[Nerwen]

Okay, now I have looked at the people who followed Nog's case on Roa, and– surprise! surprise! One of them was Boro.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

But it looks so much like purpose slip, because I know what Nog is talking about and I double-checked the captain's notes even before your number slip. You gasp about wolves, and then for some reason give the number of them, but it's the wrong number.

I admit I scan the rules and am liable to miss things, but if someone can't get the number of wolves correct, or the roles that's either plain laziness to not read the captain's notes or someone's faking ignorance. And in this circumstance the number of wolves was stated in more than one place. You are anything but lazy in your analysis Roa, to state the wrong number of wolves, looks more than an innocent slip or failure in double checking.

And the other's Eomer:

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

Aye, Nogrod, soon as I saw Roa's counting-mistake I remarked: "intentional". Not sure what it means, though. I wouldn't be quick to lynch Roa because she brings a lot to the table in terms of discussion.

Neither of them pursued this, though. I had an impression that people jumped on the "case" much more than they actually did, I think because Nogrod was making so much noise about it.

The fact that Boro was one of them and apparently tried to discourage me from checking actually makes me feel somewhat better about him– because I don't think Borowolf would do anything as silly as that. Eomer has been rather slipping around the edge of things and just chiming in with people... but there's not really enough to go on with him yet.

A point in his favour is that he voted Mnemo, who is suddenly looking very sinister to me after her last post:

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

Okay, I've looked at Loslote, and things look bad for her. Summarize one person's post and then vote? Really?

At the same time, how wolvish is that?

So far, so good– but then we have this:

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

Which means that I'm going for the one person I have a concrete, rational reason to suspect at all:

++Pitchwife

What concrete, rational reason is that? In her "analysis" she gives only one real reason for suspecting him:

Looks at Nienna and Lottie and here's where something really looks fishy. Let's give them credit for trying to start up the game by restating the rules (which tends to look helpful without being helpful...)?

But what she's talking about is apparently this:

Originally Posted by Pitchwife at #12

Nienna mentions wolves, which, however, are unlikely to be found in the Arctic Sea, miles from any land.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife at #13

Miss Lottie, with all due respect, you seem to be confusing our serious emergency with one those online games your generation indulges in!

i.e. two very obvious ic jokes.

I mean– what?