Tol-in-Gaurhoth CXIV – The Evil Breath of Morgoth in Dor-lómin, game thread

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Okay! Back, a quick runthrough of what's been posted meanwhile (I'm kinda glad it's just one page and not seven, as I feared. But it's a long way to DL still...) Responding to various stuff as I go...

Originally Posted by THE Ka

Rushed villagers may not purposefully lie to distract, but if someone is anxious and doesn't have much evidence they might try to prove themselves by stretching the truth quite a lot (grabbing at straws). Sort of the same way that forced confessions are often useless. There is the unfortunate possibility we could end up with a different kind of bandwagon, not by votes for a player, but a lot of bunk confessionals that sound similar except for a few minor details changed to make it more personable.

It happens always (and happened to me in particular quite a few times). But WWs would still be more threatened by it than innocents, I think.

Originally Posted by THE Ka

Let's say the latest in the QT thread is a wolf and by some way this happens where there is a tie. The wolf is obviously going to know who their compatriots are, could they throw the vote from the GT?
It would take a bit of finagling and if there is a mix of roles in QT obviously the villagers would know and outvote anything the wolf is trying to suggest. If successful even once it could be the evening of odds they want...

We also have the 'non-logical' hunter role in game this time:


This is an interesting mechanic, because it does make even a 'bad vote' more complicated. If they take a villager, then there is at least more votes in their favour in the QT. If it's a wolf, sure it removes them from the GT, but if there's another wolf already in the QT it could lead them to trying alternate attempts to steal a vote.
It would be interesting if wolves in QT didn't vote together, however. Granted the number in QT would be significantly smaller than in the GT to try and use the 'spread suspicion by voting for one another' tactic, but it would make you pause and wonder why.

Yes, I think that's an interesting possibility, but 1) it's a what-if and 2) it's about one-in-a-thousand chance for such a thing to happen in the first place (several conditions would have to be met). Let's remember this and bring it up in case we find ourselves in such a situation, but now, it's pure speculation not very relevant for the moment.

Speaking of that, I also don't know why some people *glances in the direction of Pitch and G55* were spending so much time discussing last-minute voting and stuff. Last-minute voting will happen no matter what, it has been like that since the dawn of time, discussing it has about as much merit as discussing whether the village should try to lynch Wolves in order to win.

I mean the theory about when are wolf-on-wolf votes more likely etc is a good point, but it will be relevant only in retrospect, and only after we have confirmed at least one Wolf's identity.

Originally Posted by Brinniel

I agree. This seems rather complicated considering we all are in different time zones with different schedules. It could result in a logistical nightmare.

Well (and ad "second deadline" in general): if people agreed to it, it would work. I mean some people vote early anyway. Where there's a will... But if not, then not. It served as an interesting thought experiment, and a discussion material, it seems, at least.

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

Only a cobbler would accuse another of shoemaking so very early.

Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin

So did Lady Macbeth.

Given that Shasta has been a known psychic throughout the entire WW history, I say this means Lommy is a Cobbler and Pitch is a Wolf. Unless, of course, Shasta himself is something sinister.

Originally Posted by Rikae

Oh ... hello! I'm sorry, I've just been busy making these masks. They have pockets!

Hey! Been waiting for one of those!

Originally Posted by Rikae

When it comes to single top suspects vs lists, both have their pros and cons and leave material to analyze later on. Me, I like lists. Here's one, just to get the ball rolling:

Pitchwife
G55
Macalaure

But you didn't indicate what is that a list of. Of what? Top suspects?

Last thought: I second Lommy and Greenie about not focussing on Cobbler. I think that's about the extent of that we should give them. We are likely to accidentally lynch them anyway, mistaking them for a Wolf, but every post spent on discussing the Cobbler is only more distraction from our main goal. Which is exactly what the Cobbler wants. Talk about vicious circle.

EDIT: x-ed with Huinesoron, Kath and Zil

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Hi all,

Nice to see day 1 banter spiralling out of control, it convinces me that things haven't changed too much over the years.

I will attempt to following the action closely during the day, but it will probably be 3 or 4 hours before I can put together a lengthy post.

For now let me just say that I am pro anything that leaves more data for us to analyse, so in principle I am not against making preliminary votes a thing. As long as we don't take a dogmatic approach that would leave the system open for wolfish exploitation (but that goes for pretty much everything).

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Kath

Ah, Eonwe has the same gist of the whole thing as I do. It's a bit of a relief to have someone else see it the same way by this point! And Hui, although he seems to be suggesting a Pitch-Legate wolf duo as well.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I'm trying to decide whether I think Legate or G55 makes me more uneasy.

I don't know that I particularly suggested Pitch-Legate; I just can't see what wolf!Legate would be up to. He's deliberately drawn attention to himself, and if Pitch was working with him, it would be to take that focus off G55.

