I won't dance around it. Yes, it certainly should look odd at first, but this is not an inconsistency, as I actually explained why I suddenly suspected Ater of being a wolf. Far better than he justified going from: "here are all the reasons I didn't suspect Laurentus," "...but on the other hand [with no clear progression of logic or evidence] I do suspect him, just because, you know..." That's the sense I got from that. However, seeing your reaction to my post, Aaron, perhaps I was a bit immature in interpreting it this way, as you'll see in the next paragraph of this post.
You're also misquoting me with the ""I won't judge you" -> proceeds to judge me" quote. I explicitly said: "I won't make any judgments on your choice not to quote him, but it does make your argument look better than it actually is..." This indicates that I'm not judging your motive, as I can't know your motive. This is a comment on the post itself making your argument appear stronger, whether intentionally or not. Again, I won't judge your response to that part, because a misunderstanding of my intent could lead to defensive behaviour that would've been justified based on your interpretation of my intention. However tempted I would have been to use this defensive behaviour against you, it just isn't fair.
However, and this is again something I won't dance around, I still find it troubling that you defend Ater's post, and then don't elaborate on the major short-coming thereof, namely the inconsistent leap from "show all reasons for Laurentus not being a werewolf," to "ergo, I suspect he's a werewolf." Care to explain how he logically made this leap? Because I honestly don't see the progression in logic here.
With regards to you being hurt by my implication that your post was sneaky, I'm not completely buying your defence of "keeping the conversation going," as that is the type of behaviour befitting someone who hasn't already voted to lynch someone based on zero logical evidence, not someone who immediately voted to lynch me and then defend anyone who agrees with the assessment, even though the basis of that assessment is inherently flawed when considering that such tactics are highly improbable among wolves. This all while trying to demonise (werewolf-ise?
) anyone who has come up for me - with logic - in the past, like you did with Sapphiron. I will concede that my tone could be considered hurtful, so I'll try to use friendlier and less accusatory language, but I'm not at all convinced by your defence.
And here we arrive at the part that has given me the greatest amount of grief again, namely an alleged strategy to be supremely aggressive, and sneakily try to hind behind that when confronted about it after allegedly killing an active player - who happened to be the seer. I feel like I should distinguish now between the meanings of the words "plausible," "probable," and "feasible," to illustrate my way of thinking about this.
First I'll answer the question that you've all been asking, but phrasing incorrectly, as seems by your thought-processes.
"Is it not possible that a wolf could use this strategy and try to get away with it?" Of course it's possible. It's just highly moronic considering the small amount of people who try to do this, and the even smaller amount of people who would avoid suspicion by this act. This is aggravated further by the fact that a perfectly safe and more intelligent, subtle strategy is proven to work so much better. Along with the fact that a wolf's partner would almost certainly advise against this.
Which leads me to the answer of the question you're all phrasing, but not asking correctly: "Is it not probable/feasible that a wolf could use this strategy and try to get away with it?"
First let me define "feasible."
feasible - /ˈfiːzɪb(ə)l/
adjective
1. possible and practical to do easily or conveniently.
2. likely; probable.
And suddenly the answer is a clear and resounding NO.
Why chase down such an improbable target, when there are more probable targets to get rid of? And as research has shown, a werewolf is identified (in the absence of a seer) by looking at small inconsistencies and slip-ups in their argument.
I also believe I've given clear reason for changing my vote to lynch aternox, so the argument that it is band-wagoning for Sapphiron's view is pretty baseless. The fact is someone needs to get lynched, and when choosing between Amalya and aternox, it is made easier when a post comes along where I can actually point to things and say: "This particular flaw here doesn't really make much sense," instead of a vague suspicion that Amalya is being way too persistent. It's the difference between telling a plausible story, and conducting an actual investigation.
I'll end my post by addressing your last point. Did you yourself not say: "I think we're all allowed to change our minds?" Am I not allowed to do so when presented with new info and a new realisation?
Man, that took forever. No regrets, whatever happens now. I've tried my best.
