[Werewolf] Werewolf: Black Death - Daybreak Day 6 - Crypto-flagellants win!

I don't see any merit in your actions. I think Llandy's innocent, and I don't agree with anything you're saying. I'm not too worried about convincing anybody else: you seem to be doing a decent job of that all by yourself. I haven't bothered to make a super-detailed case because I don't really think I need to at this point.

Alright, gonna read everything I missed from page 77 and up... let's if I'll have time to post too.

~Twinkle, who is going to see Unbroken today.... yay!

Leprechaun said:

I don't see any merit in your actions. I think Llandy's innocent, and I don't agree with anything you're saying. I'm not too worried about convincing anybody else: you seem to be doing a decent job of that all by yourself. I haven't bothered to make a super-detailed case because I don't really think I need to at this point.

Click to expand...

Because you apparently have tunnelvision. Anytime you see something suspicious does it ever occur to you WHY that person did it? Were they trying to be deceptive? Were they trying to stir a reaction? Did you even read my reasonings about wanting to be in room with Llandy and how is that more suspicious than someone NOT wanting to room with someone? Llandy didnt move because the real good reason of "too many players in one room" It was specifically because Twinkle and I were there...

The real kicker about Lost Lambs and your post was the EZsuspicion, youre less guilty of it because you already voted me but Lamb or you didnt even post his 2nd choice to assist with consolidation, it was "Whoopin acting suspicious good place to lynch". Good way to FoS one player and not draw attention from another source.

And youre definitely wrong about not needing to do any convincing, were are at that stage of the game for sure. Your lazy approach to the situation just makes it apparent you dont care who gets lynched even if its not your top suspect.

Im glad I posted that, it opened my eyes to you and Lost Lamb. Face actually contributed an alternate choice, AWdeV voting for Wolf also seems too easy, but notice he didnt jump on the Whoopin being suspicious and stuck to his beliefs that I am innocent.

Just a heads up; five hours ago I sent a PM to Adaham, to ask him to find a replacement for me, for personal reasons. I fully accept that there are people more in need of replacements than me at this time, so I'm going to stay and contribute as much as I can until the replacement comes through or until I'm out of the game.

I do agree with Leprechaun that Eternal is becoming more and more suspicious with every post. I have twice now raised the issue of his Twinkle/Llandy dichotomy, Twinkle has also raised it at least twice, and both Melter and Whoopin have also brought this point up, and to my knowledge there has been no response at all from Eternal thus far to explain the discrepancy in his post.

I have therefore upgraded Eternal from 'orange' to 'red.' If those of you who are unwilling to vote Wolf because you think it is unfair to lynch someone who isn't around to answer accusations against them, then I would vote Eternal as a third alternative to Moss/Whoopin if that is more acceptable.

I'm keeping Moose! and Twinkle as orange for now, and would only vote them to prevent a no-lynch.

I've amended the rights to my google docs thing and my table of votes so that anybody can amend them. I hope you find this useful in the event of a replacement actually coming through any time soon.

I'd still like to be on Watch but am also supportive of Nipplemelter in this role (if he wants it).

I'll be staying in the Guardhouse tonight. There seems little point in keep moving if I'm going to be stalked everywhere I go. It just creates more work in updating my spreadsheet, and for Adaham to keep track of where people are.

I hope everybody else spreads out soon.

Aawww **** really? You need a replacement?

AWdeV said:

Aawww **** really? You need a replacement?

Click to expand...

I'll be around until I have one.

Urgh. Look, it's simple. Your dog-with-a-bone attitude towards Llandy makes me really suspicious. I've agreed with her responses to pretty much everything you've thrown in her direction, and just going 'well I was doing X, Y and Z because of REASONS HOW ABOUT THAT' isn't in any way useful, because you can claim that about anything you do. It's not my job to look for reasons why you doing n weird things might all just be part of your innocent wolf-hunting master plan, it's your job to subsequently explain in detail what that plan is and what it tells us. I don't think you've made a serious effort to really do that beyond a superficial level.