But on the other hand, this:

Originally Posted by Legate

Speaking of that, I also don't know why some people *glances in the direction of Pitch and G55* were spending so much time discussing last-minute voting and stuff.

Coming from the person who was so involved in swinging the conversation due voting practices, this feels slightly disingenuous. (On the other hand, my memory of how hard Legate pushed the whole topic might be skewed by the number of people saying he pushed it.)

Originally Posted by Rune

For now let me just say that I am pro anything that leaves more data for us to analyse, so in principle I am not against making preliminary votes a thing. As long as we don't take a dogmatic approach that would leave the system open for wolfish exploitation (but that goes for pretty much everything).

I will always support anything with 'data' in the description. ^_^ The longer the paper trail (tail?) the wolves leave, the easier they'll be to catch. But two caveats:

a) We're well past halfway through Day 1, and a bunch of people are asleep. A general 'state your voting intention well before deadline' seems plausible, but I'm not sure there's time to get a solid commitment from the village on Day One. (Of course, choosing not to not!vote is evidence in itself...)

b) Someone (can't find it now) said that we'd need to remember that the voting environment changes before deadline, and I totally agree. If we're shaping up for a near tie between someone I think is maybe guilty and someone I think looks generally fine, then I'm not going to stick by my third-party vote and let the more likely innocent be quarantined!

I think that's been assumed in this discussion, but I'm not sure anyone's come out and said it, and I'm not great with subtext.

(Work update: this is my fourth post, but I've already caught myself checking incoming work emails to see if they might come from wolves. This game gets in your head...)

hS (crossed w/ Kitanna and Zil)

[Lalaith]

Oof. Three pages of posts already. Five wolves in there somewhere causing chaos, with a cobbler urging them on.
I'd better get reading....

[Boromir88]

Before leaving I had spent a lot of time with this on my mind. Now, now, it's not a "list" per se, more my general perceptions of behavior and style. Please feel free to correct if any of this is wrong.

Thinlómien - usually can get a good feeling of "ordo," from her famed "flip-floppy" style. Even within the same comment, it's like witnessing a debate with herself. Harder to sense if she's gifted or evil, because she'll be the same regardless. But as evil, her flip-flopping looks more practiced and rehearsed and not that feeling of "an ordo naturally debating and second-guessing herself all the time."

Legate of Amon Lanc - The theorizer, expect long analytical approach. Someone who always wants to be in the thick of the conversation. Someone I inevitably, if both of us are around in the later days, end up in a fight with that consumes an entire day (at minimum)

Huinesoron - newer player. Can't peg him into an expected style. Previously, appeared to be the sort who wants to get his hands in there and be involved in everything.

Loslote - in a similar way to sally, I get a sense she strives to have fun. Does leave a lengthier insight to follow by way of her reasoning/voting rationale.

Pitchwife - loves the Day 1 statistics stuff. Tends to be more active and will get involved/engage in just about everything. Despite that, an air that he does like holding his thoughts back.

Kath - I really just want to know when the next time she'll remember a Day 1 vote deadline? Flies under the radar in a few contributions per day. The few contributions do get rather lengthy, in terms of providing insight and then you see why it's usually just 1-2 posts a day. Sooo long.

Galadriel55 - Can seem random. I'd describe it as inquisitive. Does not shy away from asking any question to any one.

Lhunardawen - She goes back to the very beginning times. I've got to reach deep back in my memory to recall her style. The one this exercise will help me in the least, since she's like a newcomer, but not a newcomer. Add to "fly under the radar" group.

Inziladun - I get a distinct sense that I always want to lynch Inzil Day 1. Do you get that too? No matter what, maybe it's a lynchable looking neck, I get this uncontrollable voice on Day 1 that says "vote to lynch Inzil." Then the voice subsides after Day 1. Count him in the gets into the conversation/engaging group.

Kitanna - Add to "fly under the radar" group. Analytical and perceptive.

A Little Green - Tries to give off the impression that she's "flying under the radar" but perception tells me she's the opposite. Whether innocent or wolf, if she's got the time, there's a good bet she strives to be involved in the big stuff, but likes to give off a different impression.

Boromir88 (Chime in with whatever floats your boats)

Urwen -No prior data to form anything.

Lalaith - Regardless of role, add to "fly under the radar" group. Additionally, I'd say reliable to make votes and deadlines.

Brinniel - Add to "fly under the radar" group. Regardless of role is adept at avoiding suspicion/attracting attention. A contrarian to the accepted norms.

Eönwë - Add to "fly under the radar" group. Straight to business approach. Been too long to form more solid impression.

