OK, Zeriel… Day One:
Post 126 - Comments on Rysto’s opening post
Post 138 - Petulantly disagrees with Drain Bead about prevalence of scum slips
Post 188 + 189 - Fluff plus pledge to re-read
Post 223 - Votes 6th for Omi (for having a “bad-for-town attitude”), but disagrees with Drain Bead, who is also voting for Omi, while doing so
My thoughts: Not much activity at all. Takes a few shots at Drain Bead, who was of course Our Hero, which could mean something or nothing. The vote for Omi is bad, though. Well, not the vote, but the reason for it and the swipe at Drain Bead while doing it. Also, it’s a total bandwagon vote.
Day Three:
Post 311 - Casts the 9th vote for Red Skeezix, calls it a “boring” vote. What’s more interesting about it is what he has to say about Guiri. Guiri said: “so it is likely he’s a scum claiming 3rd party. Why? No real idea. Somehow to protect or draw attention away from his buddies. What do you think?” Zeriel’s response is: "I think that’s an awfully odd thing to say, but I’m sure we’ll find out when Red flips after the lynch. I inherently refuse to believe that names are going to be meaningful in any closed colored game, because keeping the names meaningful makes the game somewhat more likely to be breakable with a mass claim.
Your saving grace is I can’t imagine any scum motivation for theorizing that he’s a scum claiming third party. Nor is there a town motivaiton–it’s not as though his scum or PFK status is going to be a mystery after the lynch, so at most he bought someone one extra day alive even if he is scum." This reads like a smudge to me, i.e. “I’m not saying you’re scum, but that was really weird. Hmmmm.” The use of “saving grace” is interesting as well. Of course, Guiri was right and Red was a scum claiming 3rd party.
Post 319 - Dismisses the possibility of a bomb in a closed set-up.
Post 323 - Again dismisses the idea that Red could be scum claiming 3rd party. Is still wrong 
My thoughts: Very little activity again. Another late bandwagon vote on scum, and another vote post that disses somebody else. Not promising.
Day Four:
Post 386 - Dismisses my [almost certainly wrong] suspicions of storyteller.
Post 418 - Votes 2nd on Chronos. Here is the whole reason: “I’m finding that Chronos’ statements about scum team makeup are/were a little too matter-of-fact and specific for me to be comfortable with.” It’s a bad vote without knowing Chronos’ status; it’s a terrible vote in hindsight knowing Chronos was Town. (Also says he’s going to be gone most of the rest of the week.)
Post 429 - Reacts strongly to storyteller’s mason claim, saying: "Your other half should NOT stay in the shadows, and in fact with one of you claimed, I am going to commit to voting for storyteller tomorrow unless his fellow mason confirms him.
You were IN monkgate, you know why it’s dangerous to have a mason claim sitting out where one kill can leave it in an unconfirmable state.
I am going to break one of my cardinal rules, now–the other mason ought come forward as soon as possible or this play makes very little sense. " This could be scum fishing for the other mason, but if so it’s amazingly obvious, and I’m actually inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as I had a very similar initial reaction until I thought it through some more.
Post 434 - Responds to story’s sarcastic reaction to above
Post 447 - Ditto
Post 451 - Monkgate description
My thoughts: Actually more active than in previous days despite saying he would be away (this is a good thing, not a bad thing). The vote for Chronos stinks badly.
Day Five:
Post 519 - Votes for Meeko for an apparent voting contradiction. The vote post is very similar to his Chronos vote, i.e. slim reasoning and second vote on a target someone else started. Also contains this gem: “Y’know, I just find myself with not a lot to say in these games anymore.” :dubious:
This post is already long enough. Thoughts to follow.