WW LXXIX: Fall From Olympus

[the phantom]

I can see what you are saying, Rikae, but in my point answering Nog we were working with the assumption that the false Seer knew he was false, and thus I trust he would not leave us following false hints, but rather would somehow leave behind an indication of the fact that he cannot be trusted.

[Rikae]

As for lovers trying to save wolves, and wolves using the possibility as cover, sure; among any of a number of other reasons someone might try to save a wolf: a false seer who has dreamed them as innocent, for instance; the wolf is a cursed who was dreamed of as innocent by the real seer; an (effective) ordo thinks they've spotted a sure sign of innocence in the wolf; whatever. Even in an ordinary game, there are multiple reasons this might happen, and in this game, even more.
Plus, I was asking about the Romeo & Juliet business above concerning lovers after the death of their partner - which is moot, even more so than I realized, and it seems the same person who was debating over it knew it was moot all along - and which has nothing to do with what you just brought up. Where did this come from?

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by the phantom

I can see what you are saying, Rikae, but in my point answering Nog we were working with the assumption that the false Seer knew he was false, and thus I trust he would not leave us following false hints, but rather would somehow leave behind an indication of the fact that he cannot be trusted.

I'm sure it would take the false seer a while to discover this, though, and in the meantime, any sensible seer would leave a trail.

[Folwren]

Just I a hunch I got - my guess right now is that Kath and Nogrod, at least, are not among the pairs of lovers. If either of them are a lover, they are one of the wolves...but I can't say I think that much yet. I just think they're not one of the 'innocent' lovers, so to speak.

My reasoning? It's vague, but here it is, as best as I can express it in words. Kath brought up the question of innocent lovers, and Nogrod kept it up with more questioning of his own. I kind of figure (and I could be wrong), that someone who was a lover would know his or her role quite well, and if they didn't, would PM the mod about it instead of discussing it here. Others have spoken more firmly about what the lovers' roles are (Eonwe, for instance, the Phantom, etc.) Still others who are really lovers may have remained silent altogether.

Who has left to say anything toDay?

I will have to vote early every day. I don't know how early or anything, but it will be early, as deadline is about 1 a.m., I think...?

And all this seer stuff is way confusing. I didn't know seers revealed themsevles. I guess things 'ave changed since I last played.

Edit: Cross posted with Phantom and 2 Rikae's.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

And maybe s/he can figure it out already her/himself early in the game and come open about it?

Or not reveal at all and try not to say anything too incriminating. Though the latter could get xem lynched and the former mean that all of these would be analysed in detail. So perhaps it would be better for the False Seer to come clean after all if xe realises that that's what xe is.

Luckily for us, there are 20 separate roles, meaning that there is only a 1/20 chance of the False Seer getting it right. Of course, there still is that chance, and there still is the chance that the False Seer will have all correct dreams (of course, then it doesn't matter), and the problem with even one correct dream is that we may end up trusting the false seer and allowing the true to get killed by the wolves, and then realise that the one correct role was just a stroke of luck.

Perhaps Pan and Eros could take turns in protecting both of the Seers until we work out who is the real one (or one of them gets Night killed- there would be no sense whatsoever in not revealing in this case). Is this allowed? (The repeat protection by the Ranger and Hunter Guardian taking turns.)

I can see this is going to be a very confusing game...

edit: x-ed with the last post on page 2

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Plus, I was asking about the Romeo & Juliet business above concerning lovers after the death of their partner - which is moot, even more so than I realized, and it seems the same person who was debating over it knew it was moot all along - and which has nothing to do with what you just brought up. Where did this come from?

My R&J thing was in answer to Nerwen, and she made her comments (and I gave my answers) before there was Mod clarification. You may say there was no point in anyone but the Mod answering, but what if the Mod had left alignment to be a choice to surviving lovers? Given that possibility I thought that it was in our best interest to attempt to establish a "proper" way of behaving that would benefit the village (i.e. to establish that lovers should help the village after losing their mates).

So no, the point was not known to be moot. It had the possibility of being important. But once the point was made crystal clear by the Mod the discussion was over.

