Jan on Astral:
This is the one post in all of this that gives Jan townie points in my eyes, but only because I can make no sense of it in terms of scum motivation. It would seem to discourage a claim (if anything), and I don’t see scum doing that except in a bid to gain town cred, and this doesn’t look like that to me. See below for the rest of the comments.
Jan is initially hesitant to commit on Astral on the basis of the original case (forgetting alignment). I have to say that “I’m confused” in a situation like that – where a potentially town player is being accused for a rather “meta” reason – feels scummy to me. As I’ve alluded to previously I think such situations are very difficult for scum to figure out how to handle. So this pings, as does the maybe yes/maybe no of the following post, to a lesser extent. (The response to the third party thing reduces that to a null tell in itself.)
Jan does vote after Astral’s claim, on the reasoning that it was too soon/too reckless. I think this reason is wrong, I’m not sure it’s scummy in itself. What bothers me more is the unvote and the lead-up to it. I challenge Jan on the reasoning for her vote. When she responds, she talks about the vote not being very strong, it’s only day one, what do you expect, etc. There’s no sign of such an opinion in the vote post itself; in fact she characterizes Astral with “makes me think he is scum or 3rd party”. She also goes on to further justify the vote in the same paragraph.
Simultaneous “well it’s weak, what do you expect”/“but here’s this other reason he’s suspicious”. Two types of justification, almost direct opposites. It doesn’t feel like a genuine explanation, more like “throw the kitchen sink at the problem and see what sticks”. (I’m liking my mixed metaphors lately, sue me.) And then the unvote, after that: the phrase about letting Astral off the hook rings false.
Jan on gnarly up next as time permits.
but I will definitely vote before the end of the day.
