Princess LeafsnailAll three of these votes make no sense at all, notquitethere. You go from thinking a line of reasoning is a joke, to thinking it's weak to the point of being scummy, to thinking it's a damning case.
Firstly, all three of these positions seem dumb to me. Jim's vote was pretty clearly serious, but not a locked in lynch vote, so your first two positions were weird (especially because you've since acknowledged a middle ground between the two types of votes exists). I also don't see much strength at all to Jim's case, so it seems odd that you'd switch to emphatically supporting it afterwards.
Secondly, I don't think you'd allow yourself to be smacked around this easily as town - I usually find you pretty stubborn and set in your reads. I suspect you voted Jim in a panic, then regretted it reverted your vote back to Cado after you calmed down again.
It's a fair position, but you'll also see that I'll move my votes around a lot as town early day 1 (see the latest BM where as the cop I voted nearly half the other players on day 1). I like to try to interact with as many players as possible to get the broadest possible read until someone particularly scummy comes out. My focus though has been a bit off so I'll readily admit that I haven't been as effective yet as I ought to be. To explain my recent behaviour: I genuinely thought that Cado's reaction was a strange reaction to what I took to just be a dumb RVS vote, but then Jim explained how he was serious which I thought completely unjusifiable, but then I had another look at Cado's initial response and the concern with being tracked didn't seem quite right so I turned back to Cado. I have admittedly been a bit too free with throwing around the vote, but at the same time, I do think it adds a necessary degree of pressure to the questioning.
To summarise: I don't emphatically support Jim's case, but I do believe in using my vote to get answers and changing my mind when new evidence comes to light. This might make me look inconstant, but I think this is better than maintaining an unsupportable vote (which I have seen stubborn town players do in the past).
Princesss CadoNQT: Your vote is adding pressure because you wish for more information rather than going for a Lynch vote like Jim so i'll ask you this. In the other games you've played with me, how does my behaviour in those compare to now? And who else besides me seems scummy to you?
To be honest Cado, I think we're mostly fumbling around in the dark on Day 1, I really hit my scumhunting stride on day 2 when I can go over interactions in light of the flip. You're explanation about paranoia fits with what I've seen of your playstyle elsewhere. What will you do this game to stop yourself being lynched?
Princess GriffinpupThe quality/quantity dichotomy is a bit misleading. The quantity of a post is one of its qualities. No one thinks that vast or frequent mostly-contentless posts are a good thing. Do you think this question has got you any closer to finding scum? Do you think random questions are appropriate near the end of Day 1 or was there nothing that has actually happened in the game to comment on?
Princess OkamiI'd almost forgotten you were playing. Do you have a compelling case on anyone yet?
Princess GriffiondayHmm... I think there might have been a misunderstanding when it came to 'emerge'. Scumminess is an emergent property that arises out of scum posts. Obviously, I think we should be pressuring players and asking questions to draw out scummy behaviour, which you're doing an admirable job of so far.
This doesn't seem to be sarcasm, which is odd because I been focused on you and unless you are scum...
Hah, I can see that reading of things! No, I meant that you'd been doing an admirable job of pressuring. Obviously, if the player isn't scum you won't draw anything of use out of someone. Have you interacted with everyone else yet?
Get back to you in what fashion? If you meant for me to try again to answer your question again why did you not bring this up when you next talked to me here? Possibly you should have pursued that inquiry at all.
I'm not sure where your misunderstanding here lies. I asked you an ambiguous question, you answered the question one way, I implied you'd not answered the way I'd intended you to answer, you asked me why I didn't ask me the question again, then I asked the question again freely admitting that I should have reasked it sooner. I didn't reask it sooner because my focus on the game was not sufficiently strong. This isn't a scum-tell, it's just me being distracted. Now I'm more on the ball, I'm determined not to let things get to Great Temple levels where I was town but utterly ineffectual.
I win when the love of my life is safe from undesirable suitors. On that note: if you're not asking for role or flavour details what is the point of the question at all? Are you claiming a truth-telling ability or just into asking pointless questions?
Neither: asking people's wincons sometimes brings surprising results. Currently, in the Witch game Tiruin spilled out that she was a third-party and wasn't actually directly interested in hunting that game's equivelant of scum.