Originally Posted by Rikae

I'm sure it would take the false seer a while to discover this, though, and in the meantime, any sensible seer would leave a trail.

Do you really think a village would be stupid enough to start at the beginning of the Seer trail and follow it to a lynch without first checking the end of the trail for signs that the Seer knew he was false?

Again- Nog and I were discussing a Seer who knew he was false. That fact completely negates (or should anyway) the idea of following their words to disaster.

[Macalaure]

I had to study the roles again before I could post. So many baddies and gifteds - the good thing is that each players special abilities are less important compared to the total number of special abilities. I mean, the shirrifs, for example, are almost the same as ordos in this game. With all these roles, the problem which arises is that everybody has something to hide. Usually, the majority of players are ordos, and if somebody looks like they're hiding something, you can focus on them and try to figure out whether they're gifted or a wolf. In this setting, the wolves are able to hide extremely well. I'm tempted to go for passive ones on Day1.

There's too much talk about the lovers. They have to be loyal to their wolves (once they know them), then they're back on the village's side once the wolf is dead. While the innocent lovers can be useful, they can also be problematic, so lynching them isn't that bad. However, children, with all the lover talk, don't forget that lynching a wolf is still much, much better!
That's all there is to say, so let's move on.

There's also too much talk about the false seer. The seers have to figure out for themselves which is the real one. Once the false one knows who he is, he can still be helpful by trying to find the real one, otherwise he can consider himself to be an ordo. He might reveal himself so the real seer knows he's real, especially since his life isn't worth very much anymore. As for revealing seers who are real (or think so), it will be difficult to tell the false seer from a bluffing baddie, but otherwise it's the same as always: Seers have to kept alive at all cost. Better risk being accidentally misled by a false than lightly risking the real seer.


Wilwa's remark on Boro's "almighty Zeus" is a good one. It doesn't make sense, but it's definitely deliberate and not a slip. My bet would be a lover leaving a hint for their mate, except that that doesn't really make sense either.

You could make a similar case for Nerwen's "what the Hades is going on". If I were Persephone, I'd know who to pick first now.

Originally Posted by Folwren

I suggest that we NOT lynch Phantom, as he has not said anything remarkably ridiculous this game.

Yet, Yet! Let's try to preempt it this time.

Originally Posted by Folwren

I didn't know seers revealed themsevles.

Seers in serious danger of getting lynched often do, hoping the ranger will protect them one Night and they can be sure to have one more dream. Sometime seers that think they have enough knowledge do, too, so they don't have to fear being Night-killed and losing their knowledge to the village.

[Rikae]

I didn't check when Glirdan answered on the admin thread, I admit. As for trying to establish a proper way of the lovers for behaving, that's what I thought you were doing, and didn't believe in it. But there's no point in getting into that now. Clearly you have a stronger belief in your powers of persuasion than I do.

Originally Posted by Phantom

Do you really think a village would be stupid enough to start at the beginning of the Seer trail and follow it to a lynch without first checking the end of the trail for signs that the Seer knew he was false?

Well, I consider it entirely possible that I might miss or misinterpret a false seer's attempt to hint at being false amid hints at xyr dreams. Most seer hints I've seen were far from explicit and clear. Perhaps that's because I'm stupid, though. I cheerfully admit it: I'm a blithering idiot.

EDIT: X'd with Mac.

[A Little Green]

I'm in trouble. I want to go to sleep soon and in all likelihood won't be back before DL. The trouble is, I obviously have no clue about who to vote, it's so early and so many people haven't even showed yet! I so don't like the deadline. I think I'll be off to reread the little that has been written, and be back with comments and thoughts and vague Day 1 suspicions (hopefully).

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Mac

You could make a similar case for Nerwen's "what the Hades is going on". If I were Persephone, I'd know who to pick first now.

Interesting. Perhaps just a bit of colorful in-character talk, though. Perhaps something else. I would say your interpretation is less likely than the three possibilities I'm considering.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Rikae

I didn't check when Glirdan answered on the admin thread, I admit. As for trying to establish a proper way of the lovers for behaving, that's what I thought you were doing, and didn't believe in it. But there's no point in getting into that now. Clearly you have a stronger belief in your powers of persuasion than I do.

