I'm back! Well, it's nice to see some discussion has taken place. Nogrod, you seem determined to misunderstand me.
Quote:
|
1) I have not been the only one to have suspicions about Roa along the way. Not to be readily articulated and thence not a good piece - but a piece nevertheless.
|
Who else? Valier. And that was
after I started suspecting her. Nor did she ever give a good reason for it. I'd be more inclined to think that was retalitory than anything else. I should point out that Valier was also suspicious of Mith, but you seem to be more than ready to let her go.
Quote:
|
2) Her bad contradicting of herself early this morning. First she was looking for evidence from Folwren's posts to help with the case - surely knowing, that they would point to other directions. When accused of that, she argued, that it would be a fool's work for a WW to kill someone who had suspicions about that WW!
|
This is the second time I've explained this. Yes, we need to look at Folwren's pots but not in a conventional matter. I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear last night- my brain was a little fried by some RL issues.
Quote:
Then she went on telling, that
Quote:
|
But I don't think we should look directly at the people she was directly suspicious of, but rather the people she wasn't. Sorry for not clarifying that earlier.
|
But just a couple of lines further she said, that
Quote:
|
If you think it makes more sense to look at the least suspicious in Folwren's eyes, by all means, look at us.
|
So which one of these two alternatives was she thinking? And what was this mysterious "us" doing there?
|
Us? The people Folwren didn't suspect, duh. I'd have thought that was obvious. And Folwren wasn't suspicious of me. I don't see how I was contradicting myself. I said don't look at the most obviously suspicious to Folwren, look at the least suspicious, and that would be myself, Firefoot, and Mith. I have nothing to hide, and if all your evidence is dependent on my frazzled thoughts today, then I don't what do say. I just don't see the contradiction.
Quote:
|
It would be quite suspicious, if someone would like to make oneself look suspicious, wouldn't it? According to Roa's defence at point 2, she basically says, that she was quite ready to draw suspicion over herself, she just forgot to mention this altruistic plan of hers in the first place. This is either a WW, trying to explain away a made mistake, or then utterly stupid villager who tries to offer herself as a bite for the hangers (why? oh, why?). I think no-one would opt for Roa being stupid!
|
Of course not, least of all me! I don't want to be lynched, but I know that thinking along conventional lines will get us nowhere. We need to be looking at the least suspicious. If that happens to be me, then so be it, but I have only my innocence to show. There were two others in that group. Don't spend all your time attacking one person and not look at the others, we can't afford that.
Quote:
|
5) Then there of course is this "I've never been a wolf before". Well, it's just a slip of tongue. But one should note it's existence. Many criminals are gotten by this kind of things.
|
Oh no, this again. I should note that before also includes Day's 1 and 2 and Night's 1,2, and 3. Honestly, I was very frazzled before and used poor grammar. I mean, that's just silly.
But all in all, I'm glad someone is doing some analysis, even if it's the wrong person. Remember we need to lynch a wolf tonight.
I also think it's a tad unfair to attack me when you know I won't be on for sometime to defend myself, really. I extend to time constraints courtesy to my fellow players, and I expect the same from them.
Speaking of that, why are we the only ones talking? Does no one else have anything to add?