Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lommy
I think no one should start toDay what some started yesterday: trying to find clues from Roa's posts. It's just useless. She's cunning enough to make the posts misleading and as she had no real information, the analyser would be wasting his/her time.
Except if s/he was a faithful? I can't see anyone else having a motive to analyse Roa's posts. A faithful could use this to sway the discussion, confuse the village and to look helpful.
|
Although
Spm had pretty strong opinions to the contrary I think
Lommy makes sense here. I've played with
Roa enough to know beforehand that there is no straight way to interpret her posting and the only ones who could clearly benefit from analysing them and making a convincing-looking case from there would be ones who knew how things are aka the Faithfuls. At least I will be quite sceptical with the finds anyone comes by from them.
Just note the following f.ex.:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SPaMman
However, I do believe that she (Roa) thought Nogrod to be a Faithful and me to be an innocent
|
Funny. I had just the oppositie impression... and I even think I would have grounds for it based on general Cobblery and some knowledge of the ways
Roa works...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SPaMman
But Nogrod, it is rather difficult to draw any kind of a conclusion from the Day 2 votes without forming a view on this issue. Perhaps that was Roa's genius ...
|
I know and agree with
Roa playing well yesterDay... But what I basically meant with my comment was that we should not focus in a way that "because X wished to lynch Roa" (or didn't wish to), s/he must be suspicious.
F.ex. what you said about there probably being wolves in the group of Roa-voters yesterDay sounds perfectly legitimate approach to me. Indeed there are only 6 unknown Roa-voters and it wouldn't be too far fetched to suppose that we just might have a chance of having two of the Faithfuls there and surely at least one.