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

[satansaloser2005]

I'll have a right proper narration up after work tomorrow, but this way the thread is at least live. Do not post on this thread until I say so. Thanks!

DEADLINE IS 5:00 CENTRAL TIME (about 17 hours from the time stamp of this post).

Casting:
Shasta
Kath
Dun
Nerwen
Cop
McCobbler
Lottie
Green
Echo
Holbytlass
Boro
Legate
Lommy
Steve

Cast Aside:
Sally
Morsul

[satansaloser2005]

Day begins.

Intel (which will then be replaced with a narration which will tell you the same thing)!

There are three sorcerers (including Saruman).


I have to jet off to work, but I'll get narrations up tonight or tomorrow and then will be able to keep up from there. Thanks for your patience.

[Inziladun]

Well...

Until further notice, everyone but me carries a presumption of guilt. Confessions will be entertained.

There's two here I haven't encountered before, Holbytlass and naturally, Echo. Does that mean anything? Not really.

And that's the first post to get this thread into my "Subscribed" list.

Edit: And when I post there are some serious "Deprecated" notices.

[Inziladun]

Also, a friendly reminder to all and sundry that Invisibility is advised.

[Coppermirror]

To think that such foul deeds have occurred in our own encampment....Alas for the fate of Sally and Morsul and those who have fallen prey to Saruman. We cannot allow Saruman to use this group as a springboard for destruction and injustice.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Edit: And when I post there are some serious "Deprecated" notices.

I have eight of them at the top of the page! What vile sorcery is this?

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Also, a friendly reminder to all and sundry that Invisibility is advised.

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...

Goodness, this will be my fifth game. Never expected to play this many. Out of the players in this game, I likewise haven't played with Echo or Holbytlass before.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

I have eight of them at the top of the page! What vile sorcery is this?

I think blame should be placed upon that foul necromancer Serverman, Lord of the Code.

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

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...

And all must remember to use them in this case. Let us hope all come to their senses.

[Coppermirror]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I think blame should be placed upon that foul necromancer Serverman, Lord of the Code.

The fiend! I fear he is even more formidable than the sorcerers we face at present. We must ignore his dark arts and focus upon the threat at hand, no matter how we are dogged by him. At this moment I see only four of his "deprecated" signs...and now, as I preview this post, I see none. Perhaps his will is turning elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

And all must remember to use them in this case. Let us hope all come to their senses.

Speaking of those who must come to their senses, my memory is strangely cloudy about the details of how the encampment is to deal with the threat we are under. 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. Catching them must be the priority. I will attempt to think of a strategy for finding the sorcerers. Hopefully, more of the encampment will escape their shock about the situation soon, and speak up.

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I think blame should be placed upon that foul necromancer Serverman, Lord of the Code.

*shocked gasp*

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

The fiend! I fear he is even more formidable than the sorcerers we face at present. We must ignore his dark arts and focus upon the threat at hand, no matter how we are dogged by him. At this moment I see only four of his "deprecated" signs...and now, as I preview this post, I see none. Perhaps his will is turning elsewhere.

Certainly not! Two such powerful sorcerers turning their attention to the same encampment? Either they are working together, in which case we would be turning our backs on half of the available information and clues and practically guaranteeing our own demise - or we can attempt to cause infighting, turning the one against the other and by doing so, destroy them both! In either situation, it behooves us not to ignore this threat from the wicked Serverman. We must be constantly vigilant, dearest Cop! Let not a single clue evade your wary sight! Let not a single turned leaf pass your keen hearing! Let not a single odd odor slip past your sensitive nose! Let not a single creepy touch pass unnoticed, and we shall perhaps prevail!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Also, a friendly reminder to all and sundry that Invisibility is advised.

I am, of course, perpetually invisible.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Cop

Speaking of those who must come to their senses, my memory is strangely cloudy about the details of how the encampment is to deal with the threat we are under. 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?

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.

[Nerwen]

Zil, Cop, Lottie...

Our First Three! I wonder which is the wolf– er I mean, evil sorcerer.

[Coppermirror]

The Rule of Three, Nerwen? I don't think I've heard of that one before. Does it mean that as a rule of thumb, there'll be a sorcerer in the first three posters of each game?

I'm so tired of suspecting Inzil and thinking "he can't be a wolf yet again, can he?". I think he turned out to be a wolf in all three of the games I've played with him before. So if I had to pick a sorcerer out of the first three, I'd pick Lottie.

