WW LXXXIX: The Terror of Tol Fuin

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund

Would anyone wish to cast the first vote?

Love to, but I'd also love to catch wolves, and I fear there might be a conflict of interest.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Actually, I would love to, too, but alas! I have a reputation to uphold.

And even were I not so shackled, I would not vote for Sally on DAY 1. And since you made me blush, I'm disinclined to offer you to the noose, too.

Shasta, be thankful I'm insane!

[Mithalwen]

Well I now ahve a small vat of coffee... but still quiet. I will be out for lunch but hope it will be a bit livelier after. Or is it going to be one of those "Goes frantic in the last hour games".

[Shastanis Althreduin]

What Lottie said, Mith. As I recall, I was lynched that game for clarifying a rule for someone.

In any case, the only actual game-related thing thus far that I see is Bom and his stated intention to vote Sally "if nothing better comes along", and Nerwen pointing it out, to which I also would like an answer, Bom.

Also, if Nilp is evil, then Mith is too! It's genetic!

[Mithalwen]

I knew madness was someting that you inherited from your children but evil? Anyway I refuse to believe my boy is evil were he hanged on the highest hill...

Interesting - I usually think not knowing the rules is suspicious - which mean Bom is looking interesting ... rule query, first post and this offer to more or less "mercy lynch" Sally. I have been in games where even one of those was a fast track to the gallows on Day One....Shasta..i am really beginning to understand your nerves! But would also be interested to hear Bom answer Nerwen's question.

I suppose the North Americans are still asleep but I can only assume that the Europeans had a much more exciting and tiring Saturday night than me!

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I was really impressed by that til I noticed Galadriel55 no longer had a Russian sig...so much for powers of observation.

At, what it it your time? 2am? If I lose all my powers of observation at about 11pm....

And some other Russian siggy will be up after the game is over.

Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund

(After all, y'all won't trust me if I told you I'm back to being an Ordo again, would you?)

'Course not! Who puts faith in Ordo-reveals?

Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund

Would anyone wish to cast the first vote?

Do you want me to vote you for jumping onto conclusions? There hardly have been any posts! (and come on, Lottie gave you a compliment, and you call her a wolf?! That's not nice!)

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

@ Nerwen: Alice says 'Hi! ' (She is, by the way, the sanest of my alter-egos.)

@ Shasta: Can evil be transferred non-genetically, though? She has, as I have once said, motherhood thrust upon her. And since she has not yet left me to the wolves (I think), she is not evil.

@ Galadriel55: I'm a wolf, lynch me pl0x.

And although Lottie gets cookies and reps for almost sweeping me off my feet, it must be said that our goal here is to rid our company of evil. And since she has drunk coffee, and coffee is evil, she is most definitely one.

(Mum Mith drank coffee, too, but since the motherhood postulate mentioned above holds, she cannot be evil.)

Since there's a good chance I'll be around before end of DAY, I shall hold my vote (gee, I wonder who I'll vote for? ) 'til then.

/me awaits Nogrod's posts

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

At, what it it your time? 2am? If I lose all my powers of observation at about 11pm....

I think it was half four - I had fallen asleep waiting for the update on the sick penguin (in NZ not Lommie). We are on summer time which threw me.,.. But it means dead line is 1 am so I may have to vote a bit early lest I once again lapse into a hoglike swoon at the crucial moment. Maybe the sheer excitement will keep me awake but at the moment .......

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Nilp posted:

"A word of advice, mum:

1) Listen to your first instincts; and
2) Never listen to known baddies.

The Trio of Evil is complete!
•Sally
•Loslote
•Shasta

Would anyone wish to cast the first vote?"

To which Loslote replied:

Originally Posted by Loslote

Love to, but I'd also love to catch wolves, and I fear there might be a conflict of interest.

???

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Loslote

Love to, but I'd also love to catch wolves, and I fear there might be a conflict of interest.

Potential quadruple post here, but I would advise people to go back to the first page and trawl through the absurd flirting going on between Loslote and Nilp. Like I said, if Nilp is an evil spirit then he's a bold one!

[Thinlómien]

Too bad about Kit but at least she can concentrate on her RL stuff now. Much worse about Nerwen though. I suspected her a little but I also got slightly gifted vibes from her (hence my not understanding of people saying she did not seem gifted). I will go through her posts to see if we can get any seer-suspect hints from there.

Nilp's conviction of the Lottie-voters' innocence is weird because it's so strong. To me it starts to sound slightly like a wolf insistently buddying up with innocents (I think it's less likely that if Nilp is a wolf one of us is a wolf too - then I doubt he would attract so much attention to his defense of us).

