WWLXII: Dead Men Do Tell Tales

[Kath]

Here til about half 11 (my time) now, will be posting on and off as I catch up.

So before anything else I think I'll answer Rikae as I didn't get a chance to before about the twisting words thing. This is where it came from.

Shasta posted this:

Arr, what be the particklar pros 'n cons o' exorcisin A Little Drunk fer good 'n all? Belike 'n I don' wonder if'n discov'rin the wench's true ident-watchacallit cud on'y be good fer us!

From which I gathered: what do people thing the pros and cons of double-lynching Greenie would be, good just for us or good for the wolves too?

Rikae then said:

Shasta, that be treacherous talk. Arr, I see no point in double lynchin' anybody until doin' so is likely to give us some really useful information. We double lynch Greenie, and we're either rid o' a cobbler (who can't do much harm now anyway) but don't know anythin', or we have proved Nerwen's innocence, but later in th' game, a double lynch o' th' right person will probably benefit us a lot more. I thought ye were bein' framed by th' aggressors, but now I be havin' second thoughts. Arrr.

Which I thought was a good list of cons, but that the 'treacherous talk' business was a bit odd.

Annu then jumped on to that, quoting the 'treacherous talk' bit with:

Aye, me notions exactly! Try an' state yer reasons better fer double lynching Greenie, Shasta, or ye be makin' me more suspicious o' ye.

This I think is where I got the 'twisting words' from, because Shasta never actually said 'lets lynch Greenie again' yet that's what seemed to get later said. I think though that it was actually Annu who was twisting words rather than Rikae, but because Annu quoted Rikae I had assumed they were making the same point.

[Kath]

Right, let's have a look at the end of the Day where Rikae revealed because I missed that entirely. Think the reactions might be interesting.

Inzil - reacted with suspicion, said he didn't think Rikae was close enough to being lynched to need to reveal. Continues to question her. Votes Rikae. Does seem very, very certain that Rikae isn't telling the truth. I'd have wondered if he was the real Hunter trying to counter claim without actually coming out and saying it, but from the later narrations this is obviously not the case. So either a cobbler trying to cause confusion or an innocent who really didn't like the reveal!

Lommy - seems unsure over Rikae, basically ignores her for a bit.

Boro - defends her against Inzil. Says he trusted Rikae because of something he picked up earlier in the game.

Rikae - defends herself against Inzil, also says (apparently untruthfully) who she will be hunting. Interesting plan to almost throw out names to see the reactions. Don't think anyone really bothered defending either of the two names. But then it might be hard to separate whether those who didn't want her lynched were trying to save her or save the person she said she'd take with her, especially since unless there's a competing reveal the usual reaction to a reveal is to save the gifted. Looks like she believes her reveal has outed Inzil. From the posts after the reveal she says Gwath is evil, Izzy is a cobbler and Inzil might be, and sally looks ... just not a wolf or actually innocent, not sure.

sally - oh didn't see that before. sally said she was the protector. Oh, no she didn't ... apparently.

Izzy - there have actually been a couple of times when I've agreed with her about Nerwen possibly being a bit fishy. There was a point where she threw a new lynch candidate in when there were really too many already. Greenie did say she didn't know whether she was innocent or a cobbler. That said, since we don't know the roles after death and so don't know how many if any wolves we've lynched so far going for a cobbler is pointless.

Gwath - had some suspicion of Rikae for voting for the person she said she was hunting. The way Rikae phrased the point was odd but if the Hunter thought they were going to be killed and had someone they actually thought suspicious enough to take with them, surely they should vote for that person because if they weren't killed they would want that person lynched anyway because they think them wolvish.

Hmm, I would say from all that Boro looks pretty good. He had clearly picked up on Rikae potentially being gifted early on and had kept quiet about it. Inzil is an interesting case. Izzy (I think) said that he'd fake revealed before which might explain his automatic suspicion. He kept the disbelief up pretty consistently, which is why I can't decide between cobbler and innocent. Izzy's attempt to add a person to the suspicion list who can only be cobbler or innocent (if you believe Greenie was the seer) is a bit suspicious.

OK, posting this then looking at Day 4. Is anyone apart from me at risk from modfire toDay by the way?

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Kath

Is anyone apart from me at risk from modfire toDay by the way?

Gwath is as well.

[Kath]

So, the Day I missed entirely! A missed kill is odd. I don't think I've ever been in a game in which wolves have deliberately forgone a kill as someone mentioned. I think you'd have to have some very bold wolves to try that one. So I would guess either timezone based communication problems or an absent wolf was the cause there.

