Maggy-poo's day one LoS:
Adaham: Adaham is always tough to read, for me especially, because he does this annoying thing where I read some posts, have some very specific thoughts about them, and then scroll down and read Adaham apparently typing those thoughts down for me. It can be tough to get an accurate read on a player who you seem to always agree with, regardless of their role. As I'm sure ejnomad can attest, I was having this issue back when this game started and I was just reading along. I told him as much. The single major exception was my opinion of Sheep (which you'll see expanded upon in the section here for Facemelter). But while a difference of opinion isn't anything to write home about, reading through day one with fresh eyes and fresh knowledge reveals Adaham's position on the topic to be unconscionable. Hindsight is 20/20. I fully understand that he doesn't have quite the time to dig through and write about the thread as he has in past games, but the problem(s) with Sheep was (were) not small, unobtrusive, or open to interpretation. I can't bring myself to believe that Adaham simply wouldn't have noticed the most blatant and pathetic case of quote mining I've ever seen in a game of WW, ever. Especially with how much conversation it garnered, not just from Facemelter (whose reaction to the situation I find to be equally problematic) but with clear, short, and accessible explanations from Calodine and Ativan. The only way to handle the unfortunate situation of a packmate being caught out in such an obvious lie without throwing them under the bus immediately on the first day is to not address the situation at all. Because if you do address it at all you are forced to admit their error (how could you not?) and join in the vote. I can see no other reason Adaham would allow one of only three major day one topics slide so completely. And hey, it worked. At least for a day. Rather than starting the game in a hole, the wolves managed to push the village to its first mislynch, of which (in a game of 11) wolves need only four to win should they be fortunate enough to maintain their own population.
The most sensible interpretation of Adaham's actions here is that of a good player making the most of a bad situation. Of the possible pack mates for Sheep, Adaham seems to be one of the most likely.
ComingWinter: CW's play on day one was troubling as well. Her early "joke justification" for her vote on Adaham turned into a parking vote, and while I know she's been active in later days, her relative absence on day one once the Calo/Sheep/Nipple train got rolling would indicate that she was happy to let the village's attention shift elsewhere. The parking vote itself is a large problem, but that whole conversation regarding her not-yet-parking vote is quite telling as well. Despite her claims that she was always consistent about what that comment was, she changed her story repeatedly. Let's look:
The "joke" actually spans two posts,
here and
here. CW then spends a full two posts defending the idea,
here and
here. In the second one she does suggest the whole thing is a joke, but that's not exactly the case, is it? The vote on the first page, sure, but she just spent two posts putting a cogent argument together about what group removing the experienced players would actually benefit. Should I just ignore that because it was her joke vote on the previous page that spawned the discussion? Oh, and just for the sake of accuracy, CW suggests she was required to place that vote. The rules do not agree.
But it continues.
This post encapsulates what I said above, that she's attempting to sweep the seemingly honestly held ideas she posted under the rug of the loosely related joke vote in response to the criticism of those ideas, and again with the corollary that such a vote was an obligation. That's not going to fly.
Here the excuse now becomes that the joke has served as bait, and keeping her vote is justified (mixed with some unnecessary worry about her appearance), the emphasis being that it's all a joke, but then
here it's admitted as genuine bad logic trail? Well, which is it? Also, please note that "looking at the experienced players" is not the same as saying that being experienced makes you more suspicious.
And again
here, it's changed character completely. Now it was a witty vote with a seed of truth. So was it a joke, or bad logic, or a joke with good logic? If the final option, as suggested in this post, what exactly was the good logic? What was the truth there?
This is so inconsistent. Mix that with the parking vote and convenient quietness, and I'm rather suspicious of CW. However, I don't think it reasonable to assume that CW and Adaham could possibly be packmates, so her rank on my list is lessened by the fact that I'm leaning more towards Adaham.
Calodine: Calodine's posts were tough to read. The stream of consciousness writing and the lack of quotes makes context nearly impossible to determine without second and third passes. But the most important post of his,
this one, is perfectly clear. Heck, I thought the initial
quote mined post was perfectly clear. Calodine has said a lot of suspect things (his "advice" to the specials was a questionable move at best) but his vehement reaction, backed by votes and campaigning, to being quote mined exonerates him in my eyes.
Ativan: I'm going to repeat, for Face, HIS NAME IS ****ING ATIVAN. PLEASE STOP WRITING AVIAN. Sorry, but it's driving me nuts. Ativan is, to me, the most clearly innocent player in the game. He hasn't avoided any topics (contrary, actually, to what Adaham suggested in his day one LoS) and his most persistently pursued target turned up red. It's one thing to create some vague suspicion of, or even vote for, your packmate. It's something else to lead their lynch for two days straight.
Nipplemelter: The problem here is similar to what I wrote above for Adaham. The only difference is the method Nipple used to handle the situation. He, rather successfully, tried to bury the subject with a quote war. Through those pages and pages of back and forth, he never actually came close to addressing the problem with Sheep's quote mining. He obfuscated the issue, and despite multiple clear explanations, he
never came clean or admitted error on the right problem. Because, again, how could he? Were he to actually listen to what Calodine was saying, he'd be forced to join the sheep wagon. But by burying the issue amid wall of text after wall of text with a convenient "misinterpretation" (something I find to be rather impossible), he turned it into something enough people didn't want to dig through. And hey, Tuckles was lynched.
Llandy: Llandy seems to me like the rapidly well adjusted newcomer. Her reaction to Adaham's "warning" was extreme, and frankly far off base, but she's clearly put in the effort to analyze and hunt. I have to disagree with my previous, erm, previous incarnation about her. If anything, I think she developed a serious case of tunnel vision from that overreaction to Adaham's post, something the most recent vote count would suggest she never shook, but thankfully in this case I think she's right by accident. Or perhaps by solid reasoning she puts forth on day two, I haven't got there yet.
So that's my LoS. My top suspects thus far are Adaham, Face, and CW, in that order. I'll get moving on day two and have an updated LoS posted for you all tomorrow. Because we still have time, Adaham is already halfway to a lynch, and my opinions are subject to change, I'll refrain from voting right now.