the matter, presenting four scenarios and evaluating their respective probability as a) "definitely a possibility", b) "definitely possible", c) "definitely possible" and d) "certainly not past them". Makes everything so much clearer!

(x-ed with everything after #41)

[Boromir88]

Current thoughts on people who've caught my attention before I go grab some lunch and then back to vote.

I won't vote for Ozban or Pitch today. I like Oz's first post, curious to see more how she plays. I like Pitch's response to me about fake revealing, looks pretty innocent.

Don't really trust or distrust Legate but he's chattery enough to give us tons of information so eventually to his benefit or not, I'll figure him out.

So far everyone else could get my vote for either failing to make any strong impressions or being eerily spunky for some reason *looks at Nog*

And I'm not exactly understanding what you're seeing in Greenie's post to prop her up on this pedestal. I mean for pointing out here's 4 scenarios with the Lottie-Shasta business, could be any one of them?

[Eönwë]

Ok, well I'm here now.

I'll try to quickly read through the thread and see if anything jumps out at me...