[Gwathagor]

Nogrod needs a closer look. I've left out all the idle chatter and most of the smileys (there were too many).

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'm getting interesting readings of the tribal-phase of the evolution...

It is about 4½ hours from the devious act of butchery.

There has been 16 acts of speaking by 7 persons out of 17.

All the speech-acts have been more or less banterish / introverted / in-character.

The only deviations from the rule - even if they could be counted in the class of banter as well are...

Boro throwing a light one on Fea.

Boro throwing a light one on me + saying Fea is innocent.

Mith saying my posting is a worrying sign.


Those who have not deviated from the IC-talk are: Lalwendë, Macalaure, Fea, CoD

* I'm counting this post of mine into the category with Boro & Mith eg. not only IC.*


Yes. It's early and all the rest. Nothing to say at this moment. Sure. But as I need to go to bed and I'm having a terribly busy day tomorrow I'll try to say at least something.

Boro's sudden and quick change of mind with Fea is interesting. There seems to be no reason for it. If he was trying something (as an innocent) he would have let time pass and get some feedback but now he turned his tail after one banterish reply. I mean people do have fun and they should. But there are always things behind your rants and turn-arounds.

Which makes it interesting he should turn to me for the in-character accusation of wolvery in the very same post. Now why? To make me stop playing IC? Well, if it was that you succeeded it seems (although the time of the night here and my busy tomorrow have a part to play in this as well). But was it that?

Mith's happiness to throw suspicion to me is something I could have foreseen in any case, but making it conveniently just after Boro had called my name, looks interesting as well. Not impossibly ordo-Mith-like but not too reassuring either.

But then again. It would be nice and fine to just stay in-character so long as others do if one was a wolf. So I'm not thinking those who had only played IC are any less suspicious at the moment.

We shall see as the hours pass.

This post seems relatively harmless. He starts off with some basic observations, and then, after mentioning that he doesn't have anything much to say, casts suspicion on Mith and Boro (especially Boro). He recognizes that Boro was bantering somewhat, but at the same time seems eager to find a subtext behind the banter.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

First. Boro asked me what I thought of Rikae's declaration of ordinariness. Well, I'm mainly interested in the motive behind that move. I mean making that kind of opening isn't exactly the most hilarious joke or the most ingenious or fresh move. So why would Rikae make it? Also it's hard to see it as a spontaneous reaction to anything (when one reacts spontaneously one may let that kind of banalities out from her keyboard) as she had known her role almost two days altready and she opened her first post with it.

Now I do sympathise with Rikae if she is an innocent indeed as I really felt relaxed and overwhelmingly happy when I heard I was innocent in the last game after a long period of special roles. But to say it aloud in your first post... So why?

I wouldn't like to lynch her for that but the declaration certainly raises eyebrows.

Never played it as my PC is too old to run it... but I am the Spore anticipator as you know...

Here, he talks a lot and says very little. He asks the obvious question of why Rikae would declare her own innocence, and then occupies the rest of his post with filler. He makes no helpful conclusions. Why should he post about it if he had nothing to say? A potential explanation is that Nogrod could addressing the obligatory issue without saying anything that might cause problems for fellow-wolf Rikae. Alternatively, he is just talking to himself - thinking out-loud, as it were.

At best, it is non-comittal. At worst, it is evasive.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Secondly this one from Gwath discussing Rikae caught my eye and the things he has been doing after it have raised my alarms a bit more.

Originally Posted by Gwath
At one point I would have pointed out that such a bold statement would be unlikely to come from a wolf, because it draws attention and attention is dangerous. My mistake was that I assumed that all wolves play the same way I do: low key. So, the question is, what kind of wolf does Rikae play as: bold, or boring?

(underlining mine) My first question was the following: are we now supposed to think that as Gwath now plays clearly actively (raising points about people) he is not a wolf as when wolf he (always?) plays low key? Interestingly enough his post began with suspecting Rikae somewhat just on the grounds of her trying to declare herself innocent - and now he does about the same thing himself in the very same post albeit indirectly!

But it gets more interesting.

Nerwen pointed out that Gwath knows about Rikae playing a wolf and wondered why Gwath bothered to ask about it? And Gwath answered:

[Here he quotes me.]
I was thinking out loud - or, rather, on-screen.

Which I find quite a peculiar one as answers go. So his question that he made about Rikae after his own indirect "I'm innocent" is somewhat fishy then? It makes me wonder at least.

But the last one is the one I got worried about.

Originally Posted by Gwath
I wish I could stick around and participate in the discussion, but I have to run off. I'll be back in time for the deadline, but I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not trying to be extra-quiet and slide under the radar. It's inadvertent.

