A bunch of comments while reading along:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mith
Kath is a very good player who hadn't been around much. She also wasn't an obvious choice for ranger protection.
|
I don't agree with the latter part. The chances for a ranger to be successful are never slimmer than in Night 2. (edit for clarity: Mith's claim is correct of course, but I doubt it had a serious part in the wolves' decision)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brinn
Ah yes, the ranger...I almost forgot. Perhaps that's why the wolves didn't kill those who I thought would be more obvious choices. Good point.
|
It surprises me how quickly
Brinn went for that latter part. It was something maybe worth remarking, but it was not an especially good point, I think.
I originally didn't think
Kath was killed by
Brinn. What
Nogrod said in #166 is pretty much what my first impression of Brinn's #154 was, too, so I'll just refer to it here.
I can't claim that
Brinn's#189 has convinced me any more. A positive thing to remark is, however, that at she doesn't try to dodge
Nogrod's accusations or to divert from them.
Gwath's long post about
Nogrod looks sincere to me, so I suspect him less right now. I more and more get the impression of two ordos bashing it out until both are lynched.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mith
I fully admit I am not the worlds greatest success story as a wolf cf my reply to Boro today but I am not spo rubbish that I would have killed a packmate when there was a three way tie nearly up to the wire and a possibility of a late pact.
|
Actually, looking at the way everybody seems to take my innocence nearly for granted today, it wouldn't have been such a bad tactic for a Mac- or Mithwolf. A few have pointed out the unlikeliness of a wolf-on-wolf thing and I keep on not agreeing with it. Out of the mouth (or from the fingertips) of a CoD-voter, it doesn't sound good.
I don't feel good about the
Fea/
Shasta squabble, but I can't make my mind up about which one looks wolvish or whether it's just another ordo-ordo thing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Boro
In my post 150 I specifically told Brin to check out my theory that she's a wolf, thought Kath was the seer who dreamed of her, and thus killed her;
|
This I don't understand. You said, in the same post, that you "genuinely" think
Brinn is innocent. Why were you interested in bringing up a wolf-theory about someone you think innocent, even urging the one to defend herself against it? And now you're criticising the ones who didn't think her defense was a good one.