Quote:
Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin
In any case, taking this argument post by post I can see the merits of thinking the wolves would rather not have killed new, confusing Echo on the very first night over no-trace Inzil. However, leaping to such a concrete suspicion of Nerwen is just that - a leap.
|
Well, she didn't seem to consider that part of the situation at all. And since she went through all the posts, I felt like such a massive oversight might not be unintentional. And it's one that could be defended in a way that looks innocent (note that she didn't defend it- she just refused to acknowledge that it existed). It needed to be challenged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin
My dear one is pretty known for her skills at analysis at this point - it's an odd sort of game if she doesn't do at least three. Given that, I'm not sure why Eonwe finds it a wolvish trait.
|
My point is not that she makes the list, it's that she misses stuff out. And a post-by-post analysis becomes a sort of 'official' overview of someone (to an extent). Which is not good if it's lacking, and could be an intentional way for a wolf to hide some important point in plain sight by brushing over it or mentioning it lightly and never getting back to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin
I'm not understanding the second paragraph much, either. It would be better for Kathwolf for people to believe Kath was dreamt? Or Holby? If Kath, it doesn't make any sense - either way, Kath is basically outed as a dreamed wolf.
|
The point is that if they really thought that
Echo was the seer, it's more likely they thought
Holby was dreamt.
If they didn't really think
Echo was the seer, because he/she was acting that way, they could make it seem as if they thought he/she actually was the seer. In this circumstance, championing the opinion of them thinking that the dream was
Kath would be more beneficial.
In the first scenario,
Kath is irrelevant. In the second (admittedly far more elaborate), she's bought herself a lot of innocence.
As for this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shastanis Althreduin
What does whether or not the kill of Inzil was aimed at taking out a gifted actually matter in the current situation?
|
This is the full exchange:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eönwë
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eönwë
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
Actually... after looking at all this, I’d say it does speak for Kath’s innocence (particularly #62). Not because Echo was killed last Night, but because he/she wasn’t killed the Night before. Er– whatever Night that was– this being an important point. Apparently we began with a Day phase. In that case the Seer may have had no initial dream– if this is so, and the wolves knew it, it somewhat weakens the case for Kath.
|
What you're saying here is that the sorcerers would rather kill a new player whose playing style they know nothing about and which gained him/her a lot of suspicion and confusion instead of someone who everyone thought was innocent and was fairly no-trace after the first day? |
No. I’m saying that if Kath was a wolf, Echo on Day One would have probably looked more like a gifted to the wolves than Inzil. This is a very simple and obvious point, such as I should have expected an experienced player like yourself to grasp quite easily. The fact that you don’t– or at least you claim you don’t... interesting... |
New players are unpredictable. And with the way Echo was posting, I could definitely see the wolves opting to wait another day. If they went for him/her, it would totally implicate Kath whether or not Echo was actually the Seer. In this scenario, they would have been on the alert for seerishness from Echo yesterDay, and, well, they were definitely given it. And anyway, I find it unlikely that Zil was attempt at a gifted at all. |
edit: x-ed with
Greenie