Celuien analysis
Day 1
#14 Just checks in. Says she's against random votes too. §§ Pretty much all reasonable people are.
#21 Says that avoiding strategic discussion hurts the village more than the wolves and all the village has to go on is strategy and open debate. Says we need to have to win as a village. Says that village having a tactic or not having one is same in that sense that the wolves can use both against us. §§ Speaks sense. I agree with her. Does not seem wolvish.
#24 States the common opinion(/misunderstanding?): "I'd thought Menel suggested laying out how to find wolves, and Boro had said that doing that would let the wolves use that info against us." Says the same as I comment below: discussion surely benefits the village more than the wolves, unless it goes to extreme. Says she does not know a red flag before she sees it. §§ Again, she speaks sense and thinks the same way as I do.
#34 Agrees with me that Durelin and Glirdan are just being themselves and says she's a part of the majority that don't have any specail suspects. §§ She seems to think exactly along the same lines as I do.
#40 Votes Volo. Says she can't get a read on the posts and it makes her uncomfortable. §§ She means Volo's posts? They were somewhat difficult to grasp at. What is notable here, is that she cast the second vote for Volo. Second vote is often the important one. Though there was much suspicion of other people (Foley, Glirdy) around, I'm not sure if a fellow wolf would risk this.
Boromir analysis
Day 1
#7 Presents his (in)famous comment on discussing tactics: says that if the village speaks of the tactics openly it is easier to hide for the wolves as they know how we expect them to act. Agrees that random-votes are bad. §§ I don't get his point; the discussion surely benefits the village more than the wolves, unless it goes to extreme, eg. "ten rules how to spot a wolf". And what do you on Day1 if not discuss tactics? In-character bantering? On random votes, see what I said about Celuien's first post.
#17 Says: " . . there must be some sort of unity amongst us . . . but our best chance of winning comes down trust in individuals (and that's where the unity comes in). Do I want to trust you? Do you want to trust me? As the days go on we will all be able to establish our own cases against who we think are the wolves and the people we feel safe about." Explains his earlier words as: ". . . I don't think it's a good idea to talk about what we will be looking for the wolves to do, because that makes it far too easier for wolves to hide in and look innocent. If I spot something that looks wolvish, I go right after and jump on it. I don't like to discuss my own personal strategy as far as what I'm looking for the wolves to do, because that makes it easier for the wolves to get on my 'innocent' side, as they will know my mind and what I'm looking for." Half jokingly points out Glirdan's too dramatic reaction on Sleepy's death. §§ I'm not sure if I agree with his earlier theory or if it makes sense, but his explanation of his opinions makes sense. However, he seems to be taking back his words a bit. He might be only clearing his words, but he might also be adding bits in to sound more reasonable.
#28 Compares ww to poker. (= You don't want the opponent to know your cards.) Agrees with Folwren about Durelin. Foley said: "Why the crazy and random vote the THE Ka, Durelin? I really dislike random votes like that, but it makes me think that. . . that a wolf wouldn't do it. I don't know why I think it."
Boromir says he dislikes random voting, but does not understand why do people always think that the first random voter of the day is a wolf. Is suspicious of Glirdan because he votes Durelin because of randomness and in the next sentence states his own vote as quite random. Says that Menel, Eonwe, Folwren and Rune all seem sensible so far. §§ Poker analogy makes sense, but I see a slight contradiction in the Foley-Durelin case. Flip-flopping perhaps? First he says he agrees with Folwren (who was suspecting Durelin) and then he questions the logic of accusing the first random voter. Thus, he questions his own logic (if I understood him right) and ain any case he questions the logic of the person he agreed with in the previous sentence.
#37 Suspects Mac because he's acting un-macalaureishly. (Says he does not get the same solid, innocent feeling of Mac as he usually does.) §§ As pointed out by some people before, I find this quite hasty. Mac had just posted one post that implied (at least to me) that he's to be back.
#47 Quick summary on people. Menel, Nogrod = seem innocent, contribute, Rune = gives him the benefit of doubt, says he would expect more posting from him, Ka = agrees with her reasoning, says she's sensible, Thinlomien = good points about Foley, seems innocent for now, Eonwe = good points about evidence. At this phase, adds that mathematically it's very possible, that one of the people listed above is wolf. Summary continues: Diamond = difficult to read and thus dangerous, Volo = shady, could be a great asset, Durelin, Celuien = more worried of other people than them, Folwren = a bit too protective, Mac = suspects for previously mentioned reasons and because of "the behavior of 'discussing strategy is good, but it doesn't help us because no one will ever agree.'", Glirdan = suspicious. §§ I've never understood the point of saying who one does not suspect and then counting the mathematical possibility of a wolf on the list. Surely the list is tried to make thus that it contains no wolves so if the analyser is even a bit clever, the lsit should have less wolves than mathematically would seem probable. (I'm not sure if I'm making sense at all, but my main point is that mathematics are just confusing things in this kind of place.) Besides, his maths is little shady. He gives the first half six persons and one wolf, the sencond seven persons and two wolves, from six and seven it's almost as possible that the gorup of six has two wolves as that it's the group of seven that have two wolves, if one thinks only mathematically. I kind of missed Mac's "the behavior of 'discussing strategy is good, but it doesn't help us because no one will ever agree.'".
#54 Leaves and votes Mac with gut.
Day 1 conclusions
Celuien - If A is innocent and does thing x and B does thing x too, can we assume B's innocence? Not maybe, though it seems probable. Can we by that assume that B's guilty? No way. I'm leaning to
Celuien's innocence and seriously consider quitting analysing her since she seems to think exactly the same way as I do. Either she's imitating an innocent logic very well or she's really innocent.
Boromir - Why, o why, did I ever promise myself to analyse him? He speaks so much that it will take a year.
He's quite, though not overtly, suspicious and my main suspect. (Of course, my opinion might change, this was only Day1 analysis.)
I'm off to have a pause and then to continue maybe...
EDIT: I seem to be back to my old habit of flooding...