|
It turns out that I'll have far less time today than I thought I would, so I fear I'll have to vote soon.
This debate between Nerwen/Kath/Valier looks ugly to me. None of them are really making any sense -Nerwen's original points about Kath seemed quite solid to me (the wording of "screamed" seems odd to me, too, and I don't see why Nerwen's confusion about the rules should have looked so suspicious to Kath yesterday), and I don't really see why she dropped it so quickly, as Kath's explanation really is no explanation at all. Still, I agree that a wolf-Nerwen would have been unlikely to kill Shasta.
Then Nerwen goes for Valier in a tone I don't quite approve of, but for reasons that I have to agree with, again. I can't see how Valier managed to misread Nerwen's points against Kath so flagrantly, and hunches aside, I simply don't trust this "no explanations" style of play. Macalaure has tracked down wolves by pure intuition as well (in other games - I don't quite trust him now), but at least he tries to find some factual support for his "hunches" rather than expecting the rest of us to go along with them simply because he says so.
At this point, my vote is likely to go to Macalaure, whose suspicions toward Aganzir simply have too little to back them up (why Aganzir? He seems to be just trying to convince us it's possible for her to be a wolf, without telling us why it's likely), or to Valier, who indeed seems to be "using her reputation", and her misinterpretation of Nerwen's post seems more like a deliberate misrepresentation to me.
I would also like one thing clarified (sorry if I missed something): Boro, you say you changed your vote to Shasta to save Nogrod. Why, then, didn't you switch to Nerwen instead?
EDIT: X'd with Mac
|