Tol-in-Gaurhoth CIII: Big Magic in Middle Earth Arcane Encampment (Game Thread)

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

I suppose we'll find out from the narration, but right now I don't have much better to discuss, so I might as well. Four makes some sense, but Saruman has his one-shot power as well. That might cause there to be one less, perhaps. But that said, Saruman's power to convert people is very limited in scope.

Moddess has now indicated there are three baddies, including Saruman. Was it Greenie who said not knowing the number could be a sign of innocence? Could be. Anyway, I like Greenie thus far.

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

Anyway, assuming four sorcerers, we have five gifted (including the lovers), and five ordos (if one can call such fine magic users ordinary!). An interesting combination.

As for the Lovers, I would guess the requirement for them to win is as usual: they both have to survive. That means they can't be counted on by either the baddies or the village. Something to keep in mind.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Now this made me think that Zil's gone through people's profiles one by one seeing who's been online when. Why don't I have any problem imagining this...

Nothing so time-consuming. Before I posted I saw someone uncloaked. There must be standards of decency.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Anyway, somebody mentioned the strategy of getting rid of Saruman first of all; clearly that is the best course. But we can't figure out (I assume) who is Saruman and who is "ordinary baddie", so the subject simply comes down to basic Wolf-hunt. Sorry, Sorcerer-hunt.

Indeed. Unless Saruman happens to be scried in the Night I don't see how s(he)'s going to be distinguishable from the other evildoers. I wonder if Saruman would show as such to the Seer anyway.

x/d with Nerwen x 2 and Cop

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

Legate, could you tell me what sort of hidden talking-to-wolves conversation you think could have been hidden in the banter between me and Inzil earlier? Now, I know there is no message, and personally I can't see potential for interpreting the posts in that way either, but I'm deeply interested in what you think it could have been, in the sense that I'm wondering whether you're a sorcerer and you already know there isn't one.

Nope, I said nothing about wolf-to-wolf messages. I was simply musing on the idea of the rule of Three, and (independantly of that) posing the idea whether any of those already posting sound Wolvish. I didn't mean that it sounds like you and Zil would be giving messages to each other, but simply that you sound like somebody who is posting "avoidingly" (see my post above for description), and that it would also be possible that you would be acting that way if you and Zil both were wolves. Purely theoretical thoughts, but what now actually seems fishy to me is your reaction to it. Your last post really does seem like that of a sort of "responsive" Wolf (as in, a Wolf who immediately snaps back at the moment somebody only slightly accidentally brushes it with a ten-foot pole).

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Indeed. Unless Saruman happens to be scried in the Night I don't see how s(he)'s going to be distinguishable from the other evildoers. I wonder if Saruman would show as such to the Seer anyway.

Good question, maybe that is something the Mod could answer as well. Because otherwise the fact that there is a Saruman is not really of much relevance to us, or, as in, we can't do anything about it. Well, if we learned about that, we'd simply lynch him anyway, but just for the sake of knowing... But let's not get tangled into this.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

What? Are you actually treating the rule of three as a serious theory? That's the fishiest thing I've seen today. The rule of three is utter made-up rubbish based on probabilities. I mean, yes, if we are 14 and there are 3 wolves, it's quite likely there is a wolf among the three first posters, but the probability is no bigger than there being a wolf among any given three players - say the three first in alphabetical order (in his case A Little Green, Boro and Coppermirror). There's no point in basing any suspicions on the rule of three.

What? No! I was saying actually the exact opposite. I was saying that it is not a rule, of of course (look at the very first sentence I said!), and cannot be treated as such (I mean, who would be so stupid to think that? Obviously, if all the Wolves are living in some faraway timezone and are still sleeping or something, then of course they won't be posting!). But I was mostly explaining and then using my experience to point out that actually WWs might very often post among the first people, and giving reasons why they might do it if they are around. Probability, that's all. And I said even nothing about first three, I was speaking about "first posters" in general (indefinite number). Simply, that it is likely there have been at least some Wolves posting up to now, and that I think (emphasis on that I only think) that Wolves tend to post early, if they are around (if they are "being sporty" and feeling the moral obligation to speak). That's all.

EDIT: x-posted with Echo, whom I guess nobody here has played with, so I am hoping to see more from her/him to get a better idea about it (anyway, I guess I won't be at least voting for a newbie on the first Day, as I believe is a custom most people here hold anyway... that doesn't mean you can't be suspected though, Echo!)