Macalaure - No joke, but the 1 person who frightens me more than any one else I've encountered. Prefers to be involved. Not someone I want to end up in a fight with, because only one of us comes out and my money is on Mac.

Rikae - a wild card. I have trouble pinpointing/figuring out whether what she's trying to accomplish is good or evil. But regardless of role, strives to accomplish something.

Rune Son of Bjarne - Been a long time for Rune as well. I'd assign to a "not a list maker" group. When there is the time, he does prefer to get involved. Opposite of Legate's lengthy, analytical approach. Rune takes the shorter, one-on-one interaction approach.

THE Ka - A long time for The Ka as well...add to "fly under the radar" group. Can't recall anything more solid to go off of.

Satansaloser2005 - silly, silly cupcake. Strives to brighten up a place with her silliness. Funny how you can see the differences in how our minds work. I used a double-negative to express I'll return a goofball. She didn't use a negative to assure the same. Regardless of role, prefers not to leave a long trail to follow. Any solid conclusions, primarily based on her votes.

Shastanis Althreduin - sometimes is engaged, sometimes less engaged, but someone I always want to keep tabs on. Similar to Rikae, in hard for me to pinpoint between good or evil intentions, but strives to always be up to something.

Will any of this help me with decisions and more decision? Eh, who knows, but instead of having all that floating around in my head. "Putting it all down on paper" as they say, gets it out of my head. Onwards and upwards to more exercises that will further organize my head.

Assumed edit: that this x-ed with some people.

[Boromir88]

So, groups of tabs...

The don't have to keep a tab on because they let you know when they are present in that "in your face" style group:

Lommy
Legate
G55
Pitch
Inzil

The keep a tab on because they "fly under the radar" and I lack a solid memory group:

Lhuna
Kit
Eonwe
The Ka

The keep a "slightly lesser tab on because they fly under the radar" but I have a better memory of group:

Kath
Lalaith
Brinn

The keep a tab on because of they're a wild card, but let their plots play out and then we should probably lynch them group:

Greenie
Rikae
Shasta

Edit: accidentally hit enter before finishing my groups :-( ahh I'll just continue into the next post

[Boromir88]

The keep a tab on to always be aware of where they are group:

Mac
Rune

The don't have to keep a tab on group because I'm always aware of where they are group:

sally
Lottie

The keep a tab on because I have no tab on group:

Huinesoron
Urwen

Onto finish page 3 and cast a "fake" vote. I read that whole situation as more like a guideline or recommendation, not an enforced mandate. Although I sort of missed the part about a second "fake dl" to tie it into the QT's deadline to vote. That's kind of important to the plan and would be a logistics nightmare. My intention is to try it as a guideline and exercise for myself.

[Pitchwife]

So I'm kind of alive after staying up way too long last night and have read most of what has transpired in the meantime, trying to take notes at first but gave up on that because of Achilles & the turtle (the size of this village is insane).


Why did I pressure Legate rather than G55 re the fake votes? The difference between

1) G55 throwing out an idea to stir up a discussion, and

2) Legate picking it up and going "Oh yes that's a good idea let's totally do that!", when I thought it was a) not helpful and b) needlessly overcomplicating things. But my last note on him, on his reply to G55 in #44, was 'actually sensible?'



Speaking of overcomplicating things, where did this whole idea of waiting for guidance from the QT come from? And why would we 'always have to second-guess' the QT vote, as G55 said in #56? Unless there's a quarantined Seer AND the majority of the Cuties are innocent, the QT vote is just another vote that may be rght or wrong or misguided or driven by evil intentions like everybody else's. No way for us to know.

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Before leaving I had spent a lot of time with this on my mind. Now, now, it's not a "list" per se, more my general perceptions of behavior and style. Please feel free to correct if any of this is wrong.

...

Boromir88 (Chime in with whatever floats your boats)

I have a minute right now, so I'm gonna go ahead and talk through my impressions on Boro so far. Boro is a bold player, especially as a wolf, in my experience. I'm getting a strong "brewing potential" vibe from Boro so far today - a sense of "big, bold plays may be coming" - which could very easily go innocent or wolf, given his playing style. I keep feeling like there's no reason for me to make a judgement call either way until he starts making his moves. I don't necessarily suspect him right now, and I would not vote for him toDay, but I am definitely going to keep an eye on him.

xed with Kath and Rikae

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

a) We're well past halfway through Day 1, and a bunch of people are asleep. A general 'state your voting intention well before deadline' seems plausible, but I'm not sure there's time to get a solid commitment from the village on Day One. (Of course, choosing not to not!vote is evidence in itself...)

b) Someone (can't find it now) said that we'd need to remember that the voting environment changes before deadline, and I totally agree. If we're shaping up for a near tie between someone I think is maybe guilty and someone I think looks generally fine, then I'm not going to stick by my third-party vote and let the more likely innocent be quarantined!

