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

[Boromir88]

Well, I see a Zilalysis was already...dun.

I won't go linking and quoting him all over again, especially since I think Nerwen's analysis is true (and in general after reading today's posts, I feel good about Nerwen and Shasta. (nice to have you here finally )).

I'm from the "kill the seer right away" school of villainy...but that's also based on I'm always trying to stay upfront and loud. And even if the seer isn't hitting baddies, the more dreams the more information works against the wolves no doubt.

Although, over the years, I've also seen the folks who are quiet, lay low, and are great at avoiding eyes don't always have the seer as "priority number 1" for the first kill. If say their list of possible seers none are drawing attention to their mates, or if they think whoever the seer, caught the eye of the ranger too and thus would be protected, then the sorcerers would much rather go to get their first kill instead.

Inzil seems to fit this...no one was mentioning as a suspect, he was active, and with others throwing around more obvious gifted vibes, they thought Inzil wasn't going to be protected.

I agree with Nerwen it doesn't look like a frame of Lottie or anyone that Zil was suspecting yesterday. Her reasons why are sound.

My bad feelings on Holby are pretty much based on her post #33:

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

It might have been a jest and maybe an innocent would think "hey three evil sorcerers, too bad we can't lynch all three." But it doesn't come off that way...it comes off as "let's vote this group of people (those debating the rule of three) and too bad they all couldn't be lynched...which comes off...bad for Holby.

Lottie it's not any sinister looking quotes like with Holby, but several textbook looking sorcery. Kath's post #54:

Refusal to make a statement alert! But actually I more wanted to point this out to show that Lottie said she thought any squabble here would not be wolf on wolf - just so we remember it in later Days.

I thought this looked off for Kath, because I didn't think Lottie was refusing to make a statement...I mean I followed Lottie as saying she thought for the time being Legate and Lommy's argument were two innocents.

Although, I don't think I read Kath's statement clearly at first, because I overlooked the Kath just so we would remember it "in later Days." Well, Legate was innocent, so Lottie was right it wasn't wolf-on-wolf but these sort of statements where someone acts as the objective observer outside of the argument (Lottie in this case, but I've done it too).

No matter the true roles of the two arguers (2 innocents, 1 wolf 1 innocent, wolf-on-wolf) it makes Lottie look objective and reasonable. "Alright folks let's not get distracted by this, because it's probably just two innocents in a silly curfluffle." Or it's a a small defense/cover for one of Lottie's mates (Lommy). Since it turns out Legate is innocent, more than likely the matter of Lommy's role would be dropped completely.

But again, no matter Lommy's guilt/innocent it makes Lottie look like an objective observer who wasn't part of the argument...and that "I'm inclined they're both innocent" is 1 suspicious mark against Lottie.

Another is in the voting yesterday, I think it was Shasta today who said Lottie seemed almost thankful to have her choices limitted down out the end...which doesn't look innocent. You probably can't tell with my posts, but I was sitting there for the longest time debating in my head whether I had enough bad feeling to put Kath up in a tie, or would it be better to vote Cop/Legate when I wasn't as suspicious and I'm wary of DL wagons...or completely do a copout and vote for McCaber. No one ever makes Day 1 voting easy, but I agree with Shasta, Lottie seemed calm by it all. (Lottie's vote post)

So we have a triple tie between Cop, Kath, and Legate, with no clarifying rules on tie-breakers? Well then.

++Kath

I find her far more suspicious than either Cop or Legate.

And I've got to be heading out now...so it's going to be:

++Lottie

Edit: crossed with Kath, bolding names

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Well, I see a Zilalysis was already...dun.

I love you.


I'll be catching up on narrations throughout the day. Thank you all again for your patience with my stupidly busy schedule during the last few days.

[Nerwen]

Back again.

I’ve been thinking about Loslote and Coppermirror’s reactions to Zil’s death, and neither of them are sitting right with me.

