|
"The words of Nogrod and the Guy who be short:
The whole thing started with Guy's strange, but excusable, behaviour on Day One. Nogrod appreciates Guy's vote and even defends it from Lhuna.
Then, later, he has mixed feelings about him. His reasoning is fair, but it comes a bit out of the blue. He then lists Guy as one minor suspicious and doesn't mention him anymore before he votes him even though an other of his suspects is in the lead.
The next day, Nogrod is suspicious about Guy's over-friendliness, but the supposed ineptitude of the wolves lessens his suspicion. He defends his vote before anybody was able to accuse him (explicable). Guy doesn't like the way Nogrod treated him the last day (of course) and is suspicious of him in turn. Nogrod explains his vote more. Guy understands then, but takes up Izzy's point and accuses Nogrod about being more busy with self-preservation than the interest of the group, a statement which is not very sustainable. Of course, it makes Nogrod suspicious again immediately.
Guy is now convinced about Nogrod's guilt because of his theoretical statements which he doesn't agree with. Nogrod gets a little bit angry in turn because he feels not listened to and misrepresented. I think both are both wrong and right in this part of their argument.
Guy then goes into mathematics to prove his point, which maybe he shouldn't have done. He also takes back the self-preservation argument and mostly drops his suspicion of Nogrod. This flip-flop has very innocentish-confused feel to me.
Nogrod then forms the theory that Guy was trying to launch a bandwaggon against him and gave up on the attempt. This argument is quite a leap in reasoning. It's also strange because by it he makes Guy appear in a bad light while he avoids the term "wolf".
Today, Guy is suspicious again because of the bandwaggon thing. His stance is quite defensive, but reasonable. He also accuses Nogrod of trying to distract us. Nogrod doesn't really answer to all this because he would rather go after wolves. But then, Nogrod ignoring Guy's points strengthens Guy's opinion. Understandable as an innocent, convenient as a wolf, I'd say. I don't like it that Guy calls it a "test".
Nogrod answers quite furiously, now. He points out flaws in Guy's arguments, which are valid points as far as I can see. There's something fuzzy about his tone here, and I don't mean the furor. He doesn't go as far as to call Guy guilty, which is quite consistent.
In response, Guy re-presents his reasoning and the course of his suspicion. He is not unaggressive, but he's also very straightforward, which gives an innocent feel again.
Nogrod's response is somewhat strange. He claims that Guy is being retaliatory, which I do not see, and points out that somebody who makes a wrong case isn't necessarily evil. There's an appeasing tone which I hold a little suspicious. It's strange that he is so sure about this half-innocent-half-guilty thing.
Quite passionate and enjoyable debate there - a soon-to-be classic maybe. Both have leaps in their reasoning, but mostly argue sound. So, I'm afraid, it comes down to tone, which is naturally a very subjective thing. I think the Guy wins here, because his straightforwardness is far less suspicious than Nogrod's occasional evasiveness and appeasing tone.
So... yeah... because something's fishy in his posts:
++Nogrod."
(crossed with Guy and Mith)
|