Thok: That's quite a misrepresentation of my post. I don't see questioning a wagon or asking for clarification as unhelpful, nor did I ever say that any wagon definitely had scum in it.
I get suspicious of those who vote without posting their reasoning -- I think this is fair. In the case of HurriKaty and Zindaras, I saw a handful of people voting them without a lot of explanation for reasons that weren't transparent to me. What you misinterpret is that in both instances, I deliberately outlined the possbility of scum while leaving open the possibility of something going over my head. Thus, my asking people to provide clarification has a two-fold purpose: to make sure their reasoning is sound, and learn something I may have missed. Is this not helpful or reasonable?
Note that I'm not necessarily against a HurriKaty vote -- I've yet to hear compelling evidence for it.
As for specifics, I've gone through the thread twice now. The only objections Thesp had with HurriKaty were in
Post 199, specifically: being suspicious about HurriKaty's objection to answering Fritzler's question, and wondering why HurriKaty bothered to explain his/her unvote (something I don't understand the logic in faulting...). There is no further analysis whatsoever between that post and when Thesp votes HurriKaty in
250.
Your first post is in
257, where you FOS Hurrikaty without reasoning. You then vote HurriKaty in
266, again without reasoning. STD votes without reasoning in the post after yours. You also took issue with Hurrikaty's response to being voted, which I agree with. But this was after you had already voted, and it wasn't clear to me why you decided to vote in the first place.
So, again, all I'm asking for is concrete reasoning of why HurriKaty is a good lynch. While I'm not necessarily in defense of HurriKaty in any way, I'd like some explanation as to why she/he's so obviously scum. Considering no one has provided much, I think this is reasonable thing to ask for.
