Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mac
If we do get the exact number, it will be even better if the figures are correct! I mean, that would be a lot of known innocents all at once, wouldn't it? (though the semi-innocent shade might be among them)
|
Well, sort of, but that depends on whether or not you think the lynch seer is innocent, doesn't it? Don't forget that the vampires can be lynch seers, too. Wouldn't be just perfect if the Vampire came out and claimed that the number of votes added up, thus making one of his allies a known innocent? While this would be useful, and I encourage any innocent who is the lynch seer to come forward with the count, I would advise against taking their word at face value.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rikae
"I think Eomer has a good point about Kitanna. I can't quite believe she would honestly make the mistake of thinking the gifteds were on the vampires' side. I would be interested in hearing more from her.
|
While Nogrod's and Gil's case were almost pure fabrication, this, Eomer, is what you were looking for, I believe. Rikae, that's how we caught Glirdan last game. How could you fall for it now?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Celuien
I have cast my vote for Kitanna. On reflection, it was rather odd to think that the vampire-seer/ranger/hunter were additional roles.
|
That's the flimsiest case yet. And you seem to have fallen into the same trap as Rikae. Also, you seemingly agreed to the plan of posting our votes, while discrediting it in the same post.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eomer
Rikae mentioned that I had 'a good point about Kitanna.' But I didn't. I didn't have a single point about Kitanna. All I said was that she's a vampire and then, from nowhere, Rikae and Celuien are on her case. You, Lommy, can't understand their reasoning, and neither can I.
|
Ah, I was right.
And people, in all this talk of what Kitanna said, we are missing the point that two people jumped on an weakly expressed suspicion.
EDIT: Crossed with Lommy and Gil