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Legate

What? No! I was saying actually the exact opposite. I was saying that it is not a rule, of of course (look at the very first sentence I said!), and cannot be treated as such (I mean, who would be so stupid to think that? Obviously, if all the Wolves are living in some faraway timezone and are still sleeping or something, then of course they won't be posting!). But I was mostly explaining and then using my experience to point out that actually WWs might very often post among the first people, and giving reasons why they might do it if they are around. Probability, that's all. And I said even nothing about first three, I was speaking about "first posters" in general (indefinite number). Simply, that it is likely there have been at least some Wolves posting up to now, and that I think (emphasis on that I only think) that Wolves tend to post early, if they are around (if they are "being sporty" and feeling the moral obligation to speak). That's all.

This confuses me. You first say that the Rule of Three doesn't work, and then proceed to explain why it does work? Even your less extreme version of the Rule of Three -logic looks problematic to me. I think (or at least hope) that all players feel a moral obligation to contribute early in the game if they are around, so I don't really see how that applies to wolves more than others.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Lottie did through a period where she got lynched early a lot. It happens. The “why” is not so easy to determine...

But I don’t really like the way Greenie just points out Lottie's track record as a default lynch– without saying what she thinks of her this time. Or the way Cop picks up on it, for that matter.

A random observation, if you want the honest answer. It was pretty much the first thing that occurred to me when Cop mentioned that Lottie would be his pick if he had to name a wolf among the first three posters. (As in, "Oh dear, here we go again. Haven't we seen this before?") And for the record, I think she looks fine this far.

Other than that, I'm liking Lommy this far and feeling more comfortable with Inzil than usual.

[Kath]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

A random observation, if you want the honest answer.

As opposed to an untruthful one?

Greenie though, I don't think that Legate is being problematic with his explanation of the Rule of Three. That 'rule' suggests that one of the first three posters must be a wolf. Legate does not say that, but says that sometimes a bold wolf may be an early poster. Therefore one of the first three posters may be a wolf but it does not necessarily hold that they are a wolf. At least that's how I read what he is saying.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

This confuses me. You first say that the Rule of Three doesn't work, and then proceed to explain why it does work? Even your less extreme version of the Rule of Three -logic looks problematic to me. I think (or at least hope) that all players feel a moral obligation to contribute early in the game if they are around, so I don't really see how that applies to wolves more than others.

I’m confused too– but maybe he just means “if a wolf has already posted..."

Note to newbies (and others), since this is becoming an issue: the Rule of Three is just a joke, not a valid reason for suspecting anyone.

(It does have its uses– talking about it has been known to provoke some interesting reactions...)

Originally Posted by Greenie

A random observation, if you want the honest answer. It was pretty much the first thing that occurred to me when Cop mentioned that Lottie would be his pick if he had to name a wolf among the first three posters. (As in, "Oh dear, here we go again. Haven't we seen this before?") And for the record, I think she looks fine this far.

Fair enough. Coppermirror is a “she”, by the way.

EDIT: X’d with Kath.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Note to newbies (and others), since this is becoming an issue: the Rule of Three is just a joke, not a valid reason for suspecting anyone.

(It does have its uses– talking about it has been known to provoke some interesting reactions...)

Then again, it could also have been useful to see if someone actually did try to use that as an excuse to justify a vote.

[Loslote]

Time to get down to business.

I feel pretty good about Cop just now. I'm a bit shaky on Greenie, but thus far leaning innocent. Her 'honest answer' specifically feels innocentish. Plus, her Rule-o'-Three squabble with Legate definitely seems like something two innocents would do rather than an innocent and a wolf. Maybe two wolves, but that'd be bold. I'm inclined to think them both innocent just now, with maybe a hesitant question mark tacked onto the end of that statement. Lommy strikes me as a little less innocent, but nothing that shoves her into 'terrifying sorcerer' territory just yet.

I have no read whatsoever on Zil, Kath or Nerwen. That's where I'll be focusing my attention now, but I do have lab work to get done (and a lab class to go to) so depending on how dense Galileo turns out to be, I might be a bit quiet toDay.

[Holbytlass]

how 'bout voting for these confusing debaters of the "rule of three"-too bad we cant "lynch of three"


highly suspect
Shasta
Nerwen
Green
Boro
Steve

very suspect
Kath
Dun
Cop

much suspect
Lottie
Echo
Legate
Lommy

innocent
McCobbler


it should be plainly obvious my reasonings!!