Now comparing this with the other underlining in the first quote really sends shivers down my spine. So when he's a wolf he's quiet and now he has to explain that as he has to go it doesn't mean that he is being flying under the radar...

It seems obvious to me that Nogrod is making a concerted effort to find arguments against me where very few exist. His points can be summarized as follows:

1. Nogrod is inclined to find me guilty because I am making assertions about other people, which I profess to not doing when I am a wolf, playing "low-key." If I were a wolf, he implies, I would do the opposite of what I claim to do as a wolf. Because I am doing the opposite (i.e. I am making points about others), I must be a wolf. This, at least, is the implication.

The first problem in this argument (albeit an implied argument) is that it argues that I am a wolf based on the assumption that I am a wolf.

The second problem is that he misdefines "low-key". "Low-key" does not mean silence or lack of discourse. It means that I am careful not to draw unecessary attention to myself. Lack of discourse is obvious, and therefore not low-key.

2. According to Nogrod, it is strange for me to profess to "thinking on-screen."

However, he purports to doing much the same thing in post #163: "I'm just trying to help myself to orientate and to see where to look in the beginning toDay." There's nothing weird about this. Organizing one's thoughts by posting makes a lot of sense.

3. Because I claim to be a low-key wolf, my statement in a later post that I am not trying to fly under the radar - in other words, not trying to play low-key - looks mighty suspicious.

Actually, I agree with him here. I don't like, however, that he makes much of the chills and shivers that my post sends down his spine. Appeal to the emotion is an effective rhetorical device, but it's not helpful here.

Overall, this post of Nogrod's seems forced and exaggerative.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Mith: it is already clear that I read your post back there the wrong way as you suspecting me. So why are you coming back to it the second time?

And anyway. That was early in the Day with about twenty posts made in total (almost everyone of them being only joking & banter). I think both you Mith (explaining your post many times) and Boro (making that "empirical device" where you consider I'm one who suspects you) are making a mountain out of a molehill here. (Yes Mith, I didn't consider your posts as cross-posts and that was my carelessness not to look at the timestamps and think about the possibility. Yes.)

But your posts were the only ones there was anything even remotely looking like saying something that gets the game forwards at that point of the game. Now after people have contributed more there clearly are better points to be made - and it was obvious back then in the beginning of the Day. But your insistence on coming back to those early hour "suspicions" doesn't make me too happy about you two.

But I'm even more unhappy with those who just fly straight through the banter-radar or under any radar just not appearing or not contributing.

And I have a battle with myself about Gwath. He looks wolvish to me and I think I have plausible reasons and so I should trust my own judgement. But I've been wrong with him so many times... Unless there is a "submarine" we can agree on or any better cases to come forwards, or if I have to try and save someone I think is clearly less guilty than someone else, I'm considering of voting Gwath.

He complains that Boro and Mith should stopd dwelling on early Day 1 posts that occurred when most people were still sticking to IC banter. It's ironic that he should here mention making a mountain out of a molehill, given his last post.

He also reiterates his suspicion of me, without any new or more substantial evidence.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

About 15-16 minutes more I think...

Ok.

[Then some idle chatter.]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Okay... okay... Point taken.

Now let's continue with the wolf-hunt.

Eager to lay his argument with Boro to rest.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Fili... what? Sorry. I need a dictionary... and a cigarette anyway.

Gwath anyone?

Boro, CoD & Brinn on two now. Of those I'd say Brinn might be the best choice but CoD has been annoying. Boro I wouldn't lynch on Day1 for being himself.

Here he fishes for other Gwath votes. At best, it looks like Nogrod is making another effort to argue my - or at least convince others of - my guilt. At worst, he's just trying to start a bandwagon. I am inclined to believe the latter.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

If Brinn is innocent she is good to have around and I'm not too confident of her guilt right now - even if I see why she could be a wolf.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

CoD is the "easy" lynch and therefore probably wrong... Boro I would like to have around.

I'd say Gwath as I think his behaviour has been over-defencive to the point of being suspicious. Of others I have not as much.

What say you others?

Over-defensive? This is just plain outlandish. At this point in the game, I have not replied to any accusations leveled against me. I have replied to one question. My reply was short, prompt, and to the point. Obviously, the fact that it was a response makes it, by nature, defensive, but to call it over-defensive is making a mountain out of a molehill. Again.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'll try it then

++ Gwath

I admire his consistency.


