Game Thread: WW LXXXVI - The Halls of Mandos

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Well, now Mith actually starts talking, so... I wonder. Anyway, I should go to sleep soon - out of the quieter ones, apart from Mith I might possibly go for Nessa, but not sure...

Wonder what? That I would somehow anticipate that you would find me suspicious and "start talking" and hour or so before you would claim that I was being quiet? Ludicrous. I have been around because I now have a computer and no job as opposed to a job and no computer. There has just been more going on later as a quick glance at distribition of posts over time would show. This says a lot more about you than me.

[Nessa Telrunya]

I'm positively stumped about who to vote. Everyone seems so ambiguous!

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Alright, after a quick read, the two I find most off are...

Phantom (surprise surprise) and Nogrod. Both seem, to me, to be trying to tell the wolves/cobblers what to do - in Phantom's case, it looks more like a Cobbler talking to the wolves and trusting to his reputation to not get him lynched.

That's what I've got. I'll do a more in-depth readthrough now.

[elronds_daughter]

Hrmmmphh. Seems I've missed a lot so far toDay, though none of it terribly conclusive. Lots of lengthy posts, though...

(As an aside, I probably should have informed everyone that when Days fall on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, I won't be around at all until a few hours from DL...methinks I am trying to cram too much into my last semester of school...)

Anyhow. Most unhappy with not having a very good read on anybody yet.

Legate, Nog, and Agan are of course posting their usual tomes. Lommy seems a little more...confused...than usual. (Though who am I to talk about "usual", this being only my third game ever...) phantom is on my good side at the moment. Despite the incessant chatter (joke), he seems to be thinking things through in a more, erm, down-to-earth fashion than other tome-writers (sorry, Legate and Co.).

Right. Well. Those are my limited observations for the moment. I'll be back in a while to vote. This is going to be a very interesting game....

EDIT: x'ed with Shasta (how did I forget about him???) and Nessa.

[Aganzir]

I approve of Nog and phantom advising the gifteds - at least in the sense that it's typical of them. Yeah the gifteds are usually capable of thinking things through themselves, but saying something just to be on the safe side shouldn't hurt anyone.

At the moment some people seem to be (considering) voting for a quiet player. Is that a good idea? I'd actually rather leave the quieter players alive this time... The more they post, the more trails we have.

Originally Posted by the phantom

if you have an inkling of who the Seer might possibly be and that person dies, you should go ahead and point out your theory (especially if you can discover some sort of coded message or whatnot, I'm not the only person who does that sort of thing, am I?) and then treat future Dead-votes as a vindication of someone, assuming that the Seer is able to properly convince the Dead upon arrival.

That sounds reasonable, I guess (and hehe no you aren't )... But even a few baddies can screw up the voting in Mandos, so we really have no way of being sure. That's the problem with just about every plan. We can of course risk it and agree on a plan of sorts, especially if the lovers and/or Glorfindel is still alive, but I'm skeptical.

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

Excuse me?!

Sorry, still reading, but that caught my eye and now I'm going to have to challenge Manwe to a duel.

I was looking forward to seeing your reaction.

Originally Posted by A Little Green

Hey! You of all people don't get to call me nit-picky!

Yes I do. You always find me unclear and ask for a clarification.

[the phantom]

Okay, so, I believe I've heard multiple people talk about baddies messing things up in Dead-Thread. Is it a good idea then to avoid lynching suspected Cobblers? Because really Cobblers are the only Baddies that can do damage over time in Dead-Thread, because identities of Wolves can be checked by the dead. If we do our best to keep Cobblers alive, Goodies will own Dead-Land with total authority.

If the Wolves want to screw things up in Dead-Land, make them flush a kill on a Cobbler.

The obvious drawback is if we adopt this plan and all three Cobblers act Cobblerish and stay alive and, IF we fail to lynch Wolves early on, the Baddies can clinch victory a couple days before they normally could. But really that would assume that every little thing went wrong, yes?