Inzil - begins by 'explaining not defending' his vote. It seems tone was a prevailing factor and I can see that. You have to remember sometimes just how people 'speak'. Rikae, Gwath, some others have quite an aggressive style that can sometimes cause over the top reactions from others.

sally - suggests wilwa might have been the kill anyway. Seems unlikely. The wolves surely want to kill as many as possible. If they knew wilwa was going to be killed why would they have gone for her? Or was wilwa a last minute pull out?

Eonwe - seems to agree with sally. Pretty much exactly actually. And then says nothing has happened. Oh I'm sure you could have found SOMEthing to comment on Eonwe? Does say Nerwen could potentially be a cobbler. Quite a few people coming to that conclusion it seems.

Lommy - ah it was her that suggested the apparent missed kill was deliberate. Also gets a little bit 'meta' in that it does become easy to suspect those who weren't around if you think it was a missed kill. Says Boro and Mac are just assuming that they 'know' the Hunter's picks, seems to find Mac more suspicious. Lots of reasoning for suspecting Mac. At least some people are putting their reasoning in!

Mac - suspicious of Gwath and Inzy but not much in the way of reasoning. Suspicion of Izzy but again no reasoning.

Boro - suggests it might be worth double killing since the wolves missed a trick. I'm not sure what he's trying to get at here. He says that the wolves have been killing their 'cover' as in the quiet players and so we might want to double lynch a quiet player to learn if one of them was a wolf I think, but I'd have thought that if the wolves were lynching quiet players they're more likely to be loudmouths because their 'cover' would actually be the louder players.

Rikae - ah my if she hadn't been shown to be the Hunter I would be suspicious of her! Now she's suggesting double killing after that utter refusal to consider it before. All out for slips toDay, she found a possible one from Lommy there, think Lommy just phrased it badly though.

Nerwen - says if the kill was deliberately missed then either sally, Gwath or Lommy is a wolf because they'd have considered killing her too much a risk. Fine, but then why wouldn't they have just killed someone else?

Mith - huh, really haven't heard much from Mith. Would assume she's a busy innocent as I've not noticed anything to make me think otherwise.

Shasta - this time actually does advocate a double kill! Hmm, says he agrees with Lommy but I think Lommy was *headdesking* by this point about people assuming wilwa was innocent so she might not have appreciated it.

Izzy - votes herself, apparently in annoyance. This I think could definitely be a cobbler tactic.

Waaaait one second - we DON'T know Rikae was the Hunter? I just read the narration and from it and Brinn's little note could it maybe have been the other way round? Well ... well that just changes everything! Ugh and I thought this couldn't get any more confusing. Right, I'm going to assume it was Rikae. Just because the thought of going back over all of yesterDay again fills me with dread.

Going on to toDay now.

PS: As for no mutineers and it all being a dirty trick? lmp has copyright on that from the original ATM RPG.

[Mithalwen]

or they are dead ala Fea's game where she kept us in the dark...

[satansaloser2005]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

A possible slip, anyway. Not quite on the order of, say, Agan's last game... but I'd certainly be interested to hear Sally's explanation.

Interesting that you should use that as an example, since I was killed by a Nerwen-led wolf pack. I'm just saying.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

As well as looking at those who do not post very frequently, we should look at those who have been away (like Nogrod). And this all verges on the edge of what is fair play and what is playing on out-of-game reasons (it would be easy to start checking who has posted on the 'Downs during the Night phase etc).

Besides, it can also be misleading. Imagine I - a rather active player who was online on the 'Downs yesterday - was a mutineer. The deadline happens to be 7am my time. Imagine my fellows are Americans who have their most active hours after I go to bed in the evening. What do I do? Probably send my suggestions on who to kill to my mates before I go to sleep and trust them to send the kill to the mod. They are all so called not-so-frequently posting people and they miss the kill (say, one is dead, one appears a few hours before the DL, sees the last one hasn't posted, sends a PM and leaves it up to them, and they don't turn up at all because of some unexpected hindrances). Now, by your logic, it would easy to say that I'm not likely someone to miss the kill, although it is exactly what happened in this example scenario. So, summa summarum, no use making hasty conclusions.


Excuse me, gentlemen, but just how on earth do you expect the mutineers to know Rikae's pick?

