[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mac

His devoted concern about the voting record is a good thing, of course. But then, it is also a good way for a vampire to appear more helpful as he really is.

Yes, it would be, if I did not also seek to analyse it. I would prefer that you judge me on my analyses of the votes, rather than simply by the fact that I state them (it is, in any event, traditional for me to do so ).

Originally Posted by Mac

I don't really like the way of his accusations of Rikae. It's not his joking with it, but the way that he has no doubts about it and fails to see anything that spoke against her being evil.

What can I say? I truly believed her highly likely to be a Vampire until the moment she revealed. I have a long history of suspecting Seers ...

Originally Posted by Mac

He was so determined to save Rikae, on the surface. He said he wanted to wait and see who the save-Rikae-candidate is: Why didn't he just make someone into it?

It would have been Nogrod, had I done so, but I could see that few others were likely to vote for him.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'm the Hunter.

Well, then Noggins. If your claim is to be believed, then I think that Legate could be one of our Vampires (subject to what, if any, Lynch Seer information we receive). I will believe your claim for now, but I will nevertheless remain wary until there has been sufficient opportunity for an opposing claim to be put forward.

Your point about it being in the Shade’s interests to protect Rikae is a good one, though, and speaks in your favour. I hope that the Shade sees the sense in it. We will probably know one way or the other after the coming Night, in any event.

And given that we will know toMorrow, I am not sure that I like the way that Rune carried the argument on.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I'm not sure if I followed the argument well enough (I'll take a look at it in a minute) but as long as Eomer's chance of being a vampire rests on someone lying about voting Legate then the option is still on as I did lie about my vote to keep the vampires off my real thoughts then.

Yes, I agree that this does increase the possibility that Eomer was lying. Indeed, it would have given him a good motive to state that there were five votes. He would have been told that there were four, but (since his would not have counted) would have known that there was an additional, undeclared one.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Taken together all his discussions on the Celuien-voters looks like drawing a bit too lot of comfort from one quite unsure source of information.

When catching supernatural beasties, I like to try to knock people out of consideration. In light of your information, Eomer is back on my list. But we can still view the other Celuien voters (Loiella and Aganzir) as likely innocents, can we not? Please, someone tell me if my reasoning is off here.

As for lynching Glirdy, I can see the sense of it, but instinctively dislike voting for someone who I think is unlikely to be a Vampire. However, given that all my other main suspects have turned out to be innocent (as far as we know), it might perhaps be the best vote for me . I am willing to go with it if there is a sufficient majority in agreement with it to carry it through.