Ok, so I'll address in order:
Teagan Maxwell said:
What if one of the wolves had a vote yesterday? She would know if she's a wolf. So, maybe she's saving that person by tying up the votes.
Yesterday the only person I saved by tying the vote was Phoebe - who may be a wolf, I admit. But there's absolutely no reasoning for that other than 'she's been lying low.' Others have been as absent as her (and there always seems to be a few every game), so I don't think it's really good enough reasoning to lynch her off. I didn't really save James Adams because he was already safe - and I've only been voting for him because I was shamelessly using the mayor's votes to tie things up. The day before that, of course, the only person I really saved was Sally - who
was a villager.
Samuel Phillips said:
It doesn't seem useful to continue saving people through making the votes tied, when the wolves are taking full advantage of that and taking out roles that could be used to defeat them.
...While the votes continue to be tied, the wolves continue to kill people and it's just pointless to me to not lynch people, because that is essentially offering the wolves more people to kill. If we continue making the votes tied, we're not getting wolves and they're getting us. Idk if this makes sense but long story short: I'd still rather try and lynch wolves, instead of letting them kill us off one by one.
As I said before, I believe Emzies was a loss in the wolves' effort to find the mayor (which it's so unlucky she was the hunter), and unfortunately Dan was the next causualty - his role was undeniably revealed during Rowan's vote tally on the second day, as at that point Dan had been the only one to vote for James, who had two votes. As for the full number of wolves continuing to kill people - including the kill from the hunter, they've only been directly (and indirectly) responsible for three deaths, as opposed to the five they would have had on us at this point. We're not giving the wolves 'more people to kill' - they have the exact same amount of people to kill and they're having a harder time doing it. Yes, they're picking us off one by one, but at least we're not dying two by two.
Sara Moon said:
...the lynching is our only way of fighting back.
This I completely agree with. But, I only believe lynching is useful when there is actual reasoning behind it - which to me Sally and Phoebe did not have.
Amber Chou Wilson said:
While I am suspicious of Cyndi, I get a worse feeling with Kathy.
...I actually have the feeling they are maybe both on the same side but trying to look like they aren't.
This is funny because I totally didn't notice that there could be a connection between Cyndi and I
But if we
are on the same team, we don't know it.
I also have two extra additions:
Firstly, I was going to save this suspicion, because it hinges on whether I'm right about Anna, but I think Maia may be working with her too. She indirectly defended her today by disagreeing with my logic on tying the vote (which Anna has always been against), voted for Kelsey Ruth yesterday (who Anna said she was suspicious of today), and I got the feeling she was agreeing with Cyndi a fair bit too (who was the one who put forward inactivity as something that might be a lead). This suspicion is more conjecture, which is why I was going to hold it back, but I figure I may as well say everything now in case I don't get a chance to later.
Secondly, can I just say - if I were a wolf would I really have come up with this kind of reasoning? It's so attention grabbing. And sure maybe that's trying to throw people off track - except I'm in quite good danger of getting lynched. (Of course I am, I never thought otherwise
) How does one wolf dying in a failed attempt to blatantly throw suspicion on someone else help the team? Especially when it's revealed that person is a wolf and everyone knows not to trust whatever they were saying. If I were on the wolves' team, I really wouldn't be this loud, and I
definitely wouldn't have been tying any votes.