Case Valesse
The "votepost" for me, her last, was the following:
Quote:
|
I'm not so keen on Nogrod, who first called for a system of murder. I don't claim to know exactly how to tell a bad egg when I see one, but I feel there is something just a little too drastic going on in that mind. This is death, and we should not be so quick to it, I'd say. It might not be the best explanation, but by the way things look toDay, it'll have no effect, so no harm done. It's more expressing my hunch than anything else.
|
1.
This is death, and we should not be so quick to it, I'd say. What a rhetoric!
A) Valesse had known, even before the start of the game, that we would have to lynch one the first day. So what I call this kind of thing, is hypocrisy.
B) She herself was quick enough to throw a lynching verdict on me just
two sentences after that! So who's the quick one here? (there is no hint, or theory, or accusation before this one!) I spent the whole day trying to figure out some reasonable ways to act on, when the time would be.
C) I have not said, we should be quick to point the finger! I myself gave my vote quite reluctantly, because any of the theories didn't seem quite right, at the last possible instance for me.
2.
To call a system of murder? Well yes and no. I called for something other than random killing with just hunches (or picking the one, three names down in the list!) - if there just could be another way. That surely always is the hope of the new day: that the evening would be wiser than the morning. And luckily, you could try to help in it by trying to get some action. I have not said, that we should immediately lynch or vote to lynch anyone not posting in the first three hours of game. Even I am not that stupid!
3.
I don't claim to know exactly how to tell a bad egg when I see one, but I feel there is something just a little too drastic going on in that mind. You could say that from anyone, and by the shelter of the net, really throw it around.
It's more expressing my hunch than anything else The only sentence to the point in this message?
But as 3. (or the sentence preceeding it in actual post) is not so bad as the others, I'd still like to look at points 1. and 2. from a more general point of view.
So why is she clad in the mist of rhetoric (including downright lies!), and why the false accusations?
The bad rhetoric (or lying) might show, that she is hiding her real intentions. Lying = trying us to be convinced that she is not thinking what she actually is thinking.
The false accusations (my "system of
murder" - rhetoric here too...) might show that she is either deliberately avoiding the mentioning of my posts where I have rebutted this fantastic interpretation of my views,
or then, she just hasn't read the posts!
Well, we can't just enforce every player to read every post! On the other hand, it's quite questionable, from the moral point of view, to play without reading the posts.
What is downright suspicious (on both moral and wolvish standards), is going to vote for someone, who's posts you haven't read - accusing that one with false grounds, while hiding one's own intents by rhetoric that one herself denies two sentences later!
The two earlier posts were normal posts of the early hours. Nothing in them that I would like to go for, at least the time being...
Suspicious for me, but not a strong candidate. At this hour.