It wasn't just my power of persuasion that I was counting on. Given that the behavior I was attempting to set up was advantageous to the village, I assumed many would come on board just because of that fact (it would be counter-productive not to). And then with the combined weight of the entire village saying "It would be fair and proper and right for the lover to do behavior XY" I figured that would be enough to sway the average lover.

So, I had less faith in my individual persuasive ability than I did in the combined peer pressure power of the entire village. Not to mention I figured there was at the least a very small chance that someone would insist on putting forth the idea and defend the idea that the lover could remain on the side of the WWs out of loyalty to their lost love. Doing that would obviously be to the detriment of the village and thus be a possible flag of a baddie or at the least someone who wasn't helpful.

Originally Posted by Rikae

Well, I consider it entirely possible that I might miss or misinterpret a false seer's attempt to hint at being false amid hints at xyr dreams. Most seer hints I've seen were far from explicit and clear.

Perhaps, but in this case we wouldn't be following Seer hints, but rather false Seer hints. In other words, the clues that he would leave behind pointing to his falseness would logically be easier to discover and agree upon than usual Seer clues due to the fact that he would not have a Seer-level fear of discovery.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Wilwa's remark on Boro's "almighty Zeus" is a good one. It doesn't make sense, but it's definitely deliberate and not a slip. My bet would be a lover leaving a hint for their mate, except that that doesn't really make sense either.

Looking back on it, I see what you mean. He mentions "great Zeus" and then "almighty Zeus", so there probably is some hidden meaning.

I think Dionysus may have poisoned me (I feel quite sick), so I'm probably only going to be back near the end of the Day.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

So perhaps it would be better for the False Seer to come clean after all if xe realises that that's what xe is.

I think I agree with this. When the false Seer still believes xemself to be the real one, xe might well leave hints for the village to follow in case of their death. If xe discovers, through the death of one they'd dreamed, that they are the false one, they need to come clean to stop us making anything of their comments or votes.

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Perhaps Pan and Eros could take turns in protecting both of the Seers until we work out who is the real one (or one of them gets Night killed- there would be no sense whatsoever in not revealing in this case). Is this allowed? (The repeat protection by the Ranger and Hunter Guardian taking turns.)

I would think they could protect anyone they like, except maybe themselves, for one Night at a time. I guess that's another question for the mod though, as I didn't see it in the Admin Thread.

x/d with phantom and steve

[Folwren]

Okay, folks, someone explain to me what is going on with the random 'xe's' in posts?

I have nothing of substantial weight or purpose to add.

-- Foley

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Also, Boro is acting weird. I think he must have a special role of some kind. Loslote, too. And especially Nerwen, Wilwa, Eonwe and BeiGe. Phantom, however, just seems like a clueless ordo.

Win.

As for the False-Seer debate, if the False Seer realizes who they are, they could leave just as many hints telling us this as they left hints telling us their dreams. Seer-hints are always shaky things to rely on, and if we find hints telling us that that Seer's false, we're hardly going to try to ferret their dreams out. I don't think the False-Seer should reveal.

EDIT: xed with Steve and Foley - xe is a gender neutral way of saying "he" or "she". It's used instead of "they"...although I used "they" in this post, so nyah.

[Folwren]

Thanks, Loslote.

Okay.......I really hate doing this. But I'm about to leave and highly doubt I'll have any access to a computer or internet for the rest of the day. So I'm voting.

I have nothing real to go on. Please don't read too much into this vote.

++Eonwe

Best I can say is that I just think that of everyone that's posted....he seems most like the one who is trying to be natural and is almost succeeding but isn't quite. Pathetic, I know. I have nothing better to offer.

Have fun without me.

[Loslote]

Foley, you have to highlight your vote for it to count. The format is [ highlight] words [ /highlight] but without spaces.

[Blind Guardian]

She's not here. I say in these cases just count the vote since the voter doesn't have a chance to correct it.

[Glirdan]

Don't worry about it, I'll send her a PM to let her know how to do it.

For toDay, I am counting it as her vote.

