I'm playing out this exchange in my head. I explain the various possible paths of investigation she might pick between, possibly also explaining that determining the whole range of options and how Mathilde choose within them is an effort I'm not super keen on doing for something that is currently just one possible option among any. And then that explanation starts getting generally folded, spindled, and mutilated to try to pare it down as much as possible, because now that I've given hard details people treat it as a puzzle to be solved. I'm now having to field all sorts of hypotheticals for hypotheticals as people try to calculate the possible range of the Boyar's ETA, the amount of information local villagers might possess and the most time-efficient way to extract it, the security that the Boyar's residence might possess and whether and how much it would have been weakened by the mobilization of the local rota, and likely a bunch of things I haven't even thought of yet - but will have had to, should we go down this path. All this happening at the expense of the discussion of the actual vote at hand. And at the end of all that time and effort we either reach a point where it is finally agreed that yes, sometimes doing things does take time, or at some point I've run out of patience and slammed the topic shut, to the detriment of the health of the thread and the enjoyment I normally derive from it.
Do we really have to do all that? Can't you just take me at my word that these are mutually exclusive actions?