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.

I suppose we'll find out from the narration, but right now I don't have much better to discuss, so I might as well. Four makes some sense, but Saruman has his one-shot power as well. That might cause there to be one less, perhaps. But that said, Saruman's power to convert people is very limited in scope.

Anyway, assuming four sorcerers, we have five gifted (including the lovers), and five ordos (if one can call such fine magic users ordinary!). An interesting combination.

Only four out of fourteen of us have posted so far, so I hope everyone knows the game is running.

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Cop

The Rule of Three, Nerwen? I don't think I've heard of that one before. Does it mean that as a rule of thumb, there'll be a sorcerer in the first three posters of each game?

I'm so tired of suspecting Inzil and thinking "he can't be a wolf yet again, can he?". I think he turned out to be a wolf in all three of the games I've played with him before. So if I had to pick a sorcerer out of the first three, I'd pick Lottie.

*sigh* Back at the Rule of Three, are we? The trouble with Inzil is that he is a wolf improbably often, and when he isn't he still acts in the exact same manner! As for Lottie - well, I think we've tried the "lynch Lottie on Day 1" -strategy a couple of times before...

And as for everyone else, I always find Cop suspicious but try no to do so now unless given some reason to do so. I'm never right about Nerwen anyway so I'll just not say anything about her at present, and the rest are still asleep so I'll ignore them as well. Sounds... constructive? Not really.

I don't see much sense in speculating about the number of sorcerers as that is more than likely something Sally will clarify once she returns. Although that brief conversation might prove interesting once we do find out what the actual number is. My initial thought was that it seems more likely that the one who first realizes we don't know the number of wolves would be an innocent than a wolf, since the wolves presumably know how many of them there are. (Captain Obvious at your service!) But then again, there's always double-bluffs, so that theory doesn't really hold water. Bleh.

[Thinlómien]

Haa, great to be here and playing again. Honestly, we should have more games and someone should force me to visit the 'Downs at least once per two weeks or something, because this is ridiculous. Anyway, nice to see everyone. *waves*

And Holby! I almost got a heart-attack when I saw you signed up. Always wonderful to see old faces back. And welcome and enjoy being dead - though hopefully not too soon in this particular game - to Echo!

Originally Posted by Zil

Also, a friendly reminder to all and sundry that Invisibility is advised.

Now this made me think that Zil's gone through people's profiles one by one seeing who's been online when. Why don't I have any problem imagining this...

Originally Posted by Nerwen

The Rule of Three...

Zil, Cop, Lottie...

Our First Three! I wonder which is the wolf– er I mean, evil sorcerer.

Aren't they all wolves in about 2/3 of the games anyway?

The only thing that's raised my eyebrows this far is Cop taking the post quoted above seriously, but that's not very much. Gosh, I wish Nogrod was here to start the serious talk for us.


PS. As for the ones quiet this far, Greenie is sitting next to me and typing a post at this very moment, and Kath and Legate too know that the game has started but haven't got up yet.


edit: xed with Greenie, she was faster than me hmph!

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

The Rule of Three, Nerwen? I don't think I've heard of that one before. Does it mean that as a rule of thumb, there'll be a sorcerer in the first three posters of each game?

Not a rule of thumb, but just based on probability, I would say (especially in smaller games). I think I recall it happening very often. Usually, the WWs also feel some "moral obligation" to post (I mean, there are "unsporty" wolves as well, but I think mostly WWs are like that they don't want to purposefully abstain for a day unless they are forced to, since it'd be unfair), if they are around, in case they won't be around later. So if a WW is around in early stages of the game, I think it's more likely they post than not. Also, the earlier the post, the more banter you can write (but I guess it depends on the Wolf if he/she is a under-the-radar-substanceless-posts-posting one or if he/she prefers to write things with actual content, such WWs probably prefer to write more once the actual discussion starts).

Originally Posted by Cop

I'm so tired of suspecting Inzil and thinking "he can't be a wolf yet again, can he?". I think he turned out to be a wolf in all three of the games I've played with him before.$

Originally Posted by A Little Green

*sigh* Back at the Rule of Three, are we? The trouble with Inzil is that he is a wolf improbably often, and when he isn't he still acts in the exact same manner!

