Thank you for ignoring 90% of my case against Sand3r. Truly a well reasoned defense. And then going on to say my case is wolfish is also great. If/when Sand3r is revealed to be a baddie I'm not sure whether to clear you for being to blatantly biased in defending him, or you'd be a certain wolf for trying so hard to defend a packmate.
Well, if we go into an actual debate about this case (which wasn't really my point, that should better be left to sander himself)
Rovsea said:
Sander and Dr. Xav could theoretically make pretty good packmates. Not sure, though.
And the same would go for most random player pairs in this game. Also no reason to actually why they would theoretically make good packmates.
aedan777 said:
Why is no one paying attention to this? Sand3r doesn't respond by saying he isn't a wolf, or a proper villager response, instead he acts panicked that someone would connect him with Dr. Xav. He's also become noticeably less active since this post. I wasn't sold on the Sand3r case but this seemed like an alarm bell. Why would a goodie phrase their response this way?
Well, I know Sander quite a lot longer and I know his reaction is typical and not indicative of any wolf-status.
aedan777 said:
and curiously he voted Livingstone when Livingstone had the same number of votes as skynet, when both were in contention with Sand3rs. And skynet had had the same number of votes for some time. so it seems like Sand3r was trying to avoid voting him.
How could you extract any evidence out of this? How is voting one player over the other curious if there is no information about both players at all? Or is there something you know we don't?
Also note that I din't say you were being a wolf, or even acting wolfish, only that players (in general) employing this tactic could be likely wolves. If I was convinced you were a wolf, I would have voted you.
But I haven't, because I simply don't know. Just wanted to point out something about this kind of behaviour that many players employ, not only you.