You may proceed.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by the phantom

So, I had less faith in my individual persuasive ability than I did in the combined peer pressure power of the entire village.

I lack faith in that as well, at least not in this village. There are quite a few people here I wouldn't at all expect to bow to peer pressure.

I can't say it's really harmful for you to have tried it, though, as long as it wouldn't have resulted in a general blind trust of people who may not be on the village's side after all.

Originally Posted by Phantom

Not to mention I figured there was at the least a very small chance that someone would insist on putting forth the idea and defend the idea that the lover could remain on the side of the WWs out of loyalty to their lost love. Doing that would obviously be to the detriment of the village and thus be a possible flag of a baddie or at the least someone who wasn't helpful.

Yeah, I suspected as much. It's a neat way to create a suspect, isn't it? But I do mean create, and not find, since it's very much a matter of style and philosophy whether someone considers it a good thing to forge a general agreement of how certain players should act that goes beyond (at the time) the admin thread. It could be argued (by an innocent) that such agreements are unfair, or misleading, or an attempt at distraction.. I think I can recall you innocently attempting to reach similar "peer pressure" agreements before, though.

Originally Posted by Phantom

Perhaps, but in this case we wouldn't be following Seer hints, but rather false Seer hints. In other words, the clues that he would leave behind pointing to his falseness would logically be easier to discover and agree upon than usual Seer clues due to the fact that he would not have a Seer-level fear of discovery.

Ah, but this would interfere with the false seer's ability to fool the wolves, which was, if I understood you correctly, the whole point of not revealing in the first place.

Originally Posted by Folwren

Okay, folks, someone explain to me what is going on with the random 'xe's' in posts?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xe

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Ah, but this would interfere with the false seer's ability to fool the wolves, which was, if I understood you correctly, the whole point of not revealing in the first place.

I'm not sure about that. In hindsight, hints like that don't have to be blatant. They can be subtle enough to fool wolves while being noticeable enough to stand out to those looking for them.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Thanatos specifying the rules

Eros: Will NOT be able to guard himself (as he is also part Hunter)

Pah: WILL be able to guard himself but may only do so once.

So there is no ruling to deny the group-work from Eros and Pan? Really? Well, hey, we've used any loophole in the rules before as well - even if I have thought double-rangers always been against the spirit of the game...

So both seers reveal, we make a deal that Pan protects A and Eros B and the other way around the next Night and so on - until the wolves figure out who either Pan or Eros are and do away with one (they need not come forwards, just silently stick to the plan we others come up with). Well that's a head-on tactics which would surely cause a stir, and be a bit dangerous: just one of the guardians need to mess up with the rangering and we have the seer flushed out very early on and the wolves having a chance to go at her/him... but then again the wolves would need to check that out every Night (whether one of the rangers is missing her/his duties) and thus waste their kills... and thence not be able to find them just trying to kill the seers - unless we try to lynch one of them rangers of course... hmm.

Surely it's up to the seers to decide on this.

Being a sporty player I do personally dislike the automatic protection -idea. In a way it's a bit unfair - but this has it's dangers as well. So at least discussing it wouldn't be that unsporty? It would be quite a fool-proof way to grant our seer multiple Nights to dream - unless we had real bad luck or someone really messes up what s/he's supposed to do...


So what say you?

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So what say you?

There are revenge-kills in play, too. We'd flush out the Seers and leave them to die at the hands of angry lovers. I think, besides the fact that it is rather unsportsmanlike, it's too dangerous.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Loslote

I'm not sure about that. In hindsight, hints like that don't have to be blatant. They can be subtle enough to fool wolves while being noticeable enough to stand out to those looking for them.

Not in the case Phantom was talking about - the wolves dream of the false seer's role as seer. Why would the wolves be any less able to see the hints, in that case, than the village? There really is no benefit to the false seer keeping quiet in general, although in some circumstances there might be.

EDIT: X'd with Nog and Loslote, also somehow attributed Lottie's quote above to Folwren.

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Not in the case Phantom was talking about - the wolves dream of the false seer's role as seer. Why would the wolves be any less able to see the hints, in that case, than the village? There really is no benefit to the false seer keeping quiet in general, although in some circumstances there might be.