Actually, I had the same idea after reading the first post, which on first sight (before I read anything else) felt like "ha, is he behaving like a Zilwolf"? But exactly the trouble is, he hasn't been a nonzilwolf for a while, so it's hard to say. However, on second look, I don't think Zil's post is actually in any way Wolf-seeming.

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).

The amount of these in Greenie's post seems a bit excessive; if anything disturbs me, it is actually her. But it is also the general paranoia, since we recently talked about what would it be like, once the game starts, if three of us were Wolves and only one innocent (as mentioned above, there is currently Greenie, Lommy, Kath and me in the same place). Speaking of which, Lommy seems to me the most innocentish of all the people so far.

Anyway, somebody mentioned the strategy of getting rid of Saruman first of all; clearly that is the best course. But we can't figure out (I assume) who is Saruman and who is "ordinary baddie", so the subject simply comes down to basic Wolf-hunt. Sorry, Sorcerer-hunt.

Now off to finish my breakfast and I'll check back later

[Kath]

Can't believe Nogrod isn't in this game - who else is going to be so pleased at the fact that, given I am currently staying with 5 other Downers, there's no way I can forget the game has started! I'm with Lommy - there should definitely be something that prods you back to the 'Downs every week or so.

To the game! Admin thread says only that the number of wolves will be determined by the number of players. Given we have few players I wouldn't have thought we would have more than 3 wolves, particularly with this chance to add another to the pack later on. Presumably this will come clear in the narration though so little point worrying yet. We still need to aim to catch any wolf!

Is there any knowledge on whether double lynches might happen? I looked through the admin thread but couldn't see anything. May be me being stupid though.

I have no scary notices at the moment. But do remember to copy posts before trying to submit them just in case! (Copying now. )

[Coppermirror]

Finally, more people! I'll have to go to sleep very soon, but it's a relief that people know the game is on.

Originally Posted by A Little Green

As for Lottie - well, I think we've tried the "lynch Lottie on Day 1" -strategy a couple of times before...

Why would Lottie be someone who frequently gets lynched on day 1? I can't quite remember if this topic got brought up in a previous game or not.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Aren't they all wolves in about 2/3 of the games anyway?

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

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

The only thing that's raised my eyebrows this far is Cop taking the post quoted above seriously, but that's not very much. Gosh, I wish Nogrod was here to start the serious talk for us.

It's not that I was taking it seriously per se but that it's better to talk on Day 1 and see where the conversation may go. The worst situation is if nobody says anything, after all.

By now, rule of three or no rule of three, we've had eight people posting by now, and that means there's bound to be at least one wolf who's posted, and maybe more.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Anyway, somebody mentioned the strategy of getting rid of Saruman first of all; clearly that is the best course.

I agree that that would be the ideal strategy even if there are doubts about how it would work, but actually you're the first person to propose the strategy. Earlier people were debating the merits of going for Saruman versus also going for, um, Serverman, Lord of the Code.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

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).

Legate, could you tell me what sort of hidden talking-to-wolves conversation you think could have been hidden in the banter between me and Inzil earlier? Now, I know there is no message, and personally I can't see potential for interpreting the posts in that way either, but I'm deeply interested in what you think it could have been, in the sense that I'm wondering whether you're a sorcerer and you already know there isn't one.

[satansaloser2005]

I put in a temporary "narration" telling you the number of sorcerers. Enjoy.

I will be at work until deadline. If you have a question, PM me and I'll check the Downs from my phone a few times during the day. If you need something urgent, please have Shasta or Boro text me.


P.S. DEPRECATE! DEPRECATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Holbytlass]

i have been gone long in my travels and only now return.
some are known but most aren't.

i did want to come to the village square and say hello before returning to my humble abode and unpack and think and become paranoid and....

[Kath]

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

Finally, more people! I'll have to go to sleep very soon, but it's a relief that people know the game is on.



Why would Lottie be someone who frequently gets lynched on day 1? I can't quite remember if this topic got brought up in a previous game or not.



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



It's not that I was taking it seriously per se but that it's better to talk on Day 1 and see where the conversation may go. The worst situation is if nobody says anything, after all.

By now, rule of three or no rule of three, we've had eight people posting by now, and that means there's bound to be at least one wolf who's posted, and maybe more.



