79: Sotty’s explanation for bringing up Zach’s supposed lurking (““I wanted his scum meta in this thread so if I die and he lurks there is some reference that should provide pressure.”) is ridiculously weak and has the added flaw of being a soft town claim.
Sotty+2
104: Zach doesn’t post on anything other than Sotty’s meta attack.
Zach+1
107: Farside makes a lazy attack on MOI here – that he should make a serious vote now that RVS is over.
Farside+1
109: MOI makes a good point about Charlie abandoning his pressure wagon without any explanation.
Charlie+1
111: Zach’s response to MOI’s attack is inadequate, and his accusation that MOI is only lurker hunting is simply false.
Zach+1
113: Jack’s playstyle is wearing a little thin on me...
116: Zajnet casts a strongly worded but meaningless “voting shenanigans” vote for MOI. Joining a building wagon without reasons.
Zajnet+2
119: I agree with Locke on Zaj
121: Farside makes a really weak defence of Charlie. For reference, MOI said Charlie had never explained his what the effect of his pressure vote would be. Farside’s defence was to point out that Charlie had said “No, it is an argument between Jack and Sando. I'm taking one side and seeing how it goes and nothing else.” Not only is Charlie’s explanation lousy, as I said in my previous post, but this in no way explains what the point of the pressure wagon was. This is followed up by a vote for MOI, the growing wagon at this stage, so
Farside+2
125: Weak attempt by Zaj to suggest MOI inconsistency
Zaj+1
136: Worst post yet. Charlie places MOI at L-1. While he disagrees with MOI’s attack, he offers no real reason as to why MOI is scummy. Moreover, I really dislike the ‘convenience’ of Charlie mentioning that he is deciding to change his playstyle this game to vote more aggressively (why that is a good thing at all, I have no idea) in the very same post as he places somebody at L-1. It’s made even worse by Charlie putting MOI at L-1 on p.6 while also saying “I have a divided opinion of him”. If you aren’t sure somebody is scum, why the deuce would you put them at L-1 on p.6?!
Charlie+5
141: Charlie makes an AtE by saying “I accept responsibility for my actions”.
Charlie+1
147: Zaj expresses agreement with Charlie being scummy, but sticks to MOI. I can't see any rational basis for this, given that the MOI wagon was terrible and Charlie’s play is really scummy. Thus, this looks like distancing.
Zajnet-Charlie scumteam evidence
.
159: When asked about why he cast a L-1 vote despite it being early in the game and his opinion being admittedly divided, Charlie says that whoever hammered would be under intense scrutiny the next day. Two points of interest from this: 1) Charlie is making the rather curious that whoever hammered MOI
would
come under scrutiny the next day (ie. that MOI is town); and 2) Fails entirely to explain why he voted despite his own view being divided. His “case” on MOI is weak; the point about the unanswered question (which I addressed above) comes down in MOI’s favour objectively and Charlie just overeggs it by saying that MOI’s attitude seems “slightly disingenuous”, which is a vague and meaningless attack. He then unvotes MOI, despite having just apparently having provided the essence of his MOI case. This makes the opportunism of the earlier vote seem even more apparent
Charlie+2
160: Now he revotes Magna because he wants to play aggressively..