That wasn't Foley who said that, it was me. And I'm not talking about the case The Phantom was talking about - I'm talking about keeping the False Seer hidden to provide another layer of protection for the real Seer.

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Rikae

I lack faith in that as well, at least not in this village. There are quite a few people here I wouldn't at all expect to bow to peer pressure.

Well definitely they wouldn't once it is called out for what it is, but had things proceeded unhindered I think it would be a fair bet that at least half would follow the common logic. I would most likely do so myself, as I would consider it in bad taste to go against what is perceived as the proper balance of things etc.

Originally Posted by Rikae

Yeah, I suspected as much. It's a neat way to create a suspect, isn't it? But I do mean create, and not find, since it's very much a matter of style and philosophy whether someone considers it a good thing to forge a general agreement of how certain players should act that goes beyond (at the time) the admin thread.

But in my mind arguing against the point out of a sense of "style" would be bad form, as the first priority of a good villager is to do what is possible to win. If there is a situation that arises where there is clearly one side that is an advantage to the good side, the good villager should take it. Not doing so would run contrary to their whole alignment thus disturbing the balance set up by the Moderator. At least that's how I view it.

Originally Posted by Phantom

Perhaps, but in this case we wouldn't be following Seer hints, but rather false Seer hints. In other words, the clues that he would leave behind pointing to his falseness would logically be easier to discover and agree upon than usual Seer clues due to the fact that he would not have a Seer-level fear of discovery.

Originally Posted by Rikae

Ah, but this would interfere with the false seer's ability to fool the wolves, which was, if I understood you correctly, the whole point of not revealing in the first place.

I assumed someone would say this, and the answer- there still remains a difference between hinting and outright revealing, and that difference is primarily an issue of time and being thorough. It is possible for Werewolves to miss hints, as at busy stages of the game it is nearly impossible to examine every last post of every person in complete detail, where as on the other hand no way would the WWs miss an open reveal.

So, a hinting false Seer can leave hints that, if you know to look for them, can be found, but if you don't know to single out that individual you may pass over them.

(looking back I see that Lottie appears to have made this exact point)

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Loslote

There are revenge-kills in play, too. We'd flush out the Seers and leave them to die at the hands of angry lovers.

That's actually a good point (had to check the rules once again). And what's most dangerous, it's the wolves from the lover-pair that have the revenge-kills - so they'd have every reason to go for our seers - unlike if the revenge-kills were with the innocent parts of the love-relationships. True.

It requires the lover-pairs to have found each other though and the innocent one of them dying so it might take some time things get that far, but anyway you're right, it looks a bit too risky.

So let's forget the idea.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So there is no ruling to deny the group-work from Eros and Pan? Really? Well, hey, we've used any loophole in the rules before as well - even if I have thought double-rangers always been against the spirit of the game...

So both seers reveal, we make a deal that Pan protects A and Eros B and the other way around the next Night and so on - until the wolves figure out who either Pan or Eros are and do away with one (they need not come forwards, just silently stick to the plan we others come up with). Well that's a head-on tactics which would surely cause a stir, and be a bit dangerous: just one of the guardians need to mess up with the rangering and we have the seer flushed out very early on and the wolves having a chance to go at her/him... but then again the wolves would need to check that out every Night (whether one of the rangers is missing her/his duties) and thus waste their kills... and thence not be able to find them just trying to kill the seers - unless we try to lynch one of them rangers of course... hmm.

Surely it's up to the seers to decide on this.

Being a sporty player I do personally dislike the automatic protection -idea. In a way it's a bit unfair - but this has it's dangers as well. So at least discussing it wouldn't be that unsporty? It would be quite a fool-proof way to grant our seer multiple Nights to dream - unless we had real bad luck or someone really messes up what s/he's supposed to do...


So what say you?

An interesting idea. I suppose it's not any more risky that the rangers will get killed than that the seers will, and at least this way we'll have the benefit of all the seers' information out in the open, all the time.

But what's to prevent a false reveal from tying up one of the rangers?

EDIT: X'd with TP & Nog.