[Then there's a bunch of chatter around the deadline. Check it out if you like.]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Wow! Hopefully this will encourage people to lynch those who try to just slip through Day1 with nonsense in the following games. I mean if there would be that kind of general attitude the wolves (and innocents) would know they will have to actually play on Day1 as well and the game would become so much more interesting.

As I said yesterDay his playing style annoyed me but I was thinking of him as an ordo trying to get through Day1 as easily as possible to see whether he would get interested in the game later on.

Luckily many enough were ready to vote him off.


I'll summarise the few lists given here already to form myself a preliminary manual for where to look toDay.

McCaber, Isabell, Mac and Mith voted for CoD. Looking at the closeness of the race yesterDay it seems - like Brinn already commented - a bit unlikely there is a wolf among them. It's possible, to be sure but still...

CoD "suspected" Macalaure, Rikae and Boro. That was quite an early post and so he had no reason to believe he was going to get lynched. So it could be believable that those he mentioned were innocent indeed to whom he wished to point the discussion to go for. It's possible he put one of his fellows there to be sure but like Mac said it's improbable both of his mates are there and personally - at least for the time being I'm bending to think there are not even one of his mates there.

If these points are plausible - as working-hypotheses to begin with - then it would suggest that we could feel pretty safe with:

McCaber
Isabell
Macalaure
Mithalwen
Rikae
Boro

Nice list indeed. And I'd bet a lot against there being two wolves there.

So that leaves us with:

Nerwen
Feanor of the Peredhil
Nilpaurion Felagund
Nogrod
Gwathagor
satansaloser2005
Shastanis Althreduin
Brinniel
Lalwendë

And one or two wolves lurking there.

(Before anyone jumps on it: no, I'm not suggesting this is the final truth of the matter or think we should forget the above six and only notice what the rest say... No, no and no. I'm just trying to help myself to orientate and to see where to look in the beginning toDay.)

I responded to this post in #168. In summary, I agreed with his main points, but argued that Rikae or Boro is probably a wolf based on CoD's "suspicion" of them. Mac I believed (and still believe) innocent based on his vote against CoD.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Okay, who's the next one to declare innocence?

Originally Posted by Brinn
Anyway, do you really think I would kill someone on Night 2 thinking they're a possible seer just because they voted me?

But there are actually things in Brinn's posting I think merit a second look.

Originally Posted by Brinn
Anyway, do you really think I would kill someone on Night 2 thinking they're a possible seer just because they voted me?

I don't think anyone has said that. But if you're a wolf and saw Kath coming out of the blue just stating her suspicion & vote, you might think she could be the seer. And seers will have to go whatever the cost - even if it means the death of the seer frames one wolf. The seer is too dangerous not to be killed at the first possible instant.

Originally Posted by Brinn
honestly, the possibility that the seer would dream of me on Night 1 is the last thing I'd expect.

What you expect or don't isn't actually an argument in your favour in this case (or in any case). Why do you state that expectation? The more interesting part does begin right here.

So let's assume you're a wolf for the argument's sake. Now you realise that your trying to kill the seer backfired and you are exposed because someone guessed right the reason behind Kath's death. Understandably you feel an urge to purify your name and so you try to come up with every possible reason why the theory doesn't hold. Then you come up with a) I wouldn't kill someone for just voting me & b) and the seer wouldn't have dreamt of me anyway...

Now these surely might be things you could come up with and defend both of them. It's only that bringing them up together looks kind of fishy. I mean if you were an innocent you wouldn't probably think it that way, if you get what I mean.

And to add one small thing more; if you're an innocent why do you speculate about yourself being dreamt of in that fashion? If you're an innocent a seer dream means you're a known innocent by now. It's not something you should be afraid of or in need to convince others that has not happened - or that you would not expect that it has happened...

Originally Posted by Brinn
Ah yes, the ranger...I almost forgot. Perhaps that's why the wolves didn't kill those who I thought would be more obvious choices. Good point.

The classic, straight from the Werewolf handbook! Was it Hint #13 for tightening situations?

To open the Day by asking why Kath was killed and to leave an impression you had no idea is actually a sound wolf tactics as Boro already mentioned. Saying that you forgot about the ranger kind of underlines the very same thing: look at me, I have no idea why she was killed. But why would an innocent stress that so much? A wolf might feel the need to do that though...

And to add that classical "Good point" you try to help a common consensus to be built that the reason for Kath's death was her being a safe kill and not being one you thought was the seer...


Okay this is all very speculative. I admit it myself. But still it's my second best suspicion this far (Gwath still remaining my #1 at the moment).

