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

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Legate

I am not advocating it and never was. Read my posts! And "all the time" is certainly overdoing it, because I mentioned it like once and then once answered to you, that's all (where I spoke about it only because you did). So I don't know what you are calling "all the time".

Both times you mentioned it, you basically said the theory has some credit to it. And like I said in my previous post, it's a really useless thing to start talking about in the first place.

PS. Holby and Echo, I made an explanatory post about the nicknames on the admin thread, check it out here if you're confused.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Kath

Because it's Day 1? And no one has anything really worthwhile to say. If you were Nilp you'd leap on and self-vote, if you were Fea you'd appear and claim you were the wolf/cobbler/lover/Saruman. Legate often posts a flipping book so is it any wonder that sometimes parts of it are somewhat nothingy?

That's true, but the fact that he always does that doesn't make it any less silly or fishy.

[Kath]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

That's true, but the fact that he always does that doesn't make it any less silly or fishy.

Ah now actually surely it does. Is he always a wolf? If yes then fine, he's evil, let's lynch him now. But if not, then we cannot tell that much from it, as he does it when innocent or guilty.

Aaaaanyway. This is a rather silly and unhelpful mini-argument.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Kath

Ah now actually surely it does. Is he always a wolf? If yes then fine, he's evil, let's lynch him now. But if not, then we cannot tell that much from it, as he does it when innocent or guilty.

Aaaaanyway. This is a rather silly and unhelpful mini-argument.

1) No. But I think he's more prone to do it when he's a wolf. Besides, I was not only saying it's suspicious, I was partly expressing my bafflement/frustration at talking nonsense.

2) Yes, it is, but it's even sillier if you take into account we're sitting in the same room RL and typing furiously at each other.

[Coppermirror]

Overall impressions (unranked)

Shasta: Hasn't said a word so far. This is very concerning.
McCaber: Ditto
Eonwe: Ditto
Boro: Ditto

I regard people who haven't said anything yet with high suspicion...Of course, they're obviously not all wolves, and life is demanding and gets in the way of chances to post, but those who don't post or who show up very late aren't putting themselves at risk they way that other posters are, either toDay or toMorrow.

Echo: Has said very little. Is new, so won't be voted for toDay. They could talk more toDay with no risk of being lynched this time. Currently I have no real opinion about them. Unknown quantity.

Holbytlass: I don't remember anything about Holbytlass's style, but I do know they've been a Werewolf player for a very long time. The lack of content worries me a bit. That list with only names is enough to make the village weep. But I have no idea whether that fits Holby's usual patterns or whether there's anything sorcerous about it.

Kath: Talks about admin and rules issues. There's nothing particularly suspicious about that. She also asks for an explanation of a sentence of mine - and likewise, that doesn't look suspicious of her. Later on, she offers some clarification to Greenie about an interpretation of Legate re the rule of 3 business.

There is really nothing there that looks suspicious, but Kath is not putting herself out there much with opinions about other posters. Of course, it's hard to have a really strong opinion this early on. She could be a careful, thoughtful innocent, but equally could be a careful, cautious wolf.

Inzil: Good joke at #6! Later reminds people to turn invisible (which some people really took their time doing). At #24 he responds to discussion about the rules. The most notable thing he's said is that he feels good about Greenie.

I haven't really got a good idea about Inzilin this game yet. I'm not feeling bad about him, and he hasn't done anything to make me suspect him toDay, but I can't say I'm getting an actual good feeling about him yet.

Nerwen: Has several joking posts, and posts several helpful things in answer to questions. I feel ambivalent about her this time, but there's nothing specific that I can think of as the source of uneasy feelings, even though there are some uneasy feelings.

Lottie: Joins in the fun banter at first. At #32 she comes back with current opinions. I find it hard to draw conclusions about her from that. Will need to look again at that post and at any subsequent ones.

Greenie: She speculates about the speculation about sorcerer numbers. Nothing stands out as very suspicious there. She appeared to take my comment about Lottie seriously, but then, so did Lommy. I don't find her response to Nerwen at #28 suspicious either.

Legate: At #15 he appears to claim that my early banter comments, especially towards Inzil, could while purporting to be pure banter have a hidden purpose of "talking about Wolves" or "talking about packmates". At #27 he claims that that wasn't what he meant and that it was all a general comment about the "avoiding" feel of the banter. I'm not sure I buy that. I also think he's over-reacting to my concern about his intentions, as the situation as I believed it to be (Legate suggesting there could be hidden evil talking-to-and-about-sorcerers in the early banter, but not saying important things such as what or where) was a reasonable cause for suspicion and seeking clarification.