I agree that that would be the ideal strategy even if there are doubts about how it would work, but actually you're the first person to propose the strategy. Earlier people were debating the merits of going for Saruman versus also going for, um, Serverman, Lord of the Code.



Legate, could you tell me what sort of hidden talking-to-wolves conversation you think could have been hidden in the banter between me and Inzil earlier? Now, I know there is no message, and personally I can't see potential for interpreting the posts in that way either, but I'm deeply interested in what you think it could have been, in the sense that I'm wondering whether you're a sorcerer and you already know there isn't one.

I don't quite understand this last sentence Cop. We know there is a sorcerer surely. Either from sally's original admin thread or then definitely from her added narration. So why would Legate know that there isn't a sorcerer? Or do you mean that he knows there isn't one amongst you and Inzil - because he is the sorcerer.

Also I just spelled sorcerer wrong about three times - Aganzir had to correct me!

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

Why would Lottie be someone who frequently gets lynched on day 1? I can't quite remember if this topic got brought up in a previous game or not.

Lottie did through a period where she got lynched early a lot. It happens. The “why” is not so easy to determine...

But I don’t really like the way Greenie just points out Lottie's track record as a default lynch– without saying what she thinks of her this time. Or the way Cop picks up on it, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

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

Well, of course– you’re a sorcerer this time, right, Cop?
EDIT: X’d with Kath.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Kath

I don't quite understand this last sentence Cop. We know there is a sorcerer surely. Either from sally's original admin thread or then definitely from her added narration. So why would Legate know that there isn't a sorcerer? Or do you mean that he knows there isn't one amongst you and Inzil - because he is the sorcerer.

Kath, pretty sure she means “there isn’t a message”.

[Coppermirror]

Originally Posted by Kath

I don't quite understand this last sentence Cop. We know there is a sorcerer surely. Either from sally's original admin thread or then definitely from her added narration. So why would Legate know that there isn't a sorcerer? Or do you mean that he knows there isn't one amongst you and Inzil - because he is the sorcerer.

Oh, sorry, I see how that could be misleading. By "one" I meant a hidden conversation about sorcerers between sorcerers such as Legate appeared to be speculating was there in the banter. So what I was wondering about was whether Legate's speculation was legitimate or whether he's a sorcerer and already knows there isn't a hidden conversation there. Which led me to want to know what Legate thought the content of such a hidden conversation might have been and where in the posts it was, as I don't understand what he could have genuinely taken as such a conversation.

Edit: crossed with Nerwen twice.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

I suppose we'll find out from the narration, but right now I don't have much better to discuss, so I might as well. Four makes some sense, but Saruman has his one-shot power as well. That might cause there to be one less, perhaps. But that said, Saruman's power to convert people is very limited in scope.

Moddess has now indicated there are three baddies, including Saruman. Was it Greenie who said not knowing the number could be a sign of innocence? Could be. Anyway, I like Greenie thus far.

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

Anyway, assuming four sorcerers, we have five gifted (including the lovers), and five ordos (if one can call such fine magic users ordinary!). An interesting combination.

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.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Now this made me think that Zil's gone through people's profiles one by one seeing who's been online when. Why don't I have any problem imagining this...

Nothing so time-consuming. Before I posted I saw someone uncloaked. There must be standards of decency.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Anyway, somebody mentioned the strategy of getting rid of Saruman first of all; clearly that is the best course. But we can't figure out (I assume) who is Saruman and who is "ordinary baddie", so the subject simply comes down to basic Wolf-hunt. Sorry, Sorcerer-hunt.

Indeed. Unless Saruman happens to be scried in the Night I don't see how s(he)'s going to be distinguishable from the other evildoers. I wonder if Saruman would show as such to the Seer anyway.

x/d with Nerwen x 2 and Cop

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Legate

Not a rule of thumb, but just based on probability, I would say (especially in smaller games). I think I recall it happening very often. Usually, the WWs also feel some "moral obligation" to post (I mean, there are "unsporty" wolves as well, but I think mostly WWs are like that they don't want to purposefully abstain for a day unless they are forced to, since it'd be unfair), if they are around, in case they won't be around later. So if a WW is around in early stages of the game, I think it's more likely they post than not. Also, the earlier the post, the more banter you can write (but I guess it depends on the Wolf if he/she is a under-the-radar-substanceless-posts-posting one or if he/she prefers to write things with actual content, such WWs probably prefer to write more once the actual discussion starts).