I think agree with these points.

Regarding b) this is what i mean about us being undogmatic in our approach. Circumstances change and we will have to adapt, so there should never be an automated response to a person deviating from their preliminary vote (or previous statements for that matter). They should however be able to defend it to a reasonable extent.

[Lhunardawen]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I don't know when it happened, but I got to a point of "on this one day, Boro, you can do you. Why shouldn't you have fun with it?"

You mean like this?

++NILPAURIO-- I mean

++LHUNARDAWEN

Now that that's out of the way...

Originally Posted by G55

Dismissing early posts because of the "nothing really happens" argument is dismissing part of the evidence.

But they barely feel like evidence taken in isolation toDay. Cumulatively in the coming Days, maybe, but very rarely toDay.

Originally Posted by Mac

Worse, the day after people will be too quick to jump on those who changed their mind from one deadline to the next. Wolves, on the other hand, lacking conscience, will have a very easy time showing consistency.

Sounds right. The only logical reason a wolf would swing a last-minute vote from a non-wolf would be to protect a fellow wolf; it's far too early in the game to sacrifice a packmate (unless they play a bold game since there are a lot of them anyway). And with a village this large, the odds are still higher that votes will be cast against an innocent than a wolf.

Originally Posted by Rikae

I was referring to not voicing serious suspicions before the QT vote, which would make for a very unproductive day, no trails, lazy justifications. and a good environment for wolves to hide, which is why (I hope) innocents will avoid doing it.

Agree. I'd be wary of those who take too much stock of the QT vote when considering their own vote.

Originally Posted by Greenie

I mean, sure, if the only Cuties are innocent you can trust they won’t vote for an innocent person on purpose, but while they might have conversations we’re not privy to, they don’t know anything more than we do. (This is barring the existence of a Cutie Seer, obviously, in which case I agree Cutie votes should have more weight in our decision-making.)

I don't know. I mean, even if the Seer dreams of a wolf, if xe dies without revealing their dream(s), it's as good as nothing for the living. It doesn't seem safe for the living to assume that just because the Seer is in the QT and they vote for someone, that means the Seer dreamt that that someone is a wolf. Does that make sense? More to the point, am I making sense out of how a dead thread works? Newcomer here, never played with one.

Originally Posted by Lommy

I gotta applaud Legate for getting the discussion rolling by taking G55's fake lynch idea seriously and running with it; however I'm very confused why he'd do this (ordo trying to be helpful? wolf trying to look helpful? cobbler trying to distract people?).

Any role trying to gauge reactions for whatever purpose (like Rikae did)?

Originally Posted by Hui

*I'm a scientist; I can't bring myself to say 'theory' on so little data.

Oh, a Downer after my own heart.

Originally Posted by Kath

Why do I feel like if Nilp was here he'd jump at the chance to self-vote and try it out?

Not a wolf, but Nilp made me do this.

Originally Posted by Hui

Work update: this is my fourth post, but I've already caught myself checking incoming work emails to see if they might come from wolves.

Hmm? Is this a slip?



Since I've always struggled reading much into Day 1 banter - yes, even the ones with debates over crazy plans that never come to fruition - and my post-work brain has pretty much turned to mush, I will let my gut take charge. These are who I feel uneasy about so far toDay:

Brinn - just enough input to be visible, but feels careful. Noncommittal. Slippery.

Zil - if he's a wolf, he'll just hide under a cover of making sense.

Kitanna - jumpy, but maybe just an anxious ordo

Mac - scary. Yep, despite having only one post (I think) so far.

Boro - I don't know, I just don't trust him. And with 59 games under his belt, he seems like he's capable of unfathomable depths of deceit.

The rest fall into the categories of either talkative, speculative, and argumentative yet genuinely helpful OR practically non-existent. Or Shasta.


Ugh, I'm too tired, it's getting late, this took longer than I expected.


(Crossposted with likely so many people I won't even bother to enumerate)

[Kitanna]

For someone so against, or possible skeptical of their use to him, Boro certainly has made a few. All of which kind of say the same thing. "These are people under the radar, these are people I think are wild cards, etc."

Originally Posted by Boro

Boromir88 (Chime in with whatever floats your boats)

Speaks and seems logical on the surface, but on delving deeper, doesn't really say much.

Originally Posted by Mac

I find it funny how Legate was all reasonable and discuss-the-matter originally, and now he goes after all the people who cast that little bit of shadow on him.

