[A Little Green]

Originally Posted by Rikae

But what I wonder is: why would an innocent Greenie repeatedly bring up such inconsistencies without any intent to either cast, or to answer, suspicion?

Simple answer: Day 1. On a Day 1, I generally bring up anything and everything that catches my attention unless I have a good reason not to mention it.

Originally Posted by Rikae, underlining mine

As for my posts on Cab, I can't see how it would be unclear to any honest reader: I was surprised by Inzil & Legate's suspicion which seemed disproportionate, and then made a guess as to what they meant: something I had noticed but didn't consider particularly significant myself.

What would be the point of sneakily casting suspicion on someone who was, at that point, the most suspected anyway?

So you're basically implying that anyone who finds something you do suspicious is either stupid or dishonest? I'm sorry, but I find that a little excessive. If you're innocent - the rest of us don't know your role, and without that information, it shouldn't come as a surprise that we also produce interpretations that look obviously wrong from your perspective. If you're a wolf - well, that would explain the defensiveness, but even so I think rhetorics like that are a little out of proportion in this context.

As for your question - sneakily casting suspicion on McCaber would serve to increase a general atmosphere of "McCaber is suspicious". This was early on in Day 1, so even though Cab was the most suspected person at that point, he wasn't suspected very much, and subtly adding to the suspicion on him would serve to take it to a more serious level. Does it make sense now?

Originally Posted by Sally

Specifying that she won't be back until the next Day seems....well, how would she know she'd be around on the next Day? More importantly, why specify that she'll be back on Day 3, rather than saying she'll be gone for a couple of days? Could she be alerting her pack to an absence this coming Night? She does note that she hopes to have the time to do more, which could be taken as either a desire to participate in discussion or a desire to communicate with her pack. Perhaps just straws, but it's a distinct ping for me at this point. I believe Wilwa would be bold enough to make such a comment, being unable to communicate with her pack any other way at this point, and the specificity of her wording seems tricksy to me.

I agree with McCaber, I think this sounds a bit far-fetched. Makes me slightly wary of Sally, actually; this looks somewhat forced, like a wolf trying to come up with an original suspicion once realising that chasing Inzil twice in a row would come across too easy and bandwagony on its own.

Originally Posted by Sally

Meanwhile, my Nerwen radar is saying....nothing, which is distinctly unsettling. In my experience, my Nerwen radar always gives off the exact opposite impression, which is to say that I suspect her when she's innocent (especially when she's gifted) and ignore her when she's evil. I'd forgotten she was playing until I came across one of her posts, and I'll also note that she's not done nearly as much saccharine banter with Shasta as I would expect (though perhaps that's due to his own lack of participation?). I don't feel comfortable voting her toDay based solely on this, but it's something I must keep an eye on.

I agree with this bit, though - Nerwen manages to contribute a lot while remaining securely under my radar, which is a bit unnerving (sorry, bad pun). I don't think we should read too much into the absence of Nerwen-Shasta-banter, however, given that Shasta missed the entire Day 1 and thus the most optimal banter-time.