What? Are you actually treating the rule of three as a serious theory? That's the fishiest thing I've seen today. The rule of three is utter made-up rubbish based on probabilities. I mean, yes, if we are 14 and there are 3 wolves, it's quite likely there is a wolf among the three first posters, but the probability is no bigger than there being a wolf among any given three players - say the three first in alphabetical order (in his case A Little Green, Boro and Coppermirror). There's no point in basing any suspicions on the rule of three.

Originally Posted by Kath

Is there any knowledge on whether double lynches might happen? I looked through the admin thread but couldn't see anything. May be me being stupid though.

Since there's nothing, we can quite safely assume there are none, that has been the trend recently. But [B]alittleimpishdevilsthemoddess2005[B], what happens in the case of a tie?

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

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

Fair enough, your wolfiness just left a strong impression on me then. The clarification about your wolfhood ratio was quite unnecessary though.

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

By now, rule of three or no rule of three, we've had eight people posting by now, and that means there's bound to be at least one wolf who's posted, and maybe more.

Okay kids, let Lommy teach you some maths. It is probable that one or two wolves have posted by now, but they are in no means bound to have posted yet since there are six people who haven't posted yet and we have three wolves. Ergo, it's totally possible our wolves are among those who haven't still posted.

Originally Posted by Cop

Earlier people were debating the merits of going for Saruman versus also going for, um, Serverman, Lord of the Code.

edit: wow, a crowd! xed with everyone after Kath

[Echo]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Well...

everyone but me carries a presumption of guilt.

There's two here I haven't encountered before, Holbytlass and naturally, Echo. Does that mean anything? Not really.

Originally Posted by coppermirror

Out of the players in this game, I likewise haven't played with Echo or Holbytlass before.

Hmmm mentioned twice only out of not being known, which is where the worst kind of fear birthed from,...(lack of knowledge). but everyone has some knowledge of the behaviors of others....except me.

Originally Posted by Holbytlass

i did want to come to the village square and say hello before returning to my humble abode and unpack and think and become paranoid and...

such a public display just to crawl back to your condemed squanders, what do you have to think and be paranoid about?...

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Coppermirror

Legate, could you tell me what sort of hidden talking-to-wolves conversation you think could have been hidden in the banter between me and Inzil earlier? Now, I know there is no message, and personally I can't see potential for interpreting the posts in that way either, but I'm deeply interested in what you think it could have been, in the sense that I'm wondering whether you're a sorcerer and you already know there isn't one.

Nope, I said nothing about wolf-to-wolf messages. I was simply musing on the idea of the rule of Three, and (independantly of that) posing the idea whether any of those already posting sound Wolvish. I didn't mean that it sounds like you and Zil would be giving messages to each other, but simply that you sound like somebody who is posting "avoidingly" (see my post above for description), and that it would also be possible that you would be acting that way if you and Zil both were wolves. Purely theoretical thoughts, but what now actually seems fishy to me is your reaction to it. Your last post really does seem like that of a sort of "responsive" Wolf (as in, a Wolf who immediately snaps back at the moment somebody only slightly accidentally brushes it with a ten-foot pole).

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Indeed. Unless Saruman happens to be scried in the Night I don't see how s(he)'s going to be distinguishable from the other evildoers. I wonder if Saruman would show as such to the Seer anyway.

Good question, maybe that is something the Mod could answer as well. Because otherwise the fact that there is a Saruman is not really of much relevance to us, or, as in, we can't do anything about it. Well, if we learned about that, we'd simply lynch him anyway, but just for the sake of knowing... But let's not get tangled into this.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

What? Are you actually treating the rule of three as a serious theory? That's the fishiest thing I've seen today. The rule of three is utter made-up rubbish based on probabilities. I mean, yes, if we are 14 and there are 3 wolves, it's quite likely there is a wolf among the three first posters, but the probability is no bigger than there being a wolf among any given three players - say the three first in alphabetical order (in his case A Little Green, Boro and Coppermirror). There's no point in basing any suspicions on the rule of three.