Cop says (#106)

And man, Inzil's killed the time he's finally innocent? We're clearly dealing with very sadistic sorcerers here. Anyway, why might Inzil have been killed? The only things which come to mind are that nobody really suspected him this time, or that they might have thought he was the Seer. Or it could be to lay a false trail to Lottie, I suppose.

Now, this can be interpreted two ways. (That, by the way is the problem I’m having with Cop in general– practically all her posts this game seem to have alternative good/evil readings!) She could just be citing common reasons for a Night One kill. However, from another angle it does have something of a fragment-of-the-nightly-discussion look.

Meanwhile, Lottie says

Maybe this could have been seen as a Seer hint? For the most part, though, Zil was fairly non-committal. He certainly didn't jump in guns blazing saying "x is evil", so I think he was probably a no-trace kill.

Thing is, as I said in my analysis of Zil, his posts taken together might well have given off a gifted vibe, but that one by itself actually doesn’t look much like a hint. Through paranoid eyes, this looks rather like someone who has, in fact, studied Zil’s posts in detail, but wants to appear as if she hasn’t– and is also trying a bit of misdirection.

Again, this is one of those posts that can be can be read different ways, so I really don’t know. And of course, Lottie’s criteria for “looking Seerish” may be quite different from mine anyway– there’s always that.

Still, thought it was worth mentioning.

EDIT:X’d with a host.

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Cop

The first post where Lommy expressed some suspicion of me was #34, so are you referring to your post at #13 where you said "And as for everyone else, I always find Cop suspicious but try no to do so now unless given some reason to do so."? I'm guessing you mean something else.

No, definitely not referring to that!

Originally Posted by Cop

In any case, I'm pretty sure that Holby was talking about your post at #80, where you said you agreed with Lommy's post at #78, and placed your vote. Your most recent post before that one was at #76, where you said you were getting both innocent and guilty vibes and so didn't know about me, so your post at #80 represented a quick swing to stronger suspicion. It looked pretty wagon-jumpy to me, but currently I still can't tell whether it was an innocent wagon-jump from you or an opportunistic one.

Ah. I'm pretty sure you're right about what she meant. Interestingly though, what you do not mention is that Lommy, too, switched quickly to stronger suspicion after your #75. The previous thing she had said about you was

Originally Posted by Lommy

Cop - I thought her a little fishy earlier, bu despite slight wishy-washiness I think her list post looked fairly innocent

She uses the past tense in talking about finding you fishy, indicating that she doesn't any longer. What I had said prior to my list post (the #76 that you mentioned) was that I found your tone forced in one post and that I found your need to underline your innocence fishy. If you look at my list at #76, you, Echo and Holby were the ones I had any issues with, and since Echo had a newbie pass and Holby a newly returned -pass, you were the one I considered voting anyway. Your #75 (which I cross-posted with) made you look very fishy instead of somewhat fishy. Lommy had the same reaction as me but posted it before I did. If that's bandwaggoning, fine.

Other than that - Boro, that was an awful pun!

[A Little Green]

Sally my love, could you clear the lynch thing up? As in, what happens in the case of a tie?

[A Little Green]

A quick list on how fishy you folks are!

1) TINY FISH
Shasta - I quite like what I've seen of him toDay, although the Legate-confusion is slightly odd. Possibly just an innocent blunder though, can't see any great profit in purposefully doing that as a wolf.
Kath - I'm still of the same opinion as yesterDay - she seems more relaxed and chatty than she does when she's evil.
Lommy - Quite comfortable with her still, though she's fooled me before.

2) RELATIVELY SMALL FISH
Steve - I'm not sure. Leaning innocent?

3) MEDIUM FISH
Nerwen - I don't have a read on her, which is not really news. I'll take a look at her if I have time.
Lottie - I'll try to take a look at her toDay, she's under my radar even though she's been quite active.
Boro - He makes a reasonable case against Lottie, but I'd need to reread her first to form an opinion of him.

4) BIG FISH
Cop - What was fishy yesterDay is still fishy toDay. Nothing has particularly jumped at me from her toDay's posting to change my opinion either way.

5) CONFUSING FISH
Echo and Holbytlass - I don't know what either of these two are doing!