His response does seem like a natural response when a player comes under fire like he did. Not to say I absolve him, but it doesn't strike me as overly wolfy behavior.
In the whole Legate, G55, and Pitch discussion I'd wager there's a wolf hidden, setting up two innocents to take the bait. Yet each time I read back, I switch who I think is most likely the wolf.
I thought Legate might be the innocent party until post #88
Something about the whole post feels, I don't know, contrived? I can't place my finger on it. Like G55 it feels like he's distancing himself from the fake DL, fake vote discussion.
I'm finding it hard to explain why this sets me off, but I'm going to try in the most coherent way.
Legate drew a lot of attention, but I didn't really feel many were overly suspicious of him. There's been some talk, but nothing to indicate everyone is convinced and ready to bandwagon. I'd say more people raised eyebrows toward G55 and Pitch, myself included, because of how G55 distanced herself from her idea and how Pitch threw it all into Legate's lap. In all that, Legate did look like a misguided, attempting to be helpful innocent. But maybe that's how he wants to be viewed? He's been helpful, at least, in stirring up conversation. And yet, his list post of his thoughts in #88 just rings of false platitudes and him trying to put himself under the radar again. He came, he made a lot of noise, and now just there with a list.

[Brinniel]

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

The only logical reason a wolf would swing a last-minute vote from a non-wolf would be to protect a fellow wolf; it's far too early in the game to sacrifice a packmate (unless they play a bold game since there are a lot of them anyway). And with a village this large, the odds are still higher that votes will be cast against an innocent than a wolf.

Not necessarily. I've been in games where a wolf was lynched on Day 1 and a packmate went unsuspected for a long time because they were partly responsible for lynching them. It's certainly a risky move, but can pay off for a wolf who is daring enough.

FYI, I am doing my best to keep up here, but seeing that I'm in the midst of my workday up until deadline, my participation is limited.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Defend, hm? Just jokingly summarizing the initial conversation. I was curious to see what sort of reaction it would get, though.

And I jokingly called you out on deliberately summarizing incorrectly. This only serves to sow confusion and derail the village, or give people (you most of all) an excuse to vote based on, frankly, false grounds if the vote is based off this post. My point still stands.

Originally Posted by Rikae

I was referring to not voicing serious suspicions before the QT vote, which would make for a very unproductive day, no trails, lazy justifications. and a good environment for wolves to hide, which is why (I hope) innocents will avoid doing it.

Ah, gotcha. Agreed.

Originally Posted by A Little Green

I also disagree with Gal about lists being vague and useless. I personally find them quite helpful; without them it’s easy to stick to talking about the loudest, most controversial villagers and topics and let others fly under the radar completely. This tends to serve wolves better than innocents since odds are at least some of them are among the quiet, less attention-seeking crowd. I’m not saying everyone should do lists, just that I think they can be just as revealing as fake votes (if not more).

Oh yes, making sure you go through everyone is crucial. However, the problem with a list is it can go like this: "I find, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z most suspicious, but maybe not, and I'll see where the wind blows before making up my mind on my preferred candidate". Or, "I don't even know who I am suspicious of right now, everyone seems ok, my vote will be wrong anyways" (classic D1 list, no?). Having to pick one person while you make your list has the benefit of then making you have a good explanation if you change your mind.

As for wolves maintaining consistency more easily than innocents - that is true, however wolf-on-wolf wagons would be harder to do as everything often hangs so closely in the balance. Do you try to save your mate, or go against them? It becomes a lot trickier to hide those decisions.

Originally Posted by Kath

There's been some talk about Cobbler-identifying along the way as well. But the rules state that the Cobbler counts for the Innocent tally, so picking them out over finding wolves doesn't really help matters.

No one cobbler hunts over wolf hunting, but shouldn't it be a sort of secondary goal? And precisely for the reason that you say: the cobbler counts as an innocent. If you have a known cobbler, you have a known innocent. If you have a suspected cobbler, you have a suspected innocent. So you should be wary of what they say, but if it comes to voting for a suspected wolf vs a suspected cobbler, it's very useful to decide for yourself which baddie you think is which.

Originally Posted by Kath

So Pitch, Lottie, Inzil, Brinn (Brinn quite vociferously!) are firmly against the no lynch. And Pitch seems to feel Legate is the instigator of it, but really I feel that honour goes to G55. I think I'm reading Legate's comments as still with a real vote, whereas G55's suggest no actual vote. And then G55 adds to that focus on Legate.

So was G55 just putting the idea out there to see who would bite? She specifically states here (post 38 - I cannot work out this quoting thing) that she isn't in favour of her own idea. Now, Day 1 discussion can be tough. I mean look, it's her idea that's meant I can really write anything, so on the one hand this is brilliant. It's got people talking, it means there's something to say! But she does seem to be backing away from it quite sharply.

