[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Rikae

Something about TGWBS bugs me. He says that Roa's first post is "trying to sound helpful without being helpful", and that phrase immediately jumped out at me. It's become sort of a stock-accusation that's easy to fling around, and doesn't really make sense so early in the game. It seems a little too generalized, and especially bothers me coupled with the suspicion toward Thinlomien for voting early (in my experience, she almost always does, and I think TGWBS knows that).

Firstly, I nowhere stated any suspicious of Thinlomien for voting early. Misrepresentation is a dangerous game to play, Rikae...

As for why I didn't like Roa's post, if I must go into detail to satisfy you, let's go:

She starts off talking about what roles might be in this village, how many wolves, etc. These are all thoughts that the rest of us should already have had and so there is no real point in saying that it's unlikely that there are more the 3 wolves.

She then says we have to be wary of people coming out as gifted because they may just be wolves. She casts doubt on whether we'll have a ranger/seer/hunter at all; I personally can't imagine that the village would be left without the first two at all. She also conveniently says that being uncontested is not proof of being gifted, and that greater proof is required. This strikes me as wolvish; she's striking down any revealed gifted before they even have a chance to reveal themselves.

She says this:

We don't know if we have a ranger though, so if we go a night with out a kill, we cannot assume that a person was protected.

So no kill means that the wolves just decided not to kill anybody? Why not come to the sensible conclusion that no kill = ranger? Why is she trying to make us doubt even this?

So, with that out of the way, we can stop worrying about roles which might not even be here, and just focus on catching wolves.

Which is what we were meant to be doing anyway. That whole post just seems to be filler, so we can see she's said lots of words. The words themselves seem to say little; the little they say, I construe as wolvish.

Originally Posted by Rikae

I also wonder why he wouldn't want a hunter to reveal

The way I see it, a Hunter is more likely to kill an innocent than a wolf. They're also unimportant on the grand scale; a seer can reveal wolves and innocents, a ranger can protect known innocents. A hunter can't really do much.