Mac, you expect the mutineers to have reached the same conclusion about Rikae's possible picks and furthermore, you expect your guesses to be correct. Ever heard of a bluffing hunter? You think too simply for me to be comfortable with you. And you assuming the mutineers to think like you looks like your pack had a nice chat last Night.

Boro - what on earth do you think we gain from knowing whom Rikae really hunted? The mutineers didn't know it either. Whether Rikae really hunted me or just threatened to wouldn't have affected their choice of action, because they had no way of knowing whom Rikae hunted. It doesn't incriminate me any more if Rikae really hunted me or not, what matters is that she threatened to. But there's no way a mutineer-me would have known whether she was bluffing or not, or a mutineer-anyone else would have known it. So, in short, the mutineers couldn't have just acted blindly on the assumption that Rikae hunted me, nor could they have chosen to attack or not attack her based on whom she hunted because they didn't know it.

Huh, you two confuse me.


edit: xed with Rikae

Liked Lommie's thoughts here on the 'quiet people miss the kill' theory. Besides, even the loudest people can miss a kill. Or it could be like the most recent game in which I was a wolf (Lommie's, to be exact) and someone didn't want to send in a kill without checking it over with their mates.

Also, I want to know the same thing; why do people assume that the wolfiekinses could channel Rikae's brain or something? Unless it's Mac that we're talking about, and even then it'd be sketchy.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I thought Rikae was pretty serious it would be sally if she was lynched, and you at night, considering the circumstances she was in and the threat of being lynched. Of course she could have been bluffing the night selection and the mutineers would have no way of knowing who she was really hunting, but if they feared one of their own was someone being hunted they wouldn't want to kill her. If they thought she was hunting an innocent they would. Simple as that.

I took who she said she was going to hunt as not a bluff, and well...maybe the mutineers did too.

It wouldn't be the first time that none of us were...our Cap'n might enjoy watching the loudmouths lynch off eachother after tension builds and the first few days. If you feel I'm innocent, than trust it, don't let your feelings that it's "illogical" that none of the loudmouths are wolves to cloud your judgement of who you feel is innocent or not.

But look at the night kills...Greenie and Eomer, two players who are thoughtful voters, but were less active on this ship. Why wouldn't they kill off the loudmouths, why would they kill off their cover? And look at our lynches...McCaber, Mira, and Annu...how successful have we been? I don't know, maybe the time is right to check one of them. We could end up with some real information if we lynch one of those 3 again.

This will get me in trouble, but I don't care at this point...I wouldn't have passed up a night kill. I would have thought that would exonerate me completely.

But, I should say Lommy, your last post looks pretty innocent because it is so flippy-floppy . If that makes any sense. I could tear it apart for all the inconsistencies in there, but that actually makes you look better.

I'm oddly concerned by all this theorizing about why the wolfies killed Rikae. She lied about her picks so it's conceivable that the wolves picked up on it and knew that she wouldn't be hunting who she said she was. She is Rikae after all.

I dunno about the quiet killing off the loud being so unbelievable either. Isn't that more or less what happened in Gollum's game?

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Even if Gwath or Sally is a mutineer? They might have considered it too much of a risk. They couldn't have known for sure who Rikae would pick.

I think it's safe to say that if the baddies failed to send in the kill on purpose, it would mean at least one of those three (Gwath, Lommy & Sally) is probably guilty.

EDIT: X'd since Boro at #450; clarification.

Erm, I think I should be insulted at this, but I'm not sure. So since the baddies forgot to send in a kill Lommie, Gwath, and/or I must be guilty? That makes no sense. I've never missed a kill, ever; I usually try to wait for confirmation that the kill's been sent or I send it myself. This really looks like Nerwen trying to start trouble for the three of us without anything to base it on.

Originally Posted by Rikae

Actually, I was hunting Kath yesterDay. I just wanted to see how people would react to a Sally-kill.

Hmm. I don't really like the way you latch on to the idea that none of us are evil - shows an awful lot of certainty wrt Mac, Nog, etc.

I'd rather lynch Gwath toDay, and try the double-lynch toMorrow.

One reason not to kill anyone... it's been done before.

This isn't really admissable since there's no double lynch, but this is what I meant by lying about her picks; it's probably for the good of the village but people would expect her to be honestly dishonest. Know what I mean?

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, at the risk of being Captain Obvious, it certainly looks as if it can't be Gwath and Sally.

Why Kath, though?

Well since I'm dead you know who to go after next then, don't you, precious?

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

or they are dead ala Fea's game where she kept us in the dark...