Secondly, the whole restricting the list thing is crazy suspicious just from the fact that you unilaterally tried to force us to select from a cut-down list in the first place, whatever subsequent retractions and rationalisations you throw out.

Thirdly, of course it's different: there's no reason to specifically want to be in a room with someone unless you're planning to do something to them with a room-specific power, and for that reason it's completely rational to move away from people who you suspect, because the OP makes it clear that most powers are restricted by room and we already know because of the room-locking that wolves aren't the scum knocking around.

I mean come on. Are you trying?

Whoopin said:

The real kicker about Lost Lambs and your post was the EZsuspicion, youre less guilty of it because you already voted me but Lamb or you didnt even post his 2nd choice to assist with consolidation, it was "Whoopin acting suspicious good place to lynch". Good way to FoS one player and not draw attention from another source.

Click to expand...

Leprechaun said:

Nothing changing on my main lynch target (in fact, recent posts have pretty much set it in stone as far as I'm concerned), but Eternal's jumping way up into a secondary lynch position alongside Moose as of the last couple of posts.

Nothing more to say, really.

Click to expand...

I just reread your post to verify and I was wrong, you did provide a 2nd choice so well done! Now its just Lost Lamb that didnt bother.

Pharaoh X Llandy said:

I do agree with Leprechaun that Eternal is becoming more and more suspicious with every post. I have twice now raised the issue of his Twinkle/Llandy dichotomy, Twinkle has also raised it at least twice, and both Melter and Whoopin have also brought this point up, and to my knowledge there has been no response at all from Eternal thus far to explain the discrepancy in his post.

Click to expand...

...but... but....

Eternal said:

Let's have a quick interjection for defense time!

Phonemelter brought up nothing new or clever. The new argument I see (not really new, I ignored it the first time Twinkie said it for some reason) is "If Llandy yellow, and Twinkle = Llandy, then why is Twinkle green?"

Gut feeling, really. Llandy is yellow because I feel thoroughly neutral about her. Even now, although she's more green now than she was then. I didn't think she was a wolf, but her "Llandy for Watch!!" campaign was weird as balls. When I wrote my first LoS, Twinkle was mounting a solid defense and seemed thoroughly innocent. The colors were my opinion on each of them independently.

Click to expand...

...but...



Oh, right, you actually did respond to that. But I'm confused. Does my response not answer your question? I colored you separately. As in, pretend-that-Twinkle-doesn't-exist-Llandy-is-yellow. At the time I saw the link I felt you were both innocent because Twinkle = innocent and you were linked to Twinkle. At this point, I'm not sure.

Phonemelter said:

1. Because you had not said anything new - you still keep ignoring the specific question I had about the room changing.
2. Why does anything have to be "clever?" Was your case against Seff clever? Is the case against Ej clever? Was you case against Wolf going to be clever?

Click to expand...

Chill, mate, it's not an insult.

Phonemelter said:

So then why bring up the point about him trying to consolidate the votes and say it is wolfy if you think he is genuinely innocent? To tell your packie to back off on that line of thought because he did something similar the first game he played as a wolf?

Click to expand...

Strange line of accusation here. No, it's because my post is a stream of thinking and not a case. That's generally how most of my posts work. I throw in quotes, post my analysis, throw in more quotes, and keep a running line of analysis. You should know that by now. I really think you're trying to find suspicion where there isn't any.

Why is Whoopin innocent? Because he narrowed down suspects to four particular individuals of his choosing, which is a wolf tell. Immediately he backed off not because he realized it was a wolf tell, but because he realized that his list of four suspects wasn't cohesive at all. A genuine wolf is unlikely to play a wolf strategy and then back out of it immediately. It would be weird, and I've never seen that happen before.

re: Wolf - I am extremely ambiguous on the topic of lynching the Wolf, if that wasn't obvious from my previous post.