Originally Posted by Legate

Limits to plausibility, indeed. The thing Mith says here seems a bit complicated to me, or a bit overanalysed. Are you sure you haven't thought of that together with your packmates at Night?

My thoughts exactly when I was reading that, and that's twice now Mith has done it. Means Mith is my top suspect at the moment.

At the moment thinking Loslote + Nilp + Mith pack might make a lot of sense. It explains Mith's feeble try to save Lottie, Nilp and Mith keeping playing the mummy&son game going on all the time (what better excuse to co-operate openly?) and Nilp & Lottie's banter on Day1 (if they had already become friends on Night1). Also then it makes sense of Mith's two wolf plan analyses and the one of Nilp's Eomer pointed out, as well as credits my theory about Nilp's let's-not-suspect-the-Lottie-voters meme. As icing on the cake, it explains why Nilp did his traditional self-vote in such a cowardly manner on Day1.

[Mithalwen]

I asked Nilp if he had caught me a wolf in about my opening post. That's it from my end at least. I am sorry you are unable to understand simple observations on actual comments and the game structure but your lack of comprehension doesn't make me guilty. So don't go making things up.

[Thinlómien]

That's pretty harsh, Mith. Are you implying you find theories of your guilt offensive? I'm sorry if I have offended you, but it does make playing this game a bit difficult if one cannot suspect you (and Nilp?) without you interpreting it as a personal attack.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

That's pretty harsh, Mith. Are you implying you find theories of your guilt offensive? I'm sorry if I have offended you, but it does make playing this game a bit difficult if one cannot suspect you (and Nilp?) without you interpreting it as a personal attack.

No you are perfectly entitled to suspect me but it would be nice if the suspicions were based on my failings not yours. But no doubt this is just a feeble squeak.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund

I thought I was doing a pretty good Ranger impersonation. :-/

Than was the sentence that made my head explode yesterday when I quickly checked the thread to see who was killed.

Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund

So, Sally (Eru give me strength), Bom, Mith, Eomer, and Greenie under the microscope.

So the first and last to vote Kit, and those who didn't vote her?

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Your interpretation of the Nerwen-Lommy relationship looks like you're trying to shoehorn your 'go after Lommy' agenda where it's not wanted.

Not wanted... by whom?

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

The Kitwagon yesterDay - did seriously nobody at least stop to wonder that it is rather weird how huge and matter-of-factly smooth it has become?

And another question: when did it truly become a wagon?

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

As for other stuff, I would now still very much like to see Bom and have him recount what he was thinking when voting and if he had read the thread before it. To recapitulate, I find it extremely weird to vote Kitanna and say that it's a throwaway, even if he thought it was DL. It can be totally genuine, but it can also be a Wolf genuinely thinking it is DL and excusing himself for a throwaway vote. Anyway, it's just so random.

Ditto this.

Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund

I came to a logical conclusion that baddies won't do a Fenris fratricide.

Please explain your logic. I came to the conclusion that they may as well have done that, to look innocent - and if they have, they succeeded with you at least.


@ EVERYONE WHO TALKED ABOUT NERWEN: I think that she was just too careful about not giving a definite concusion to her posts (something Seerish?). Or she was just a very good player who did not look like she was going to be protected.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Please explain your logic. I came to the conclusion that they may as well have done that, to look innocent - and if they have, they succeeded with you at least.

It's DAY 1. Votes are going to be random. I won't do a statistical study, but I'd imagine that less baddies are killed on DAY 1 than in any other DAY.

I think that baddie-fratricide would be more beneficial when a more proper 'case' against a fellow baddie could be made, cos then the baddie-accuser could not be suspected of having hidden knowledge of who's who in the village. Again, this is from the (theoretical) logical standpoint.

But since apparently this Lottie gal attracts lynches that would make me jealous, I'm beginning to suspect if this theoretical logical situation applies at all. The baddies's latest kill drives home the point--why not kill one of the Lottie voters instead (since it gets rid of a trusted villager AND a possible Seer), unless one of them is a baddie?

BUT, argh, that could also be the reason (or one of the reasons) for their kill, to cast reasonable doubt on their presumed innocence--which however, this village has already taken with more than a few grains of salt. So meh.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Nilp

'Cowardly'? I did it differently, that's how I thought . . .

Yes, differently - in a manner that put you in no danger of getting lynched. Hence I called it "cowardly" although of course it's not any more "cowardly" than voting someone else than yourself.

