[The Saucepan Man]

A few things that occur to me from the things said and the votes cast yesterday.

Following my own vote for Abercrombie, there were four votes for her in relatively quick succession. Of those still living, these votes were cast by TGWBS, dancing spawn and Kath. Spawn brought her level with Valier, while Kath sealed her fate (although there were still up to 6 votes still to be cast at that stage). Could there be a Wolf there? I doubt a Wolf would vote for an innocent when it looked like she was going to die (and be revealed as innocent), which would point more towards TGWBS and spawn, although I have little other reason to suspect either of them at present.

If Valier turns out to be a Wolf, then Kath's vote for Abercrombie will start to look very suspicious.

There were a few votes which might be described as "throwaway" votes at the end there. At the time cast, the votes of Shelob, Glirdan and Naria were unlikely to result in the death of anyone, and (assuming that there was no Wolf in danger) would have been "safe" votes for Wolves. Possibly even Wolf on Wolf votes (although that obviously does not apply as far as Glirdan's vote is concerned ).

Valier and Naria both voted with little or no explanation. Valier's vote for Wayne was one which would be quite easy to explain if he died and turned out to be innocent, while Naria's was a safe "throwaway" vote. I am not sure how much store to set by this, though, as I would expect the Wolves to go out of their way to justify their votes.

Kath has sought to explain her vote for Abercrombie today. I still find it strange, however, that she expressed suspicion of me, analysed a few other villagers, and then cast a vote for someone completely different on the basis of what others had said (and for the person who I, her suspect, had voted for).

There was some discussion yesterday concerning what we should do about those who arouse suspicion by their very nature, but who contribute little to our discussions. I think that it was spawn who suggested that we should have a policy on this. I agree. My own view is that we should not be voting for people just because they are behaving in the way that they always behave. And unless we really have nothing to go on, we should not be voting for people on the basis that they contribute little. The reason being that they are just as likely to be a Gifted as any of us. No one should be voting for anyone unless they have some kind of a valid reason for doing so, and that does not include acting in a way that makes you suspicious when that is the way they always act.

Finally, for now, a response to TGWBS' question:

SpM redeems himself a little in my eyes both with his vote, and his claim that his suggestion of putting himself about the law was "bait." Though bait for what, I don't know. Care to extrapolate?

I deliberately asserted that I was above suspicion, knowing that it was a ridiculous thing to say, so ridiculous in fact that most people would just ignore it. My thought was that only those who were looking for some reason to cast suspicion on me would pick up on it. Since I know that I am innocent, that would suggest possible Wolfish behaviour to me. A few people commented on it, but only Kath made something of an issue of it (and, indeed, it seems to have led her to cast suspicion on me). It is not much, I accept, and I would not vote for her solely based on that, but it might mean something in the days to come.