Mert wrote:
I pointed out that the mod had simply said that the largest number would lynch. At the point this was clarified by the mod, Cubsfan and Andrew were tied for votes and so his assertion that his vote was to make sure we avoided a no-lynch seemed a little strange at that point.
If they were tied, then I suppose someone would have needed to move a vote one way or the other correct? Though I will admit that I had the impression that is someone was to be lynched they had to have a majority of the votes - as in if there were 7 people voting, 4 had to be voting for the person to be lynched.
Mert wrote:So I went back and decided to see why he was suspicious of Cubsfan - all I found on the issue was the following:
See quotes in post above
Out of context, I could see how they seem minor, and indeed my suspicion
was
minor yesterday. I'll explain my entire thought process:
Jack was "random voting" and it was stirring up discussion, not the same kind of discussion that certain people garner when they act odd - real discussion. He wasn't out and out scummy - but his odd behavior was a target. It seemed to me that Cubsfan latched onto that target to strongly, and too easily. That seemed like a scum move to me - that he was working (over 50% of his posts yesterday were to that end) toward the "most obvious" target - even though Jack wasn't really that scummy, and even though Jack was contributing where some others weren't. My read on cubs fan started when he was trying to fish for Jack's role, and continued as he poorly defended his posts and continued his attack for Jack.
When Jack turned up pro-town, it seemed to me that - more so than anyone else - Cubsfan had been pitching for the lynch of a (now) known townie. There were a couple of people non-commitally looking for HD to respond, and there was minor suspicion of Andrew (I noted it before I voted - his disappearance when under suspicion), but Cubsfan was one of the stronger proponents on the Jack wagon, and given his fishing and last nights outcome - I figured he might a good place to start for the day.
He then tried to assosiate my reason attack on him to be the same as my actions yesterday which were completely different - I felt that was a scum tactic to try and misrepresent the situation - another reason I'm suspicious of him.
Mert wrote:Unless I've missed something, I couldn't quite find a particularly strong case against Cubsfan - there are a few bits and pieces but nothing where I could go "aha,
that's
his suspicion of Cubsfan, right there".
A lot was lost with the crash, but you're right I didn't come out and spell it day one, as it was much weaker without knowing the alignment of Jack
Mert wrote:My post that was lost on this subject was one part suspicion over the confusion of the whole "I had to vote Andrew to avoid no-lynch because he needed four votes" thing and one part question as to what his reasons are for being so sure Cubsfan is the play - he's been on him for a long time now but I can't find anything in his post history that explains why.
I hope its explained now - and I hope it sunderstood why I felt I needed to vote Andrew for the lynch - though I realize that may have been a misconception. But I'll say something that I mentioned before we lost all those posts - I did have some (small) suspicion of AndrewS - I noted it in posts before I switched my vote.
I'm suspicious - in every sense of the word.