[A Little Green]

Okay, I'm so confused I'll make a list. I don't think I've ever done it this early in the game, but at least I'm making sure I don't forget to consider somebody. I think the names of my two categories pretty much sum up my feelings at this point.

Won't vote:
Wilwa - Will definitely not receive my vote toDay. I have seen nothing that would make my alarm bells ring, and she's helpful and makes sense.
Lottie - I'm leaning towards finding her innocent.
Eonwe - Looks genuine this far.
Nerwen - Leaning innocent too - a bit less calculating than an evil Nerwen would be. I think.
Folwren - Posts sense and brings up points from an innocentish point of view. Definitely not going to vote for her toDay.
Lalaith - Her one post this far could go either way. I'm debating. But as I have nothing definite I will probably not vote her toDay. (She's playing her first game in ages, and it would seem unfair to lynch her randomly on Day 1. If I start to find her wolvish, though, I'll stop playing it fair. )

Confuses me:
Kath - She made it to Day 1! I'm proud of her. Other than that, I really can't say this or that about her, she hasn't said much.
Boro - Is confusing me to no end. His great Zeus left me quite baffled, as all the reasons I can think of for him saying that make no sense whatsoever.
Mira - I'm mainly confused about her not posting as Mira. She's posted once this far, so I believe I'm excused for having no effing idea.
Zil - I'm always bad at reading him, and this far this game doesn't look like an exception.
Blind Guardian - Nothing of substance this far. No idea, therefore.
Nienna - Has posted once but posted sense. I know she's excellent at posting sense even when a wolf though so I'm making no assumptions about her role.
autume - A one-liner and a two-liner. In other words, too little to say anything definite especially as I haven't played with her (I assume it's a she?) before - but just judging by the tone I'd say she is not a wolf. She seems - well - too little excited and tense, like, even a bit bored?
Rikae - Active and keeps the conversation running, I like it. That has nothing to do with her role, though, I have no idea about that! Confusing.
Shasta - Haven't seen him this far. Sad.
Mac - Makes sense, but also makes me raise my eyebrows a bit. Especially the following:

Originally Posted by Mac

You could make a similar case for Nerwen's "what the Hades is going on". If I were Persephone, I'd know who to pick first now.

So he's implying that Nerwen is Hades (ergo a wolf), but doesn't make a move to actually start suspecting her? If you think you've caught a wolf, why just mention it offhand instead of making a case and trying to get your supposed wolf lynched? Fishy, I'd say.
Nog - For some reason I have no opinion on him whatsoever. (Usually I'm at his throat already at this point of the game.)
Phantom - I could copy-paste what I said about Nog as it pretty much applies to phantom too. If I had to voice an opinion I'd say I was leaning towards finding him innocent, though.
Sally - Confuses me, as usual, or more than usual, actually.


EDIT: x-ed since Lottie's #95

[the phantom]

Originally Posted by Rikae

the wolves dream of the false seer's role as seer. Why would the wolves be any less able to see the hints, in that case, than the village?

Under that circumstance the advantage to keeping quiet has already been won, due to the fact that the WWs were forced to waste a dream on the false Seer (who must have taken our advice and NOT revealed).

But anyway, I need to leave right away. I'll be back for the final couple of hours.

[Rikae]

Phantom - although I'm beginning to think this whole discussion better be wrapped up, so we can get on to more useful things - half the village may or may not matter, depending on which half the lovers are in.

And you talk about matters of "style" being bad "form" while you consider it bad "taste" to go against the dictates of the majority. Well, I reply that it is bad "taste" and "form" not to allow individual players to play according to their own "style", unless, that is, you prefer to play with a village of robots. Furthermore, if the lovers had indeed been barred from winning and without an alignment after their partners' death, trying to obscure that fact would mean, as you put it, "disturbing the balance set up by the Moderator."

But in general, I will say that I always put good form and fairness, as I see them, first - ahead of my own victory. If that makes me suspicious, so be it.

Originally Posted by Phantom

It is possible for Werewolves to miss hints, as at busy stages of the game it is nearly impossible to examine every last post of every person in complete detail, where as on the other hand no way would the WWs miss an open reveal.

