[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Kitanna

In the whole Legate, G55, and Pitch discussion I'd wager there's a wolf hidden, setting up two innocents to take the bait. Yet each time I read back, I switch who I think is most likely the wolf.
I thought Legate might be the innocent party until post #88
Something about the whole post feels, I don't know, contrived? I can't place my finger on it. Like G55 it feels like he's distancing himself from the fake DL, fake vote discussion.
I'm finding it hard to explain why this sets me off, but I'm going to try in the most coherent way.
Legate drew a lot of attention, but I didn't really feel many were overly suspicious of him. There's been some talk, but nothing to indicate everyone is convinced and ready to bandwagon. I'd say more people raised eyebrows toward G55 and Pitch, myself included, because of how G55 distanced herself from her idea and how Pitch threw it all into Legate's lap. In all that, Legate did look like a misguided, attempting to be helpful innocent. But maybe that's how he wants to be viewed? He's been helpful, at least, in stirring up conversation. And yet, his list post of his thoughts in #88 just rings of false platitudes and him trying to put himself under the radar again. He came, he made a lot of noise, and now just there with a list.

Okay, this was pretty out of the blue. So in short, now Kitanna started to suspect me for making a list?

Plus again posting with what I call "helpful questions for the reader" - I don't like that, because that is exactly the typical Wolf-tactic for baiting the reader into it. As in:
Wolf: "XY did something. I wonder if they are guilty?" Reader: "Hmm, maybe there's something to it. I vote for XY." Wolf: "Oh! I see! There is something fishy about XY! Good that it was not me who came up with that."

Otherwise... I have good feelings about Rune, especially his post #117 seems genuinely innocentish to me.

Originally Posted by Kath

I am assuming here that you mean Kath not Kant - but I'm still gonna take it and bask in the glory of being referred to as an eminent philosopher.

Sorry, I meant Kant I was not aware of you saying anything about it by the time I posted it. But, to be sure, feel free to claim a new nickname! Henceforth, you shall be known as...

Originally Posted by Rikae

I was wondering if I should worry about the way Boro was buttering Mac up ...

Right?

Originally Posted by Macalaure

This is what I mean. I can feel a race between Pitch, G55, and Legate coming up, while the wolves are snickering in the background.

I'm not even saying that there isn't a wolf among them - it's possible - but I don't like the way this is gaining momentum.

Me neither - and not only because I am one of them, but considering this.
Day 1 starts. As expected of Day 1, there isn't much to talk about, people are joking about washing hands etc.
Then, among a few actual posts with content, G55 proposes (the way I see it now) an alternative to "no vote on Day 1" in the form of a "fake vote".
I understand it as a "dry run vote" and propose an elaborate scheme which makes half the people not understand what I meant.
Pitchwife questions it.

Cut to: "one of these three is a Wolf". For what? For suggesting a "bonus vote round"? For baiting me into talking about "bonus vote round" so that they could accuse me of coming up with it? Is talking about this "bonus vote round" something inherently evil, so WWs would assume that they could paint the person who talked about it as suspicious? This has nothing to do with whether the people involved may be innocent or guilty otherwise, but this debate should have zero impact on it?!?

What I mean is to ask: where is there anything "evil" in this debate in the first place? The whole idea seems horribly contrived. It is more like "look, three people started arguing here, let's pick a lynchee from among them". Only normally, when people argue, they argue about whether XY is suspicious or not, or perhaps whether we should lynch nobody on Day 1. Now in those debates, you could at least argue that one side is arguing for something with a malicious intent. But we argued (or anyway, "argued", on top of everything) about something that, I think, is "outside morality and ethics".

I ask everyone who suspects anyone on the grounds of this to reexamine (and ideally, explain) their reasoning.

EDIT: xed with million again