Leprechaun said:

I don't see any merit in your actions. I think Llandy's innocent, and I don't agree with anything you're saying. I'm not too worried about convincing anybody else: you seem to be doing a decent job of that all by yourself. I haven't bothered to make a super-detailed case because I don't really think I need to at this point.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting someone is a villain because they're trying to make a case and convince other people to vote for someone they think is a wolf? :/

Prev post was @Whoopin

****, sorry to hear that Llandy

@Eternal

No, I'm saying that the way he's doing it is what's making him look wolfy. Nothing wrong with making a case, but I can't see any coherence in his arguments, and his reaction to disagreement basically just seems to be bafflement and then vague sarcasm rather than discussion.

...which I find mightily suspicious, like he's just trying to bluff everyone into a vote.

Post to Whoopin should read '...not the only scum knocking around'

Eternal said:

Chill, mate, it's not an insult.

Click to expand...

And I wasn't angry - I was just explaining. I also asked a question about the use of "clever" that I do want an answer to though.

Strange line of accusation here. No, it's because my post is a stream of thinking and not a case. That's generally how most of my posts work. I throw in quotes, post my analysis, throw in more quotes, and keep a running line of analysis. You should know that by now. I really think you're trying to find suspicion where there isn't any.

Click to expand...

It isn't an accusation, it was just a "real" question and then a rhetorical question. Yes, you generally post like that, but if you look back to your post on Xardob, it looks like you had something going but then decided not to post it. I figured you might do the same with Whoopin, since from what I gather about your posting, you normally look back over what you have said.

Why is Whoopin innocent? Because he narrowed down suspects to four particular individuals of his choosing, which is a wolf tell. Immediately he backed off not because he realized it was a wolf tell, but because he realized that his list of four suspects wasn't cohesive at all. A genuine wolf is unlikely to play a wolf strategy and then back out of it immediately. It would be weird, and I've never seen that happen before.

Click to expand...

Or, as I suggested, he could be a self-aware wolf who realized those actions were bad and immediately backed off.

By the way, you ignored more questions:

Phonemelter said:

That doesn't mean every single person who was suspicious of Velup is innocent - there were a lot of people, so chances are there is a mix. Why not accuse Shatari of parking a vote on an easy lynch? Are you admitting to easy lynch vote parking? If you had good reasons, then why would you consider it "parking?"

Click to expand...

Phonemelter said:

To add to this:

You didn't even place a vote on Velup, so how were you parking a vote or why would being suspicious of Velup change anything?

Click to expand...

Phonemelter said:

Also, what smear campaign are you talking about? When he was saying that your "Aha! You told us wolf mechanics!" case was silly?

Click to expand...

Eternal said:

Oh, right, you actually did respond to that. But I'm confused. Does my response not answer your question? I colored you separately. As in, pretend-that-Twinkle-doesn't-exist-Llandy-is-yellow. At the time I saw the link I felt you were both innocent because Twinkle = innocent and you were linked to Twinkle. At this point, I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

The response didn't answer my question, no, and I'm still not convinced. The 'pretend Twinkle doesn't exist' thing doesn't exactly work, because that's not what you said at the time. It's another example of some of the strange things you've said. Like on your Xardob hunt, "Here's Xardob, starting to look a bit suspicious and... yep, nevermind, he's not suspicious now." And your Whoopin "No sir you don't do that... oh it's okay, you changed your mind so you're not suspicious now."

The way you go about presenting your arguments is almost like you're setting up a potential case then dismissing it immediate, maybe in the hopes of backing off to give someone else a chance to pick it up and take it places you haven't.

Leprechaun said:

Urgh. Look, it's simple. Your dog-with-a-bone attitude towards Llandy makes me really suspicious. I've agreed with her responses to pretty much everything you've thrown in her direction, and just going 'well I was doing X, Y and Z because of REASONS HOW ABOUT THAT' isn't in any way useful, because you can claim that about anything you do. It's not my job to look for reasons why you doing n weird things might all just be part of your innocent wolf-hunting master plan, it's your job to subsequently explain in detail what that plan is and what it tells us. I don't think you've made a serious effort to really do that beyond a superficial level.

