I’m going to continue the review of Snickers’ posts that I started back Yesterday in [post=12950392]post 2882[/post].
Day 3.
Snickers spends some time speculating about Aragorn’s powers (believing Gadarene to be a cop at first – see posts [post=12858482]1987[/post] and [post=12858811]2008[/post]) and worrying about whether she should revote Special Ed as she doesn’t really think he’s likely to be one of SAHM. She explains this shift in [post=12858860]post 2011[/post], also responding to Ed’s calling her on what appears to be excessive concern about appearance.
She spends a bit of time on the acronym debate, challenging Pleo’s assertion in [post=12858964]post 2017[/post] and doing an examination of my posts in [post=12862718]post 2038[/post]. In between, she finds time to criticise Nanook for attacking her (for waffling about her vote for Special Ed) while doing it himself. [post=12859315]Post 2021[/post] refers. When you dig a little deeper into this, though, Snickers is trying to equate two things that really aren’t alike.
Firstly, Nanook’s post on Ed ([post=12856301]post 1920[/post]) focussed primarily on Ed’s handshake attempt, its consequences and what could be deduced re Ed’s alignment. [post=12858664]Post 1996[/post], which is criticising Snickers’ post 1987, focuses on Snickers’ reasoning for voting someone that she didn’t really think was one of SAHM. Additionally, Nanook never once voted for Special Ed. It’s not as if Nanook had placed a vote and was now trying to back of it, the way Snickers does appear to be doing.
[post=12866667]Post 2070[/post]; a WoW on Nanook. And that’s all it is. A discussion of Nanook’s posts without actually drawing any conclusions from it. While the drawing together of posts is helpful, so is analysing the posts so collected and drawing conclusions. SAHM wouldn’t want to draw conclusions because, ultimately, they don’ want to clear Townies; that shrinks the pool of unclaimed/unconfirmed and reduces their scope to hide.
[post=12868550]Post 2109[/post]. Case and vote for Pleonast. The worst thing to say about this is that it’s late (12 hours remain in the Day, and most players would be asleep for a large part of that) and for a player who was in no danger of being lynched. This doesn’t tell me much; a SAHM would want to avoid trying to be a last-minute voter, but a Townie totally unconvinced of either of the lead cases might well opt to lay a vote on someone they find more suspicious.
End of Day 3’s contributions. Looking at them as a whole, I find a couple of things make me uneasy, most notably her attempt to draw parallels between the way she backed off an Ed vote with Nanook’s considering voting Ed for the first time. At this point, I’m beginning to lean possibly SAHM on her.
On to Day 4.
The pivotal moment of Day 4 was Nanook’s roleclaim in [post=12880059]post 2191[/post]. Snickers (having been away for Labor Day weekend) first weighs in long after that post, at a time when the vote is a foregone conclusion, so it’s no surprise she opens with a vote for Natlaw. She then turns to examine Natlaw’s claim/save of AR in [post=12894769]post 2358[/post]. While she did at least give us some analysis in addition to the annotated posts, I can’t give much credit for that since at that point the lynch was a foregone conclusion so whatever she does (or does not) do is a null tell – Townies and SAHM are likely to do the same thing in this sort of situation.
In [post=12895588]Post 2370[/post] Snickers postulates a motive for SAHM to undertake the gambit assuming AR was Town. It was plausible, and not contradicted by anything we then knew – at least I don’t think so.
That’s the end of Day 4. Not much read from that Day, primarily because she missed the action.
Snickers’ Day 5 begins with [post=12903952]post 2450[/post]. She accuses AR of being one of SAHM on the grounds that he (AR) is now pointing to his action in not voting Ed on Day 3 as a reason for his being Town. AR queries this in [post=12918720]post 2556[/post], asking how, if Snickers had considered hi not voting for Ed Day 3 a reason that AR might be town, why his using that in his defence makes that now evidence he (AR) is one of SAHM. Snickers responds with [post=12919069]post 2562[/post], citing 2358 and sidestepping the question AR asked. She repeats her accusation in [post=12921242]post 2612[/post].