It may be you Brinn have been framed. It may be Boro indeed is our cobbler and he has been grinning all the time he has read my post until now of course...

He makes some good points, but I disagree that the wolves HAVE to kill whoever they think the seer is right away, even if it means casting heavy suspicion on a fellow wolf.

Based on the premise that wolves have to kill a suspected seer, he suggests that Brinn had to kill Kath, regardless of potential problems it could cause her (Brinn, not Kath...) the next Day.

He admits that his argument is speculative. I agree, but I think it's still worth keeping in mind.

I'm still #1 on his vote-list.


[Banter...]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Check my post #80 (second page, last post). It's quite compactly put there. It's not the the most solid case there could be, sure, but it's not bad as Day1-theories go.

Not the most solid, no.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Originally Posted by Gwathagor
Come on, Nogrod, you know what I think of Day 1 theories.

I do. But what you think about Day1 theories in general doesn't influence the correctness or incorrectness of any particular Day1 theory by anyone...

And believe it or not: I've been in a handful of games where indeed actual reasoning has gotten us a wolf on Day1. So you should give Day1's a bit more respect even if they oftentimes feel like randomized lottery.

The interesting fact is - just to say it aloud before going to sleep - that in villages where a majority thinks Day1's are hateful and stupid Day1's are the most random as no one really tries. And what follows from that they rarely offer too much hindsight even at the later stages if all people have done is banter and random-voting. In villages where majority goes all in from the earliest moments the Day1's are the most fruitful - and basically the ones where we have really gotten the wolves with brains and not by sheer luck.

Also it's clear that just whining about Day1's all Day1 is not actually playing them and that's unsporty and whatever. But most importantly it's good for the wolves as they can hide in the nonsense much easier than in the middle of arguments.

What I think certainly does not influence the truth of the matter. It does, however, reflect it.

And I don't whine. I grumble.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Originally Posted by Boromir88
Also, I think Brin just sounds sincere and your "case" against her seems a bit forced. However, I will go back and do some re-examining on Brin if you consider taking a good look at sally.


Even if I don't get that "I'll do X if you will do Y" -kind of exchange (would you not do X if I'd refuse to do Y?), I do agree that it would be good if someone else also looked after Brinn and I'm indeed going to look at Sally tomorrow after I wake up.

My suspicions on Brinn were raised in fact on yesterDay already (Mac's points looked reasonable compared with my own feelings of her posting) but I thought they were too little to justify a Day1 lynch. But then when toDay I saw Brinn's posting I also remembered the things from Day1 and therefore felt it important enough to bring something forwards. I need to look back at the yesterDay's stuff myself as well with Brinn as I have toDay only looked at two posts from her toDay.

Ok, while it is somewhat convenient that Nogrod has apparently been suspicious of Brinn all along, this post seems relatively straightforward.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Originally Posted by Mithalwen
However - I find Gwathagor's response, to my response on his "correct me if I am wrong" re Captain of Despair baffling. How that pointing out that COD isn't an unsphisticated thinker makes me a wolf is beyond me.


Indeed. Who could make that kind of a point? I mean had Mith lied someone would have caught her from it. I mean there must be a host of people who have played with CoD many times. I've played with him a few games and can only agree with Mith about his resourcefulness. And why would Mith lie about CoD's abilities or history, how could lying in that kind of matters help her in the first place?

So who could make such a point then (Gwath's point that is)?

Someone with really original, basically idiosyncratic thinking-processes?
Someone who writes without thinking?
A nervous wolf under pressure trying to mirror anything so that people would talk of something else than him?

I think Gwath is none of the two first ones.

I'm not sure I have all the possibilities there to be sure but at least now those are the ones that come to mind.


ADD: Point taken Boro. I stressed the ifand you stressed the consider... and they are not at the same level. So you're right (darn broken English...)

I responded to Mith's question in post #190, and I think that post answers this one as well. I was not making any kind of argument against Mith. Any kind. Nogrod, however, is more than eager to jump on this opportunity to express his suspicion of me again. This argument doesn't bear examination any more than the others did: essentially, it is a false tri-lemma (am I coining a term?). He gives us three options: either I think really weird, I write without thinking, or I'm a wolf. I would like to suggest a third option: I think normally, but sometimes fail to effectively communicate my thoughts through my writing.

Overall: Nogrod banters a bit, makes some good points, posits interesting theories, and seems hell-bent on finding me guilty one way or another.

I think he is way too interested in establishing my guilt, to the point that my guilt has become the basis of his arguments against me, and, essentially, the premises are being tailored to fit the conclusion.


EDIT: Crossed with everyone since Shasta