Werewolf XXX - Tol-in-Elendili - The Isle of the Were-Faithfuls

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by Manwe

Mhm, but surely then if she was truly not trying to appear 'present' wouldn't you just not post? Stating the obvious as her first post and as one of the first posters to use a popular phrase, 'screams' of wanting to appear present. Do you not think? If she was really straped for something to say, you'd just not say anything.

I assume you mean Kath? I think you misunderstood. I said that she looked like she was trying to appear present, not the opposite. And that was for her second post, not her first. In her first post, yes, she put some effort in to being helpful, or at least appearing that way. So we're in agreement on that point, I guess.

Rune, I think I'm willing to buy it, but I didn't analyze you because I think you're particularly suspicious, but rather because it's a help to the village and gives everyone something to think about and discuss. (See, it's working!)

Originally Posted by Manwe

Roa, as to where Kitanna stated she understood me;
Quote:
I'm glad to see Manwe addressed my questions and concerns and I understand his reasoning behind the four he picked in earlier posts (Nogrod, Roa, SpM, and myself). I feel somewhat better about Manwe when he's not dancing around a topic and avoiding answering questions.

Post #96.

Oh, right, that's where I said:

Originally Posted by Me

...accepts Manwe's response to her questions, feels better about him,...
...she seems content to exonerate him all together....

I didn't leave it out; I just shortened and paraphrased it. I try not to go word for word in a summary. That would negate the purpose of a summary.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Oh I know why you analyzed me, but I still felt like I should answer.

[Mänwe]

Roa thank you ever so for your definition of 'summary'.

And,

You said,

(All she does is state the obvious, However, she is admittedly one of the very first posters, and it looks more like she honestly doesn't know what to discuss rather than trying to appear present with out actually doing anything.)

[my bold]

That was your comment for her 1st post, right?

If so, I was suggesting that in fact she WAS trying to appear present in her 1st post as well as her 2nd. Which is different from what you say, you think in her 1st post (if indeed this was your comment for her 1st post, which I assumed was because the comment was beneath your summary of her 1st post) she was just honestly not knowing but in her 2nd she was trying to appear present.

[Roa_Aoife]

Can't sleep, so I thought I'd check up again. (Wretched werewolf addiction! I thought I'd quit, but noooo. First, Fea and then Nogrod have to drage me back in, and now I've relapsed. I'm going to have to go back to WW Rehab again....)

Ahem, anyways....

Manwe, I seriously think lines are getting crossed here, and I'm starting to think it's deliberate.

I said:

Originally Posted by me

(All she does is state the obvious, However, she is admittedly one of the very first posters, and it looks more like she honestly doesn't know what to discuss rather than trying to appear present with out actually doing anything.)

then

No vote, but she explains that on the admin thread. I always have a hard time reading Kath, but she's being especially non-controversial right now. She's making a presence, and she looks like she saying something of substance, but in reality, nothing she says is a new thought. With only two posts, she's barely above Glirdan. I'm definitely keeping a close eye on her from now on.

I'd like to point out that the parts in parenthesis are my imediate thoughts on each post. This is evident in my analysis on Mith, where for two posts I was wondering at the lack of her promised analysis, only to find it in the third. I used to do analysis differently. I would post the summary, and then I would post my analysis seperately. I found that most people would skip the summary and go right to the analysis, which was based on the summary. It just created a big hole. So I modified my style a bit, and instead I put my imediate thoughts on each post right after the summary, and finish the analysis at the end by tying it all up.

You said:

Originally Posted by Manwe

Mhm, but surely then if she was truly not trying to appear 'present' wouldn't you just not post? Stating the obvious as her first post and as one of the first posters to use a popular phrase, 'screams' of wanting to appear present. Do you not think? If she was really straped for something to say, you'd just not say anything.

To be honest, I'm still not sure if you were agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me, or just ignored the second part of my analysis. I didn't know which post you meant, and I only deduced it was Kath because this was posted shortly after my analysis of her. So I clarified with:

Originally Posted by me

I think you misunderstood. I said that she looked like she was trying to appear present, not the opposite. And that was for her second post, not her first. In her first post, yes, she put some effort in to being helpful, or at least appearing that way. So we're in agreement on that point, I guess.