Although I don't trust the explanation at #27, the possibility definitely remains that Legate's wording at #15 just didn't convey exactly what he wanted it to and he's perfectly innocent. Will definitely have to keep an eye on Legate.

I don't particularly find the rule of three explanation that Legate gave to be suspicious. He posts first impressions of several people, which is a good sign. He missed some details about what people were talking about before, which suggests he wasn't reading all of the posts with extreme care. The continuing discussion with Lommy about the rule of three thing looks genuine, but is probably not especially relevant to whether he's a sorcerer.

Lommy: Nothing much of interest in her first post. She then gets on Legate's case about the rule of three thing, and I can vaguely see why, but what I don't understand is why it would be relevant to whether or not he's a sorcerer. It seems like a side issue to me.

She gets a bit pedantic about me using "bound to be" rather than "likely", but when I'd only just been pedantic myself I don't think I can complain.

Gives her suspicions in #34. It's good to have those, but they aren't very firm and don't come supported by reasoning, much as is the same for most people on page 1, although some inferences can be made based on one or two earlier posts. I'm unsure about Lommy.

At present there's nowhere near enough info for me to be anything but unhappy at the prospect of voting for any of the people who've spoken up so far.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

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.

But, aren't the Lovers both counted as ordos in this game until they find each other? I would assume that means they're not on the side of the sorcerers. Er, could someone explain what the potential risk to the village is from the Lovers?

I have to go for a while now, but I'll be back.

Edit: cross-posted with Lommy, and I haven't read the past bunch of posts properly yet.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Hello, all. Bit busy at the moment, but will check in for real soonish. Just wanted to let people know I was alive.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Both times you mentioned it, you basically said the theory has some credit to it. And like I said in my previous post, it's a really useless thing to start talking about in the first place.

Well, I mentioned it as one thing in my first post. It's you who started all these long complaints about it.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

That's true, but the fact that he always does that doesn't make it any less silly or fishy.

Ok, I am fine with silly, but why fishy? Whatever. Enough of this, I guess, I don't find you fishy, and I think this is not very fruitful argument.

Speaking of that, I think I am still considering Cop to be most suspicious of all, but we shall see if she appears and posts more.

EDIT: x-ed with Lommy, Shasta and Cop

[Inziladun]

I don't know what to make of the interactions between Kath, Legate, and Lommy, beyond that I think there's a reasonable chance one is evil.

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

But, aren't the Lovers both counted as ordos in this game until they find each other? I would assume that means they're not on the side of the sorcerers. Er, could someone explain what the potential risk to the village is from the Lovers?

If the Lovers are capable of winning independently of either the village or the baddies, they are a risk to both sides potentially. I say this because I was burned by SPM/Fea in just that way long ago. Some may recall that, though I can't for the moment remember the game's title.

[Echo]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Because it doesn't make any sense to say it! It's the same as if I posted "bananas are yellow". Why would I do that? Except to maybe appear like I was saying something while I wasn't?

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

[A Little Green]

Echo, you should bold your vote for it to be valid!

[Thinlómien]

...since Coppermirror is bravely setting example, I should talk about something else than the rule of three and I'm going to vote soon:

Innocentish
Zil, Greenie - feel fair and don't even look foul on top of that

Neutralish
Shasta, Echo - not much to go on yet
McCaber, Eönwë, Boro - obviously no data
Holby - not sharing her reasons is quite unhelpful, but I'm not sure it makes her wolvish either
Kath - around on Day1, so should give her a pass whatever she says no, honestly, I don't know about her
Cop - I thought her a little fishy earlier, bu despite slight wishy-washiness I think her list post looked fairly innocent

Suspiciousish
Nerwen - too helpful for regular Nerwen, if I can say this without being offensive
Lottie - vaguely makes me suspicious, but to be fair she often does
Legate - I still didn't like treating the rule of three as a credible argument, he feels more like his wolf self than his innocent self and furthermore whenever I suspect him even a little and he doesn't suspect me back I get really suspicious


edit: xed with Echo and Greenillydilly

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Echo

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 was talking about Legate in that quote, not Kath!

