Quote:
Originally Posted by Eönwë
So three people saying they don't like random votes is bad, but three people saying that they don't like people complaining about random votes is fine?
|
Yes, because ranting about random votes is just space-filler, but talking about posting and commenting about the posts being space-fillers can lead to getting a better idea of how the ranters (and commenters, for that matter) are playing (which can help lead to suspicion or lack thereof).
[QUOTE=Thinlómien;667405][
Pitchwife - makes some weird points and generally isn't especially honest-seeming, but then again I'm kind of sympathetic towards him after that really weird attack from
Lottie and
Zil's direction.[/QUOTE[
That wasn't an attack by any means. It was one semi-banter, playful poke post and one post that didn't actually end up having anything to do with the 'attack'. This seems to me like a
Lommy-wolf overreacting to what she perceives as suspicion on her packmate, and responding by agreeing that he's suspicious but also throwing the 'attack' into poor light. I'd like to, first of all, keep a closer look at their interactions, but also note that
Lommy is now one of my top suspicions.
Quote:
|
Lottie - seems maybe the worst this far (I KNOW, Lottie and Day1 suspicion, it's quite lame, but...), her points funnily resemble clutching at straws. Also, she merits people with stuff quite easily and weirdly (like me for contributing in my early posts).
|
It's Day One. There are no suspicions that won't seem like grasping at straws. If I'd been loudly proclaiming that someone was absolutely undeniably guilty, then the grasping at straws argument would hold water, but as it happens, I've been playfully poking and examining a group of people who posted eerily similar and abnormal rants. I didn't say you contributed, or anything nearly so concrete. I said your post made sense because of when it was posted, and that, looking at the context, was even one of the more substantial posts - one of the more, not actually substantial.