6) NO FISH
McCaber - Does he know the game is on?

Therefore, my aim for toDay is to reduce the size of the third and fifth categories, preferably to zero though I'm not sure that's a realistic goal!


EDIT: x-ed since Sally's rule clarification.

[Kath]

Another question for sally - if McCaber doesn't appear toDay will he be modfired? 'Cause if so and he's innocent the numbers get scarier.

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Kath

Another question for sally - if McCaber doesn't appear toDay will he be modfired? 'Cause if so and he's innocent the numbers get scarier.

I'm going to give him a bit of time to show up. I just sent him a message on FB to let him know the game's started, so I assume he'll shuffle over in due course.

[Thinlómien]

Shasta - in general, he seems quite fine, or maybe he's just buddying me up effectively. (I interpreted QTF in the positive sense since google gave me two different meanings for the acronym.) Also there's the confusion about Legate not being dead which would be weird coming from a wolf.

Kath - I don't know why she's getting so much suspicion her way, she seems rather innocent to me. In my experience, wolf!Kath is more wary, and quieter. Although now I maybe have to admit that I didn't really get one of her long posts yesterDay at all, which made me consider her a little weird, but it's been revealed toDay that she's been confused anyway, so maybe it makes sense that she doesn't always make sense. (Cookies to everyone who understood that sentence.)

Nerwen - yesterDay, she was being a bit too nice to my liking. ToDay, she is writing about the wolves' thoughts with a little too insight-ly tone for my liking. She isn't very blatantly wolvish at all and makes a lot of sense but it's the little things.

Copper - I keep flip-flopping on her. Right now I'm kind of wary of how much she's paid attention to what people have been saying about her.

McCaber - hasn't posted at all, has he? I'll contact him on Facebook and ask if he knows the game has started.

Lottie - I suspected her for her standard Day1 fishiness (sorry dear!), then she seemed ok, and now Boro made me suspicious about her again. I need to think, apparently.

Green - is kind of under my radar. I mean, I see her posting, she looks innocent and I don't pay her any more attention. Or like, I pay more attention to her points than to whether she might be a wolf, which is slightly alarming.

Echo - obviously a newcomer, and to be fair, I was a lot less reasoned in my first game. Still, we shouldn't have to dig in order to get his/her reasoning out of him/her. Also I have absolutely no idea what to make of that post explaining Holby's list. Was that serious???

Boro - my bororadar is not concerned at the moment. My gut-feeling about him is good and there's not factual evidence that would make me doubt my gut-feeling. So far, so good.

Eönwë - like a mixture of Boro and Greenie: good gut-feeling and I have no points against him which almost makes me ignore the option that he's a wolf. Will pay more attention to him in the future.


...and in that bunch, there are three wolves? Gosh, I need to start thinking sharper.


edit: xed with all the short posts after Kath's essay

[Kath]

As to Inzil, I would say his questioning about how Saruman would appear to the Seer would have been a clue that he was not the Seer. That is a question far better directed to the mod in private I would have thought!

Shasta seeming to believe that Legate is still alive at the beginning of Day 2 is, I think, suggestive of innocence. If a wolf the Nightly discussions would surely have made it clear to him that Legate was dead as he would not then have been a kill option.

Aaaand that's about all I have right now.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Kath

Echo ~ jumped onto the end of mine and Lommy’s argument over Legate.
Stated: This is quite a good point, kath is suspicious with all the nonsense chatter and trying to point out that she's "innocent
". She doesn't sit right with me.
++ KATH
I would like to ask Echo where I said that I was innocent. If nowhere, then he has made up a reason for voting for me, which I do not like. If somewhere, then I would like an explanation of why doing so makes me suspicious.

And toDay (#126) Echo says you were “talking about things other than the game”, which again doesn’t seem to tally with anything you actually posted. I’m starting to wonder if Echo even knows who you are!

Originally Posted by Kath

As to Inzil, I would say his questioning about how Saruman would appear to the Seer would have been a clue that he was not the Seer. That is a question far better directed to the mod in private I would have thought!

