I’ve got up to Today’s [post=10662220]post 35[/post] in my second read, and I can’t let this pass.
NAF said :
If I’m happy to let a Day end without a vote because I didn’t see a strong enough case on a player, then maybe the fact that I placed a vote on someone suggests that I thought there was some evidence against him?
The last time I intentionally abstained was Skrull Planet, and I only did that on Day 1. My purpose was to say “I don’t believe we should lynch either of the two leaders, but really don’t have enough on any of the others.” Once we get past day 1, or maybe 2, I don’t believe in deliberate abstention.
I still think his actions in claiming to be both Alpha and Beta Redshirt are actions a nonTown player would take and a Town-aligned player would not. The fact that he did proves him guilty of poor play (sorry Chucara, but that’s what it is). If for some reason he didn’t want to reveal his Alpha/Beta status then the statement “I am vanilla Town” suffices perfectly well for the test. My vote was for that obfuscation.
At the point I voted, he’d have been lynched anyway (the most votes on another player at that point were 2), so I didn’t need to jump on the train to ensure he was lynched; I could have abstained and it would have happened anyway. My vote was made purely because I found his actions that Day scummy.
And with that, I have to get some tea before continuing with second reading.