I answered to Post 1028 (that was dedicated to me).
This circumlotion point corresponds to Post 1027 which was a general post on all the players and I just didnt find a direct questioning to me. And I really havent seen that you wanted me later to answer this 1027, coz otherwise I would have done it.
ythill wrote:Nuriens practiced elephantine circumlocution, touching on the wagon but avoiding the topic of habit's alignment. Instead he pushed suspicion back on the wagon and, only 25 hours after the first vote on habit, twisted Cass' words to start a lurker hunt. Shortly thereafter, he inexplicitly changed his opinion about me so as to agree with me about habit's behavior being excusable.
BEFORE THE WAGON:
a) I found habit a strange player.
b) Interpreted Cass' reaction to Habit as "The possibility of dumb-townie-habit scares Cass due to the previous game: she is townie, habit requires observation but it is not so dangerous as I thought".
c) I asked some things, as you noted, and mostly read him as a bad player like most people in the game.
AFTER THE WAGON
a) My first opinion is expressed in post 319
b) first sentence. I AGREE IN THE BASICS (with GOAT, who had found the wagon suspicious).
Now I guess that you call circumlotion to raise debate. If I were Simenon, I would have just posted these 5 words. "I agree in the basics". And then what ? Such a wonderful reflection on my side...
So I made couple of reflections for Goat, on top of mostly agreeing in the basics.
c) second sentence. I express to Goat my view on habit before the wagon, as stated in before wagon b) above: "I find Habitang partially suspicious, though I relaxed these suspicions due to Cass' first arguments".
d) third sentence. Habit's behavior can be interpreted both as playstyle and scumminess.
Therefore, you have to analyze the votes/fosses of each of the players in the wagon, and this is what I did. Especially because I interpreted that the 3 suspects of Goat were 3 voters in the wagon, since he catalogued it as opportunistic.
e) Cass - interpreted it as natural.
f) Ythill - I had started to focus in a different person a couple of days before, following Cass' suggestion. I had considered you scum in our vis a vis. My first observation from outside was positive, you didnt jump but reflected. So I agreed with Goat (his opinion was I thought he was scum, i have good vibes from this action). So essentially, the same I did. And this process followed, as you know.
g)I thought that Goat´s suspicions on Ecto were a mistake. I pointed it out that Ecto was not voting, but simenon. Goat later clarified it for me.
h)nhat's attack was a first fos based on habit strange behaviour.
i) Simenon's vote was Simenon's way of participating.
j)Andy's vote was not clearly justified in his post.
k) I interpreted jahudo's vote as part of their habit vs jah competition, which at that moment of the game, I thought as a very uninteresting one.
l) I wanted more info from the two voters from whom I had not a clear view of the reasons to vote, Simenon and Andy. Taking into account how these two players posted during all the game, they refused to answer my petition, more or less...
ABOUT LURKERS' HUNT
a) Cass called the voters Opportunistic club. Said that she felt the Lurkers' club was more suspicious.
b) Sim pointed out that FOSSERS should also be part of the opportunistic club.
c) I answered to Sim to be EXPLICIT on his words, not to talk so vaguely. The only Fosser was Cass, I asked him to judge her action as either opportunistic or not. And to rank it in comparison to a vote (his).
d) I also demanded Cass to be EXPLICIT by exposing who the lurkers were.
e) I commented back to her, but started no Lurker hunt. My attack was on TPT / Tritch before the wagon, as you perfectly remember (and if you do not remember, you can read above).
f) I did not escape at any moments to comment on the wagon or habit. in Post 343 I commented again, and you can see there some of the points here described.
CHANGE OPINION AGREEING WITH YOU
Incorrect. Post 363, as you probably refer, agrees mostly with you, but does not change opinion at all. As you can see, I describe the Cass-Habit situation and my read on it, AS I HAD ALREADY DONE IN THE VERY FIRST POST TO GOAT (see above). In this post you can see among others my previous points:
before wagon b and c (about my read on Cass and Habit)
after wagon f (about my read on you).
I guess that for you to interpret that I changed opinion, you consider that I found before habit very suspicious. Something that I didnt. STRANGE-REQUIRE OBSERVESATION-FORMULATED SOME QUESTIONS-READ AS BAD PLAYER-DIDNT FOS/VOTE IN THE WAGON-AGREED WITH GOAT WITH MINOR COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS...
p.d. and no, the answer to such question about reading my posts is no, I know that you read all. I have seen that many others dont, but you do.
