Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pitchwife
Another thing. It strikes me that suspecting Nilp for double-bluffing is terribly easy (because he totally would), as is defending him because 'he'd do that no matter what he is' (because he totally would). Also any vote for him on the grounds that he wants to be lynched is so easy it's not even funny, so if anybody would actually go there... I was going to say it would be another point against them, but it would be so blatantly no-trail that it would actually not be no-trail at all, if you get what I'm saying.
|
Not sure I get this. I mean, yes,
Nilp is a very easy target on D1 as he pretty much paints the target on himself, and if he's innocent he would be a safe vote pick for a wolf. But the rest of this argument is odd. So we shouldn't suspect
Nilp but shouldn't defend him either because both are "terribly easy"? Just give him a free pass and not try to read anything into what he says and how he says it - except isn't that kind of the same thing as "defending him because he'd do that no matter what he is"?
I'm speculating on a possible
Pitchwolf who is trying to either protect packmate
Nilp or lay the groundwork on an easy case against basically anyone who says anything about
Nilp. Although there's also some merit in
Shasta and
Lommy's theory that he's the cobbler
Additionally, what I think
Lommy was getting at was the tone of
Nilp's comment about being a carnivore rather than the basic fact that
Nilp is acting suicidal on D1 (which I agree would be no grounds at all to base a suspicion on). And that seemed valid enough to me for a D1 argument. Especially this early on, the best leads I get come from
how people do what they do rather than the thing itself.