WW CI - Mutton yesterDay, mutton toDay and mutton toMorrow - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Inziladun · 01-30-2013, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Also after a quick reread Nerwen overcame Nog as my third suspect.

Reasons for this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

Actually yeah not really anything will change my mind on this...

++Sally

reasons I stated yesterday haven't changed didn't like How she voted Gil If I was her top suspect the whole time why not vote me? Looks like she just wanted to look like another befuddled ordo.

To be fair, do you not see how your own vote, coming right on the heels of Kath's with no previous suspicion of Sally, looks rather dodgy itself?

Rikae · 01-30-2013, 09:26 AM

I'm not liking this "analyze the two people below you" plan. It was Cop's idea, and it means I'm analyzing Cop; it also means that six people are being analyzed by wizards and that will take up most of the day, giving them a chance to look helpful while doing little. These kinds of analyses are only useful when there is a conclusion, and it's too easy, this way, to analyze without coming to any real conclusion at all (after all, it's just a rote thing, right? Just what you're supposed to do?)

Perhaps we should analyze people we find possibly suspicious? Radical idea, I know.

Rikae · 01-30-2013, 09:32 AM

That said, I'll go along and analyze Sally and Cop.

I hope people are going to compare the way the same person is analyzed by the two people who are supposed to cover him/her.

I really don't like this format, though. It isn't helpful to read a bland summary of every post a person made with no commentary. Couldn't people just mention things that they consider worth commenting on? That, after all, is the sort of thing that makes the analysis reflect on the analyzer as well; it is also much more readable than:
#9 - banter
#13 - more banter
#57 - lots of arguing
etc.

I mean, really.

Loslote · 01-30-2013, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morsul the Dark

reasons I stated yesterday haven't changed didn't like How she voted Gil If I was her top suspect the whole time why not vote me? Looks like she just wanted to look like another befuddled ordo.

But she didn't say you were her 'top suspect all the time'. Just because she suspects you throughout the game doesn't mean she isn't allowed to look at anyone else, or think anyone else is posting suspiciously.

01-30-2013, 09:26 AM	#2
Rikae Mellifluous Maia Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: A glade open to the stars, deep in Nan Elmoth Posts: 3,489	I'm not liking this "analyze the two people below you" plan. It was Cop's idea, and it means I'm analyzing Cop; it also means that six people are being analyzed by wizards and that will take up most of the day, giving them a chance to look helpful while doing little. These kinds of analyses are only useful when there is a conclusion, and it's too easy, this way, to analyze without coming to any real conclusion at all (after all, it's just a rote thing, right? Just what you're supposed to do?) Perhaps we should analyze people we find possibly suspicious? Radical idea, I know.

01-30-2013, 09:32 AM	#3
Rikae Mellifluous Maia Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: A glade open to the stars, deep in Nan Elmoth Posts: 3,489	That said, I'll go along and analyze Sally and Cop. I hope people are going to compare the way the same person is analyzed by the two people who are supposed to cover him/her. I really don't like this format, though. It isn't helpful to read a bland summary of every post a person made with no commentary. Couldn't people just mention things that they consider worth commenting on? That, after all, is the sort of thing that makes the analysis reflect on the analyzer as well; it is also much more readable than: #9 - banter #13 - more banter #57 - lots of arguing etc. I mean, really.