As I said to Loslote, you were talking about wolves who have dreamt of the "seer". They would have a whole night to go over the quotes of this alleged seer and decide whether or not to kill xem, and, if they're in a situation where their choice of kill is especially important (which you're assuming) there is no reason to suppose they'll miss something that will be obvious to the villagers the next day, with exactly the same information.

EDIT: X'd with Phantom.

[Blind Guardian]

Sorry I'm not much help. I'm very confused. What the heck are you talking about!?! Well, I have to go. I'll be back before DL.

Xd with Rikae.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Under that circumstance the advantage to keeping quiet has already been won, due to the fact that the WWs were forced to waste a dream on the false Seer (who must have taken our advice and NOT revealed).

But anyway, I need to leave right away. I'll be back for the final couple of hours.

Hm, in the case that they dream of xem because of xyr seer-hints? Well, let the false seer hint away, then. I'm sure the wolves will pick up what we want them to pick up, and miss what we want them to miss.

[A Little Green]

Rikae is making a whole lot of sense right now. Other than that, it's 1 AM and I've just started to re-adjust to the Finnish schedule, so I'm not going to mess that up by staying up ridiculously late because of an American deadline. Therefore, I'm going with the only thing I have:

++ Macalaure

I have something on him, one argument that holds water. I have nothing proper on others. I'm too tired to repeat the argument now, but it's in my previous post. Good night!


EDIT: x-ed with Rikae who has an avatar scarily similar to mine!

[Nogrod]

Okay let's get into the bussiness of trying to tie the Day up for now - from my part that is.

One thing that bothers me is this whole bussiness with Boro and his almighty Zeus stuff. I mean it's possible he tried something but somehow I find the discussion around it even more suspicious. Needs to check.

Also what Greenie said about Mac's remarks is something I had raised an eyebrow as well. Needs to think.

Eonwë's suggestion of the rangers picking turns makes him look more innocent than not as that is clearly an idea thrown in without thinking it through and I don't think a wolf-Eonwë would have tried that kind of bluff opening up a possibly devastating tactics to the innocents. The same goes with Zil's keeping up the idea on the list.

I like the fact that Greenie actually produced a list - even if there's little in it (but green things ).

X'd with Greenie... back in a few moments after re-reading a few things.

[Kath]

Bedtime for me - as I said it'll be early votes from me!

++BLIND GUARDIAN

There have been a lot of people throwing one liners out. It's Day 1, it's normal. But from most of those with one liners there seems to have been at least something a little useful, at least since some actual discussion started. From Blind Guardian we have two posts about the actual game itself, and neither is constructive:

1: Hello people I am here. But I have to leave. So...MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN!

2: Sorry I'm not much help. I'm very confused. What the heck are you talking about!?! Well, I have to go. I'll be back before DL.

Well something did happen. Lots happened! And if you're confused don't just put that as a random statement - make clear what you're confused about so it can be explained! If it's the false Seer business I'm sure neither Rikae or phantom would mind explaining it again if it means they get to argue more. On the subject of which, it's too early to tell whether that's innocents/guilty parties/bluffs etc, but it will definitely leave points for discussion in later Days.

Having literally just read Greenie's post I don't agree with her view on Mac. I thought he was making the point that if one saw hints in Boro's mentioning of Zeus then one had to see the same in Nerwen's mentioning of Hades, not that he actually thought that Nerwen's mention was suspicious. Because he said (about the Boro one):

It doesn't make sense, but it's definitely deliberate and not a slip. My bet would be a lover leaving a hint for their mate, except that that doesn't really make sense either.

Which I thought meant he didn't really think it was a hint. Maybe Mac will clear that up at some point.

And that's it from me for toDay.

[Boromir88]

May we put a freeze on posts for about an hour so I can keep up? Yeesh.

As for my Zeus remarks, I legit figured since he is my ultimate God of Gods (and sans the Disney version reviled the wench Hera) he was a defacto good guy. Wasn't thinking that indepth at 5:30 AM when I have important deliveries to run.