So.... long live the Cobblers?

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Agan

I approve of Nog and phantom advising the gifteds - at least in the sense that it's typical of them.

Heh heh, yes, I sort of like to determine early on in my mind and in the minds of everyone else the way the game should be played and then try and play based upon the assumption that people are playing "correctly". Nothing puts me off my game quicker than a free for all. Ordos- do this. Gifteds- do this. Baddies- do this. Now play. Not that I'm foolish enough to assume that every little thing will go my way, but I do at least like to see the roles and strategies discussed to the point that there seems to be a good amount of agreement on enough things that I am able to have a foundation upon which I can build my guesswork.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Heh heh, yes, I sort of like to determine early on in my mind and in the minds of everyone else the way the game should be played and then try and play based upon the assumption that people are playing "correctly". Nothing puts me off my game quicker than a free for all. Ordos- do this. Gifteds- do this. Baddies- do this. Now play. Not that I'm foolish enough to assume that every little thing will go my way, but I do at least like to see the roles and strategies discussed to the point that there seems to be a good amount of agreement on enough things that I am able to have a foundation upon which I can build my guesswork.

I seem to recalling you mentioning multiple times in different situations that people should take care not to bring ideas to the baddies' attention... and now you're doing precisely that. I call shenanigans.

[the phantom]

Shasta- that only applies to difficult to spot strategies, or ploys that cease to function once voiced. Plans that require the adoption of the village (like my Seer dream pass-along) must be voiced to serve any purpose.

You'll recall that in the past I have quite openly declared certain ploys, and pointed out that doing so would actually make them more effective (for instance, when I was attempting to bait the Wolves into killing me, and went so far as to say so).

(EDIT: Usually when I've been irritated in the past with people talking about strategies, it's specifically because I'm doing something that won't work with too much attention and people are pointing to it for no clear reason.)

[the phantom]

Okay, so, the approach-

Would everyone agree that our chances of victory are extremely high if we simply-
1) Own the Dead-Thread.
2) Keep Lovers & Glorfy alive early on.

If so, then everything we do should be based upon aiding one or both of those points.

Originally Posted by Fea

So yeah, I don't know if I should go all Nilp on y'all and find out what all the Dead Thread's good for, or if I should actually try to stay alive.

Ha ha, I actually thought of Nilp earlier, and how this situation was perfect for him to claim the right to blaze the trail into the Dead-Thread.

Oh, and I am going to blame that earlier error on the fact that I was actually eating a roll at the time. Too funny.

[Aganzir]

Sorry about being quiet, I've been IMing with a beautiful lady I'm possibly going to paint.

Originally Posted by the phantom

Okay, so, I believe I've heard multiple people talk about baddies messing things up in Dead-Thread. Is it a good idea then to avoid lynching suspected Cobblers? Because really Cobblers are the only Baddies that can do damage over time in Dead-Thread, because identities of Wolves can be checked by the dead. If we do our best to keep Cobblers alive, Goodies will own Dead-Land with total authority.

Hmm. That depends on your point of view. The cobblers are going to cause trouble - both here and in Mandos. But it's going to be a serious problem only if they mess up some information delivery plan. So yes to lynching cobblers, no to plans they can easily affect.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

As for the quiet players... there is often a reluctance to lynch the quiet players in the first instance they often get the benefit of the doubt which a wolf might take advantage of.

Not recently - people have been quite happy about lynching players who post little substance, I think. (But I admit I haven't been very active lately.)

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Leijonien kanssa.

That's as good an excuse for not posting as Greenie had.

I can't believe that my first post agrees with Noggin...

Bunny fangs!

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

The fact that you defend phantom so stoutly here, combined with that you were already one I was suspicious of (for much the same reason)... given the game setup, I wouldn't put it past baddies to feel safer about linking themselves.