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Echo

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

Wait a minute, why are you voting for Kath on the basis of something she didn't even say?

Originally Posted by A Little Green

Echo, you should bold your vote for it to be valid!

That too.

x/d with Lommy

[Kath]

Alright, away from arguing with Lommy (however fun it is!). Onto some of these here other players.

Dun:
Here is an interesting sentence: And all must remember to use them in this case. Let us hope all come to their senses.

This in response to Cop saying: I am sure we have various spells and potions available to turn us invisible. Of course, we must bear in mind that the traitors in our midst have these means available to them as well...

So is Inzil hinting to his fellows that someone needs to get out of bed? Could perhaps be that there is a player he fears may not be around when they should be!

I guess he may also look to suspect anyone who votes for Legate, Lommy or myself as he wondered whether the 'rule of three' debate would lead to votes based around that. They wouldn't exactly be using the rule as a reason but it would have led through.

Nerwen:
Says we are likely to have four bad guys, then only lists three 'suspects'. Yes, yes I know it is all under this 'rule of three' silliness but hey, perhaps she knew full well there would only be three but hoped, as someone else mentioned, that seeming unsure of the number of wolves would suggest she was innocent.

Cop:
Not totally sure about this seeming in-game banter: We must attempt to locate the one who is possessed and those whose minds have been taken by Saruman, but what will we do to them when we catch them, and how many of them are in our midst? ...No, this is not the time. <-- It just seems a bit forced.

I do think she is overzealous in assuming there must already be a wolf in the first 8 posters given how many people there were still left to post. Even if more had posted than hadn't it doesn't mean a wolf MUST have posted yet.

Just read the epic post. I think this is pretty fair actually. I only wish there was some kind of summing up at the end so we knew more decisively who she holds to be potential wolves. While there is less ummming and aaahing in the post than many who make these lists posts obviously there are sections without much of a clear decision.

Lottie:
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.
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.

Will focus attention on Zil, me and Nerwen.

Greenie:
I already said I don't think Legate did flip flop within his post but that obviously is in the back of my mind about Greenie.

Little from her so far but then we have been hogging the laptops.

Legate:
Enough said here I think. I didn't think anything of the 'rule of three' discussion that has taken up most of my thought about him. I did check to make sure that in the intervening crossfire he had actually answered Cop's original question about what 'message' he had seen.

Nothing struck me weird on Lottie, if so, then rather about Cop. The flip-floppy chitter-chatter, especially if any of the other ones is also a Wolf (namely, Zil), because it doesn't sound like totally useless banter, but sounds like it might have a purpose (to seem like it's banter, while talking about Wolves, or even if there were two of them, then to seem like banter while talking about packmates).
Lommy. <-- The statement in question. Bolding mine because this is his answer to Cop asking 'what message?'.

Nope, I said nothing about wolf-to-wolf messages.

Which I would say is not entirely true, given the bit in bold.


Obviously we haven't yet seen anything from Shasta (bar turning up!), Eonwe, Boro, McCaber so ignoring them.

Echo is a pass for me toDay unless he pops up and shouts: I am a wolf!
(Just noticed his post - should I amend this to: or votes for me! )

Holby IS a pass, but a reluctant one. I want her to explain that list.


Now I am going to post this, look at what I have written, then draw my ideas down and vote.

[Inziladun]

Echo is either a rushed newbie, or a nervous wolf-cub.

x/d with Kath.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Kath

Dun:
Here is an interesting sentence: And all must remember to use them in this case. Let us hope all come to their senses.

This in response to Cop saying: I am sure we have various spells and potions available to turn us invisible. Of course, we must bear in mind that the traitors in our midst have these means available to them as well...

So is Inzil hinting to his fellows that someone needs to get out of bed? Could perhaps be that there is a player he fears may not be around when they should be!

Actually, like I said earlier, I had observed a player visible while looking at the thread, and I was trying to discreetly tell them to remedy that.

[Coppermirror]

Overall Impressions (ranked)

Not worried about
n/a

Feeling neutral about
Inzil
Kath

Slightly suspicious of
Lottie
Lommy
Greenie
Nerwen
Holby ("confused about" might be more apt)

Middlingly suspicious of
Legate
Echo - I'm worried about the reasoning for their vote.

Red hot worry
McCaber
Boro
Eonwe
Shasta

Originally Posted by Inziladun

If the Lovers are capable of winning independently of either the village or the baddies, they are a risk to both sides potentially.