So let me clarify a couple things. There is my Post #26, where I ask a purely hypothetical question, with no intention of going through with any variant of the No Votes idea. Then comes Legate's #31, where he is quite enthusiastic, but as it turns out he was talking about a *different* variation of the idea. Therefore, he was called out on being enthusiatic about a dumb thing, but then applauded for actually being logical when he explained himself later - and why he is, in your later words, the "ringleader" of the idea. And therefore I, when asking the somewhat silly question, did not expect it to evolve to something that could be practically applied, which is why I had to give the *modified and applicable* idea some thought, just like everyone else.

So while you untangle who said what and who is the baddie behind it, try not to get tangled too. It gets messy.


Speaking of hypothetical ideas, this scenario kinda came into my mind last night. So, it's the EndGame, and alive are Wolf, Hunter (hunting the Wolf), and Ordo. Ordo dies. Wolf devours Hunter, but Hunter takes down the wolf. Does either side win?

Originally Posted by Kath

Cobbler discussion came up again. I can't work this out with my shoddy maths. So, the Cobbler counts for the innocents, but if the Cobbler ends up in the QT and their role is known, and the role of any wolves in the QT is also known, does that then advantage the wolves in terms of numbers and help them control the vote - because they all know who each other is even if they can't communicate and so would all just vote the same if that would beat/tie the vote. I was just trying to work out whether trying to keep them in the Game Thread would be a better option, because at least here they don't know who the wolves are. But then their role wouldn't be confirmed either. Ugh.

As in keeping the person you suspect as a cobbler alive on purpose? Certainly, if there is a person you suspect to be a wolf, because the cobbler doesn't count as a baddie in the tally. But surely, in terms of voting outcomes, a dead cobbler is better than a living cobbler when it comes to votes? After all, the QT just votes once collectively, which means the cobbler may or may not affect the choice of recipient. But a living cobbler always gets a vote. And gets to say a lot of things that mess with the village's head besides.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

But you didn't indicate what is that a list of. Of what? Top suspects?

I am confused by your question. Is it that my humour receptors didn't kick in yet, or are you seriously asking if that list is a suspects list - which it obviously is? Like, it's not a list of Boro's groceries. I'm just confused.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

As opposed to unplanned votes?

:-D

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Waitawhat? I only said he looked like a cobbler.

Yes, and that's just one of the problems with that post.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Speaking of overcomplicating things, where did this whole idea of waiting for guidance from the QT come from? And why would we 'always have to second-guess' the QT vote, as G55 said in #56? Unless there's a quarantined Seer AND the majority of the Cuties are innocent, the QT vote is just another vote that may be rght or wrong or misguided or driven by evil intentions like everybody else's. No way for us to know.

Yes, that's what I'm getting at. The QT vote can't be treated as a "known dead innocent" (possibly misguided, but still innocent). Because if it's the dead wolves dominating the vote, they know who to vote for. Which actually gives us more information than if the QT is innocently dominated. However, who knows what sort of chaos would be going on in the QT discussions.

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

++LHUNARDAWEN

You listened! <3

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

Hmm? Is this a slip?

I doubt it, because I can sympathize. Usually during a game I'll have at least one dream where something really weird happens in the game, and will have to check the thread to make sure it hasn't actually happened. The game does get in your head.


I am at post 104. I have probably crossed with many as it took me a loooong time to write this. Will comment on the rest in a bit, and some brief thoughts to follow.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Why did I pressure Legate rather than G55 re the fake votes? The difference between

1) G55 throwing out an idea to stir up a discussion, and

2) Legate picking it up and going "Oh yes that's a good idea let's totally do that!", when I thought it was a) not helpful and b) needlessly overcomplicating things. But my last note on him, on his reply to G55 in #44, was 'actually sensible?'

Ah, thank you. I won't say I'm 100% convinced - I don't remember getting the same feel as you describe from the G55/Legate posts before yours - but having some explanation helps.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Mac, really? You find it odd how I pinned the no-vote stuff on Legate, when earlier you yourself found it just as odd how enthusiastic he was about it? Now that I find odd! *ping*

... up until you become the fourth (third, if we accept Boro's assertion that he wasn't stating suspicion) person pointing fingers at Macalaure, which I still don't see.

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

Hmm? Is this a slip?

Hah, I never even thought of that reading. Oddly enough, I did get a misdirected email today which went quiet very quickly when I said as much, so I think Customer Analytical Services looks veeeery suspicious right now.

hS

(Crossed with Kitanna)

[Lhunardawen]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Unless there's a quarantined Seer AND the majority of the Cuties are innocent, the QT vote is just another vote that may be rght or wrong or misguided or driven by evil intentions like everybody else's. No way for us to know.

THIS.

Mac is amusing. But still scary.

Now to bed. I will wear a face mask as I sleep; I suggest you all do the same. Maybe this way the Evil Breath won't get us, who knows.

