[A Little Green]

Fine, I'm back again. Firstly, about Mac and Nog's little debate.

Originally Posted by Mac

I don't like the way Nogrod labeled the kills "good". They were only good for the wolves, not the innocents, and the fact that "good" is the first thing Nogrod was able to think in regards to the kills appears like a Freudian wolf-slip. I mean, sure, that is done not unfrequently by others, but the way Nogrod emphasised it is strange. Then again, wouldn't a wolf be extra-careful not to formulate it this way?

First, there is this. I see nothing particularly suspicious in labeling kills "good", and calling it a Freudian wolf slip really strikes me as exaggeration.

But the weirdness gets more when we get to Nog's posts...

Originally Posted by Nog

I will only say this. Winning a game would never be so important to me that I would as a werewolf/-penquin/-rhinoceros... kill during the Night someone I like to play with - if there are other choices (the very last Nights of a game might be different). You know it Mac as all those who have played with me.

Honestly, I don't like this sort of "I never play like that" -defence. After all, it would be a perfect wolf strategy to do something you constantly claim you never do. Also, just for the sake of being sporty, I'd like to see defences that are based (at least partly) on the current game, not the ones before it. Of course past games affect the current one, but they shouldn't dominate it.

Originally Posted by Nog

Now defining the wolves viewpoint as "being safe" looks something that just doesn't fit my general impression of what an innocent Sally would think about - or speculate about. For it sure is true that if we have different teams against each other the lovers are scared to death every Night for their rivals (I've been a baddie in that kind of game long ago and it was heart-stopping!). The problem is, did Sally just think of that and decided to use the word "safe" (which really nails down the thing those baddies are longing for) or does she actually feel that way now?

I think this looks pretty far-fetched, really - actually this argument is quite similar to Mac's point about Nog: both claim the accused's certain choice of words indicates to being a lover because it looks like thinking from the wrong viewpoint. I'm convinced by neither of these - I'm inclined to believe that an innocent villager is perfectly capable of changing his/her viewpoint to think like a baddie.

Then to other topics.

Originally Posted by Agan

I don't understand why Greenie thinks she should be worried of Legate if he plays as if he had nothing to worry about. She kind of contradicts herself there - if Legate was a baddie and had a lover, he would have to be worried about both his own and his lover's life.

I think you misunderstood me, honey. What I meant was that I am used to seeing him more serious, and this change to his usual style of playing is what really made me raise eyebrows. I know it's silly to base worries on what a player is usually like, but his behaviour struck me as a bit odd. Seemingly he just had an exceptionally good day or something.

Originally Posted by Agan

She said she didn't want to vote for Rikae because of how many had said they might vote her

This might be trivial, but I feel the need to correct this a bit - my reason for not voting Rikae was not the amount of votes or possible votes she had at that point, but rather that I didn't find her especially suspicious and didn't like the fact that there was only one voting candidate at that point. Here is what I exactly said:

Originally Posted by me yesterDay

I will definitely not vote Rikae - I don't find her particularly suspicious and besides I don't like it when there is but one person who is being voted. It's nothing to encourage discussion other than "Oh my, a bandwaggon!" and is the perfect spot for baddies to slip away unnoticed.

EDIT: x-ed since Mac's 270