Click to expand...

Yes it is your job to see the reasoning behind it, if we just voted people for being suspicious without trying to determine why it was suspicious then this game would be called "Wolf-tell hotel" and that wouldnt really be hunting. The whole point of a "plan" is to do something without making all the intentions clear, then you look for players that fall into an innocent reaction or deceptive reaction and divulging the plan ahead of time defeats the purpose. Its also a good way to find innocents because they make the effort to understand the plan before its revealed.  Superficial? Ive made all my actions clear and I havent tried to deceive anyone, even this post is clarifying my actions instead of just saying "deal with it".

Leprechaun said:

Secondly, the whole restricting the list thing is crazy suspicious just from the fact that you unilaterally tried to force us to select from a cut-down list in the first place, whatever subsequent retractions and rationalisations you throw out.

Click to expand...

We are in the last days, I always try to limit down my choices and going for the top four was logical also my primary suspect was in that group. If we had 5 players with 2+ votes I wouldve said top 5... and so on. To continue splitting the votes and also do no convincing would just leave us floating till deadline. It was a good idea until I realize that there was really no top 4, trying to reach a consensus is pro-town no matter how suspicious the tactics are. Its the players that are too worried about being suspicious that we really need to look at.

Now Facemelters idea about being self-aware would actually have a foundation if I changed my mind because I didnt want to be suspicious... but I changed my mind because there really is no top 4 so its wasnt a good way to consolidate. Thats why its important to see the reasoning of suspicious actions instead of just looking for something suspicious. He tried to find a reason which is very good however it is not an accurate interpretation of the event.

Leprechaun said:

Thirdly, of course it's different: there's no reason to specifically want to be in a room with someone unless you're planning to do something to them with a room-specific power, and for that reason it's completely rational to move away from people who you suspect, because the OP makes it clear that most powers are restricted by room and we already know because of the room-locking that wolves aren't the scum knocking around.

Click to expand...

Yes! Youre closer to the target now. Now think of it in the reverse shes changing to avoid a possible innocent power being used on her. This is coming from a player that believes the wolves can kill in any room, so why would a suspect in the same room be a cause to move? I believe it has more to do with the fact that she doesnt want me to use an innocent power on her cause she believes I will actually target her. She clearly was concerned only because Twinkle and I were there and had nothing to do with "too many people in same room" which wouldve been the real good reason.

Dont find merit in my hunting? I also provide the service of finding innocents and since you decided to finally provide some of your viewpoints, I can confidently keep you in the Blue grouping. Also I just moved Lost Lamb into the Red.

Whoopin said:

Leprechaun said:

Urgh. Look, it's simple. Your dog-with-a-bone attitude towards Llandy makes me really suspicious. I've agreed with her responses to pretty much everything you've thrown in her direction, and just going 'well I was doing X, Y and Z because of REASONS HOW ABOUT THAT' isn't in any way useful, because you can claim that about anything you do. It's not my job to look for reasons why you doing n weird things might all just be part of your innocent wolf-hunting master plan, it's your job to subsequently explain in detail what that plan is and what it tells us. I don't think you've made a serious effort to really do that beyond a superficial level.

Click to expand...

Yes it is your job to see the reasoning behind it, if we just voted people for being suspicious without trying to determine why it was suspicious then this game would be called "Wolf-tell hotel" and that wouldnt really be hunting. The whole point of a "plan" is to do something without making all the intentions clear, then you look for players that fall into an innocent reaction or deceptive reaction and divulging the plan ahead of time defeats the purpose. Its also a good way to find innocents because they make the effort to understand the plan before its revealed.  Superficial? Ive made all my actions clear and I havent tried to deceive anyone, even this post is clarifying my actions instead of just saying "deal with it".

Click to expand...