I'm not exactly understanding the big deal other than I essentially repeated the phantom allied with lovers scenario without knowing I was possibly repeating it.

[Nogrod]

Here's what he said initially.

Originally Posted by Boro

One thing I am quite certain of is phantom will come up with a plan that will best achieve victory for whoever he's allied with, be it wolves, lover, or the great Zeus.

If he be allied with the wolves, we will all object to his plan because we don't want to admit it's a good plan, and proceed to lynch one of the seers.

If he be allied with a lover, we will all object to his plan, because we don't want to admit it's a good plan, and proceed to lynch one of the seers.

If he be allied with the almighty Zeus, we will all object to his plan....oh you get the idea.

Then Wilwa goes like this:

Originally Posted by Wilwa

I'm not all too certain why you've seperated Zeus from the other Lovers. If the other two Lovers find each other they will be no different from the Zeus/Hera pairing. Unless I'm missing something.

Eonwë commented:

Originally Posted by Eonwë

I think he meant that in that case the pantom would be on the "good" side as opposed to being Hera. Then again, we're the Olympians- there is no good or evil, only us. But you're right. Zeus would rather have Hera live than the rest of us, even she is on the opposite side.

And Wilwa answered:

Originally Posted by Wilwa

Well he did say 'allied with the almighty Zeus', so he must have been meaning Phantom as Hera. I just don't get why he seperated them from the other Lovers.

Then it's Rikae:

Originally Posted by Rikae

I think Boro didn't mean "Zeus" in the sense of the role. Either that, or he's hinting at something.

Then Wilwa again:

Originally Posted by Wilwa

And I hadn't considered that when Boro said 'allied with Zeus' that he meant 'the village'. I suppose that all makes more sense now.

Mac comes to it after some silence on the subject:

Originally Posted by Mac

Wilwa's remark on Boro's "almighty Zeus" is a good one. It doesn't make sense, but it's definitely deliberate and not a slip. My bet would be a lover leaving a hint for their mate, except that that doesn't really make sense either.

Eonwë once again is at it:

Originally Posted by Eonwë

Looking back on it, I see what you mean. He mentions "great Zeus" and then "almighty Zeus", so there probably is some hidden meaning.

Greenie mentions Boro in a long list of people confusing her:

Boro - Is confusing me to no end. His great Zeus left me quite baffled, as all the reasons I can think of for him saying that make no sense whatsoever.

Now there are a few things that bother me. Firstly it looks like totally odd as Zeus and Hera actually know each other already and thence there would be no reason for either of them trying to make contact - or anyone else to try and make contact with Zeus for that matter (as there being someone who could really benefit getting Zeus' notice, or how that kind of hinting would help revealing her/his role to him) - and all hinting of one's own personality I think was stirctly banned in the rules (and I can't see the benefit Zeus would have to reveal himself as Zeus, on D1 at least). So a hoaks? Much ado about nothing? Well, secondly it looks like those things wolves love to jump on: when they have no real suspicions themselves - because all they should suspect are innocents - they like to cling on scenarios some others suggest or that stand out in any possible way. Looking at the number of comments where Boro's wordings were deemed suspicious or noteworthy of a raised eyebrow I'd bet there are wolves involved.

[autume98]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Okay let's get into the bussiness of trying to tie the Day up for now - from my part that is.

I second this! There has been some good discussion, but it also seem like there has been some dragged on discussion regarding the lovers.

I don't think the Seers should reveal. Obviously they should give some hints, confuse some wolves, and hopefully help out the town while they are at it.

I think I skipped over the Zeus comments so I'll have to go back and see if there is anything there.

[Lalaith]

Some interesting discussions here - I think the stuff about how to deal with the true/false seers is very helpful. Lots of people have actually been genuinely helpful today, and normally I go with that as a sign of innocence...unfortunately, I think that in this game, everyone, guilties and innocents alike, is trying to make sense of things so that is no longer a helpful guideline on how to vote.

Well, I am, like a few others here, forced to vote early due to European timezones. It's a baffling choice even by first day standards, and all I've got to go on is a hunch that the following vote could throw up something useful:
++BOROMIR

PS, how do I make this go red?