On Day 2, Gendaberry voted for llll, then MonkeyMan.
On Day 3, Gendaberry voted for Pacman, then KatieB.
If Gendaberry investigated during either of N1 or N2, then I think he got 1 or 2 innocent results back. If he had a guilty result, I think he would have said so, considering at that point he would have been a VT with 0, possibly 1 more investigations. At the very least, Gendaberry would have altered his voting style to some extent. I did not see any crumbs, but then again, maybe I'm bad at noticing crumbs. I don't remember any mentions of crumbs back in 2003, so this whole concept is still somewhat new to me.
@Curiouskarmadog I'm not sure what to make of you. You've posted a lot but your activity can be basically summarized by D1 - wagon Monkey hard, D2 - wagon Monkey hard, D3 - express interest in hammering Katie. It would be nice if you posted a readlist or something to that effect.
@AeronautIn post 1172, Aeronaut wrote:Well, I'm going to assume that you're hammered.
I think I forgot to mention, another big factor (and I think what sent me over the edge) on me scumreading you, is this post.
In post 1049, KatieB wrote:The kill was an attempt to foster apathy. Anen was the third most active remaining player. This is obvious.
I was obviously wrong about monkeyman, but I frequently have trouble with lynches based on proficiency. When someone good plays poorly, I am likely to judge them scum and when someone less skilled plays poorly I am more likely to judge them town. It's a bias that I'm working on.
I'm reworking my reads today. I dont think I want to lynch droog. I'm willing to listen to theories.
Did not like wake's entry today. Did not like your entry today. Have another reason to vote you that is gonna remain a secret for a little while.
More specifically, the "I have another reason to vote you which is going to remain secret". From my perspective, and mine alone, that looks like a scumclaim. Because, this can mean one of two things. 1. It involves an ongoing game. 2. You were claiming a guilty.
Now, this is the first game I've ever played you, so that is not it. In my eyes, you were trying to crumb that you had some sort of something on me, and that you had some kind of investigative role, or a role that knew something I didn't. Knowing my own role as town, there's nothing that you would have gotten if you'd investigated me. You claiming VT just sort of drove home that you were just saying that to take pressure off. I don't see another alternative, here.
If this is "what sent me [Aeronaut] over the edge" and "From my perspective, and mine alone, that looks like a scumclaim.", then why did you spend all that time trying to get Pacman lynched?
@Pacman Nice job getting Riddles replaced. Proactiveness is helpful. Appreciating the more than once a Day vote counts, thanks.