You're misinterpreting what I said. I'll clarify to make sure we're not getting too confused here. When somebody does something I find suspicious, yes: I need to look at reasons they could be doing that thing, assign probabilities to them in my head in some way, and then investigate based on the possible options. However, the way you phrased your initial response was to suggest that I'd not looked for the other reasons for your actions, and then not go on and explain your actual reason, which to me was uncomfortably like dismissing the argument out of hand by saying 'well, there could be other explanations, so there'. You've started doing the explaining now, but the fact that you weren't doing it before was what causes me the problem.

And no, of course you don't have to divulge every aspect of the plan too early. But it isn't too early any more. Like you said:

Whoopin said:

And youre definitely wrong about not needing to do any convincing, were are at that stage of the game for sure.

Click to expand...

So now is indeed the time for you to explain the day-1 master plan fully rather than just hinting at stuff, otherwise we have no reason to believe any of your assertions.

Whoopin said:

Leprechaun said:

Secondly, the whole restricting the list thing is crazy suspicious just from the fact that you unilaterally tried to force us to select from a cut-down list in the first place, whatever subsequent retractions and rationalisations you throw out.

Click to expand...

We are in the last days, I always try to limit down my choices and going for the top four was logical also my primary suspect was in that group. If we had 5 players with 2+ votes I wouldve said top 5... and so on. To continue splitting the votes and also do no convincing would just leave us floating till deadline. It was a good idea until I realize that there was really no top 4, trying to reach a consensus is pro-town no matter how suspicious the tactics are. Its the players that are too worried about being suspicious that we really need to look at.

Now Facemelters idea about being self-aware would actually have a foundation if I changed my mind because I didnt want to be suspicious... but I changed my mind because there really is no top 4 so its wasnt a good way to consolidate. Thats why its important to see the reasoning of suspicious actions instead of just looking for something suspicious. He tried to find a reason which is very good however it is not an accurate interpretation of the event.

Click to expand...

You're avoiding the point. You weren't trying to cut down your choices - that would be fine and a totally reasonable thing to do. You were trying to cut down everybody's choices and make them pick from a list of your choosing. That's a different thing, and that's what's suspicious:

Whoopin said:

OK team lets try to focus on the top 4:

*list snipped*

Please pick one to lynch and a backup youll consider switching to. Would be nice to include a short reasoning on your choice.

Click to expand...

Whoopin said:

Leprechaun said:

Thirdly, of course it's different: there's no reason to specifically want to be in a room with someone unless you're planning to do something to them with a room-specific power, and for that reason it's completely rational to move away from people who you suspect, because the OP makes it clear that most powers are restricted by room and we already know because of the room-locking that wolves aren't the scum knocking around.

Click to expand...

Yes! Youre closer to the target now. Now think of it in the reverse shes changing to avoid a possible innocent power being used on her. This is coming from a player that believes the wolves can kill in any room, so why would a suspect in the same room be a cause to move? I believe it has more to do with the fact that she doesnt want me to use an innocent power on her cause she believes I will actually target her. She clearly was concerned only because Twinkle and I were there and had nothing to do with "too many people in same room" which wouldve been the real good reason.

Click to expand...

I know what you're getting at, but you've missed the point of what I said: a) we know there are scum apart from the wolves because the mansion got locked. b) it's therefore plausible that there are scum who aren't wolves but whose powers are room-specific, regardless of your beliefs about whether or not wolves can kill in any room or not. c) it's therefore logical if you're an innocent to move away from people you think are some type of scum, particularly when they start following you. As I think Llandy's innocent, and she suspects you of being scum, it's a completely reasonable action for her to take as far as I'm concerned - with regard to the 'too many people' thing, given that she was already there, as were a bunch of other people, and we all knew who was where, it looks bad when other people knowingly jump in.

Leprechaun said:

Whoopin said:

Leprechaun said:

Urgh. Look, it's simple. Your dog-with-a-bone attitude towards Llandy makes me really suspicious. I've agreed with her responses to pretty much everything you've thrown in her direction, and just going 'well I was doing X, Y and Z because of REASONS HOW ABOUT THAT' isn't in any way useful, because you can claim that about anything you do. It's not my job to look for reasons why you doing n weird things might all just be part of your innocent wolf-hunting master plan, it's your job to subsequently explain in detail what that plan is and what it tells us. I don't think you've made a serious effort to really do that beyond a superficial level.