I can't see anything in the admin post which suggests winning conditions for them, only that the day after they reunite there'll be no sorcerer kill. So the effect's like a perfect one-time ranger. It's a minus for the sorcerers and a plus for the village, so perhaps they're aligned to the village. I suppose there's no real way of knowing right now.

Edit: crossed since Lommy at #51

[Kath]

Argh and I have somehow Lommy, which is ridiculous given how much we have spoken all Day! In all our debating I have not felt that she is particularly guilty, nor that she has any major vendetta against Legate.

So:

Ignoring:
Shasta
Eonwe
Boro
McCaber
Echo
Holby

Largely innocent:
Cop
Lottie
Lommy

Perhaps guilty:
Inzil ~ but more in a 'look out for him on future Days' way. I'm not sure there is anything that suspicious yet but I would want to check back with how he follows on from toDay.
Legate ~ well I would like to see his reply to what I mentioned in the other post.
Nerwen ~ it is pretty tenuous but it's something.
Greenie ~ largely from the debate we had earlier.

Vote in the next post, I want to check for any cross posting first.

[Kath]

Well then.

++ NERWEN

Reasoning reminder: Says we are likely to have four bad guys, then only lists three 'suspects'. Yes, yes I know it is all under this 'rule of three' silliness but hey, perhaps she knew full well there would only be three but hoped, as someone else mentioned, that seeming unsure of the number of wolves would suggest she was innocent.

I would say it's fairly shoddy as it goes, but with my other suspects the suspicions I have need a bit more time to percolate!

[Boromir88]

Actually regarding the "Rule of 3" it's about as good of a place to start on Day 1 as anything else. There are obviously flaws with it, but it's better than a randomized "I'm saying one of the first three alphabetically listed is a sorcerer." That is a truly random grouping. Where saying one of the first three posters might be a sorcerer assumes an anxious "I want to get things started and appearing active" sorcerer in the bunch.

As far as with what there is on most Day 1s, it's a good starting point for seeing how first posters react to a "rule of three" suspicion.

Oh hi, I'm here.

[Coppermirror]

Am I correct in assuming that there are three hours until the deadline? I'm really not confident when it comes to time zones.

Edit: cross-posted with Boro

[Echo]

to be clear....lynch the witch ++KATH......or wolf in this matter of business.

[Eönwë]

Ok, I'm here now.

With all the talk on the admin thread, I did not expect the game to start so soon, so today has been a bit difficult time-wise, and I only managed to get a few glimpses at the thread until now. Will post thoughts in a bit.

[Coppermirror]

Originally Posted by Echo

to be clear....lynch the witch ++KATH......or wolf in this matter of business.

You sound very sure about that. Could you tell us more about your reasoning?

Edit: cross-posted with Eonwe.

[Kath]

Boro, Boro, Boro ... LOOK! I did it without a reminder this game! (And the fact that I am staying with 3 people who are also playing sooo doesn't count as a reminder.)

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Echo

to be clear....lynch the witch ++KATH......or wolf in this matter of business.

Well...that's direct. Nice to meet you, welcome to our community Echo.

[Echo]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Wait a minute, why are you voting for Kath on the basis of something she didn't even say?

I miss quoted with my clumbsy fumbling,..im a blind deaf (and stupid) black smith with my hands full,....or perhaps im just saying this???

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Kath

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.

Actually what he said was

Originally Posted by Legate

I think I recall it happening very often.

and

Originally Posted by Legate

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.

Rather than "sometimes a bold wolf might", it's "wolves very often do" which is a different argument entirely. But anyway, I guess we've said enough about Legate and the Rule of Three for the moment.

Concerning the number of wolves and the speculation about it:

Originally Posted by Nerwen

That last is actually a good question– given the numbers, I’d guess we have four evil ones among us at present, but no doubt the narration will make it clear.

Knowing that there are actually three, and the wolves presumably knew as much, these two might be interesting. First there's Copper, who brings it up in the first place which, as I argued before, might point to her innocence as a wolf might not have noticed that their number wasn't actually clarified on the thread. There is something forced about her tone here though so I'm not sure. Nerwen then - could be bluffing, but if she was, it's a pretty old trick and I'm not sure she'd go for it. Bleh. So much for concluding anything!

