I'd also like to dispute the, "Many good suggestion for people who ought to have been lynched" since there was only one person calling for my head yesterday. Said persons' case, despite disguising their rhetoric in meaningless RP dribble, has so little substance as to suggest the name was picked at random for lack of any actual leads.
This may actually be truer than I'd normally be inclined to admit. I have a rather larger list of good candidate lynches than I'd like to at this stage in the game, because so many of the players have been zombieing their way through things as opposed to making any real effort to search for wolves.
That said, I have gone out on a limb and named a substantial number of people I consider to be unlikely wolves. But I can't attempt to read what isn't there. So if you don't want me to lynch you, you'd better work on providing evidence that you're a goodie and that you're interested in trying to figure out the game. Right now, it seems the best you can do is complain that you're being voted and leap to the conclusion that the only reason for that is that I'm a wolf. That is a gross error.
In fact, upon further review, a curious trend emerges: said person has voted for a goodie EVERY SINGLE DAY (said person was voting Jerman before switching to Rosvea minutes before Marshal was outed on day 2). Contrast this to the voting record of your's trully, who has voted for a known goodie only once. And let no man say Citizen did anything to assure us of his innocence. Consider the possibility, raised by Esemas on day 2, that said person is instead using the RP rhetoric to conceal the fact his cases are meaningless (see his day 2 vote for Jerman on the basis of his Trumpness), and that 2/3rds of what he types is just dribble. The remainder has been, unsuprisingly, convincing to precisely no one before Euro just hours ago.
I see. So rather than try to work out the wolves yourself, your sole effort is to discredit my thought process and my words. The cases are there. They're weak at this point because we have exceptionally little info to work with, since only 2 baddies are dead. But look at what's there. Do you agree that, say, Health has done so little that he could easily be a wolf? Do you agree with me that Spockyt is an unlikely wolf because a wolf wouldn't express such silly paranoia about an outing as he did? I have a whole list of reads. Which of them are unsound? And if so, why?
This is how cases are built up - by testing each others' thought processes and conclusions, by having logical arguments about them. I'm indulging in some amusing RP to mock-justify my votes, but there are real thoughts behind the votes which you can reply to. If you choose not to and disdain them instead, you're a wolf or playing directly into their hands. Satisfy me that my arguments are wrong, or point to the ones you agree with and try to convince me that those cases are more likely to hit a wolf. Crying "he's voted a bunch of villagers and now he's voting me" is only going to convince me that I'm right and that you're trying to hide.
