[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Brinniel

Did you quts really think Noggie was the divo?

No. Like I said, I thought the phantom was special, not Nog, but that the phantom was using Nog as a way to hint without being too obvious. Remember the exchange where he was like, "Wait, you didn't mean Nogrod. In that case, yeah, definitely."? I took that as a clue that I was on the right track: that he hadn't been talking about Nog per se, but that he'd been using Nog to talk about himself.

Originally Posted by the phantom

Basically, you all can trust me. But I will not throw my weight around.

Even that pesky cobbler, huh?

J/K, in case anybody gets too stirred up. I just like knowing all the answers, you know? It irritates me in a really highly irrational way not to know how many players are on each 'side.' And then I remember J.K. Rowling writing "Harry, the world isn't made up of only good guys and Death Eaters" or whatever the exact wording was...

Originally Posted by Boro

I can't see how the cobbler would be able to pass on info that xe didn't know xeself. (Did I use that properly?) That would make a giant continuity problem within the fabric of the performance.

Cobbler sends choice to Mith, Mith sends choice to Critics. I envision it sort of like the Cobbler picks up a packet of information which xe never gets to read. Of, of course, Cobbler PMs Mith, Mith PMs back, Mith PMs Cobbler. I know Mith used the phrase 'blind drop' and I assume that means that the Cobbler doesn't get to PM the Critics (that the Cobbler doesn't know their identity) but I just wondered if it meant that the Cobbler doesn't actually know the info that xe is acquiring.

Originally Posted by B88

Beautiful analysis if I may say so myself Lari

Yes, I totally agree. Informative, concise, and without triggering my ADD reaction like a list of quotes always, always does. Psh, Newbie... You're fair game now.

Originally Posted by Boro again...

Why all the big deal about people who were making a big deal about the Nogrod voters?

Is this rhetorical? I can't help but agree with Brinn. Since during the whole of my thing with the phantom yesterday, I never particularly thought Nog was a bad guy, I watched people jump him with confusion. Of course I knew that singling him out might be harmful, but that's a werewolf truism, and since he was the major example the phantom had brought to my attention, I figured if I had any hope of tp understanding what point I was driving at, I shouldn't start making things up and hope for the best.

So while my vote for Menel was a typical Day 1 style vote from me (is there anybody here that doesn't know my complete derision for Day One votes? It's a bunch of uninformed people making determinative decisions based on (if they're ordo) absolutely nothing that can - in a scientific environment - be called fact. Hence, it irritates me much the same way teaching ID in a bio classroom 'because you can't prove it isn't true' irritates me.)...

While my Menel vote was basically, "Well, I went down a list and couldn't find a better option..." it was weird seeing everybody jump on Nog given that his only real stand out action of the game was hinting that he might indeed be a good guy.

Hence the reason people are curious about the bandwagon onto Nog. Now my suggestion for that is that a Critic voted Nog early (I don't think late, due to the flurry of cross-posts: it strikes me as odd that a Critic would draw that much attention to his/her own lynch-pin vote on the first day of the game), or that it was a bunch of misguided villagers.

So I do understand why everybody wants to trace Nog's descent into hell, but I'm also curious why people followed up on my admittedly random Menel vote. "I can't think of anybody better" is nothing at all like "He did something suspicious." So in a tie-race between two ordos wherein the voters were trying their best to save one by killing the other, when it turns out that seriously, neither of them were Gifted? On day one?

The person I find most interesting at the moment, actually, looking back over the votes and the timing, is Sally.

Sal, have you said why you retracted? My only interest in the timing of it was purely practical: yesterday at Day End I wanted to know if it counted. But today, though it didn't count, I want to know why you tried saving Nog when, as it turns out, he was no more important than Menel.

Originally Posted by Ilya

It seems like it's always ordos who want to start stuff, and the wolves who jump on it later. Does that make any sense?

It makes sense, but I'm not sure if I agree. It makes sense because if a wolf jumps onto an idea after an Ordo, it can't be directly traced back to them: they can say, "But it seemed like so-and-so really knew what they were talking about, and I'd thought the same, so when somebody backed up my suspicion - so sorry it was wrong - it seemed obvious that I should vote the same way" or whatever.

At the same time, I've seen situations where wolves start stuff just to cause enough trouble so that people have to look at everybody, not just one or two people.

But I do basically agree with you: typically it's misguided ordos who mess things up. As a historical footnote, it makes me think of civilians listening to war time propaganda: with the informed people nudging people's opinions, the ordos can't entirely be blamed for mistaking fake stuff as fact.

Originally Posted by Brinn

Sure, tp can tell us he's on our side, but how do we know that for sure.

Well, if we find out if he either always tells the truth or always tells a lie, then we should ask him what the guy next to him would say because then either way the answer is a lie because the guy telling the truth would quote the liar with the lie, and the liar would be lying, so...

/Labyrinth.

Dear David Bowie: I am still in love with your makeup. ♥me.

Originally Posted by Brinn

Since his alliances may shift on a Day to Day basis, all the more reason not to listen to him.

On a more-serious-than-movie-reference note, isn't this essentially what we do even when he's not OG? We know he wasn't a critic, and we know he wasn't The Cobbler, but just as if he was still playing, we don't know his priorities (apart from 'himself') and we know he has no special other knowledge he can give us. So I propose this: it's dangerous to assume he's a declared innocent, because he's not: he's a declared OG, which, if you've watched the musical/movie or read the book, Erik was a nutjob serial killer with an absolute skill at torture and manipulate. The trapdoor king. So I propose: we listen to him about as much as we normally do: if his suggestions seem reasonable, we take a shot. If he sounds a bit too much like himself, we skip it.

Everybody follow?

Originally Posted by Mith

Has the power to attack one other once at any later part of the game. Not obliged to use power - little wild card.

Does xe die if xe uses this power (sort of like a Hunter, I'm thinking)?

And is it made public? Like, if one soulmate kicks it, and they're marked out as 'a soulmate died' and the other one decides to use this wild card, as you call it, will there be a narration like "The other soulmate, Player X, killed off Player Y to make up for the death of X's soulmate, Z" or will it be like "Player Y has been killed"?

Originally Posted by TGWBS

All know his viewpoint completely objective. Therefore all can trust phantom.

This creeps me out, Wild Man. Because 1) there's not really any such thing as objectivity, but more importantly 2) the phantom doesn't have any special knowledge that we know of, so anything he says is just as likely to be dead wrong as anything any of the rest of us say. So saying we can all trust him is like saying we can all trust pre-death Nog, or pre-death Menel (examples used because roles are now known). We can trust that the phantom isn't a Critic, but we can't trust that his viewpoints will be of any aid to anybody but the Moddess, who shall be amused by them.

Originally Posted by Sally

I want to think about who would have killed Phantom in more detail, but it's too early, so I'll have to get to it in the Night.

Everybody?

No, but I do agree: later (after I eat) I intend to take a look see about what might draw people to TP (apart from his native egoism).

Originally Posted by Sally

Yes, but you have to remember that our dear Mac is a smooth one. In fact, that's why the littlest thing sets me off about him, because I've been in his pack before and know how clever he can be. I'm just saying.

Ditto that. My first game with Mac we were packmates and we - rather obviously, I must say - won. And another time I played with him, he was a wolf, and he had me totally fooled. Mac keeps me neurotic.

That said, I don't think he's a bad guy in this game. Watch me be wrong...

--

Wow, so finally caught up...

I love going to bed and finding so much to read in the morning. It gives me something to wake up to, my lovelies, please don't desist.