Originally Posted by Copper

Heeeey, you are impugning my almost spotless record of innocence! Prior to this game my ratio of wolfhood was 1/4. (Now 1/5)

I'm also not very comfortable with this "ratio of wolfhood" thing, especially the part in brackets. I always find it fishy when someone feels the need to underline their innocence, especially when under no suspicion at all.


EDIT: x-ed since Copper's Overall Impressions

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Kath

Boro, Boro, Boro ... LOOK! I did it without a reminder this game! (And the fact that I am staying with 3 people who are also playing sooo doesn't count as a reminder.)

KATH KATH KATH! Hi...woah it's been a long time. Too long. Maybe too long that you forgot how forgetful you usually are about appearing in these villages?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

Am I correct in assuming that there are three hours until the deadline? I'm really not confident when it comes to time zones.

DL is slightly less than 2 hours, now.

Originally Posted by Echo

I miss quoted with my clumbsy fumbling,..im a blind deaf (and stupid) black smith with my hands full,....or perhaps im just saying this???

And I thought I was good at being confusing.

x/d with Greenie and Boro

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Kath

Lottie:
Refusal to make a statement alert!

Oh, honey, I never commit to solid statements! I'm a philosophy major.

Seriously, though, this post just made me rather uneasy about her. A lot of the reasoning seems forced, almost like she's trying to suspect people even though she knows they can't be sorcerers. It could just be Day-1 lack of proper suspicions and trying to get traction, but it doesn't sit well with me.

EDIT: xed since Cop's #57...whoops

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Kath

Argh and I have somehow Lommy, which is ridiculous

What is this? First you forget me, then you forget the verb from my sentence? Outrageous!

Great to see Boro and Eönwë. A pity to go now that stuff starts happening, but I should slooowly start going.

Here we go:

++Legate

The combination of vague points against him and a vague bad gut feeling is the best bet I've got this far.


edit: xed with several

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Here we go:

++Legate

The combination of vague points against him and a vague bad gut feeling is the best bet I've got this far.

Hm. As I write this I'm listening to Sibelius's Concerto for Violin and Orchestra Op. 47. Is that a sign to "follow the Finn?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Short (emphasis on "short"! In the terms of Legate of Amon Lanc's notion of normal length of posts, of course. Look, two sentences! Three.)

Very innocent:
Kath - also very helpful. Almost suspiciously so, but I mean, that isn't a good reason for suspicion, right? Let's see what she does in the future.

Nothing particularly suspicious:
Lommy - looks like normal Lommy to me
Nerwen - looks like normal Nerwen to me

Uncertain:
Inzil - he doesn't do anything suspicious, but just does not give the "at easy" feel I might have with some others

Fishy, with weird explanation about their votes:
Holby
Echo - gets a newbie pass for Day 1, though.

Something fishy about:
Coppermirror - like I said, the sort of wannabe-banter posting in the beginning and somewhat touchy response make her flash with warning lights in my eyes (and theoretically also her later posts could contain balanced suspicions cast on other people, the sort of "hit and run" or inconclusive suspicions might benefit a Wolf). In any case at least worth watching, possible vote-candidate for me.
Lottie - a bit suspicious because of her possible "avoidance of the heat", but there is not so much to judge her based on just that
Greenie - her sort of balanced walking among posts and the excessive use of rolleyes in the start seemed really awkward to me, but the thing is more like a gut-feeling than an actual suspicion, so probably not having any merit as of now (I'll see if she has posted anything meanwhile)

No idea about:
Steve
Boro
Shasta
McCaber

EDIT: x-ed with about a million people since Cop's list

[Coppermirror]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

There is something forced about her tone here though so I'm not sure.

Well, yes. I wasn't using contractions and was trying to stay mostly in-character despite the lack of opening narration. My tone looks a bit forced to me there too.

Originally Posted by A Little Green

I'm also not very comfortable with this "ratio of wolfhood" thing, especially the part in brackets. I always find it fishy when someone feels the need to underline their innocence, especially when under no suspicion at all.

I was being pedantic. Someone says I'm a wolf 2/3 of the time, in jest, and I am compelled to correct them and give them the actual amount, also in jest but also as a pedant, despite being aware it might look a bit off. It's not as if previous stats are relevant to this game anyway, assuming roles were assigned at random.

Your points are reasonable ones that I might have made myself, but I'm at a loss for whether that does anything to make you look better or worse, since evil folks can be perfectly reasonable. No, on second thoughts it makes you look better.

