[guiri]

Bashorian

D1 #96 asks me what is scummy about PCM's punctuation - I replied in #106 #97 asks Vanta to clarify his statement about the current state of mafia and how that would lead him to posting too much - Vanta replied in #104 #98 asks Colby why he found Vanta's blending in to be scummy vs NAI since he's doing the same as everyone else #99 asks Mordenkainen about Las Vegas' "GP Course" - Mordenkainen replied in #133 #168 asks me who are the two scum I muse are caught squirming

Just 5 posts, interacts with 4 different players, one fluff question, one poke, three clarifications about suspicions/reasoning. Not much to see here, not much to make a read on, except for the gap of 69 posts over just more than 24 hours between #99 and #168 where he pops in to ask me about my #166. I guess what's piqued my interest about this gap is what else he read between those two posts but did not consider them worthy of a question or comment. Apart from the responses to his questions, TexCat, Archangel and Vanta had garnered two votes, at least two people gave reads on Bashorian - Archangel and Mordenkainen, whose concern about looking inconsistent I questioned.

Originally Posted by Archangel

14. Bashorian Clement: leaning town

Which she followed up on much later with:

Originally Posted by Archangel

BC's activity varies as both alignments.

The tone of his posts is his town tone though.

What was this lean based on?

Originally Posted by Mordenkainen

Inconsistent may have been a poor choice of words.

The central thrust is that if I normally say "I won't vote Player X just because they haven't posted much" about a player, then when I do vote for a player because of low postcount, the question "what's different this time?" arises. If there is no real (or obvious) difference and I can't explain why I acted differently, I would rightly be suspect. Especially since I have already declined to vote others for low postcount in this game.

For some reason, BC's posts are nudging at me. The only reason I can articulate is low postcount, and my position on that is in the early game low postcount is a null tell. So I will not vote him this time.

How are you feeling about BC now?

Mordenkainen

D1 #7 Hi, fluff #133 explanation of GP course, dislikes Mahaloth's unforced VT claim, not reason enough to vote #134 quotes Kaiveran, likes it, has a townie feel #141 to Meeko, says Archangel did not go after Kaiveran, she just asked a question, and moved on when the answer satisfied her, will not be voting Archangel or Kaiveran toDay, maybe Maha or Meeko #143 on Gnarly, mentions his single post, also missed the plurar "forces", not reason enough for a vote #153 explains Lightfoot/SilverJan numbered lists confusion, notes there are 6 hours remaining #160 on Bashorian, mentions his short burst of activity (quoted above), feels uneasy but needs more reasoning than low participation, since they are equally guilty of that so it's NAI #167 to me, explains what they meant by inconsistent (quoted above), policy non-votes Gnarly #189 on Texcat, dislikes her reasoning for voting Mahaloth, his claim was NAI and Colby's vote was a joke, disagrees with vote but wonders if it's a misunderstanding or made-up arguments, ends up voting Texcat because "not only scum would do that", for being wrong #197 to me, who questioned their comment on Bashorian's short burst of activity and ironic, given his own short burst of activity, explains that it's their MO, does not know if it's also BC's MO #200 to Archangel, who clarifies that low activity is also NAI for BC, does not understand tone #250 (N1) to me, who asked if anyone else had Gnarly's interpretation of "forces", also thought of multiball, but not worth a vote, anyway it's too late

Slightly more content here, gives two town reads, does a few ISOs, fairly nice tone, although a little overly self-aware, playing both sides on gnarly, mahaloth, and bashorian. Three things stand out:
1. What made you pick Gnarly, Bashorian and TexCat to ISO?
2. Did you find TexCat scummy for being wrong? Do you think she faked the arguments against Mahaloth, or do you feel a need to stick to your policies no matter what?
3. A little snuggling and defense of Kaiveran, possibly too blatant too early

Colby11

D1 #9 Hi, fluff #15 to gnarly, points out that being a closed setup, a 3rd party might be possible #28 votes and unvotes Mahaloth for his unforced claim/being in the dark #70 comment to Lightfoot about votes needing to be in bold #72 votes Vanta for blending in by announcing their decisions D2 #48 has been busy #55 it's quiet, is anti-mass claim, scum were extremely lucky, needs a new suspect, only lean is BC, going to re-read EoD1 #56 asks TexCat why Gnarly over Vanta, wonders why he's feeling I'm trying to control the narrative

Again not much, which is why I started with the lowest posters, so fluff, absence, some setup talk, a joke vote, and a vote that seems fine in itself, another absence, and their first to question to another player. I guess Colby won't have problems with double-standards or consistency regarding BC's low participation. I can't accuse him of genieing but I hope he stays around to give us more to go on. Only niggle is that original comment about 3rd parties, if I was misguided but correct about gnarly's PIS, there might be something here too.

Mahaloth

D1 #25 Is here, claims VT, is in the dark #26 asks about gambling aspects in the game #54 to anyone in general, is not an early claimer, used his power early in the last game and claimed asap, no solid reason this time, kill him if there's nothing better #58 thinks Vanta reads town #63 to Archangel, who agrees with him about Vanta, does not usually remember any player's meta, except maybe Meeko #71 to Lightfoot, who asks why he claimed this time, no reason, just being a loose cannon #105 OOG to Vanta, who was explaining to BC about the game being quiet, was going to suggest a summer hiatus #118 votes TexCat for just agreeing with Colby's joke vote N1 #8 is surprised Gnarly did not claim D2 #29 asks if there are other claims, wants to make a spreadsheet #58 is curious about the D1 counterwagon, votes TexCat again

The only thing I dislike about the claim and dark is the zero reasoning and almost apathy about it, and about being yeeted, which I feel is a little townie coming from Mahaloth, the read on Vanta is a plus, the vote on TexCat seems at least partially OMGUS but he was in good company, but toDay's repeat needs some more reasoning, looking forward to that when you have a chance.