Heh, heh, I need to read that game again. That was flipping awesome.

[satansaloser2005]

Rikae-->Gwath at 11:11am
Nerwen-->Gwath at 1:58pm
Mith-->Sally at 5:35pm
Lommie-->Sally at 6:27pm
Izzy-->Izzy at 6:30pm
Steve-->Sally at 6:46pm
Dun-->Sally at 7:08pm
Boro-->Gwath at 9:54pm
Mac-->Gwath at 10:14pm
Shasta-->Sally at 10:59pm
Sally-->Gwath at 11:00pm

Didn't vote: Kath, Gwath, Nog


Sorry it took me so long. Major multitasking.

[Boromir88]

Waaaait one second - we DON'T know Rikae was the Hunter? I just read the narration and from it and Brinn's little note could it maybe have been the other way round?~Kath

Plus Nogrod said he was an ordo...but that well I don't believe.

He says that the wolves have been killing their 'cover' as in the quiet players and so we might want to double lynch a quiet player to learn if one of them was a wolf I think, but I'd have thought that if the wolves were lynching quiet players they're more likely to be loudmouths because their 'cover' would actually be the louder players.

Let me explain the confusion...no that will take too long so I'll sum up

As far as double-killing anyone I gave a good amount of consideration to the people lynched (I'm not interested in those who were killed by the wolves, because I doubt they will turn up much benefit, we already know they aren't wolves, so what would be the point? All we could really try and figure out is why the wolves killed them and that would be difficult). So, I would consider any of the lynches (or avenger's kill - Nogrod), quiet or loud, for a double kill.

What I was trying to do, but I probably didn't phrase it well, was to start getting the "loudmouths" to be suspected, because we have already lynched several quieter pirates, and the wolf kills have been after the same. Except last night, with Rikae, but the wolves probably felt they had to get her out of sooner rather than later.

[Kath]

And toDay.

I'm very confused about how Izzy acted right after narration. If she hadn't read it, why post anything about it? Why answer the other's questions if she didn't know the details?

Nerwen has a fair point that the wolves must have felt pretty confident that Rikae was wrong, not sure who that puts in a good light. Inzil? Izzy? Gwath?

Well Nog says he was innocent so Rikae was the Hunter. If he was the Hunter I think he would have revealed after death. Thinks her death may put Gwath in a good light. Suspicion of Lommy for being too happy and Inzil for following Lommy. Whatever Lommy is I think this makes Inzil look bad.

Lommy seems pretty focused on Mac. He knew she wouldn't pick him, says Lommy. I find this a pretty intense statement as it requires being certain of not just one persons mind but the minds of two people. I suppose though that once you feel certain of someone's guilt everthing points to them, I've certainly felt that in the past. I can't see why she brings up Shasta again. She asks why he continues to advocate Greenie's re-lynching but so far as I can see he hasn't mentioned it so far toDay. List post - seems to have Mac, me and Izzy down as evil. Ah Lommy misread Inzil's point as well, took me a few minutes to work it out!

Inzil - thinks Gwath more likely a cobbler than a wolf as he missed the vote. I don't know, Gwath is pretty well known for disappearing isn't he? Don't know if he's done it with a role though. Has Mac down as a wolf - reasoning? Oh I see. Guess that kind of makes sense. Unless Gwath was her choice for that Day and she had to change it before the Night? Could do with some clarification from Rikae herself on that front I guess.

Mac why do you assume Eomer wasn't a mutineer? Can see your reasoning about the others but clearly missed that somewhere along the way. Thinks Gwath might be a mutineer.

Boro says Mac is jumping on him.

Seems Rikae did go for someone she thought would have no reason to fear her, so maybe the idea of those she did suspect looking slightly better holds some water.

sally has suspicion of me 'cause I'm still alive. Fair enough! I was mildly surprised but I guess I was passed over yesterDay for being ill, and that's when people usually start wanting to kill me.

About Gwath. If he doesn't turn up and he's going to be modfired, is this going to cause another huge argument about whether to just leave him to die or whether to lynch someone else ala Mira?

Shasta is going to get himself lynched if he doesn't tone himself down pretty quick. It is frustrating defending yourself over the same thing again and again but 'taking a tone' rarely helps!

Mith is going for Izzy - only thing is I don't recall seeing any explanation for suspicion there. I get why I'm suspicious of Izzy, and why others are, but I don't recall Mith mentioning any.

Caught up to the present now I think.

Hmm, going to have a think and then vote. Tis bedtime for me.