Click to expand...

Yes it is your job to see the reasoning behind it, if we just voted people for being suspicious without trying to determine why it was suspicious then this game would be called "Wolf-tell hotel" and that wouldnt really be hunting. The whole point of a "plan" is to do something without making all the intentions clear, then you look for players that fall into an innocent reaction or deceptive reaction and divulging the plan ahead of time defeats the purpose. Its also a good way to find innocents because they make the effort to understand the plan before its revealed.  Superficial? Ive made all my actions clear and I havent tried to deceive anyone, even this post is clarifying my actions instead of just saying "deal with it".

Click to expand...

You're misinterpreting what I said. I'll clarify to make sure we're not getting too confused here. When somebody does something I find suspicious, yes: I need to look at reasons they could be doing that thing, assign probabilities to them in my head in some way, and then investigate based on the possible options. However, the way you phrased your initial response was to suggest that I'd not looked for the other reasons for your actions, and then not go on and explain your actual reason, which to me was uncomfortably like dismissing the argument out of hand by saying 'well, there could be other explanations, so there'. You've started doing the explaining now, but the fact that you weren't doing it before was what causes me the problem.

Click to expand...

Realised that my clarification itself needs further clarification. Fail.

So the reason why I want more exposition about people's other reasons for doing suspicious things is that if you don't demand that kind of scrutiny, it's too easy for a wolf to just go 'it's part of my plan' every time they a) do something weird or b) get caught in a lie or some other mistake. If you let people handwave away things like that, anyone can dismiss anything they like using that method and then you've no real way of telling truth from fiction.

Unvote, Vote Shatari

I realize I probably won't get enough votes to lynch Shatari today, but is anyone willing to try? If not, I'm probably going to sell my vote to whoever makes the most convincing case. Locke's case on Twinkle is winning so far, but I'm also interested in what Ej has to say about Moose.

Also, I know there were a few players who demanded some answers from me, but I forgot what the questions were. So if you're still interested in the answer, feel free to ask again.

Well, clock is ticking and I am still reading the last pages.
Problem for me is to form and organize my thoughts and to come to THE right conlusion.
If I compare many votings and lists of suspects, I can see that there are many who have their problems with whoopin and with Llandy.
I really tried to read over the last pages, but it`s hard to filter for something essential. It`s the first day and the more I read the more I get confused and unsure.
Something that makes it harder for me, is that since I`ve come later into this game, the wolves are totally ignoring me. It`s kind of weird, because at the beginning of my entrance I had the feeling that whoopin tried to vote me for the pillory, after some discussion every attack towards me absolutely stopped. In this sence every clue vanished.
Tell me paranoid, but the fact that whoopin came to the idea stroke me odd at the beginning and still bothers me. Why stop, when it`s reasonable that I could infect someone.

The longer the day become, the more I got the feeling that the wolves wouldn`t make it that easy to themself. Llandy seems often to be writing down what exactly that moment comes to her mind, even if her analyzing of the postings are more time-consuming than all the other postings of us combined.

Llandy is in my eyes helping the village, even if I sometimes fear to become influenced by her analysis. She is taking many conversations apart and analizes everything that precisely that I feel kind of overchallenged. I appreciate your motivation, it`s just that I now have the problem of resolve this puzzle of thrown accusations. 

The next thing is that at the start of the game the accusations thrown in against Llandy really started to crack during this day- depending NOT on the votes (always around 3 people), but within the discussion- and it`s weird to see that all in all the criticism and the people, who have voted her, hardly never changed.
It could be a pack of wolves, or people pushing against Llandy, BUT I really don`t see "the wolf" as I explained in one of my few posts not as a wolf, therefore I don`t think it`s a planned and manipulated atmosphere against Llandy --> situation of more than one wolf planning accusations and making bad campaign against her. It`s more the fact that despite her effort and work, many/some people have doubts about her.
At least I can`t decide on her. She really doesn`t strike me wolfish. Therefore she is neutral for me.