Currently slightly annoyed with the game and having stuff to do, shall be back way later but before the deadline though. When I'm back, expect more thoughts on Nerwen's death, the Kit-wagon and a list giving each villager their time in the spotlight.


edit: xed with Nilp

[Nogrod]

Way to go Lommy! I suspected Mith already yesterDay mainly because of the way she could be seen trying to help Lottie (while no one else did - and there are still two of her mates around!) and I have also felt a bit uneasy with some of her wolf's POV speculations, not that that couldn't or shouldn't be done, but they have been kind of "detailed" one wouldn't expect from an ordo. Also Nilp's comfortable defense of us three Lottie-lynchers is starting to border on feeling fake.

But you have more or less connected the dots to look like a believavle scenario - even if I think Mith is correct in that one facet of it she criticises you about. But her only pointing out that one thing - where she probably is right and you Lommy are not - looks a bit suspicious. Heh, she's actually not saying no to those other points but just disagrees where she knows she has it right, if you get what I mean (I think I expressed it quite confusedly to be honest).

This heightens my belief that G55 is innocent (nice spot Legate)

Originally Posted by Nerwen

it's most unusual for a wolf to give herself no other option but voting a comrade.

So it's not only that I don't think Lottie as one who'd scheme against a fellow on D1 and that she didn't seem to me to be doing that when suspecting G55, but there's also this. i mean when a wolf decides to add some suspicion to her/his fellow s/he does well to have other (even one) innocent susect as well so that there is a possibility to have a choice with the voting as going blindly only aga9inst your mate would be stupid if fex. you had a possibility of lynching an innocnet instead with no fear for you and your mates or suspicions raised.

If Mith and Nilp are not our wolves, then I would also like to hear a lot more from Bom - and anyway some explanation to his vote yesterDay would be nice. Casting the first vote to someone who is the most suspected of all is no "throwaway" by any standards.

I don't find Eomer or Greenie especially suspicious, but I don't seem to have no reason to trust them either. Actually I'm a bit scared of Greenie (surprise! ) as she plays again that hunker down & lay low -game, but makes posts with enough reasoning to look like a person we should keep around unless something drastic comes her way.


okay, needs to go for now, but I'll be back later in the evening.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

It would be very bold of a wolf to outline the reason for the night kill so soon on the next day, but Nilp is either doing just that or is unlucky enough to have stumbled upon the same tracks.

G55 'exculpated' by Nerwen's slaying indeed!

Your interpretation of the Nerwen-Lommy relationship looks like you're trying to shoehorn your 'go after Lommy' agenda where it's not wanted.

I've always thought of myself as a bold wolf, haha. And if I'm being used as the baddies's Pied Piper, well, that has happened before, too.

I don't get the 'where it's not wanted' bit, but I analysed Nerwen's post from the point of view of her as Seer-suspect, and those are the conclusions that I came up with.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

The Kitwagon yesterDay - did seriously nobody at least stop to wonder that it is rather weird how huge and matter-of-factly smooth it has become? As in, I can see people voting for Kit, but I wonder if any of you had ever re-read her posts, or if it was just a spontaneous "let's go!" stuff. I have been wondering about her myself by the start of the Day, but after I managed to reread her posts, it really didn't seem that horrible - there surely were better candidates.

Hm, I remember using this tack before. In fact, you were in the altar then, and I was waving around saying 'let's not jump to conclusions, people, we have other villagers to look at.' I was a baddie then.

My vote for Kit, it wasn't because of her posts per se; it was the intention behind it that got me suspecting her.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Second, the obvious question, why Nerwen? I don't recall her posting anything specifically Ranger-ish, and Seer-ish, well, that would have to be determined - I don't recall, but it would be worth looking if she didn't say something specific about Lottie on the first Day or such (but she hadn't been around much). I haven't read through her posts yet, I am now just acting based on memory; I think that should be done, however. I am not sure if Nilp, despite announcing that he will attempt it, actually managed to find any response to his question, or then it is phrased in such a way that I can't read it there.

I didn't find any hints of her Ranger identity--no strange icons, no anagrams nor acrostics, or even the word 'protect' or its synonyms. Obviously she won't give out Seer hints--that's something an Ordo would more likely do, to distract the baddies--but my post analysing her posts came from the assumption that the baddies thought she was a Seer.

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Actually Nilp, it's weird. You defended Lommy three times yesterday but today you're saying she "kinda looks bad now" because..... because Nerwen wasn't sure about her?

That's strange, even for you.