[Thinlómien]

++Macalaure

I'll be blunt. I want to vote before the bandwagons begin because of the simple reason that I feel that Mac is a mutineer and all the other mutineers know it and the cobblers guess it and they are just ignoring my case and I'm just fighting the windmills here... and if I vote late there will be no one to vote him with me. *shrugs*

My vote is liable to change if my case/research/whatever I'm going to do makes me think Mac is innocent after all.

Now, I'm off to comment everything that happened while I was away and then I'll make the long-awaited Mac-post.

[Thinlómien]

I think I'm mistaken about someone else, Kath seems pretty fine to me. *moves her from the "wary of" category to the "neutral" category*

Inzil - I got why Gwath is not a mutineer, but I still didn't get why he's a co-consp and not an ordo, for example.

Sally makes me wonder. Is she innocent after all since she's trying to help us, or is she just trying to play innocent? Gah. With all respect, Brinn, I hate this game.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Just a moment... "pretending to be sensible"?

Speaking in a reasonable tone but suggesting stupid stuff.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But no, I didn't suggest Greenie-lynch unless it would be a double-lynch - and Sally already corrected me with the "no double-lynch" -policies of the game. Go back and see for yourself. I said lynching ghosts is not the way to go unless they are double-lynches (regretably not an option I see now).

Okay I misunderstood then because it didn't occur to me you could mean traditional double-lynches with the word double-lynch since there aren't any in this game. And how many times do I have to repeat that lynching Greenie would be utter foolishness? We wouldn't gain anything except for a known innocent we semi-have already or get rid of a rather inactive dead cobbler AND we would reveal to the baddies whether the seer is still alive or not. Not wise at all.

Originally Posted by Sally to Rikae

By the way, why are you now green?

Oh but she's just a little green.

Originally Posted by Shasta whose vileness is pardoned ;)

Oh? Really, Lommy? Is that what happened?

Okay I read this as advocating lynching her (looks like you're still for lynching her later, or?)

Originally Posted by Shasta

There are, of course, pros and cons to any plan. In hindsight, maybe we should wait to lynch A Little Green Ghost if and until we have a competing Seer-claim. I just intensely dislike having no concrete information whatsoever on which to base any decision. The most concrete evidence right now that I can see is that it's possible someone who was inactive or not here for some reason might be responsible for last night's no kill, but that's really close to metagaming and makes me uncomfortable.

And I'm getting rather cranky because I feel we're losing this game and I can do nothing to change it... grrr Macalaure I'm going to reveal all your dirty secrets now!


xed with 2x Kath & 1x Izzie

[Kath]

Right, out of those who are still alive, thoughts.

So I think Nerwen and Izzy are likely to be our cobblers. Which makes me think Inzil is then more likely a wolf than a cobbler though I must say he does really strike me as more cobblerish. Nerwen can only be cobbler at worst so I guess I'd have to choose between Izzy and Inzil there.

I'll tell you who I'm worried about and that's Eonwe. Apart from me and Shasta (and I'm back now ) he's the only person who seems to really be keeping a low profile. Came on with not a thing to say at one point. I mean, come on, even Izzy who had failed to read the narration managed to find something.

Lommy I am pretty sure is innocent. The way she's speaking, the irrational surety, all smacks of a fixated innocent. Anyone remember Farael? Reminding me very much of him right now. Same with Mith, she isn't involved enough to be anything I don't think.

Which leaves me with Boro, Shasta, Mac and Gwath. I don't know what to do about Gwath. I am always tempted if we do have a modfire going on to vote for that person in order that we don't end up with two people dying on one Day. I for one have never really understood the suspicion around Shasta and still don't find him suspicious now so he won't get my vote.

I said before that the fighting between Boro and Mac was quite likely to mean one of them was a wolf. I don't know which. To be on the opposite side of the fence to Lommy, given that Rikae was suspicious of Mac before she was killed it would seem to put him in a better light. Yet Boro doesn't seem suspicious. I guess by elimination and by the fact that I do believe Mac might be a bold enough wolf to kill Rikae knowing he might go down with her I'd probably vote for him. That said, I am more inclined to vote Gwath because of the modfire.

Brinn are you around? Can you tell us what's happening about Gwath?

[Kath]

Well for me I think it's between Eonwe for sleeping under reindeer or whatever phrase we're using now, Mac because I think he's more likely a wolf than Boro, or Gwath not so much for a reason as there's been precious little to work with recently but because if he's going to be modfired then better only one person goes than two.

