[Kent2010]

If you are her packmate I understand. If not, then remember that I warned you about her.
-Nogrod

Noted. My point is not to disagree with you about this...

Yes Kent, she looks perfcectly reasonable - and that's the whole point. A good wolf who plays the "under-radar" -style wishes to do just that: post only once or twice aDay and do not suspect too many people so that no-one feels bad with you; then come up with a suspicion you can back with an argument of any sorts, preferably something that follows the general prejudices flying around but still is something of your own (that's easier you could imagine and Greenie has made it two times now), then vanish to the shadows. She is dangerous, mind you.

I expect you to know Greenie's style better than me, and in principle what you say about wolf-behavior makes sense - how they might want to stay under the radar. But wolves can't be 'over the radar?' Wolves can't talk our ears off and throw suspicion all over the place?

I'm just saying to consider situations, maybe someone is under the radar as a wolf ploy, but maybe someone posts little because there's no time? Maybe in the rush to vote you don't have the time to look at all the evidence and refine this wonderfully long post of suspicions. What I am saying is try to consider a person's situation, instead of automatically assuming that if someone only posts once or twice a day they must be a wolf because they want to stay under the radar.

If it gives you any comfort, I am willing to do the same for you today, as I said I would for Greenie. I don't think you are particularly suspicious, and I have no doubt you will be here participating. But I think Greenie is an easy target, and could get ganged up on by people who can be here for the deadline and can read through everything.

Lets not just look at the vote, but something else she said just looks very innocent:

I have to add to this discussion about granting people a free pass on Day 1 for different reasons. I think it's a sort of nice courtesy not to lynch people on Day 1 in their first game - or in their first game in a very long while - unless there is hard evidence against them. Deciding not to lynch somebody because that said person is enjoyable to play with is a trifle more complicated, since the person voted for instead easily gets a feeling that s/he is not as enjoyable to play with as someone else. And that, in my opinion, is one step away from fair play. After all, this game shouldn't be about lynching those you know little and keeping alive those you know and like best, but instead about letting everyone play and treating everyone fairly regardless of whether they are special favourites of yours or not.

I could be fooled by a charm, but this looks honest and innocent.

x'ed with Gwath and Nogrod