Again, that was from the point of view of Nerwen being seen as a Seer by the baddies, based on what should be their logical priorities. (see my pre-Nerwen analysis post.

If the baddies aren't playing that way, then, yay, I'm useless to this village save as NIGHT-kill fodder (but I hope the Seer can do an innnocent drop and win this village with numbers.)

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Nilp's conviction of the Lottie-voters' innocence is weird because it's so strong. To me it starts to sound slightly like a wolf insistently buddying up with innocents (I think it's less likely that if Nilp is a wolf one of us is a wolf too - then I doubt he would attract so much attention to his defense of us).

I came to a logical conclusion that baddies won't do a Fenris fratricide. It's to help reduce the number of people I have to analyse, cos gone are the days when I'd print this thread up and scrutinise every word posted, hehe.

Besides, I appended my doubts to it in my analysis of the Lottie voters (in the DAY 1 vote count), but apparently, y'all don't read caveats cos they're like the new full stops.

Although, see, now I'm doubting it. So far as I can understand from what y'all are saying about her, Lottie is kinda like the Garin of old, always lynched, always within 3 DAYs. So who better to offer up to Fenrishood?

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

[ . . . ]Nilp did his traditional self-vote in such a cowardly manner on Day1.

'Cowardly'? I did it differently, that's how I thought . . .

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Nilp's conviction of the Lottie-voters' innocence is weird because it's so strong. To me it starts to sound slightly like a wolf insistently buddying up with innocents (I think it's less likely that if Nilp is a wolf one of us is a wolf too - then I doubt he would attract so much attention to his defense of us).

Why did this bit give me a poke on my second read? Maybe because it sounds somewhat alike to what Sally kept saying about me?

And that's even more flipflopping on your part, Lommy.

Although I do agree that Nilp's belief is quite strong, and maybe even a bit blind.

Originally Posted by Legate

Limits to plausibility, indeed. The thing Mith says here seems a bit complicated to me, or a bit overanalysed. Are you sure you haven't thought of that together with your packmates at Night?

I think Mith was referring to this comment:

Originally Posted by Nerwen

However, looking at yesterDay's chaos of accusations, counter-accusations and passionate defences, it's interesting that apparently nobody looked more like the Seer to the wolves. Shasta's case on Lottie was built on in-game evidence– whereas, a good many players seemed ready to defend/suspect others at the drop of a hat.

And also this one, which was said in reply to Mith's Ranger-twist post:

Originally Posted by Nerwen

That would explain a few things– it's been suggested the wolves thought Shasta was the Seer because of his case on Lottie and/or comments about Sally, but I find that unlikely (unless they panicked). It's just so hard not to think of getting the Seer as the lupine priority.

On hindsight, I can see these being typed by a worried Ranger - as Mith noted yesterDay, the wolves might not have gone for the most Seerish person around because of the Ranger twist. Perhaps she was protecting someone who defended/accused a person "at the drop of a hat", and Mith's post was a realisation that her job is much harder....

I disagree with a bit what Mith said today about these, though:

Originally Posted by Mith

In retrospect, Nerwen's comments yesterday wondering why Shasta looked Seerish to the wolves and saying she hadn't reckoned that the Seer might not be the wolves top priority might indicate that her own priority was working out the Seer not the wolves - which is the proper function of the Ranger.

I think Nerwen meant that the wolves' top priority - and therefore her priority at Night as well - might not be the Seer. (But during the Day, finding the Seer is back at the top.)

Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund

It's DAY 1. Votes are going to be random. I won't do a statistical study, but I'd imagine that less baddies are killed on DAY 1 than in any other DAY.

I think that baddie-fratricide would be more beneficial when a more proper 'case' against a fellow baddie could be made, cos then the baddie-accuser could not be suspected of having hidden knowledge of who's who in the village. Again, this is from the (theoretical) logical standpoint.

But since apparently this Lottie gal attracts lynches that would make me jealous, I'm beginning to suspect if this theoretical logical situation applies at all. The baddies's latest kill drives home the point--why not kill one of the Lottie voters instead (since it gets rid of a trusted villager AND a possible Seer), unless one of them is a baddie?

BUT, argh, that could also be the reason (or one of the reasons) for their kill, to cast reasonable doubt on their presumed innocence--which however, this village has already taken with more than a few grains of salt. So meh.

I still don't get this. Am I that thick, or is Nilp trying to find evidence where there isn't any? Someone help me please. His comments toDay are prone to make my head explode.

Edit: xed with Legate and Nog