Snickers then enters some discussions with and about Peeker. In [post=12908495]post 2477[/post], she and Peeker seem to be at cross purposes about whether anyone would claim to be Sauron the Townie (although closer inspection reveals they are agreeing.) In [post=12914024]post 2520[/post], she elucidates a key difference between Peeker “kind of knowing” who Faramir was, and Chronos knowing that Gadarene was Aragorn. She also responds to USCDiver, who was making a similar case.
The sidestepping of AR’s question is the only thing that worries me about her Day 5 participation.
Day 6.
Votes Peeker in [post=12935691]post 2757[/post] for his insistence that Chronos was one of SAHM. Claims Arwen, vanilla Town, in the very next post.
[post=12938906]Post 2796[/post] sees Snickers agreeing with Guiri (although I wasn’t able to find the reference in a quick scan) and suggesting Natlaw had not been able to tell Sauron or his fellow Minions that AR was one of them, hence the save. She also asks a couple of questions; Chronos (unfortunately) never answered the one aimed at him before being killed. Peeker declined to discuss how he knew USCDiver is Town.
Day 7.
[post=12943390]Post 2840[/post] – Scumdar failure. Interesting that Doctor Who has not claimed, did not know who Gamling was.
[post=12943479]Post 2843[/post] – no items received.
[post=12944830]Post 2853[/post] – OAOW part I. Finds several pointers in OAOW’s voting record. Continues with part II in [post=12947186]post 2864[/post], in which she further develops a case against OAOW and winds up voting. Pivotal to that decision seems to be an analysis that OAOW would not have attempted to save AR if he were not one of SAHM, an assertion that is questionable at best. Assuming that OAOW were not SAHM, he would probably have no knowledge of the truth of Natlaw’s claim, so voting to save AR and give time to develop Natlaw’s claim was reasonable, and the only option, with less than 25 minutes to Dusk, was Special Ed.
Now, I agree that, had Natlaw not claimed, we might well not have lynched Special Ed; I’ve seen at least one case where a Miller/Doc claimed on Day 1, narrowly missed being lynched for two or three days, and ultimately never did get lynched, a decision which turned out right for the Town. (That was Peeker, in Storyteller’s Skrull Planet game). So the statement that people were backing off the Ed as SAHMite hypothesis might well be right. However, to conclude that therefore OAOW must be SAHM or he’d have no motive for saving AR is not true.
Next, she turns her attention to USCDiver in [post=12948862]post 2872[/post], and presents some analysis in the subsequent post. Not much to be suspicious of is her conclusion.
[post=12948959]Post 2874[/post] sees Snickers still asserting that there “must have been” some involvement by SAHM in saving AR as a justification for lynching OAOW.
[post=12950938]Post 2884[/post] is a response to several comments. As well as agreeing with Guiri’s reason for voting OAOW, she responds to my analysis of her Day 2 play, defending herself against the comment that she used a term we associate with SAHM-on-SAHM action with “other people don’t,” which is fair enough. However, she does not comment at all on my issues with her throwing mud around in [post=12833126]post 1431[/post].
The pointers to Snickers being SAHM boil down to this.[ul][li]The widespread casting of suspicions in [post=12833126]post 1431[/post].[/li][li][post=12859315]Post 2021[/post], in which she attempts to compare two things that aren’t really alike to show her innocence.[/li][li][post=12919069]Post 2562[/post] in which, facing a defence by AR of an accusation she had made, she denied making it and pointed at the wrong post altogether to support the defence.[/ul]Being wrong about OAOW doesn’t quite make the cut, as if Snickers is in fact Town, she’d have no means of knowing OAOW’s alignment at the time she made those arguments.[/li]
The latter two weigh more heavily in the scales than the first does, and may be enough to produce a vote. First, however, I’m going to read the cases against Inner Stickler and Dr. Who, to see if there is something of merit in them.