As is more than likely really obvious, the Yth post on day X will be referred to as X:Y. I won't be bothering with links in this post, but they're all very clear in the above post, so it's easy to track.
As I've written this, it's occurred that periods of absence are also a factor, so here's this other handy scale to pick on:
1:1
1:2 19 hours later
1:3 1 day, 4 hours later
2:1 3 days, 2 hours later2:2 2 days later
2:3 1 day, 9 hours later
3:1 2 days, 23 1/2 hours later3:2 1 day, 14 hours later
3:3 1 1/2 hours later
3:4 1 1/2 hours later
4:1 5 days, 11 1/2 hours later4:2 1/2> hour later
4:3 2 1/2 hours later
4:4 2 days, 5 1/2 hours later
Day 1:
Ignoring the joke post at the start, post 1:2 brings us a vote for a lurker (fair enough, that's a plain neutral read; can't imply anything from this even though
zooyork did turn out to be neutral), and 1:3 brings us to the first eyebrow-raiser. This one I've been over before, but this looks like an opportune bandwagon attempt on
Silver.
Xanth versus
Silver was the topic of the moment, and looked likely to blow up even further. This all on top of a post that
says nothing about Silver outside of the vote. Curious.
Day 2:
2:1 brings with it the first reason for a period of absence (I'm not saying that he's lying about these, but keeping track nonetheless), and is otherwise full of fluff, including a 'look over there!' suspicion principle of 'I may be suspicious for lurking, but it'd be just as suspicious if someone posted lots of fluff, right?'. It's not just fluff, even - the sentiments are basically anti-town (but of the sort that
Silver and
Nilie have much more flagrantly disregarded under the guise of not seeing why some things are good and others are bad, so it's hard to rub this sort of thing in someone's face).
2:2 and suddenly there's action! A vote for
zooyork "Due to the large amount of votes and no reply from the guy," just after
Xanth has
made a call not to press forth on votes on
zooyork for fear of the sudden train that did nearly get through. I like the phrasing of that quoted section, which effectively washes his hands of responsibility as a scientific inevitability, and doesn't even tell us what he thinks of the guy. LAL, I guess. I'd say that at least he quotes something on the
Delta issue, but with no actual direction.
2:3 brings the unvote for
zooyork, which is little more than symbolic, but at least it shows attentiveness. And what's this, an actual opinion on
Delta expressed there. Nothing really ventured and a bit on the wishy-washy side, but I can't say too much when
Xanth pulled as much evidence as I (okay, this first/third person mix is starting to creep me out) could find against the guy. It does tie him slightly to
Delta, but then it's clear as day that he'll not going to pull any heat for agreeing but not voting at a daft time, so I'd hardly call those couple of lines as pro-town.
Day 3:
3:1 is filler. 'I'll post more. Also, let's look at trains, because trains are bad.' without actually looking at the trains (not to misrepresent, he does get back to it in 3:2, which he claimed he would). In particular, note "A lot of people were awful quick to jump on the train, I found, and I tried to play it cautiously because I know from past mafia experience that trains often lose track of their intentions and gain too much momentum too fast," which is in reference to him hanging back on the
Delta train, but he had just happily jumped on the back end of the
zooyork train without a care in the world even when cautioned.
3:2 is prime material. Muse over this one for a while as an example of active lurking. So many names referred to, so little actual material. Read it. It's all 'Maybe [so and so] is scum because of this! But maybe not! I certainly won't be accusing them yet!'. The whole thing says
nothing. This is day 3 of the game and
all we have from the guy is that he was thinking of voting for
Delta, but was glad he didn't. (This also brings the critical moment where he votes
Disland, since confirmed scum. I'll get to that.)
I love 3:3 for being all like 'I've contradicted myself plenty, oops', combined with the understatement of the game that is "I haven't really got enough balls to blatantly accuse anybody" (or to say anything bad about anyone at all, ever, bar one comment on
Delta), and concentrating on explaining 1:3 when what I really want to hear from him is what he thinks of everyone, or at least some people. But don't worry, we're now up to LAL, 'I was thinking of voting on
Delta for terrible play but am glad I didn't,' and '
Xanth looked least suspicious to me on day 1,' so maybe we'll get somewhere in a year or two.
3:4 is only three hours after 3:2, and he's already had cold feet and removed his vote on
Disland.
