Sorry, guys. I've been following the thread the past couple of days, but I keep on starting ginormous wallposts that address four or five players at the same time, working on them for hours...then having to leave or falling asleep before I can post them. So I'll just post my observations in trickle form when I have snatches of time:
My gut and my mind are at war on the Inquisition. I think he's really stepped up his game today, and keeps making posts (for example, the one where he didn't want to continue a point-by-point battle with Seacore) that ping my gut as townie, but I know that logically, his claim makes little sense for a townie but lots of sense for scum. I understand why he's getting votes, and I feel like his claim will always be a distraction, but...I dunno. I'm torn.
I started writing a huge bulletpoint list of stuff Seacore has done all game that I find scummy (although I'll post it when I have more time). In a nutshell, I agree with Inq's charge of "fake helpfulness"--here's a guy who took the lead on the nameclaim after he'd accused it of being "sneaky"...but outright stated that he wouldn't scumhunt until we finished it. I feel like he might have been latching onto the nameclaim as an easy opportunity to look like an active contributor without making cases prove his own helpfulness. And I find he jumps all over the place in his logic and suspects. No offence, Seacore, but I find it very hard to follow your thought process sometimes.
For example, "I claimed VT because I thought I should harm my faction own knew that a nameclaim would...um, potentially not reveal ALL the power roles"--because just saying "my character name doesn't reveal my role" wasn't enough. (I can see scum motivation for doing so. If you had reason to believe there was another scumteam, you might claim VT so as to look like a less tantalizing nightkill target.) "Your PM says" I think Inq's abilities attack is actually stronger than that scumslip xvart caught. Um...you're attacking someone for getting the details wrong of his PM...but couldn't take the effort to check your own vanilla townie PM to see if his slip was actually a slip? That looks as though you're stretching to make him look bad, and unconcerned with whether your attack was accurate.
But speaking of which:
FOS: MacavityLock
for never answering this:
MacavityLock wrote:Bulletproof townies don't usually have additional abilities.
...
I'm debating how hard I should pressure you on this.
Okay, MacavityLock, figure it out for yourself. What ability might a bulletproof townie have in this game, other than a bulletproof shot? Because you know, I'm making what I think is a very reasonable assumption...and something about this quote doesn't add up.[/quote]
-------
That said, the polarization between Inquisition and Seacore is starting to worry me. I don't see anyone other than Raivann (and maybe Seacore to an extent) seriously considering other options. Because when a lynch is starting to look easy, and everyone shuts up, or all the lurkers pop up and start sheeping the popular suspects, that's a huge warning sign for me. So I'd like to look elsewhere for a bit.
Bogre has been lurking all game. His most recent post just parroted other people's arguments against The Inquisition and Seacore, without offering new suspects.
Locke and Seacore already mentioned problems with his most recent contribution (although I do think there are reasons for Scum!Seacore to claim VT), but...Bogre, all this stuff on Seacore is based on his Day One play. I realize that you couldn't comment on this before...by virtue of, um, completely disappearing and not contributing at all. But I don't remember you having any problems with his VT claim at the time. In fact, IIRC, you never so much as
mentioned
Seacore. But now that Seacore is suddenly a lynch option...you find him scummy.
Who do you suspect other than Seacore and Inquisition?
Then I noticed a few more things:
1-Look at
this post. He acts very apologetic and wishy-washy to Kinetic--basically lots of waffling over how Kinetic could be either town or scum, but Bogre is totally innocent, so back off. He makes decent points against Miserable at Best, although he doesn't substantiate them with quotes. He then kisses up to me by complimenting my analysis...without saying anything if he agreed with my conclusions on TheButtonmen. But he failed to notice that
The Inquisition
was the first person to bring up opportunistic voting--except he was accusing
Bogre
of being opportunistic. Bogre
He then unvotes Kinetic meekly,
here. This was after Seacore had removed his vote, and people who had jumped on Kinetic's wagon were getting more heat than Kinetic himself was. But doesn't revote for that "Miserable at Best person" whom he's more interested in (and who had no votes on him at the time). I get the feeling he was following the crowd on Kinetic...then backed away when the bandwagon lost steam.
2-I just realized that his flipflop on nameclaiming was probably the scummiest of everyone's. His reasons for attacking Kinetic were 50% based on the nameclaim suggestion. He spends a lot of time trying to justify why he thought voting someone for confirming last was scummy (even when he backs off from Kinetic). But he never says anything about the nameclaim itself. Then he gives no explanation whatsoever for his flip. Seriously. Reread Day One. Bogre just votes "Yay" out of the blue.
3-I thought Raivann's point that you were curious about xvart's claim was pretty weak. But I call bullshit on this:
Raivann: Why I asked xvart about his character's book, it had been mentioned earlier that the events were only supposed to be in AGOT- I didn't know where Coldhands was and, as kinetic mentions, if its outside of the timeline its more suspicious.
Several players claimed after Coldhands. You asked who Coldhands was immediately afterward. And this was before Kinetic explained that his grand master plan was to locate the game storywise.
How the hell would you have known that his role was the only one "out of the timeline"?
I might have believed you if you said, "Oh, just out of curiosity/because I wanted to know more about the character and his alignment." But Kinetic's time-and-place theory wasn't exactly the kind of thing that would occur to anyone. I know I assumed from my name that, yeah, the Starks and their retinue would be the good guys, and the Lannisters or maybe Daenerys allies would be the baddies...but didn't really put much thought to the period in which the game was set. I'm always suspicious when players get overdefensive and offer very contrived and elaborate explanations for trivial actions.
Vote: Bogre
. I think you deserve a little more time in the spotlight.
...
...
...damn you, TheButtonmen.
I actually felt physical pain moving that vote.
For the record, don't think you're off the hook. Imagine that you have a phantom vote on you. Because I'm on to you. You're going down. Eventually.
I've started a brutal reply to your last post, but I'm already going to be really late for class today. I also wanted to address Seacore, Flutter, and MacavityLock.
Links fixed~ Mod
For me, MacLock and Bogre, for more-or-less similar reasons. A fair amount of follow-the-leader from both. Granted, I'm replaced in for a lurker and not exactly wall-of-texting myself, but we'll get there, no doubt. 
I would have figured scum Buttonmen would've killed one of us, or if he wasn't scum then the real scum would kill to set-up bllaaauurrggg..help I'm drowning in wifom.......