WW LXXXIX: The Terror of Tol Fuin

[Nogrod]

A few thing on the Lottie / Kit issue - and to answer some questions by G55.

Originally Posted by G55

To add to the things above, he only "noticed" Lottie's "slip" after Shasta's analysis.

That's correct. As I have said earlier, I thought most of the suspicions on Lottie early on Day1 were more likely the normal "Lottie looks suspicious" -thing. Everyone who has played with her knows it how often she is lynched - or at least heavily suspected - on D1's, and thus only newbies and wolves wish to try to lynch her. But it was Shasta's post - or someone elses' (I don't remember whose) which stole my attention. And it was the quote where Lottie talked about not realising that Kit played.

But unlike some people have interpreted it here (even if I thought I made it quite clear yesterDay), it was not just or only that she said that she was unaware Kit was playing, but the added sentence. Let me quote it once more (bolding mine)

Originally Posted by Lottie

Kit's post I saw and instantly "whaaaaaaat"ed because I forgot she was playing in this game. But I don't know how to read her yet, I just wanted to mention that.

So why did she feel the need to add that bolded part in the end?

Okay, I'm quoting myself from the last minutes of yesterDay now:

Originally Posted by me on #162

why did you want to mention that in that special way, "just wanted to mention that"? Why did you want that - and to let us know you did want us to know that? To try to create a feeling there can't be anything between you two last Night?

I see no other option unless you give me one.

So even if I can see a point in what Nerwen says of Lottie possibly only playing the ignoramus-card as such, I still have a nagging feeling that it was not only that (especially looking at Kit's early posting toDay - after that she has changed her focus which would be a wise move from a wolf - but could be explained other ways as well... that's werewolf ). But the next thing I do is to check whether there were any suspicions made about Lottie and Kit being in cahoots or connected in some way that would have triggered the reaction from Lottie. If there is, I'm probably going to vote for Kit, if there isn't, I need to reconsider and try to find a more suspicious candidate.

About Kit's first posts still aka. why I thought them suspicious.

I think Lommy summed it up nicely in a post after mine:

Originally Posted by Lommy

I have to agree though that when a wolf was lynched, it is rather funny to start eyeing those who lynched her suspiciously - it doesn't seem very much like innocent logic. I mean, an innocent would want to pose the question "did anybody try to defend/save Lottie?" first (I imagine), while a wolf is more likely to go down the "let's analyse the bandwagon" path because she doesn't have to figure out who's evil and who's not.

And I'm actually a bit confused if none had tried to look at that more obvious path... That will be my next task, if none beats me to it.

And G55, you say Kit was not doing what I said she was, as you were Kit's "first case" (and I think someone else commented on that as well, that she made other points as well). That's not the point. She did make a few short points on several people in her few first posts (before logging out for some time), but it was clear she had used all her energies going through the posts of two Lottie-lynchers (Lommy & Legate) which hardly seems the innocent's way of best using one's limited energies... And add to that that her analysis on Lommy looked like she was really hard trying to find something suspicious from there.

Okay. Enough of that now.

I'll take a short break and then delve into Kit / Lottie relationship (did anyone suggest something Lottie could have gotten jumpy?). And if in the meantime no one looks whether anyone tried to talk or vote Lottie off the noose, then I'll check that next.