Edit: crossed since Lottie at #71, probably.

[A Little Green]

A quick list!

Shasta - Need to see more of him!
Kath - Witch or no, I feel fairly good about Kath. She has shrewd points and I think she seems more cautious when she's a wolf.
Dun - Not as bad vibes as usual!
Nerwen - Not sure what to think about her guessing at four wolves, but I don't agree with Kath that her list of three connects to this in any way.
Cop - Seems relatively fishy (see my previous post) but she also gives innocentish vibes so I don't know.
McCobbler - Who?
Lottie - Half innocentish, half under the radar.
Holbytlass - What?
Echo - WHAT?
Boro - Hello!
Legate - Enough said. (Although - suspecting me for excessive use of rolleyes? Honestly?)
Lommy - Like what I see this far.
Steve - Hello Steve!


EDIT: x-ed with Copper

[Coppermirror]

Vote tally so far

Kath -> Nerwen
Echo-> Kath
Lommy -> Legate

[Thinlómien]

Coppermirror??!! Kind of wish I hadn't voted yet now, because that last post (#75) was positively weird. Your own tone seems forced to you too, huh? That's apologetic if I've ever seen anything apologetic in my life.

Also, Greenie's list just cracked me up.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Kath

Well then.

++ NERWEN

Reasoning reminder: Says we are likely to have four bad guys, then only lists three 'suspects'. Yes, yes I know it is all under this 'rule of three' silliness but hey, perhaps she knew full well there would only be three but hoped, as someone else mentioned, that seeming unsure of the number of wolves would suggest she was innocent.

Okay, that's actually a point to consider. Although personally I am not sure if I'd use it as sole reasoning (too random), but I'd like to actually hear if Nerwen has anything to respond to that.

Originally Posted by Echo

to be clear....lynch the witch ++KATH......or wolf in this matter of business.

Well, any more reasoning, or do you know more than we do? If you do, then at this rate you might just as well say so.

Originally Posted by Kath

Legate ~ well I would like to see his reply to what I mentioned in the other post.

I didn't realise there was a question. But, to clarify then,

Originally Posted by Kath

I did check to make sure that in the intervening crossfire he had actually answered Cop's original question about what 'message' he had seen.

Nothing struck me weird on Lottie, if so, then rather about Cop. The flip-floppy chitter-chatter, especially if any of the other ones is also a Wolf (namely, Zil), because it doesn't sound like totally useless banter, but sounds like it might have a purpose (to seem like it's banter, while talking about Wolves, or even if there were two of them, then to seem like banter while talking about packmates).
Lommy. <-- The statement in question. Bolding mine because this is his answer to Cop asking 'what message?'.

Nope, I said nothing about wolf-to-wolf messages.

Which I would say is not entirely true, given the bit in bold.

It isn't wolf-to-wolf, it's wolf-about-wolf. Cop talked about what I said first of all like I was talking about messages from one wolf to another. While I was talking about Wolves who want to speak (or have to speak) about other, and are doing it in the way so that it does not look like they are excessively defending them, but also not that they are bringing too much attention to them.

Probably again x-posted with some... but going to vote soon.

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Cop

Well, yes. I wasn't using contractions and was trying to stay mostly in-character despite the lack of opening narration. My tone looks a bit forced to me there too.

Originally Posted by Cop

I was being pedantic. Someone says I'm a wolf 2/3 of the time, in jest, and I am compelled to correct them and give them the actual amount, also in jest but also as a pedant, despite being aware it might look a bit off. It's not as if previous stats are relevant to this game anyway, assuming roles were assigned at random.

Your points are reasonable ones that I might have made myself, but I'm at a loss for whether that does anything to make you look better or worse, since evil folks can be perfectly reasonable. No, on second thoughts it makes you look better.

Originally Posted by Lommy

Coppermirror??!! Kind of wish I hadn't voted yet now, because that last post (#75) was positively weird. Your own tone seems forced to you too, huh? That's apologetic if I've ever seen anything apologetic in my life.

Agreeing with Lommy here - what? While I appreciate it that someone doesn't react over-defensively when suspected, this is a bit too nice already. And, you know, it almost works, because I feel bad voting you now since you take it so constructively and act so nicely. Honestly though, that's too much.

++ Coppermirror


EDIT: x-ed with Leggity-leggings