True, but I was thinking of it maybe being taken as part of that obsessed-with-your-role syndrome that gifteds can fall into. (Overall, the evidence of Zil’s “Seerishness” is pretty thin anyway, though.)

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

*cough* *cough* My best beloved, Legate is, tragically, in no condition to answer you.

For the record, I believe it was something he got out of Cop’s early banter.

...Urr. My bad. I completely forgot that I'd typed that in my post as I read down the page.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

In fact Cop (not me) first pointed out the problem very early (#7, the fifth post of the game), so there was no time for anyone to “elect to remain silent” (or to give themselves away through knowing too much). This, in turn, makes me wonder if the village really should be giving either of us “innocence points” just for having drawn attention to the fact.

That's a fair enough point.

Re: Greenie @ 122 - Fair enough. I just think the two posts taken together look strange.

Originally Posted by Lommy

Good to see more of Shasta, who is fishing mild aww points by talking about my lovely voice (without saying it's lovely, gah, if I could quote with this phone I'd just have quoted what he said and commented 'aww' instead of writing this silly rant).

But your voice is lovely, my dear. I thought that was implicit in the fact that it's you.

Originally Posted by Boro re: Holby

It might have been a jest and maybe an innocent would think "hey three evil sorcerers, too bad we can't lynch all three." But it doesn't come off that way...it comes off as "let's vote this group of people (those debating the rule of three) and too bad they all couldn't be lynched...which comes off...bad for Holby.

I don't know that I buy this. I've seen things said purely in jest taken as "evidence" before, and I think it's very rarely ended well.

This, however -

Originally Posted by Boro re: Lottie

But again, no matter Lommy's guilt/innocent it makes Lottie look like an objective observer who wasn't part of the argument...and that "I'm inclined they're both innocent" is 1 suspicious mark against Lottie.

I tend to agree with. I'll want to look at Lottie more today.

Originally Posted by Kath

I must say that this read through does not make me feel very happy about Cop. I rather feel that she pushed at Legate quite hard, and did put him back in the running for the lynch when she voted, although her reasons were voting were at least reasoned and well supported.

Given that Cop herself was in the running for the lynch, it's hard to suspect her for trying to push Legate ahead of her. However, I am a bit curious as to why Cop didn't simply take the "self-preservation" out.

Originally Posted by Kath

Echo, if you are worried that you are being ignored, or not taken seriously, may I suggest that this is why. You have been asked a clear, concise question. Please respond accordingly to gain the respect and co-operation of your fellow players.

QFT.

Originally Posted by Greenie

Therefore, my aim for toDay is to reduce the size of the third and fifth categories, preferably to zero though I'm not sure that's a realistic goal!

So you aren't going to attempt to fry the lone fish in your fourth (and most suspicious) category? You're not really helping me think you innocent, Greenie.

[McCaber]

So there I was, relaxing by the figurative beach, when I got the feeling I had forgotten about something. All of a sudden alarm bells started ringing all over and when I checked my phone it told me that not only had the WW game started, but that I had missed one entire day of action! This is not a good start to my comeback, let me tell you.

But I'm here now, and I'm hurriedly reading the thread. Hopefully you guys didn't do anything too drastic while I was gone.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by McCaber

But I'm here now, and I'm hurriedly reading the thread. Hopefully you guys didn't do anything too drastic while I was gone.

Does lynching Legate count?

Anyway, I can’t put off voting any longer, so

++Coppermirror

I really just can’t make up my mind whether the “evil” reading of her posts is the right one, but I think it’s a possible one, anyway.

(I was tempted to vote Holby for being annoying and obstructive, but it’s a bit early for that. If she keeps on with it, though...)

[McCaber]

Well, seeing as Legate was my innocent, illicit lover and now he's dead, I'd say that counts, Nerwen. Since the role is the innocent lover I can only assume that I'm now playing on the side of the village instead of just for myself. Unless I've lost already, in which case the wolves are free to make me an offer.

Not that I blame you guys for lynching him. I probably would have voted for him too after some of the crap he was posting.