Hmm, I'm not confident that we've lynched enough wolves to be able to get away with more than one person dying toDay so:

++GWATH

And that's it from me.

[Isabellkya]

I'm not a Cobbler.

I've no qualms in claiming my role when I have one. If I was the type to fake-claim, I'd certainly have no qualms letting you all believe I was a Cobbler.

Interesting to see so many think I'm a Cobbler... because why?
I was "acting weird" or whatever?
News flash. Hasn't been the first time I've "acted weird", nor will be the last.

As I told Rikae. Most, if not all of the times someone(s) have called my lists "fabricated" - it is because they have nasty intentions. Once - I have fabricated a list. Guess what my role was that game - Ranger.

Nerwen. o.O I've made.. three posts before this one right here.
Rikae wasn't lynched - Sally was.

Interesting to see Sally be more active when a ghost, than before.

I also have no qualms saying what I want, and what I mean. I have nothing to hide.
If you have a question, it is preferable you ask me why I did what I did. Or do what I do.

Because no one can understand what I do, better than I. So taking an explanation from another person/party and accepting it as truth - is pretty darn ridiculous.


My first post - had nothing to do with the narration. Nor did I imply it did. I saw Nog dead - and then made my post. But question it all you want, you'll undoubtedly come to the very wrong conclusion.

What is this business about not posting anyways.
What, someone doesn't read the narration so they have no business posting?
Since when do the narrations hold ultimate guidance?


x'd with Kath.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Kath

Eonwe - seems to agree with sally.

When?

still reading...

[Macalaure]

Originally Posted by Boro

So why would those suspicions make you suspicious of Lommy?

What about incomplete quotes and populist tone?

[Boromir88]

Alright 11 people left. If Gwath doesn't vote that'll be 10 and after today 9, unless we decide to lynch Gwath...but at this point, I agree with Greenie.

If there are 4 mutineers still, and assuming if the Ranger makes no successful protections we have 3 days to get one (including today).

Yeesh, I can't even crunch the numbers properly, because not only is my math pathetic, but we have no idea how many mutineers are left.

Sorry, that was completely pointless in trying to figure out whether we should double-kill now or not. We either just risk it, by giving up a day and finding something that may be useful or may not...or we just keep ahead with ghosting people.

[Isabellkya]

o.O @ Boro. No kidding buddy.

Innocents have no reason to twist words. Nor do they have a reason to make an assumption - based on nothing, and stick with it regardless.


You have too many or's there Lommy. It pretty much makes that entire list pretty null and void.


Hmm.
Vote time. Nerwen? Boro? Mac? Lommy?
Whoo knows.

[Boromir88]

And who was behind these ideas (to lynch Mira and to lynch a ghost instead of a possible mutineer - mutineer-ghosts are dead anyway)? Boro...~Nogrod

We had a different philosophy Nogrod, that doesn't make me evil and you know it. Did I suspect you for disagreeing with me about Mira? No. I may have not trusted your intentions when you didn't want to, but that's not why I was suspious of you. I was suspicious because of the Greenie and Eomer kills and the Day 1 lynching.

I defended my reasons, I gave what I thought was beneficial, as did Rikae. Yet you did not find Rikae suspicious over Mira's lynching just me. I won't say anymore about it, because I defended my reasons, we think differently about the subject. That's all.

And I think I've defended the reasons for wanting a double-kill suitable enough too. The more frustrating thing is this should have occurred on Day 1, like I tried to get going and talking about. But only Greenie felt the need to comment, and all you felt like saying is throwing it aside at what "little" I had to offer about the topic.

Edit crossed with a lot...Nogrod and I both managed to tell eachother "you know it" in a cross-post

[Boromir88]

You don't need the suspicion in this game as you need in normal games (trust me, I know what I'm talking about with the normal games... my only lifeline is suspcion... ). But it's different here. Were you an innocent you would know it personally but as a mutineer (or a co-conspie) it would be just theory you just didn't come to think about?~Nogrod

No offense met Nogrod, because I love WWing with you and "you know it." But don't tell me how I decide to do things and presume what is the "innocent" and "wolf" thing to do in a game like this one.

Innocents have no reason to twist words. Nor do they have a reason to make an assumption - based on nothing, and stick with it regardless.~Izzy

Words can be mis-interpretted, and thus twisted, unintentionally and innocently...it all depends upon how someone reads it. You can have two different people read the same thing and get the completely opposite interpretation.