WW XXXX - The scouring of the Shire, vol.2

[A Little Green]

Hmmmm.

The Might does seem a little weird at the moment. Though I don't quite grasp the point of the "lynch the quiet ones" -attitude, his first post didn't necessarily strike me as suspicious. What comes to his latest post, however...

Originally Posted by The Might

lol, I again seem to have managed to get all against me thinking I'm the wolf...and this is the second time in the row.
Actually I said that because I want to avoid what I needed to do last time, vote for someone without any proof whatsoever.
Just as Feanor already said her choice will be a member she is concerned with I also wanted to explain who I'll take on the first day.

I don't know what to think about that. His defence does look very feeble to me, but then again that makes him seem pretty innocent if you see my point.

Of Valier I am still very unsure. I'll be keeping an eye on her.

As for the others, Nerwen and Sally both look pretty innocent at the moment.

Lommy, though... She does seem very genuine, no doubt. She hasn't given me any reason for suspicion as yet. However, I'm afraid that if she is a wolf, she'll pass unnoticed. The same goes for the other loud, leader-ish and innocent-looking ones such as Rikae and in a way Legate as well. They don't look suspicious, but by gaining a sort of leader role (or at least a leader attitude) in the discussion, they might be able to hide themselves. I am not saying we should lynch all loud people, no. I am just saying that we must not forget their existence as possible wolves the way I almost did.

Of the others, I am very very unsure. I suppose I should read through the whole thread and try to look at the people as individuals. So far, I've been concentrating more on the discussion as a whole.

So true, so true. We'd need a wolf to practically slip what he is to get any proper accusations toDay.

And, as everyone seems to be making such a fuss about this statement, I think I should clarify it a little. I'd like to underline the word proper. What I actually meant was that it is highly improbable that we'll find valid evidence against anyone yet.

What comes to the random votes, I'm definitely against them (whatever image I may have given). Even though we might not get any valid proof of anything, I find a vote based on poor evidence hugely better than one based on absolutely no evidence at all.

EDIT: x-ed with the seven latest posts