Okay, so I was way more tired than I thought last night and fell asleep before I could get back to writing about new developments. Things on people I'm considering today!
Andrew: Still not digging the light-weight presence thing he has going on. He shows up Day 2 with a "me too" on a lurker, reflects on Day 1's events, then returns to talk more about lurkers. Combine that with his Day 1 posts which are as such: defends himself from the fall-out due to his inattentive vote; puts a vote on the person who calls him out for it; retracts that vote and jumps on Fnorder's suspicions over smodge, who also voted for him; and then repeats others' arguments against smodge to justify leaving his vote on him. Not going to fault him for voting smodge because I think there was a valid reason to vote him -- it just turned out to be poor town play rather than scum play. I am going to stick it to him for floating entirely on others' opinions while trying to make them look like his own and being a non-presence, especially when repeatedly calling out other lurkers.
... the more I read over the thread while pursuing Andrew, the more I really noticed the Otter v. Ciato argument functioning as a smokescreen. The other "big" issue on the table was Andrew's gaffe, and several people pushed it to the side because they were responding to the content of that argument -- that is, "at least he's started some conversation" and "things have happened since that which are more interesting (like Otter v. Ciato)." It draws away from other issues in a detrimental fashion, in this case. It isn't a choice between leaving that cat-fight over there and talking about other things. It's about that cat-fight drawing discussion from other issues or distracting from the ability to find new ones. It's a pretty safe place to be, in the middle of that argument, because people start making excuses for one or the other. I know I did.
I've had my own problems with Andy this game (bit of inattentiveness early on, generally not saying enough and staying out of the spotlight which is a Bad News sign for me) but he struck out on his own here, having noticed an inconsistency no one else had brought up yet, and I approve of this.
He did no such thing. Fnorder pointed it out and Andrew picked up on it. Why are you praising him for something he didn't do?
Here is my biggest problem with Otter: "You may not be paying attention, but I am" and "you are correct in saying that I was essentially calling out OK and Corwin for failure to pay attention" and "Yakumo, you'll notice I was as observant as you were" and "Generally, I expect attentive, consistent play from townies" and "I'm not at all sure you're even reading my posts anymore" and asking people to "notice how people are actually leaping to her defense" and "Attentiveness
is crucial" and then... you outline your thoughts on Excal despite him being NK'd.
Oh yes, yes! I saw that you immediately retracted having included that. "Hahah, my bad, wow is my face red!" and so forth -- and then you go back to chastising other people for not paying attention. And then you defend yourself against Corwin and spend almost your entire post justifying why the way you handled your mistake should clear you from snap suspicion. I've considered your quick retraction. I do appreciate that you noticed your mistake rather than waiting for someone else to do so and forcing you to defend it. You still made a huge error for someone who advocates close reading every post and castigates others for failing to notice nuance. There's also the smaller but not insignificant error of praising Andrew for something he hadn't actually done.
combine this with the business from Day 1, and:
##VOTE OtterYakumo posted, which at least lifts the "long time no see" suspicion, but I'm having a hard time with him not noticing what I wrote in the rest of that post. I said I voted smodge because -- referring back to that post (
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=375.msg8450#msg8450 ) AGAIN -- "smodge has 3 votes, Ciato and Andrew both have 2, and pretty much everyone else has 1 -- a number of which are still jokevotes -- so that's not really somewhere to go. smodge seems the worst off in this case with me amongst those who could conceivably attain consensus without a whole new line of argument, so that's where I'm going to put my vote." That is, everyone was deciding whether or not smodge was lynch-worthy. I agreed he was. There were other people I considered who could possibly develop stronger cases -- such as Andrew -- but since I thought smodge was off anyway and conversation/consensus was around him to begin with, I decided to hold off on pursuing it until Day 2.
...
have now wasted the better part of my morning. I have a couple more things to say about a couple people, but nothing stands out to me quite as strongly as Otter. In addition to needing to get stuff done today, this post is already long enough. I'll be back for a quick post this afternoon before I disappear for the evening.