Which you apparently still misunderstand, because you said:

Originally Posted by manwe

If so, I was suggesting that in fact she WAS trying to appear present in her 1st post as well as her 2nd. Which is different from what you say, you think in her 1st post (if indeed this was your comment for her 1st post, which I assumed was because the comment was beneath your summary of her 1st post) she was just honestly not knowing but in her 2nd she was trying to appear present.

You're right, in a way. My initial reaction to her first post was that she was simply strapped for things to talk about. With the look at her second post however, it seems a pattern of saying what's already been said. Hence the other 75% of my analysis, which you apparently missed.

Roa thank you ever so for your definition of 'summary'.

I always try to be helpful, especially to those who seem to need it.

[Thinlómien]

Yay for the ranger!

Nogrod's first assumption that the ranger and the wolves were after someone else than Rikae certainly caught my attention today, yet I don't know what to think of it. It seems a genuine innocent idea, but it could also be a clever wolvish ploy... I must think more of it before making a final judgement, but I just wanted to mention that/ point that out.

~*~

Uh, oh, Roa, quite a flood of posts. I hope you're not a faithful - no one's ever going to be able to nail you by analysing your posts!

Originally Posted by Roa

Parents can be such a bother, wouldn't you say, Thin?

Agreed. But in this family, werewolf-wise, it usually goes the other way around...

~*~

Okay, I have nothing intelligent to say right now, I don't know what to think, except I vaguely suspect Durelin and Brinniel and Kitanna right now, (and I'm keeping my eye on Noggie and Sauce as well). I think I'll reread the thread and see if I can come up with more concrete (old or new) suspicions or evidence.

[Thinlómien]

Okay, I spent a couple of minutes reading Nogrod's statements, and I'm more confused than I was a few minutes ago.

Originally Posted by Nogrod, post 132

Well the numbers surely are shrinking with a bit too fast pace but happily there seems to be some good news as well with the Ranger making a great save. And now our Ranger too has a known innocent in her/his pocket and will probably live at least up to toMorrow. So with that save we kind of managed to get a borrowed Seer for one Night! Meaning: in Day3 we should have at least two living known innocents around and possibly the ranger might save it then again (50-50 chance of them being around on Day4 as well)... That would help our task considerably.

Kudos to her/him! And a bow.

Originally Posted by Nogrod, post 134

Sorry people... I was maybe getting a bit too optimistic back there...

It just occured to me that the wolves might have been so stupid as not to try and kill someone else safely the last Night but go straightforwards to Rikae (counting she's the Seer) and thence obviously be denied the kill in the first place.

Or is it a most Devillish plan where all this is staged to cover up for a false Seer? But it shouldn't work. It just couldn't. Too risky (even for Roa? ) so long as a right Seer still lives and killing her/him soon would be most reckless too - even with four faithfuls around.

So maybe we don't have two known innocents toMorrow. I was just too happy, too early...

It's just weird... I mean, he's a sensible and rational guy, we all know that... And as to a kill that has been denied when there's a known seer, wouldn't it be logical to think that the ranger played it safe protected the seer and the wolves risked trying to kill her? I mean, thinking from the wolves' point of view, there's still four of them, three ordos are dead, the seer's revealed... They have a situation in which they can risk checking if the ranger was protecting Rikae or not. And they decided to take this risk. That's how I see it. My question is why is Nogrod making this so complicated? I know he can think in a bit complicated way at times, but... Also, calling the wolves stupid sounds like something a wolf could do. I don't understand this... Is Nogrod a confused and far-fetched inocent, a cobbler or a bluffing wolf?

edit: xed with Hookbill

[Brinniel]

I will honestly admit (since there still seems to be some talk about it) that in my first post, my comment about Hookbill was just harmless banter. Yet, as I observe him, I am beginning to question his innocence. He repeatedly admits that he is not good at this game, that he is unsure and a bit lost. While his comments do seem sincere, there is a small part of me that wonders if his confusion is just a ploy.

I believe it is Roa who said I am a thoughtful player, and indeed I am. I must think further on this before making any actual assumptions...

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Anyways you might not belive me, but I did/do want to vote Legate, his attempt to be the voice of reason just seemed over the top. He reminds me of those ever so good people that end up being the real bad guy in cartoons. . .I don't know what else to say as their is not theory behind it, it is purly gut and feeling that legate is trying to hard.

Indeed, this is an interesting thought. I haven't really formed any opinions over Legate yet, though I would like to see how he posts toDay.