Andrew comments on this practically immediately for him completely missing my points entirely. There was absolutely no good reason to remove the vote on
Disland at that point, except that it looks all the more suspicious after
Disland's turned up scum and the evidence on
Kaze is stacking up from elsewhere anyway. Way too compliant, way too soon.
Day 4:
He's been gone for a while, and picked up a couple of votes for his trouble. But no fear, there's a counter-train going on someone else. Having
never mentioned
Nilie before in the game (then again, that's hardly surprising when the same goes for most other players), suddenly out comes 4:1. Let's actually look at this one in more detail, since this is since the last time I bothered to sit down to look at your posts fully:
I feel that I must agree with EvilTom here, in saying that Nillie has failed to provide analysis.
Number of times you've said this: 1
Xanth's vote on me was seemingly just to get things rolling,
'...so I won't respond to it.'
Nice.
but he is effectively confirmed innocent anyway
Okay, we can upgrade one of the three things known about
Kaze to 'believes
Xanth is innocent.' (but not for long!)
I feel that trains detract from the whole point of mafia, so votes attached onto others' are particularly scummy.
Number of times you've said you think trains are bad and scummy: 2
Number of times you've jumped on trains at the first chance: 3 (okay, 2 1/2, it's a little harsh to include
Silver on day 1)
Until then, however, I'll be voting you because of your failure to provide and real conviction behind your voting.
Number of times you've now said this: 2
Interesting when you suggested back in 2:1 that it would be more suspicious than lurking if someone posted a lot of fluff and repeated themselves.
I can't directly fault the attack on
Nilie other than that
It seems like you had a personal vendetta against Roflknife, and all you had to say for it was:
Now, wow, schnwtfhisname that is one big post. But aren't we FOS the wrong people again for the wrong reasons? I was so sure that Roflknife was a good place to aim but I turned out to be very wrong. Yet, some voice in my head reassures me and tell me he would very likely have joined the scum side of town of side, eventually. Call it odd intuition.
Let's think our next vote carefully, shall we?
This is an awfully weak reason to "justify" your previous votes, so until you provide an actually conclusive post I feel that you are the most suspicious person here.
That's clearly just
Nilie roleplaying/referencing the fact that Gino (
Roflknife's role) does eventually turn traitor and join the scum. That should be taken about as literally as his rage at Nunnally's lynching.
Now, I think that good cases can be made against
Nilie, but he reference posts as far back as page 5. They were just as relevant then as they are now, so I don't know why it's taken nearly a fortnight for him to suddenly take an interest in them, long after poor
Roflknife could be saved (sorry man). It's an OMGUS that puts his would-be voter into the danger zone towards lynching, though, so dressing it up a little surprises me not.
4:2 and 4:3 in fact reduce one of the Three Facts Of
Kaze back down to 'I don't think
Xanth is the most suspicious player'. How's that for commitment to opinions?
And 4:4 brings us to the unvote for
Nilie, despite the latter not having addressed any of the concerns that led to
Kaze voting for him in the first place. Okay.
----
Let's bring this into general behaviour:
-In order, has voted for lurker, semi-train, lurker train (-2 to hammer!), cold feet on scum lurker, train.
-Nearly no voting record. Only on the final day's count on day 1.
-
Next to no opinions expressed, ever. Honestly, the sum total of opinions we've strained from the guy are LAL, '
Delta has played badly', '
Xanth isn't the most suspicious player' and 'I have muddled views over
Nilie and
Tom.' ('one might say that I'll vote for whoever has more/fewer votes at a cetain point').
This is easily the worst case of lurking out of all live players, and includes active lurking.-Only attempt against anyone just so happened to be an OMGUS train. Charges mysteriously dropped despite going unanswered.
-"Trains are bad, but not when I vote on them." Seriously, with the threat of going after
Tom that makes for 4 (3 1/2) trains train votes despite apparently hating them.
-Painstakingly nice and friendly and refusing to step on people's toes (including
Nilie, even). Arguing with other people might get you with a townie lynch, but wasting around in the middle ground is strictly anti-town.
-Repeated lurking for various reasons. Barely keeping above minimum for most days. (I know fine well that you've been on IRC a ton more than you've been here - you could at least say that you've got bored of it if you have)
Hey there, it's 2am here. I realise I'm losing my ability to write effectively, but wanted to get to the end. Apologies if it reads poorly towards the end, but I did insist that I got there in time for you guys to have a proper run at discussing everything before the deadline.
