Explanations add information for the village. People can find them persuasive or not, helping to inform their votes. Probably more importantly, it gives us information to mine later - e.g., "Grund said X on day 2, Y on day 3, and they don't quite gel." Moreover, wolves (unlike villagers) have to essentially fake analysis - they know who is a wolf and who is not, so they have to cook up some reason for their vote, and sometimes they don't do a great job and come across as fake, or as trying to seem insightful without actually being so.Grundbegriff wrote:It's so funny that people demand explanations. If I did know something, then that would mean I'm either an Assassin or an ISIS Special. If either were true, why would I say? And if I didn't know something but simply had a hunch, how would that be different from what anyone else (not in the previously-mentioned groups) does?
I watched Moliere and developed a strong hunch that he was something. Those who have been around the werewolf block know that the spidey-sense tingles in response to lycanthropy or specialness in much the same way.
I would've stuck with Moliere despite his claim if a contesting Cheryl had arisen. But instead, it's either the case that Cheryl is dead or the case that Moliere is indeed Cheryl. As I have already remarked, faking Cheryl would be an adequate move but not an amazing one. So odds favor Moliere's Cherylitude.
When faced with new facts, I re-calibrate my analysis and act accordingly. What do you do?
On top of that, I often find that I'll start with an intuition, start to type up an explanation, and find as I am doing so that my intuition isn't standing up so well to actual analysis. So there's that too.
)
