First: a claim. I'm the cop. I'm claiming because I would probably die tonight even if I didn't claim and because we could use the info I have.
N1 Deathsword tried to inspect Nerjin and failed. N2 I inspected the pretty much unreadable Cryxis.
Cryxis is town.This leaves, in my eyes, a group of three players of whom two are scum.
Of those three:
*ggamer has been coasting through the game. Very little content overall, especially in Day 2. Did not vote D2. Promised a post a couple days before the end of the day, and did not deliver. Only statement of suspicion in D2 was a
FoS on hector for something rather different from what hector actually said, which ggamer still needs to explain. Also, his d1 vote was, well, not particularly well explained, to say the least.
*UXLZ is...bland. Lots of text, not as much content as I'd expect from that much text. Is claiming trouble with reading newbies. Halfheartedly voted Peradon due to the end of the day coming.
*hector13's handling of roo troubles me. A reasonable player could easily have made his initial vote, but the way hector handled roo's defense is more troubling. See below. hector has been quite active, though. Was not voting at the end of D2, though he had voted Peradon earlier.
So, who is scum? I don't know. I do know I do not like the way
ggamer's coasting through the game.
ggamer: Please give content and answer all the pending questions.
So, confirmation bias. Is this how you treat all defenses?
Should I not expect more of him? He indulged in some extremely scummy behaviour by encouraging other people to follow his lead in voting me without a reason. Three people proceeded to vote for him, and then he backs out of it with his claim of reaction test. I think that's known as a refuge in audacity? (genuine question)
hector13: Giving about the only possible reasonable explanation of his's actions, and an explanation consistent with his other statements, is not refuge in audacity.
But let me get this completely straight: You found roo's vote push thing so scummy that you automatically rejected his claim that it was a reaction test, and for some reason decided not to challenge the claim (or even mention it)? Roo was so extremely scummy that you felt the proper response to his defense was to act as if he never made it?
Jack(Jake?), is there any particular reason you decided to choose to pressure me? Everyone else was on the wagon, and you did say you thought my vote was reasonable. (in the spoilered section)
Because of the D1 thing that caught my eye and because of something else I mentioned in that spoiler: you interacted a lot with roo. A lot of content was generated. Some was, and still is, interesting. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not particularly satisfied with some of your responses.
Ugh. I need sleep...