Since I`m not interested into a no-lynch I can tell you, who I am - for the moment- seeing , let`s say feeling (it`s more gut-feeling than analysing) as probably innocent:

I like the participation of phonemelter, and The Wolf (even if I can`t agree for 100 percent with his decision to vote Llandy) and Locke.
Sootshade, Xardob and ejnomad  I can`t classify. Well the last two because of their absence (Sorry ejno  ).

Twinkle, who is voted twice:
Well can`t see something striking me escpecially wolfish, or innocent. Don`t know. The answers (discussion) between him and Llandy really don`t help me either. Really this whole questioning is insofar doubtful as a wolf really has no problem in positioning himself within such questions. Really what can you say wrong? Even an innocent- for example me could throw any speculation of roles/ etc... into the room without placing themselves in danger. Therefore I have trouble in finding some hints inside his answers. Like his reasoning, even if I have to read up why whoopin sees a connection between Twinkle and Llandy??!

Lep kind of escaleted in my eyes during this day. He is in my eyes hunting and bringing something forward within some discussions. Even though I don`t like this kind of quote-war against whoopin. This is really interesting to see how he`s positioning himself against him. I am always trying to think, or being aware that during such a long day groups might change their opinions and that more than two people get attacked during the day and the later it get`s the more new accusation are being thrown for pushing the lynch of someone (a lynch candidate) the wolves "have up their sleeve". That feeling I sometimes get with Llandy (besides the points I mentioned that overchallenge me) and now with Whoopin. Not that Whoopin is in my eyes innocent, but the way more and more people jump on certain people. I am careful with too many matches within the village, cause the manipulation of the villagers started with very the first posting.

People I find sometimes odd are Woopin, because I don`t like his agressive way to argument, and the way he responded to my appearance and reacted to the opinions of the others about me. Otherwise I do like the fact that he is willing to stand apparently against everyone else, which is if we analyze it the comprimising the situation of a villager. A villager has no "friends" or someone he really trusts... the same with Llandy. She has been quite in the same situation and she tried to "work" despite every ciriticism on her analyzes.

Someone I would just vote- for avoiding a no-lynch- would be Twinkle. I am really not sure about him and - as far as I`m concerned- wouldn`t suggest him as a lynch-candidate.

Shatari (Xardob is willing to see him dead). I really have to see back. Could you explain anything? It just seems so random. If I read back Shatari`s postings, I am sure I could find something, but a short post would be enough.

Llandy for the lynch. Well, I am not sure about her. If we lynch her, I don`t expect her role being bad, if yes, it would be a surprise I think. If not: Well, it would help us to see a little bit more.

The problem is that I don`t have many people, I could say I am sure they are innocent- therefore I really don`t know who is - among the others- most likely a wolf.

Xardob said:

I realize I probably won't get enough votes to lynch Shatari today, but is anyone willing to try?

Click to expand...

No. Shatari's on my 'yellow' list, not even suspicious enough to make orange.

And why should anyone be willing to try to lynch him? This is the only case that I can see you've made against him:

Xardob said:

Shatari and Velmu are wolves, those two are the ones I'm most sure about.

Click to expand...

Which as you can see, is no case at all. If you're not going to make a case, and if nobody else has been able to make a convincing case, then why should anybody vote him? Quid quo pro doesn't work that way. If you ask for something, you've at least got to be prepared to give something.

If not, I'm probably going to sell my vote to whoever makes the most convincing case. Locke's case on Twinkle is winning so far, but I'm also interested in what Ej has to say about Moose.

Click to expand...

I too am waiting to hear ejnomad's thoughts on Moose.

Also, I know there were a few players who demanded some answers from me, but I forgot what the questions were. So if you're still interested in the answer, feel free to ask again.

Click to expand...

Ahh, the FrisianDude method of question evasion. Nice.

Regardless, my questions are no longer relevant. Or it may be more accurate to say, the answers are no longer relevant.