[dancing spawn of ungoliant]

Originally Posted by mormegil

This is one point where I agree completely. It raised some red flags in my mind to do such an analysis yesterday and seem to suspect me and others but then simply follow Spawn and vote at a crucial time thus sealing the fate. Today she seemed worried about how I brought that up yesterday and immediately went to explain it. Seems a bit defensive to me.

It raised red flags in my mind, too.

Originally Posted by Kath

If you feel you must pursue this then feel free.

Then I shall take a moment to analyze Kath's behaviour, because it has made me rather uneasy.

#11 - Kath makes an appearance, but doesn't really say anything else than on Day 1, we randomly accuse people, but doesn't do it herself because it's too quiet for her.

#13 - Says that reasoned accusations aren't helpful yet, some suspicion towards the legal system and Saucy.

However, it's really Kath's post #76 that made me say "huh?".

"[Spawn] votes Crombie, seemingly in order to cause a double lynch!" ~Kath

Ha ha ha... uh, sorry. But seriously, I'd like to know how on earth could my vote have caused a double lynching when there was more than an hour till the end of the Day and there were 8 votes left.

"As far as I've got it is spawn that seems to stand out as innocent, so I'm going to accept her ideas about Crombie. I've not seen anyone I've really wanted to vote for toDay, but those points about her flipflopping around are persuasive." ~Kath

That's some nice framing up, but to me it seems that Kath's a bit too eager to accuse people with flimsy reasons and that she was trying to make an alibi for herself, perhaps knowing what the result in the voting would be. This doesn't necessarily make as much sense to the rest of you than it does to me because you can't be sure that I'm innocent (except the Seer, if they decide to dream of me), but shifting the responsibility of her vote on me instead of standing behind her own vote is really strange.

Really, if you're innocent, you can trust no other villager, so you should use your own brain instead of "accepting" anyone other's ideas. Also the use of the word "persuasive" here is interesting. I'm not trying to manipulate anyone to do anything, I'm gathering my thoughts and I do that aloud.


Well, that's it about Kath, and now something else.

- The voting. I can't tell much of it yet. If I'm going to comment it, I'll go back to reread everything more closely. Anyway, although I'm aware that the time zones have an effect on this, I'd believe that at least one of the wolves held back their vote a bit until they were sure that none of their comrades needed rescuing from the gallows. Also, I'd like to know if Kath was cross-posting her vote with Aiwendil because there's only three minutes between their posts.

- Márcolië Lamen. Glad to see that our missing villager has arrived.

- Silent people policy.

Originally Posted by Saucy

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.

Sounds sensible, but this shouldn't make us hesitant to make a case against them either (I'm sure you didn't mean that, just mentioning). In a situation where no-one has any valid reason to accuse another villager, I prefer saving a contributing villager instead of someone who barely talks. As you said, anyone can be a Gifted, so we can't really go with that. However, now that we've scrambled through Day 1, we should have better chances to find good reasons to back up our theories.