[Pitchwife]

Some thoughts on people I haven't talked about yet:


Brinn - low profile, mostly sounds very sensible, but could be anything. In #70 she almost copies Rikae's shortlist from the post before, with the exception of swapping Mac for Zil. I dunno, would that be too blatant for a baddie?
Then there's the short debate between her and G55 about whether dead wolves can PM. If either of them were a wolf, you'd expect they'd already have discussed that at Night, and possibly asked Nog about it, so this looks innocent, right? Unless that is what it's supposed to look like.



Ka - sensible, sounds genuine but mostly discusses mechanics, no or little opinions on people as far as I've seen. Could be anything.


Boro - his bubbly attitude of "it's D1, enjoy it, anything goes" is not what I'd expect from a wolf. Unless it's a facade, but leaning innocentish for now.


(tbc)

[THE Ka]

Had to sleep and drive some family into work, but I'm back and wow there's a lot to read backwards...

Originally Posted by Brinniel

If he's evil, he's being rather bold, and if he's innocent, a wolf could use his posts to build a case against him. Then again, there could be no wolves involved and they are just quietly letting this play out.

I’m not getting the inclination of much wolfish behavior, even a bold one. You could argue it’s an attempt to just distract villagers from having the time to deduct their own theories by forcing them to both come up with something on the spot and defend themselves with the equivalent of sticks and stones. Then again, the last few hours around DL are typically the same and a veritable gold mine of information the next day.

Only thing is, as much as it disagrees with some of our play styles, it sounds more an attempt to just generate enough evidence in a large group to later sift through. Considering the group in whole is looking like it’s somewhat evenly divided along two main time zone groups, it obviously isn’t going to work for some of us on the outlier which makes it mechanically unappealing. Killing off someone just because they don’t reside in a convenient time zone to you is some bad taste, so it would be difficult to force the entire group into it.

It is a bold suggestion though, but I don’t think ultimately beneficial to a wolf unless they’re exclusively going to play big and bold the entire time (which doesn’t help their fellows from scrutiny unless their whole plan is for one to carry the team, which is rather silly).

It’s the inversion of the typical ‘shake the tree and see what falls out’ approach most of us take and more of a ‘chop the whole thing down and see what it pins beneath and what flies away’. Looking back, it is a newer attempt than what some of us are used to, but I think it was a more genuine attempt to force people to generate opinions. Even disagreeing with its method, I can’t outright find a good reason to fault it as ‘wolf behaviour’. We’re associating the idea with Legate though because they were the first to analyze it at length.

Originally Posted by G55

D1 + N2 = 2 players to vote on D2. I believe the thread is inactive at Night, and in any case voting only happens during the Day.

Laying in bed last night when I should’ve been sleeping, I realized this at 3AM… You’re right there would still be the one chosen by vote and the one off’ed in the Night phase.

Originally Posted by A Little Green

it’s easy to stick to talking about the loudest, most controversial villagers and topics and let others fly under the radar completely. This tends to serve wolves better than innocents since odds are at least some of them are among the quiet, less attention-seeking crowd.

Similar reason why I am doubting a wolf group would have a plan to just make one of their number as brash and vocal as possible. It might work if we’ve never played before, but for some of us, we know better than to think there wouldn’t be some wolves assuring themselves safety behind any number of theories. I’m not immediately suspicious of the first person to jump behind whoever has the biggest argument. It’s the third or fourth person after it looks like the previous two haven’t been attacked for doing so I’m observing.
I’d be afraid of our wolves flipping the script and doing what we’d least expect, but then I have to remind myself that there is a good possibility some of them are as out of it as we are and don’t really have the security of ‘new tricks’ to try out.

Originally Posted by Inzil

I think overly analyzing the QT vote is ill-advised. As noted, the predominant alignment of those there will be known, and we just keep that in mind when we see their vote. Even if they're mostly Innocent, they could be wrong.

To a point, yes. I guess since we are it’s beta testers we won’t know how it performs until at least after the first few Days. Considering that we’ve confirmed all roles in QT can PM one another (and wolves to fellow wolves) during their night phase, the QT could be used as a ‘second chance’ to try other methods out for both villagers and wolves. They might not vote how we’d prefer of them, whether wrong or no to what we’re championing in the GT.

Originally Posted by Inzil

Of course! Then there's more reason to bandwaggon the accuser!

Alright, I legitimately laughed out loud at this.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Kath

There's been some talk about Cobbler-identifying along the way as well. But the rules state that the Cobbler counts for the Innocent tally, so picking them out over finding wolves doesn't really help matters. I recall games where knowing someone was the Cobbler was a relief because at least you could then just ignore the crazy, though!

Right. For wolves, they want to know who it is so as not to kill xem. Everyone else just wants to be able to discount what they say and do.

