|
Meseems some of you are putting Wilwarin out of mind too hastily. The strongest thing, after all, that has been said in her defence is that her vote was too obviously wolf-like!
I think that a reasonable approach to analyzing a person's actions is as follows. First, assume that person is a wolf. Consider his or her behaviour and ask yourself how likely it is that a wolf would act that way. Now, assume the person is innocent. Ask yourself how likely it is that an innocent would act that way. Then compare your results. The key, you understand, is that what matters is not just how wolf-like one's behaviour is; what matters is whether one's behaviour is more likely for an innocent or for a wolf.
Now take Wilwarin. How likely is it that a wolf would vote for Formendacil, breaking the three-way tie? I think The Saucepan Man is right in saying that a wolf would be hesitant to do so. On the other hand, it seems to me that there's also a fair chance a wolf would take the chance and try to save Spawn, perhaps even counting on the obviousness of the maneuver to clear her.
Now, how likely is her behaviour for an innocent? What was so suspicious about Formendacil? It's true that Jack voted the same way, which indicates that there's some chance an innocent would vote that way. Nonetheless, it looks to me to be a move much more likely for a wolf (a daring wolf) than for an innocent.
That was perhaps a long-winded way of saying a simple thing, but I think that my schema for analyzing a person's behaviour is worth laying out.
The other suspicious looking character at this point is, if you ask me, Rune. He escaped my notice earlier because I was looking so intently at the strange anti-Formendacil party. But his vote for Wayne looks to me more likely as a wolvish move than an innocent one. If the general consensus is that Wilwarin should not be lynched toDAY, I would probably be amenable to the idea of lynching Wayne, unless there are some new developments.
|