I agree with Shasta about Nog being suspicious but I don't see anything particularly bad about his defense of phantom. I think they just think alike on certain things regardless of their roles... And phantom looks almost alright now (although the sooner he's dead the happier I am).

Originally Posted by Nogrod

In a game where we need to read everything from what others say without a chance to check afterwards for sure, I do think lynching the quieter ones - those not giving up anything - is a better choice. Later on when we have some real feelings / arguments of those who meddle with the game a lot more, or have a chance there will be some info coming from Mandos, then we should start lynching the more in the middle of the things -players.

No.
The louder players leave more trails. They are also more likely to contribute more in Mandos which is good, especially if they're innocent. I strongly object to deaths that don't reveal us anything (in the sense that you can't find connections even later when we possibly have information from Mandos or the seer). The longer someone lives, the more she posts.
I know Nog likes lynching quiet players. So do I. But in this game I think it's different.

++NOGROD

Bedtime!

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin to tp

I seem to recalling you mentioning multiple times in different situations that people should take care not to bring ideas to the baddies' attention... and now you're doing precisely that. I call shenanigans.

What phantom said. There are different ways of talking about any plans or ways of action. Some actually cancel a bad possibility, some may lure the baddies to adopt it to their own demise, some possibilities the goodies should be generally aware of to their own good...

So should I call your call here shenanigans - or something else?

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

What phantom said. There are different ways of talking about any plans or ways of action. Some actually cancel a bad possibility, some may lure the baddies to adopt it to their own demise, some possibilities the goodies should be generally aware of to their own good...

So should I call your call here shenanigans - or something else?

The fact that you defend phantom so stoutly here, combined with that you were already one I was suspicious of (for much the same reason)... given the game setup, I wouldn't put it past baddies to feel safer about linking themselves.

[Glirdan]

I'm back everyone, I've been at work all day and then sleeping so you know, not a lot of time to do....well...anything really. Am in the middle of reading everything to date and just want to throw a few things out.

Ang with all his talk of double lynching has me worried. Too bold to be a wolf, but still subtle enough to be a Cobbler. The wording of his second point in post 58 (same post as his double lynch idea) has me worried

Originally Posted by Ang

The wolves are in a bit of a bind here

Am I the only one that is seeming to understand this as sympathy towards the Wolves??

Originally Posted by Lommy

Glirdan - one banter line this far if I'm correct, nothing else. Kind of fishy, I think, but maybe I'll give him the benefit of time zones for now.

Thank you as that is actually precisely the case. When you have a DL that is your bed time and then you sleep for eight hours only to wake up and go to work for six where you have no computer access, your posting becomes limited. Yay for working for Wal-Mart....not

I will not lie though, I don't see people's "Boro's a cobbler" theory at all....However, I'm not really buying his schpeal on Nog being a Cobbler too.

Okay, back to reading the rest (I'm half way through page 2 right now) and will be back to post again.

[Anguirel]

Anyone who is killed by wolves isn't a wolf. But they can be a cobbler (I still think that term is ridiculous - maybe just 'turncoat', traitor, etc? It's basically the newer and less dramatic Cursed Villager, come to think of it). And the spirits in Mandos can't even check them if they are cobblers. So the Dead do have it hard, harder than I initially assumed.

This makes phantom's point about Cobbler survival, and Fea's riposte to it, the most interesting points I've taken in so far. I was utterly convinced by the good intentions of both statements, but the latter one, that wolves can pretend to be cobblers, does trump. Pessimism in ascendant. Ho-hum. Still, I don't want to see either of these theorisers hang yet. Fea's game indeed is quite a formative comparison which I remember with frankly frustrating accuracy.

Someone used the word "dangerous" in an odd way, about innocent and helpful dead, but I've lost track of who (I'd guess Aganzir) and actually I think such semantics can be overplayed

Basically, this version of Tol-in-Gaurhoth makes or breaks the analyst player (as opposed to the "crazed intuition/half-baked arrogance" player, me). The rules are so knottily intense that they still have us thinking about them, not each other. At this stage, the game is overwhelmingly more fascinating than the players.

