A much better post then your last one with content, Lowell. Still, I have some questions.
First of all, why does your summary include all votes and unvotes, except for SensFan voting Zeek in post #171?
Secondly, where does OGML follow me in regards to the Zeek/soupfly debate? Our opinions agreed, that's true, but OGML already voted soupfly in post #155. At that point in time, I had been arguing mainly that Zeek was playing poorly. As far as I can see, he was not following my advice there.
Now, let's take a look at your reasons to FOS me.
Lowell wrote:(A) Sable's insistence that we all believe zeek, and his growing bond with zeek in the process. It looks like scum trying to cozy up to and protect a townie. Those who don't believe the zeek claim, or only maybe believe the zeek claim, are fully justified in their equivocations. Either Sable is just has a much broader understanding of the game, OR, he entered the debate from the position of someone inclined to believe zeek.
Zeek had indeed been playing badly. So had DS on day 1. On day 1, DS was mislynched because of it. On day 2, the bandwagon against Zeek was quickly moving forward rapidly, in much the same way as the bandwagon against DS, with QuickBen and SensFan jumping based on not very solid reasoning.
Early in day 2, I took the time to look closely at Zeek's miller claim. He mentioned another game were he had been miller. A game where there had been no vanilla's, but where the SK claimed vanilla and was caught by him. Looking at that game (Cartman mafia, mini theme 472) revealed that everything was exactly as he told it had been, making his explanations for his behaviour a lot more believable. It also explained his claim that he did not believe there were vanilla's completely, a claim that had completely baffled me because I could not think of any role that would make someone believe that. I also found it extremely unlikely that scum would make the no vanilla townies claim. If Zeek was scum, it would be simply too much risk for too little payoff. I was convinced Zeek was telling the truth.
Therefore, I also believed that the bandwagon on him was a bandwagon leading to a mislynch. However, the bandwagon was moving forward rapidly, in much the same way the wagon against DS had done. If I didn't act, it was quite likely that we would have another mislynch. It's not scum buddying up, it's town doing what he can to prevent a mislynch.
Of course, I could be scum trying to gain a town player's trust. (Zeek, if you decide to trust me, please don't let the sole reason be that I argued in your favour.) However, wouldn't it be a much more logical play for me as scum to keep a bit more low profile and see if the bandwagon against Zeek does indeed reach that mislynch it seems to be heading to?
Lowell wrote:(B) Sable's increasing vocal attitude on D2. Much more than D1, he's driving conversation. On N1, we lost a cop, and the mafia have more control on the game.
Am I? Day 1 began with an argument between DS and me. Also, I was the one who originally brought up the possibility of DS being a jester. Not that that was such a great addition to the discussion, but I believe a was already relatively vocal during day 1.
I guess you are seeing 2 things.
On day 1, the discussion focussed mainly on DS, where I agreed with most players, giving me a lot less to argue about. On day 2, in the discussion about Zeek and soupfly, there were more people I disagreed with, giving me more posts to reply to.
The other effect you are seeing is that of the holidays. Most people post mainly from work or school, causing their participation to drop during holidays. For me, it's the other way around. I post mainly from home, and during holidays, I spent most of my time behind the computer. I'm checking MS more often, have more time to read through the thread, and have more time to post.
Lowell wrote:(C) His voting habits. He voted soupfly, then quickly unvoted. It could be, as he said, that he was satisfied with soupfly's answer. But it could also be that for all his bluster, he just didn't want to get into a long discussion about it. Since then, he's been voting me. And while I won't begrudge a person for voting me, he seems to spend more time on meta-issues, or "do we believe zeek" issues, than really expanding the case and making a strong argument.
I've already explained my voting and unvoting for soupfly. Note that, if I didn't want to get in a long discussion about it, I should not have made a long post on the topic such as
post #186. Those usually tend to cause a bit of discussion.
As for not expanding the case against you: I've explained my reasons for voting you all the way back in
post #144. Since then, you did not respond to those reasons whatsoever, nor did any of your posts give new material to respond to. There wasn't simply anything new to say about you.
There is no 'a' in Michel.
") .