How could I possibly refuse so many "pleases"?TS wrote: Quick one, too. Do Sir Tornado for hors d'oeuvres.
Oh please do hasdagas. Please please please pretty please.
Analysis of Zu_faul
0: Congrats schism for his bday
1: Votes TS. No explanation.
2: Votes Sikario. 5th on wagon. Says Sik's starting an alternative wagon was scummy as hell. No further case, etc given.
3: Says a post by Peers "seems like a scum tell" (interesting wording). Says that "Together with your other posts lately it's more like a scumscream, then a scumtell." Unvotes.
4: Joines Peers wagon. No case at all.
5: Tells not to speculate about absurd roles.
6: A week later, unvotes because "peers seems good"
7: Doesn't buy the Jordan wagon. Votes Kscope for not posting anything significant (POT KETTLE BLACK) and wagon-jumping (POT KETTLE BLACK)
8: When asked about why he left Peers, simply quotes the "Peers is good" post.
9: Would vote Sik, but doesn't want to let Kscope "lurk to victory"
10: Opposes the Quag role PM lynch. Thinks Sik is very scummy (Why?) and keeps on Kscope.
11: Says ABR is "not the one we're looking for today."
12: Doesn't answer BM's questions about why he thinks ABR is pro-town, and instead asks BM why he suspects ABR
13: Suggests lurker lynch of kscope
14: "I just don't think ABR is scummy in this game"
15: Is glad people are voting scope
16: Promises to post
17: Vitriol against TS. Just a whole lot of "I agrees". Keeps on Kscope but expresses an intention to vote TS "who does not use her mind and acts blindly"
18: Denies that he is pushing a lurker lynch of Kscope.
19: Reiterates the above POT KETTLE BLACK stuff
20: Doesn't want to add to spamming, as an excuse for his dismal effort
21: Calls TS a hypocrite for her attacks on people rushing lynches. Asks Quag to explain his case on Book
22: Is waiting for reply
23: Question was directed at quag
24: "Notice the "re" in front of "build" TS. "
25: Asks if TS directed a post at Set and himself
26: "I really don't buy hasdfgas as scum. He posts some sense, especially when replying to sikario. "
27: "A point? Have I missed something? I thought it was no more than gut feeling on BM's part. "
28: Votes TS for "jumping on everything which moves". Oh gosh, because we couldn't have someone actually taking action against scumtells! Why, that might actually
catch scum
29: Tells TS to calm down after she attacked his terrible vote for her.
30: Theory
31: After Erg0 was he WASN'T voting Panzer because Panzer was being replaced, Zu says: "That's about the shittiest reason I've ever heard for voting someone." He's clearly paying no attention at all.
32: Apologises for misreading
33: Asks why I am not voting Jordan
34: Acknowledges my % system
35: Asks if Schism has a PR or is scum
36: Thinks Jordan and I are protown
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blatantly opportunistic wagoning. Absolutely NO meaningful and original content. Hypocrisy in his pursuit of Kscope. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this guy. Zu gets a nice
75%
and will receive my vote unless and until I find someone better: Vote: zu_faul
Analysis of ST
0: Votes Sik. No explanation
1: Votes Kscope. No explanation.
2: "What is the case on me apart from lurking? "
3: "Erg0... read my post in context with Jordan's post, most of which I have quoted.."
4: Hasn't read the game
~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that was tedious...ST's sole actions have been the joining of wagons without explanation. ST is usually a good player, so I find it odd that he would be so lax with his vote. ST earns a
70%
also. The one thing that troubles me here is how close a ST lynch would be to a mere lurker lynch. Whilst the only play he had added looks plainly opportunistic, I don't like having so little to analyse. PBPA of Hasdfasdg
{eep...90 posts. Forgive me if I skip over posts that seem unimportant. This won't be a true analysis of all his posts, just the important ones}
3: Demands reasons for the BM wagon.
4: Joins Peers wagon. No justification supplied, despite having just stated in 3 "I like reasons behind votes"
5: Asks why Jordan, schis, and ABR are not getting FoSed when they did the same as Panzer
6: Gives his reasoning. Says it suspcious of Peers to hold the random phase as irrelevant. Doesn't like Peers' response to the wagon on him - calls it deflection, and for a dodgy BM vote.
7: Interesting post. He apologises for not giving his reasons before others did and says that he finds it hard to "make up random reasons on the spot" - as justification for using others' reasons (without crediting others).
15: Reiterates his dislike for Peers' reactions and Peers' case on Neo
20: Opposes Quag wagon on the basis that D1 is effectively random anyway.
21-23: Thinks if Quag is scum, his play is now protown anyway
24: FoSes Sik for setting up lynches. The problem here is that Sik only had hasd as a setup candidate IF Quag was lynched and came up scum.
28: Swipes at Peers for agreeing with ABR and asserts it is just to protect himself
30: Calls for pressure on Peers. Doesn't explain reasons for pressuring.
33: Votes TS because "it seems to be the consensus at this point". No other reasons, from the man who declares he likes reasons.
34: Advocates lynching TS, saying that "We can make the mod's job a lot easier if we lynch someone that scummy today" (I don't have a clue how this works) and says "Peers will still be here tomorrow unless he's vigged or something. " - Ironic, because this is subtly setting up a lynch.
37: Mediocre effort at responding to TS's case (which, on reading, I agree with). Amusing sentence from Hasd: "People already thought you were scummy, so a lynch is not necessarily a bad thing." Yes - it's good to lynch just because other people think someone is scummy.
40: FoSes Quag and Schism. Votes Peers because "People already thought you were scummy, so a lynch is not necessarily a bad thing."
41: Admits his previous post, based on a reread, was rushed.
43: Doesn't suspectYos2
45 "The post stating I liked reasons was a reference to another game, and while I still kinda like reasons, I realized in between those two posts that voting without stating your reasons isn't always a bad thing." Yes, not giving reasons is excellent when you are scum because you don't need to expose yourself with contrived arguments.
47: FOSes Mos for his policy lynch advocacy
56: The case on Peers. It's predominantly just around Peers' views on the random phase and Peers defending himself with Meta. There is nothing which is particularly scummy here.
57: MoS is 2 candidate. Also thinks Panzer, schis, and kscope.
65: Will vote for Quag due to non-contribution
72: Jump onto Kscope wagon for mentioning a SK.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A lot of content here, but ultimately his wagoning is justified only by very shaky reasons, if any. Much like Zu, he seems to just be going with consensus. Hasd gets
70%
. Another good candidate.