I notice by the by that some people seem to think Thinlomien is more than usualy, almost suspiciously, incompetent - I don't agree with this at all; this is a totally novel sort of challenge and I feel utterly incompetent myself. It's very hard to judge on 'past form' in this one... (and that's one of my favourite techniques)

I'm a bit suspicious of Nogrod for sticking up for me at one point. Sorry about that. We Feanorians can be dead ungrateful (though I hope yet to be grateful dead).

[Nogrod]

Shasta - first overabundant banter, then being totally wrong... he's a clever man so he can't be just erring here?
Glirdan - only a few early banters...
A Little Green - not too much participation but has posted on substance unlike some others on this list.
elronds_daughter - one post, puzzlingly non-commitant looking at the fact that she actually said something.
Mänwe - one post, one sentence, saying nothing.
Loslote - overdoing the banter...
Nessa - Not so bad Mith let's us understand, if she meant that the wolves don't know whether they killed a gifted, an ordo or a cobbler, but quite minimal contributions to say it minimalistically.
Sally - posted when there was actually discussion going on but only bantered (except suspecting Lottie for bantering with Shasta - why not the other way around?).
Fea one post now, neutralish.

No posts so far, no vote from me on D1
Blind Guardian
Wilwa


In a game where we need to read everything from what others say without a chance to check afterwards for sure, I do think lynching the quieter ones - those not giving up anything - is a better choice. Later on when we have some real feelings / arguments of those who meddle with the game a lot more, or have a chance there will be some info coming from Mandos, then we should start lynching the more in the middle of the things -players.


So my vote is going to someone on the list above.

A cigarette to think about it and then to sleep.


EDIT X'd with a few... heh seemingly also Shasta's vote...

[Mithalwen]

As for the quiet players... there is often a reluctance to lynch the quiet players in the first instance they often get the benefit of the doubt which a wolf might take advantage of. A gifted player might not to want to draw attention to themselves either but they of course wouldn't want to be so inconspicuous that they made themselves a night target for the wolves (a death that would provide no clues to the village). Of course the fact that death isn't quite the end changes the dynamic.

[Nogrod]

I don't want to bring in any old discussions and debates, but I must say Mith looks more like an innocent, because of her response to Legate.

A short list of my feelings before the voting (short on explanations as I don't have time to write any longer analysis).

Innocent:
Aganzir - Good posting, innocent vibes, feels like she's trying to find the answers that are for the benefit of the village.

Innocentish:
the phantom - Generally makes good points a wolf might not wish to make, it's just that a few of them do not let me pick him into category above.
Anguirel - Seems getting the idea of our good and makes posts a wolf-Ang probably wouldn't.
Mith - For her comment on Legate (and for that familiar annoyance against anything I say... if she were a wolf she would be nicer to me ).

Could go either way:
Legate - Seems too happy to jump on some things I do disagree, but on the other hand hasn't said or done anything really suspicious.
Lommy - Basically seems to have the hang of it but has the air of avoiding things or, well, what some others have said, over-stating things. Smething says I should not trust her but on the other hand I find nothing clear-cut wrong.
Nerwen - Like someone said before: both clearly up to the situation but still mainly just bantering (was online only relatively early on the Day so that might be understandable).

Slightly worried:
Boro - the way he jumps on someone (yes, me) trying to turn the discussion on a more fruitful ground by saying it's "spinning things for my purposes" (so you should read they are bad) and after being questioned about that by some others, changing his point into me being a pessimist (which wasn't the point of my message) and thus suspicious? Odd, from him.


Of others I have not much to say. But will probably vote for one of them others.

Everyone from the classes I've done here will probably be readable in a way or another.

In a few minutes something. Then vote. Then to bed.


EDIT: X'd from Mith onwards.