Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
What do you mean wilwa with that bolded part there? Are you saying that it is a positive thing that there are two wolf-rangers who can protect their mates from the rivalling team's attacks? Isn't that just the contrary and one more reason to get rid of one whole team asap.?
|
Uh, honestly I hadn't even thought of that. I see Ranger and I automatically think they're on our side, I'm not used to the idea of an evilRanger, but yes of course they would protect their fellow wolves. I guess cause even the evil Hunter can help us out if they hunt one of the other pack, and the evil Unicorn can bring an innocent back to life, so I suppose I had the idea of 3 Rangers being a good thing. That was my mistake.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nog
So do you think we should refrain ourselves from lynching wolves as lynching a wolf from pack A is "helping" pack B?
|
No, that is not what I think.
Look, I'm gonna stop explaining this. Day 1 I talk about the rules, I talk about the statistics and our chances of winning, it's what I do. That's all I was doing, I was just trying to wrap my mind around our situation and be sure that we hadn't missed something. I see now that what I was saying was rather pointless, since there's no way to tell what pack a certain suspect could belong to, I was just talking, trying to stir up talk, I obviously hadn't thought of every possible scenario.
*is exhausted*
About the Seer reveals. I think if someone comes forward we should lynch those they say are a wolf, but not necessarily trust those that they say are innocent. Like a wolfseer could reveal the identity of a wolf from the other pack, so we should take all wolf identity reveals seriously, even though there's a chance they're lying, but then the next day we just have a wolf anyway. When it comes to a seer revealer saying someone is innocent though, we shouldn't take that as seriously, I'd say we should almost ignore it until we can be more sure about the seer's side. Since a seer wolf could say one of their mates is innocent, then reveal a wolf from the other pack, and we might think since they were right about the wolf then the one they say is innocent must actually be, when they may not. Does that make sense?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sally
Good points here, dear. I mean the wolves are in just as much trouble as we are. To me the people who are playing Chicken Little look bad, because they're making people panic and when people panic they make mistakes. Is that what they want, perhaps? I mean seriously. Why make it seem so bad for the innocents, when really it's just as bad for the wolves and they're in even bigger trouble than we are? I'm just sayin', it seems like tactical fear mongering, not actual concern.
|
That whole highlighted part bugs me, just the feel of it. I'm all for optimism, but the way that she seems so against those who are just being realistic about our chances, and the "making people panic" thing. I don't know, I just don't like it. (though I'll admit I have just skimmed through everything and so don't have an accurate feel on her with regards to all her posts, this one was just the last one so I read it more thorougly, I'll look more closely at everyone later).
I don't think Nerwen's editing thing is a big deal at all, I mean it's not like she does it all the time or anything. I think some are making a bit too big a deal out of it. Besides, even innocent people worry about looking suspicious and do stuff to avoid that, avoiding suspicion is not only something wolves do.
I should be back on randomly until DL. I'll probably wait longer to vote since on Day 2 my vote will have to be rediculously early, I want this one to be more thought out.
x'ed since Sally at 63