What? No! I was saying actually the exact opposite. I was saying that it is not a rule, of of course (look at the very first sentence I said!), and cannot be treated as such (I mean, who would be so stupid to think that? Obviously, if all the Wolves are living in some faraway timezone and are still sleeping or something, then of course they won't be posting!). 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. Probability, that's all. And I said even nothing about first three, I was speaking about "first posters" in general (indefinite number). Simply, that it is likely there have been at least some Wolves posting up to now, and that I think (emphasis on that I only think) that Wolves tend to post early, if they are around (if they are "being sporty" and feeling the moral obligation to speak). That's all.

EDIT: x-posted with Echo, whom I guess nobody here has played with, so I am hoping to see more from her/him to get a better idea about it (anyway, I guess I won't be at least voting for a newbie on the first Day, as I believe is a custom most people here hold anyway... that doesn't mean you can't be suspected though, Echo!)

[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Legate

What? No! I was saying actually the exact opposite. I was saying that it is not a rule, of of course (look at the very first sentence I said!), and cannot be treated as such (I mean, who would be so stupid to think that? Obviously, if all the Wolves are living in some faraway timezone and are still sleeping or something, then of course they won't be posting!). 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. Probability, that's all. And I said even nothing about first three, I was speaking about "first posters" in general (indefinite number). Simply, that it is likely there have been at least some Wolves posting up to now, and that I think (emphasis on that I only think) that Wolves tend to post early, if they are around (if they are "being sporty" and feeling the moral obligation to speak). That's all.

This confuses me. You first say that the Rule of Three doesn't work, and then proceed to explain why it does work? Even your less extreme version of the Rule of Three -logic looks problematic to me. I think (or at least hope) that all players feel a moral obligation to contribute early in the game if they are around, so I don't really see how that applies to wolves more than others.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Lottie did through a period where she got lynched early a lot. It happens. The “why” is not so easy to determine...

But I don’t really like the way Greenie just points out Lottie's track record as a default lynch– without saying what she thinks of her this time. Or the way Cop picks up on it, for that matter.

A random observation, if you want the honest answer. It was pretty much the first thing that occurred to me when Cop mentioned that Lottie would be his pick if he had to name a wolf among the first three posters. (As in, "Oh dear, here we go again. Haven't we seen this before?") And for the record, I think she looks fine this far.

Other than that, I'm liking Lommy this far and feeling more comfortable with Inzil than usual.

[Kath]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

A random observation, if you want the honest answer.

As opposed to an untruthful one?

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.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by A Little Green

This confuses me. You first say that the Rule of Three doesn't work, and then proceed to explain why it does work? Even your less extreme version of the Rule of Three -logic looks problematic to me. I think (or at least hope) that all players feel a moral obligation to contribute early in the game if they are around, so I don't really see how that applies to wolves more than others.

I’m confused too– but maybe he just means “if a wolf has already posted..."

Note to newbies (and others), since this is becoming an issue: the Rule of Three is just a joke, not a valid reason for suspecting anyone.

(It does have its uses– talking about it has been known to provoke some interesting reactions...)

Originally Posted by Greenie

A random observation, if you want the honest answer. It was pretty much the first thing that occurred to me when Cop mentioned that Lottie would be his pick if he had to name a wolf among the first three posters. (As in, "Oh dear, here we go again. Haven't we seen this before?") And for the record, I think she looks fine this far.

Fair enough. Coppermirror is a “she”, by the way.

EDIT: X’d with Kath.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Note to newbies (and others), since this is becoming an issue: the Rule of Three is just a joke, not a valid reason for suspecting anyone.

(It does have its uses– talking about it has been known to provoke some interesting reactions...)

Then again, it could also have been useful to see if someone actually did try to use that as an excuse to justify a vote.

[Loslote]

Time to get down to business.

I feel pretty good about Cop just now. I'm a bit shaky on Greenie, but thus far leaning innocent. Her 'honest answer' specifically feels innocentish. 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. Lommy strikes me as a little less innocent, but nothing that shoves her into 'terrifying sorcerer' territory just yet.

I have no read whatsoever on Zil, Kath or Nerwen. That's where I'll be focusing my attention now, but I do have lab work to get done (and a lab class to go to) so depending on how dense Galileo turns out to be, I might be a bit quiet toDay.

[Holbytlass]

how 'bout voting for these confusing debaters of the "rule of three"-too bad we cant "lynch of three"


highly suspect
Shasta
Nerwen
Green
Boro
Steve

very suspect
Kath
Dun
Cop

much suspect
Lottie
Echo
Legate
Lommy

innocent
McCobbler


it should be plainly obvious my reasonings!!

