WWJ XI: When World's Collide

[Boromir88]

'Kath,' Boromir said, 'I don't expect anyone to guarantee my innocence, though there is another way of knowning my innocence besides lynching me, and that is wait until the end of this living hell. And I also don't expect anyone to trust me, I'm just throwing out ideas and possibilities, if you decide to listen and agree so be it, if not so be it. But, you won't be gain any knowledge by lynching me, besides the fact I'm an innocent villager. Take it or leave it, it's all up to you. Sorry if you expect more from me, but I call it as I see it, and somedays I have more to offer than others. Recently I've mostly been concentrating on Valesse, as if what I've interpretted is right, than she is a wolf.'


Boromir then turned to Valesse, 'You said this Valesse.'

Now if your next arguement is that 'my fellow wolves instructed me' the first night, then I must mention that there is no way to prove such a thing. Just as there is no way to disprove it, other than arguing the unpredicatablity of positions on the first day

I wasn't attempting to argue that, nor was I planning to argue that you planned this scenario with wolf buddies. But, it seems here you are suggesting that's what you did. Or at least that's a general plan, with my experience of wolves, is that they like to try to stay as far apart as possible, yet deflect suspicion away from themselves or their partners.

'You say that my argument is more of a 'blanket' I could be mistaking an innocent in this case. In which case I disagree, there is a difference between how the two interact with eachother. As an ordinary innocent, you don't know who is guilty and who isn't. Your guess is as good as any other ordinary villager. If you find someone coming under wolf scrutiny, that you don't particularly think is a wolf, you make an argument as far as why you don't think that way, why you don't think that particular person under scrutiny is wolfish.'

'However, in the wolves case, when they try to deflect suspicion away from one of their own that is being suspected, they defend his/her actions. There is a difference, between defending their actions, and explaining why you don't believe that person is a wolf. What I mean by defending their actions, and is used by the wolves is the 'That's true, but...' phrase. It's like you're agreeing with the individuals doing the scrutinizing, but trying to defelct their suspicions away from your buddy. I'll show you what I mean a little more clearly:

I do not believe that dice are a means to catching werewolves, but seeing as she has not cast a vote, it could have only been a sick joke in order to get others talking."

'See you defended the actions of Menel. You say 'I don't agree with his way of catching wolves, but we shouldn't make too much out of it.' It definitely looks like you are purposefully trying to get suspicion away from Menel, you don't agree with what he's done, but it's probably just him joking. Where an innocent I don't think takes that same approach if they defend someone they don't see as guilty. They stick more with how the person's manner is, or how the person has voted, or whether what they say at least makes sense. They don't defend the actions (or what the person does).'

If that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, it may be a bit confuddled. take this for example, right now I don't find Nogrod all that wolfish looking. I'm not sure that he's innocent, but he doesn't look wolfish. You see I don't defend what Nogrod does, but I just don't think a wolf would act the way he is acting right now, and I could use voting records or is what he says making sense to reach that conflusion, but I don't defend what he decides to do. It's up to Nogrod to defend his own actions if someone decides to start questioning him. Just like it's up to me to defend my own actions if someone starts suspecting me.'

'With that said, I'm convinced...

++Valesse'

Edit:

Cross-posted with Nogrod