Why I believe the killers of
Despair-taichou are innocent.
(
Borrowing Nerwen's voting list: )
Rikae --> Sally (1:19 AM GMT).
Shasta --> Boro (6:42 AM)
Brinniel --> Mac (1:27 PM)
Gwath --> Rikae (1:49 PM)
CaptainofDespair --> Day One (2:29 PM)
McCaber --> CaptainofDespair (3:35 PM)
Lalwendë --> Brinniel (3:46 PM)
Feanor of the Peredhil --> Boro (04:02 PM) (Boro 2)
Isabellkya --> CaptainofDespair (04:41 PM) (CoD 2)
Kath --> Brinn (04:41 PM) (Brinn 2)
Mac --> CaptainofDespair (4:56 PM) (CoD 3)
Nogrod --> Gwath (4:48 PM)
Sally --> Boro (4:59 PM) (Boro 3)
Mithalwen --> CaptainofDespair (4:59 PM) (CoD 4)
Boro --> Lalwendë (4:59) PM
I agree with the chappies who say the most innocent are those who voted for him last, but there are a lot more (and less damaging) people to vote for. Wolf-on-Wolf votes, in my opinion, happen only when there is less chance of there being a bandwaggon in the Wolf's 'favour.' It could be masked as vendetta votes (either due to gaming history or disagreement with strategy or whatever reason I may have forgotten) since it's less likely that vendetta votes are followed by the masses.
Therefore, I would bet my eyes (my precious bloodline limit Sharingan) that the four are innocent.
In any case, like I said, I like the way they're posting right now.
As for my suspicions:
- Nogrod's post 166 re Brinniel has convinced, like I said before. Because of this I am highly likely to vote for her.
- Gwath is rather twisty. Hehe. Meaning he seems to start with the premise that Nogrod is indeed a Wolf:
Quote:
|
However, I'm inclined to be more wary of any lists of "suspects" that wolves produce, no matter what point in the game they occur. (Gwath 168)
|
and then kinda goes on from there (198). Hey, I hate DAY 1s, too, man, but at least I listen to DAY 1 theories. Would you rather have us pulling names out of our hats? You vote for who you think the most suspicious is, no matter how you reach that conclusion. (Well, an innocent does. So far as I know . . . )
Hmm . . . his defence of this:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nogrod
[T]his one from Gwath discussing Rikae caught my eye and the things he has been doing after it have raised my alarms a bit more.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gwath
At one point I would have pointed out that such a bold statement would be unlikely to come from a wolf, because it draws attention and attention is dangerous. My mistake was that I assumed that all wolves play the same way I do: low key. So, the question is, what kind of wolf does Rikae play as: bold, or boring?
|
But the last one is the one I got worried about.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gwath
I wish I could stick around and participate in the discussion, but I have to run off. I'll be back in time for the deadline, but I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not trying to be extra-quiet and slide under the radar. It's inadvertent.
|
Now comparing this with the other underlining in the first quote really sends shivers down my spine. So when he's a wolf he's quiet and now he has to explain that as he has to go it doesn't mean that he is being flying under the radar...
[All underlinings by Nogrod.] |
It seems obvious to me that Nogrod is making a concerted effort to find arguments against me where very few exist. His points can be summarized as follows:
1. Nogrod is inclined to find me guilty because I am making assertions about other people, which I profess to not doing when I am a wolf, playing "low-key." If I were a wolf, he implies, I would do the opposite of what I claim to do as a wolf. Because I am doing the opposite (i.e. I am making points about others), I must be a wolf. This, at least, is the implication.
The first problem in this argument (albeit an implied argument) is that it argues that I am a wolf based on the assumption that I am a wolf.
The second problem is that he misdefines "low-key". "Low-key" does not mean silence or lack of discourse. It means that I am careful not to draw unecessary attention to myself. Lack of discourse is obvious, and therefore not low-key.
2. According to Nogrod, it is strange for me to profess to "thinking on-screen."
However, he purports to doing much the same thing in post #163: "I'm just trying to help myself to orientate and to see where to look in the beginning toDay." There's nothing weird about this. Organizing one's thoughts by posting makes a lot of sense.
3. Because I claim to be a low-key wolf, my statement in a later post that I am not trying to fly under the radar - in other words, not trying to play low-key - looks mighty suspicious.
Actually, I agree with him here. I don't like, however, that he makes much of the chills and shivers that my post sends down his spine. Appeal to the emotion is an effective rhetorical device, but it's not helpful here.
Overall, this post of Nogrod's seems forced and exaggerative. (Gwath)
|
Yeah, I found his post a bit facetious, but it is DAY 1 'evidence' and is therefore entitled to some benefit of the doubt. At least it gets discussion moving in a better direction for the village, than, say, doing IC banter. But your defence was simply . . . *shakes head* All this talking about what you might do if you were one or other, what you think he might think of what you're doing, etc. (which you did twice--once yesterDAY and this now toDAY) and rehashing DAY 1 discussion (I thought you hated DAY 1s, why bring them here in DAY 2?) is just *shakes head some more*.
- The Fea-Shasta affair is exactly the cloak for a Wolf-on-Wolf interaction I'm wary of. Easier to survive in your own little world, after all. The cold hard world is cruel, it bitess.