Werewolf XXXII: The Lost Age

[Kitanna]

I'm doing some serious catching up and I find something SpM said rather helpful at this point. It is about Rikae, who has been quite talked about thus far.

Secondly, and of greater concern to me, is her involvement in the Kitanna affair. When Eomer laid his apparent trap with his accusation of Kitanna, she said:

This brought her under suspicion for having jumped on Eomer’s unspecified accusation (and thereby fallen into his trap). In response to that suspicion, she said:

Yet Celuien only picked up on the Kitanna thing after Rikae had already done so. So how could Rikae have been responding to Celuien’s point when Celuien had not even made her point at that stage?

I wondered about this myself when I was reading through the thread earlier. How can she agree with Celuien, when Cel hadn't even said anything on the subject yet?

Then Rikae says:

I'll just be absolutely honest here, make of that what you will. When I read Eomer's comment on Kitanna, I looked back at her post to see what it was she was doing, and immediately saw that she was casting doubt on the theory that no villager would lie about their vote. I assumed this was Eomer's point and responded accordingly.

I fail to see how what Eomer said could be taken as a point. It was a statement, offering nothing more than some bold accusation with nothing there to back it up.
Also:

When Eomer claimed to have had no point, I remembered Celuien had articulated the same thing and, forgetting I came to the conclusion independantly of her, said it was her point.

What same thing? Celuien made a point or two, Eomer did not.

Kitanna, of course, actually argued against revealing votes.

Just like to say that was more due to my confusion than anything else. And also I didn't get the chance to vote.

I was operating under the assumption it was Eomer's point, not mine. When he said he had no point, it became Celuien's point in my mind; I never considered it my own, and honestly, I forgot that Celuien posted after me - I only remembered that she also agreed with the point I thought Eomer was making. I had to go back and look today to see who actually posted first.

I'm really failing to see a train of thought/point in this. You say it was Eomer's thought you agreed with, but then you say he had no point and so naturally it was Celuien's thought you agreed with. Despite her posting it after what you said.

How so? I'm becoming more and more suspicious of you, now. What is this? Everyone else can make mistakes but me? I'm afraid I'm just as fallible as the rest of us...

On the surface this appears to be more than a simple mistake. Mainly because you are making very little sense as to how you reached your conclusion.

That's what I have to say thus far. I plan on looking at others who have garnered a good deal of suspicions today (Legate/Shasta mostly) and perhaps a few others if time permits.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Celuien

I'm really failing to see a train of thought/point in this. You say it was Eomer's thought you agreed with, but then you say he had no point and so naturally it was Celuien's thought you agreed with. Despite her posting it after what you said.

I said I agreed with what I thought Eomer was saying; i.e, that your post (so easily forgotten now) looked somewhat suspicious. He then claimed he had no point; but Celuien had found the same things suspicious in your post that I had, and yes, for the third time, I forgot whether Cel or I said these things first. I had seen it as the point of Eomer's accusation, though he now claims it wasn't, and assumed Celuien did the same thing I did - that is, saw Eomer's post, looked at your post, and saw how fishy it was.
I've already explained this three times. You are blatently misrepresenting what I said now; the first post could be an honest mistake, but this makes me wonder if it was deliberate after all.

[Kitanna]

There's quite a buzz around Shasta and Legate so far and while I was reading through today's posts I didn't see it. But I'd like to take a closer look at them now.

Shasta: His first few posts were little more than in character role-playing. Post #63 pertained to accusing people with no real basis. He then says this about Gil:

Also, Gil seems suspicious to me... Mostly, it's his blatant misreading of Rikae's bantering accusations. It was perfectly obvious to me, at least, that it was only a joke... He does seem, at first glance, to be trying to snare a scapegoat.

As far as Day 1 is concerned I personally can't see much that would make Shasta truly stand out. The only thing that made me think was about accusations and the small chance of catching a vampire. But even then that was more odd to me than alarming.
He started out today just commenting on Brinn's death and that she wasn't mentioned. His second post of today was what many found interesting (or from what I've gathered it looks that way). That was the post with the top suspects from yesterday. Boro pointed out a few people missing and I have to agree. What I really wonder about is the fact that SpM was included. He didn't seem to be very high on anyone's suspect list yesterday. I find the list he provided odd, but not enough to see Shasta as overly suspicious.

And it seems there has been some suspicion cast on Shasta so far. A few things he has said stand out, but I don't see him as overly suspicious.
I'd like to look at Legate as well since Shasta and Legate were paired together by a couple of people. I also want to take a look at Boro (for calling Shasta to my attention in the first place) and I'd really like to look at this new Gil (if only because I am utterly shocked by this new more active player). But I have a meeting right now.

[Shastanis Althreduin]

Espiem was on my list because I remembered the Gil/Rikae/Espiem triangle from yesterday. I forgot that some people (i.e. Boromir, Gil) were suspicious of Legate, so I neglected to put him on the list. That's all.

As of right now, I'll probably be voting for Gil. That's not set in stone yet, though.