Originally Posted by Kath

Legate then seems quite keen on the idea! But I can't work out whether he means that people should say their votes and then actually vote, because of where he says about flip-flopping here, which suggests he means they could change their minds between stating who they would vote for and then actually voting. Rather than saying who you would vote for but then not voting. If the former, that strikes me as just the same as what people normally do, where they make a list or put forward an idea of who they might vote for a while before the deadline - which I think most people tend to do. If the latter ... it still makes no sense.

It was all about basically saying who you would vote for ahead of actually doing it. Just formalizing it in a way.

Originally Posted by Kath

So was G55 just putting the idea out there to see who would bite? She specifically states here (post 38 - I cannot work out this quoting thing) that she isn't in favour of her own idea. Now, Day 1 discussion can be tough. I mean look, it's her idea that's meant I can really write anything, so on the one hand this is brilliant. It's got people talking, it means there's something to say! But she does seem to be backing away from it quite sharply.

And left it looking like Legate's ball.

Originally Posted by Kath

Interesting. Does this suggest a wolf ending up in the QT early on could be an advantage to the wolves? Because if they were there the first QT day they could control the vote? I suppose after that they're pretty much useless, though. Why do I feel like if Nilp was here he'd jump at the chance to self-vote and try it out?

Not useless, because they can still try to mislead the Innocents in the QT by going after their fellows. They still have the advantage of knowing who's on which side.

Originally Posted by Kath

I'd say the biggest problem with this whole discussion was the use of the phrase: fake vote. Why on earth didn't they get called: planned votes?

As opposed to unplanned votes?

Originally Posted by Kath

So, the Cobbler counts for the innocents, but if the Cobbler ends up in the QT and their role is known, and the role of any wolves in the QT is also known, does that then advantage the wolves in terms of numbers and help them control the vote - because they all know who each other is even if they can't communicate and so would all just vote the same if that would beat/tie the vote. I was just trying to work out whether trying to keep them in the Game Thread would be a better option, because at least here they don't know who the wolves are. But then their role wouldn't be confirmed either. Ugh

Well, we can't "keep them in the Game Thread" without knowing who they are. At least not on purpose.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Speaking of that, I also don't know why some people *glances in the direction of Pitch and G55* were spending so much time discussing last-minute voting and stuff. Last-minute voting will happen no matter what, it has been like that since the dawn of time, discussing it has about as much merit as discussing whether the village should try to lynch Wolves in order to win.

But wasn't that the purported point of the "fake" vote: to keep last-ditch voting down?

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Last thought: I second Lommy and Greenie about not focussing on Cobbler. I think that's about the extent of that we should give them. We are likely to accidentally lynch them anyway, mistaking them for a Wolf, but every post spent on discussing the Cobbler is only more distraction from our main goal. Which is exactly what the Cobbler wants. Talk about vicious circle.

A Cobbler would only want to be lynched if it was down to xem or a wolf. Otherwise, the chance of hitting xem is the same as anyone else.

x/d with Kit

[Kitanna]

Originally Posted by G55

So I got woken up in the middle of the night by a spam call, and so here I am. Again.

What spam monster calls in the middle of the night?!

Originally Posted by Rikae

Defend, hm? Just jokingly summarizing the initial conversation. I was curious to see what sort of reaction it would get, though.

*side eyes both* Orchestrated wolf action? I suppose not likely, but the more I read of G55 the more I raise my eyebrows.
She distanced herself from her own idea, was quick to challenge Legate when he found the merit in it, and has been fairly vocal throughout. And yet, when I try to think of anything detailed she said, I draw a blank. She's been helpful and has urged on discussion and I'm finding her a little too helpful.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

It really struck me how strongly Pitch seemed to be pinning the no-vote concept on Legate, even though G55 had originally proposed it and (I think) had been the main proponent up to that point. I wondered whether this might be WolfPitch (PitchFector?) trying to put the heat on Legate specifically, but why not let it stay on G55? I think someone suggested that G55's backdown could be a wolf trying to pull away from a bad idea, which could mean WolfPitch was protecting GaladriWolf, but spotting two wolves at once seems a bit much for Day 1.

On the one hand G55 set something up and waited for an innocent to take the bait and then distanced herself the moment it fell under scrutiny. Her move is a bold one for a Day 1 ploy to try to bandwagon an innocent. Bold and fairly early in the Day.
On the other hand wolfPitch sees an idea that is probably doomed to fail. He picks the second person to pick it up and doesn't really cast suspicion on the actual creator. Pitch then sets up Legate for trouble.
In the whole fake vote debate, I am leaning toward trusting Legate over G55 who first suggested it and Pitch who was so vocal in disputing it.
Still trying to read through between actual, boring work.