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Legate

What? No! I was saying actually the exact opposite. I was saying that it is not a rule, of of course (look at the very first sentence I said!), and cannot be treated as such (I mean, who would be so stupid to think that? Obviously, if all the Wolves are living in some faraway timezone and are still sleeping or something, then of course they won't be posting!). 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. Probability, that's all. And I said even nothing about first three, I was speaking about "first posters" in general (indefinite number). Simply, that it is likely there have been at least some Wolves posting up to now, and that I think (emphasis on that I only think) that Wolves tend to post early, if they are around (if they are "being sporty" and feeling the moral obligation to speak). That's all.

But still you're advocating it all the time.

Originally Posted by Kath

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.

Well that's quite a useless thing to say, it' the same as saying one of the ones who haven't posted this far might be a wolf because there's a possibility a quiet wolf might not post early.

This far: Copper and Legate seem a little fishy and Nerwen a little off, while Zil and Greenie give me fairly good vibes, but I don't really have a strong opinion on anyone.

[Kath]

Holby, I mean this in the politest way, but - what the heck?

A list post is useful in terms of seeing where your loyalties lie in future Days but with zero additional information it is really fairly unhelpful right now! You said you want to lynch people discussing 'the rule of three' but that isn't so many people and not all of them can be evil anyway, so having everyone down as suspicious with no explanation isn't great.

it should be plainly obvious my reasonings!!
Then share them!

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Good question, maybe that is something the Mod could answer as well. Because otherwise the fact that there is a Saruman is not really of much relevance to us, or, as in, we can't do anything about it. Well, if we learned about that, we'd simply lynch him anyway, but just for the sake of knowing... But let's not get tangled into this.

I'm also curious as to whether it will be clear when/if he does meet his demise, that Saruman is gone.

Originally Posted by Holbytlass

how 'bout voting for these confusing debaters of the "rule of three"-too bad we cant "lynch of three"


highly suspect
Shasta
Nerwen
Green
Boro
Steve

very suspect
Kath
Dun
Cop

much suspect
Lottie
Echo
Legate
Lommy

innocent
McCobbler


it should be plainly obvious my reasonings!!

Not to me, though, not to belabor the point, I've never played with you before and have no idea of the "way you roll".

x/d with Lommy and Kath

[Kath]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Well that's quite a useless thing to say, it' the same as saying one of the ones who haven't posted this far might be a wolf because there's a possibility a quiet wolf might not post early.

Well that's rather my point. It was a nothingy statement, so why has it dragged up all this suspicion?

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Kath

Well that's rather my point. It was a nothingy statement, so why has it dragged up all this suspicion?

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?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

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.

Yes, practically that is what I was saying.

Originally Posted by Loslote

Time to get down to business.

I feel pretty good about Cop just now. I'm a bit shaky on Greenie, but thus far leaning innocent. Her 'honest answer' specifically feels innocentish. 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. Lommy strikes me as a little less innocent, but nothing that shoves her into 'terrifying sorcerer' territory just yet.

I have no read whatsoever on Zil, Kath or Nerwen. That's where I'll be focusing my attention now, but I do have lab work to get done (and a lab class to go to) so depending on how dense Galileo turns out to be, I might be a bit quiet toDay.

Hmm... for some reason, this made me a bit uncertain about Lottie, since she is practically avoiding going after those who are "in the heat" and focusing on other people, not that there is anything wrong with that per se, but I assume a Wolf might be happy to suspect people who are not in the center of attention, so that if later e.g. an innocent is lynched, the Wolf can be like "I didn't take part in this...".

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

But still you're advocating it all the time.

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".

Originally Posted by Kath

Then share them!

Seconded...

By the way: Kath is being almost suspiciously nice (see the first quote I used in my post, she is "moderating" the misunderstanding between me and Lommy) and asking very logical questions. Not that I have anything against it, mind you, far from it, but it just makes me incredibly paranoid when somebody is behaving in obviously too goodie and useful way without any conflict (especially if it's related to me, that makes me go incredibly paranoid).

I'll see if I am crossposting with anyone, then I'll still possibly appear (especially if I did crosspost).

EDIT: x-posted with Kath and Lommy

[Kath]

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?

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?

I just thought a mountain had been made out of a molehill. And it was a very small molehill to start with.